Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan/Archive 3

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2019

Culture of Gilgit Baltistan is an orphan page. We need to edit this page to create linkage in culture section to resolve orphan issue. -- YN Desai ^Discuss 15:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Alduin2000 (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2019

Xassz (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Please add flag of India India to this Gilgit city. It is a part of India and city in Jammu and Kashmir.

 Not done The region is under the control of Pakistani administration. Also see WP:INFOBOXFLAG. DeluxeVegan (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2019

Can you please remove the flag here too if you can can remove for Jammu and Kashmir? Also, it is a disputed territory so please don't write administrative territory of Pakistan. You can say it is in Pakistan as it is POK but the resolution hasn't been made yet so "OF" can't imply. Whereas with India, it can be of as it was, with India and seeing the news, it is going to be UT of India.

Can you also add a flag of India next to Jammu and Kashmir? Xassz (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The removal of the flag for Jammu and Kashmir may have been due to the recent revocation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India. However, it is currently in that article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2019

Xassz (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Can you remove the flag from here? It is a disputed territory. If other countries can't have a flag then this can't be there either. It doesn't even show up on Google maps. I can send the pic if you want so it cannot be with Pakistan; however, it is currently under Pakistan but it is not determined yet that it will be with them. It is controlled by them and not there with them. It is a disputed territory so please respect and add authentic info. Also, at the request can you please remove the flag until it is all sorted out?

Not done for now WP:INFOBOXFLAG states: Where one article covers both human and physical geographic subjects (e.g., Manhattan, which covers both the borough of New York City and the island of the same name), or where the status of the territory is subject to a political dispute, the consensus of editors at that article will determine whether flag use in the infobox is preferred or not. Please gain a consensus here on the talk page for this change. Alduin2000 (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2019

"and the Indian-administered state of Jammu and Kashmir to the southeast." to "and the Indian-administered union territory Ladakh and union territory of Jammu and Kashmir to the southeast."

Reference: https://www.dailyexcelsior.com/ladakh-become-a-union-territory/ https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/police-law-order-centre-ladakh-jammu-kashmir-land-elected-1579779-2019-08-11 Knowshare1 (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. The bifurcation won't take effect until 31 October. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2019

The population of Gilgit-Baltistan wants to be merged into Pakistan as a separate fifth province and opposes integration with Kashmir. above line should be changed to The population of Gilgit-Baltistan do not want to be merged into Pakistan as a separate fifth province and supports integration with Kashmir. Brajesh2030 (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. You need to provide reliable sources for your claim. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 September 2019

2409:4064:2116:67BF:394D:2160:19B8:9045 (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Gilgit officially belongs to India and is administered by Indian Government. With the recent exercise of rights which revoked and scrapped Article 370 gave India administrative rights over all of Kashmir. The full area of Kashmir is now a central government maintained union territory and a part of India.

 Not done. Please provide reliable WP:THIRDPARTY sources that verify your claim. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2019

103.53.62.179 (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: blank edit request. Highway 89 (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2017

Akbar Khan Niazi (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Akbar Khan Niazi: thank you for adding this image to Commons. I have added it to the category People of Gilgit-Baltistan. However, it is unlikely to get used anywhere because its relevance to any Wikipedia topics is not clear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2018

It is a part of India and not of Pakistan. Please update it. Thank you. AmanSRI (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, India will have to take that up with the United Nations, not here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2018

Hunzographer

Hunzographer (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Where we should insert this proposed image? My Lord (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2018

This region is called as Paksitan Occupied Kashmir also. Hence please allow to edit the same accordingly. Wikipedia does not have a page which explains Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. Riteshjdosi (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. It is called so only inside India. Wikipedia follows WP:NPOV, and can't reproduce the Indian POV. It is pointless to keep raising this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2018

Hi!Just to let you know, Gilgit-baltistan is now known as the province of gilgit-baltistan instead of northern areas. It is now a province due to imran khan choosing it to be one on 28/11/18.Thx! DaillyMMI (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Shahreis and Patola/Palola

Shahreis and "Patola Sahi dynasty" (palola) might have existed around the same period (600-800s CE). They are both Buddhist. They might be the same dynasty. Most of the current info about the area from that time is from Chinese/Tibetan records, which have a lot of "lost in translation". --Voidvector (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This source which has a Chronology contradicts some of the stuff mentioned in the article which is from this German encyclopedic source. --Voidvector (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

No citation for Instrument of Accsession being signed

What proof is there it exists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.98.243.129 (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

request for New updated map

Gilgilt Baltistan is administratively divided into three division with further ten districts.

New districts and divisions have been introduced in G-baltistan so i request to add this updated map in Government section of the same article replacing this one. Thanks--Balti sahib (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The file that you call "this one" doesn't exist. Perhaps it has been deleted? You need to go to commonswikimedia.org, and upload your file, satisfying the copyright & licensing etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I meant this one man (File:Gilgit Baltistan Administrative divisions and districts.png) which is already i have used in this section, look on your right side of screen that is the image i am referring to--Balti sahib (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. The map looks good. The only change I would suggest is that you add the year 2017 in the file name so that people know that it is the latest district configuration. Please feel free to put into the page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Name of the province

It is requested that its name should be edited with its location i.e Gilgit Baptistan, Pakistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNS-katib (talk • contribs) 12:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you highlight your issues with the current wording? My Lord (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

SI units

In the "Mountaineering" sections the mountain heights shall be given in meters (cf Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Units of measurement, please. -- Wassermaus (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2018

Please change "Gilgit-Baltistan is home to five of the "eight-thousanders"" to "Gilgit-Baltistan is home to all five of Pakistan's "eight-thousanders"". Alternately, if you're uncomfortable making this change without a source, please remove the statement for lack of a source, because it summarizes something from the "Geography and climate" section that isn't sourced down there. And finally, if you want to keep it but want to acknowledge the Indian claim (WP:NPOV), you can change it to "five of the world's fourteen eighteen-thousanders." 208.95.51.53 (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done, the first bit is fine. The sourcing is all at Eight-thousander. Fish+Karate 14:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

unreliable info

the portal portraying provincial symbols are either without source or the provided one are dead sources.--Baltistani (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Please feel free to delete whatever is unsourced. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Provisional province staus

I have reverted an edit that declared that GB is now an "interim province". We need to go slow on this. Today's news basically said that the Cabinet is to discuss it tomorrow. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2019

Add "Gilgit-Baltistan has been a member state of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO) since 2008." Jieh-An (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Þjarkur (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Gilgit Baltistan Order 2018

The Federal government of Pakistan was to announce the new reforms within a week of its announcement; however, it took considerable time to do so. The delay indeed created rumors and confusion which resulted into the passing of a unanimous resolution by Gilgit Baltistan Assembly for sharing the recommendations of Sartaj Aziz Committee which was formed on 29 October 2015 to recommend new political and administrative reforms for Gilgit Baltistan. The Committee took three years for formulation and the new order was decided in 27 meetings. The draft was also debated in all parties’ conference held in Gilgit on 20 November 2017 as claimed by the government spokesman.

The positive points of new order are that it has repealed 2009 order and annulled powerful Gilgit Baltistan Council and powers shifted to Gilgit Baltistan Legislative Assembly. Apparently, there is no role of Kashmir Affairs ministry as it is Gilgit Baltistan Assembly with the powers of legislation. Chief Court will be renamed as High Court comprising of 7 Judges. Appointments of Judges will be made at Gilgit Baltistan level. There will be Gilgit Baltistan provincial service commission and a provincial Auditor General.

The Gilgit-Baltistan Order 2018 was promulgated by the former Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi on May 21, 2018, and replaced the Gilgit Baltistan Empowerment and Self Governance Order 2009, with the ostensible aim of providing the “same rights enjoyed by the other citizens of Pakistan to people of Gilgit Baltistan.” The August 8, 2018, order purportedly provided political, administrative, financial and judicial powers to people in the region. In actual fact, however, the order shifted powers from the Gilgit Baltistan Council — including those related to passing laws relating to minerals and tourism — to the Gilgit Baltistan Assembly. A comparative analysis of the 2009 ad 2018 Orders indicates that the ‘special rights’ the people of Gilgit Baltistan enjoyed have been curtailed further. For instance, the Legislative Power, according to the 2009 Order, was vested in the Gilgit Baltistan Council (though this was led by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, but also had representatives from Gilgit Baltistan) and the Gilgit Baltistan Assembly. As per the 2018 Order, this power lies with the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the Gilgit Baltistan Assembly, which comprises 33 members of which 24 members were Elected through direct Election. The Prime Minister seems to hold final authority in terms of legislative powers, as the Gilgit-Baltistan Order 2018 reads,

"If any provision of an Act of Assembly is repugnant to any provision of any law which the Prime Minister is competent to enact, then the law made by the Prime Minister, whether passed before or after the Act of the Assembly, shall prevail and the Act of the Assembly shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void.".

The order also defines the ambit of discussions in the assembly; with Article 57 restricting it from even discussing “matters relating to foreign affairs, defense [and] internal security”, which is highly unlikely given the region’s borders with China, Occupied Kashmir and Afghanistan. Moreover, civil society activists have demanded a share in income from the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), citing Pakistan’s dependence on a Disputed territory for directly connecting it with China. For these voices, Pakistan’s obsession with Kashmir Region has also been subject to criticism as Islamabad has failed to address GB’s grievances while at the same time criticizing India’s so-called Kashmir policy. While the order, in theory may not be closer to addressing these grievances, hope rests on whether Islamabad’s promise of the greater power Devolution is able to tackle the growing alienation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.71.132 (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

My view is that the above text is a request by 194.74.71.132 for an extended-protected edit rather than for a merge; I've therefore changed the template in this section to reflect that. Klbrain (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

"Conquest" to be replaced by "First Ascent"

Mountains are never "conquered" by human beings, they are merely climbed. In the table under "Mountaineering" section, "Date of conquest" should be replaced by "Date of first known ascent"

Yes, I agree. Done. Thincat (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Undue mention of administered by UN etc while absent on Indian Kashmir page

I have noticed a slight bias going on in the lead of Gilgit and Jammu articles while the Pakistani side of Kashmir prominently mentions how the UN and other organisations refer to it as administered it is completely absent from the Jammu and Kashmir page the UN and many other international organisations refer to it as Indian administered Kashmir so why the undue focus on Pakistans side as being administered when clearly the Indian side is internationally referred as administered aswell? 82.132.243.110 (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

INB discussion

Please see the discussion at the India wikiproject noticeboard aiming to craft standardised neutral ledes for some top-level Kashmir-related article, including possibly this one. Abecedare (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2019

Please change the first sentence. Currently it says "...Northern Areas,[8] is the northernmost territory administered by Pakistan [1] that is part the larger Kashmir region, which is the subject of a territorial dispute between India, Pakistan, and China." It should say "...Northern Areas,[8] is the northernmost territory administered by Pakistan.[1] It is part of the larger Kashmir region, which is the subject of a territorial dispute between India, Pakistan, and China." It's a long sentence that should be split in two, especially because of all the separate clauses in the current sentence that make it a really complex sentence. Based on the map, it looks like the northernmost Pakistani-administered territory anywhere, not just the northernmost Pakistani-administered part of Kashmir. And finally, an "of" is missing. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC) 208.95.51.53 (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

In case what I wrote isn't clear, I made this change in the sandbox, see [1]. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Does this do what you wanted? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Most of what I wanted, but the "of" is still missing. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can someone add an IPA key to the pronunciation for Gilgit-Baltistan? It would be great if an audio file can be added a well. Heard the name being pronounced incorrectly frequently. Gotitbro (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Population

From the result of 2017 Census of Pakistan, the new population of Gilgit Baltistan is now 922,745. But it is not updated on this page Armaghan Muawiyah (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable source, somebody will update it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The article wrongly claims that without a source Gilgit Baltistan’s population was 85% Shia in 1948. There was no census in 1948, the earliest census was 1941 which shows the overall Shia population at 69%.

Link to the official British Indian Census of Jammu and Kashmir 1941 https://dspace.gipe.ac.in/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10973/37335/GIPE-CENSUS41014.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

It shows 101,799 Out of a total 145,792 population were Shia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsenav (talk • contribs) 23:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Arsenav:, There was no such thing called "Gilgit Baltistan" in the 1941 census. How did you get these figures? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, using the data of the districts that comprise of Gilgit Baltistan. Since this was a census done by the British in 1041 for the whole of Jammu and Kashmir, and is separated by district. Either way the 85% figure is wrong, the only info I can find on the 85% figure is an Indian ambassador to the US, hardly a source. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsenav (talk • contribs)

Please provide complete information. Which districts and what were the numbers for each? Also, include the page numbers where you are taking information from. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Arsenav:, here are the figures I see in the 1941 census:

• District/Tehsil populations (1941 and 1931 populations, p.304 and p.377):

Astore + Gilgit: 39521; 31902

Gilgit Agency: 76526; 64544

Total Gilgit: 116,047; 96,446

Skardu: 106271; 107477

Total Gilgit-Baltistan: 222,318; 203,923

• The Shia population in the frontier districts (excluding Gilgit Agency) was counted as 141687. The figure for the Gilgit Agency was not available. (p.337). Unfortunately, "frontier districts" would include Kargil and Leh. So, the figures are not comparable to total population figures above.
• Removing the Gilgit Agency from the total population, we get 145792.
• Given everything, the 85% Shia estimate of B. Raman is quite plausible.

I notice that your numbers are nowhere to be found in the census tables. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, you cannot count the “frontier districts” as they include Indian administered parts. However every Tehsil with the exception of Gilgit Agency do have complete Shia population figures as I have provided. For Skardu, the total tally of the Shia population is mentioned in page 511, which you can see for yourself. For Astore, the total tally is mentioned in page 517, for Gilgit, the total tally for Shias is mentioned in page 525. In the page preceding all these is the total population figure. Besides the 85% number given by him is not factual/studied enough to be included in the page. It could very well count as government propaganda. If anything, it should at least include that the figure is from the claims of a person and not from an actual census or study.

@Kautilya3:

Skardu- 85,087 shia out of 106,271 total population (p.502–)

Astore- 5,438 out of 17,026 (p.512–)

Gilgit- 11,274 out of 22,495 (p.520–)

101,799 Out of a total 145,792 population were Shia.

Skardu’s population figures start from page 502 onwards. Astore population figures start from page 512 onwards. Gilgit’s population figures start from page 520 onwards. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsenav (talk • contribs)

Ok, thanks. These are useful figures, at least for comparing with the present day populations for the individual districts. However, note that they are not enough for contesting B. Raman's 85% estimate, because many of the Gilgit Agency territories were/are almost 100% Shia. If you can find the figures for the -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I have added a footnote with your figures. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Discriminatory Treatment of references to J&K.

All references to the Indian Union territory that shares borders with Giglit-Baltistan come on Wikipedia with the link “J&K (union territory)” and not simply J&K. The worlds “(union territory)” in brackets is treating the J&K of India discriminatorily when compared to Azad Kashmir of Pakistan. Because when the latter is referenced, there are no brackets to quality it’s status as a kind of territory on the link. Whereas the link to Indian J&K refers to the UT. This is grossly discriminatory treatment. All link references to J&K on this and other such pages should be to the page of J&K UT BUT the link title should simply be “Jammu and Kashmir” and not “Jammu and Kashmir (union territory).”

Failing that Wikipedia will be treating India unfairly and illegally. Pediasher (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The "(union territory)" qualification exists because there is (or was) a "Jammu and Kashmir (state)". This has nothing to do with any discrimination and no such arguments apply as per Wikipedia policies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pediasher: The discussion, as you know, is now in progress at Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)#Requested move 1 November 2019. The parens (in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)) are simply there to disambiguate the page to make it clear to which place it refers, based on necessity and consensus at the time the article was named (or last moved); it makes no political statement, least of all a "grossly discriminatory" one, and is easily pipelinked to say anything the editor inserting the link chooses. More importantly, though, please read WP:NOLEGALTHREATS regarding your use of the word "illegally". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2020

Please change "the Indian-administered union territories Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh to the southeast." to "the Indian union territories Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh to the southeast."</ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_of_Accession_(Jammu_and_Kashmir)</ref> 103.83.10.18 (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2020

RahulBhatiji (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Treaties on Kashmir

Various scholars have written on the Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir), The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846). But very little of that text is on wikipedia.

Maharaja gulab Singh originally worked for the Sikh Empire. But then betrayed the Sikh empire by siding with the East India Company in the Anglo-Sikh War. His name is mentioned in the treaty of Lahore too. He collected Taxes for the East India Company and the money was then given by him to the East India Company.

The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846) lapsed under Article 7 of the Independence Act 1947. The Act was passed by the British Parliament on July 18, 1947 to assent to the creation of the independent states of India and Pakistan. The aforementioned Article 7 provides that, with the lapse of His Majesty’s suzerainty over the Indian states, all treaties, agreements, obligations, grants, usages and sufferance’s will lapse.

The 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur (Sikh) was under the control of the East India company when he sign The Treaty of Lahore on 9 March 1846 which gave Jammu and Kashmir and its people to the East India Company.

Under the British legal system and international law a treaty signed by the 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur and under duress is not valid. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)

We may need to add a section on the impact on the removal of Article 370 of the Indian constitution on The Instrument of Accession too. None of this text is on there.

Various scholars have written on these treaties, for example Alistair Lamb disputed the validity of the Instrument of Accession in his paper Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU & KASHMIR –– A REAPPRAISAL'

Where he writes "While the date, and perhaps even the fact, of the accession to India of the State of Jammu & Kashmir in late October 1947 can be questioned, there is no dispute at that time any such accession was presented to the world at large as conditional and provisional. It was not communicated to Pakistan at the outset of the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, nor was it presented in facsimile to the United Nations in early 1948 as part of the initial Indian reference to the Security Council. The 1948 White Paper in which the Government of India set out its formal case in respect to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, does not contain the Instrument of Accession as claimed to have been signed by the Maharajah: instead, it reproduces an unsigned form of Accession such as, it is implied, the Maharajah might have signed. To date no satisfactory original of this Instrument as signed by the Maharajah has been produced: though a highly suspect version, complete with the false date 26 October 1947, has been circulated by the Indian side since the 1960s. On the present evidence it is by no means clear that the Maharaja ever did sign an Instrument of Accession.

Indian troops actually began overtly to intervene in the State’s affairs on the morning of 27 October 1947

It is now absolutely clear that the two documents (a) the Instrument of Accession, and (c) the letter to Lord Mountbatten, could not possibly have been signed by the Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir on 26 October 1947. The earliest possible time and date for their signature would have to be the afternoon of 27 October 1947. During 26 October 1947 the Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir was travelling by road from Srinagar to Jammu. (The Kashmir State Army divisions and the Kashmiri people had already turned on him and he was on the run and had no authority in the state). His new Prime Minister, M.C. Mahajan, who was negotiating with the Government of India, and the senior Indian official concerned in State matters, V.P. Menon, were still in New Delhi where they remained overnight, and where their presence was noted by many observers. There was no communication of any sort between New Delhi and the travelling Maharajah. Menon and Mahajan set out by air from New Delhi to Jammu at about 10.00 a.m. on 27 October; and the Maharajah learned from them for the first time the result of his Prime Minister’s negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day. The key point, of course, as has already been noted above, is that it is now obvious that these documents could only have been signed after the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir on 27 October 1947. When the Indian troops arrived at Srinagar air field, that State was still independent. Any agreements favourable to India signed after such intervention cannot escape the charge of having been produced under duress. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)"

Additionally Maharaja was on the run. The prevailing international practice on the recognition of state governments is based on the following three factors: first, the government’s actual control of the territory; second, the government’s enjoyment of the support and obedience of the majority of the population; third, the government’s ability to stake the claim that it has a reasonable expectation of staying in power. The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was not in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and was fleeing for his life and almost all of Kashmir was under the control of the Kashmiri people and the Kashmiri Army that had rebelled against him. His own troops had turned on him. With regard to the Maharaja’s control over the local population, it is clear that he enjoyed no such control or support. The people of Kashmir had been sold by the East India Company and he charged them high taxes thetefore the Kashmir Muslims, Hindus Pandits and Buddhists hated him. Furthermore, the state’s armed forces were in total disarray after most of the men turned against him and he was running for his life. Finally, it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power without Indian military intervention. This assumption is substantiated by the Maharaja’s letters.

Many of these treaties apply to Jammu and Kashmir. The Kashmir conflict is already on Wikipedia. It is internationally recognized as a disputed territory under various United United Nations resolutions that are already listed on Wikipedia Nations Security Council Resolution 47, Nations Security Council Resolution 39,mediation of the Kashmir dispute, Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. There is a lot of documentation on Jammu and Kashmir in the UN archives already. If you look at the page Kashmir conflict, it already contains sections on the "Indian view", "Pakistani view", "Chinese view", "Kashmiri views". May be we could do something like that with these treaty pages. The Treaty of Lahore was signed in 9 March 1846 and the Treaty of Amritsar 16 March 1846. They predate the creation of both modern day India and Pakistan. The Treaty of Lahore was signed between the Sikh Empire and the British government. It is an international treaty and comes under international law. Johnleeds1 (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Currently the pages on Jammu and Kashmir are very fragmented. Its difficult to navigate through the pages. May be have a page on the treaties that apply to Jammu and Kashmir and link these to actual history events. The reader could then click on a link, obtain a more indepth knowledge of the treaty, its relationship with other treaties and the events surrounding it. Therefore providing them with a more educational understanding of these treaties. There is a lot of literature on these treaties, that we could use for references. There are also multiple parties to these treaties and we could link to them too. Many books and scholarly papers have been published illustrating the details surrounding these treaties. May be also create subsections on these pages illustrating the views of the Government of India, The view of the Government of Pakistan and the view of the Kashmiri Parties, The Government of China, The United Nations, The Sikh Empire and the British Government on these treaties. On Wikipedia we have the text on the various treaties but it does not show how these treaties relate to one another. We need show how they relate to one another and the events on the ground. We need to enhance the experience of the reader. Johnleeds1 (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

Want to publish recent data of GDP and GDP per capita which would not be controversial. Aglrochisat (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

GDP and GDP per capita information would be published Aglrochisat (talk) 10:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2020

Plzz Change the are of Gilgit baltistan it's 64817 sq km. Not 72000+ area. Ashutosh singh 761980 (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- S.Hinakawa (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 September 2020

The map of the Kashmir region in the Geography section is an older version of the same map that appears at the beginning of the article, at the top on the right side. This older version is, therefore, redundant and should be deleted. Atelerixia (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Atelerixia (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2020

Here is a good location map that could be added to supplement the existing map on this page to show the location of Gilgit-Baltistan in relation to Pakistan:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Gilgit-Baltistan_in_Pakistan_%28de-facto_%2B_Glacier%29.svg/300px-Gilgit-Baltistan_in_Pakistan_%28de-facto_%2B_Glacier%29.svg.png Atelerixia (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. A user-made image that does obscures the complicated Jammu-Kashmir geography is not preferable to the currently included CIA one. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Native scripts

Per consensus on the variously-administered subregions of the disputed Kashmir region, no symbols of sovereignty are allowed, only those of administration. So offering G-B as the example of a region to which WP:INDICSCRIPTS does not apply misses the point. That logic applies equally to Ladakh or Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) which India administers, but over which it does not have undisputed sovereignty. It is not as if this region was historically called Gilgit-hyphyen-Baltistan. That is the name of a region of Pakistani administration, so adding the script of a language putatively spoken or written in the area lends the mantle of cultural legitimacy to an administrative construct. Please self-revert @Uanfala: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, the region has not historically been called that, but it is now, and I don't see how giving the name in two of the region's languages could be seen as legitimising an administrative construct, any more than giving any other piece of information about it. The use of native scripts here has never until now been controversial. If anything, extending the India-related style guideline of WP:INDICSCRIPTS to territories not administered by India would seem to add a "mantle of legitimacy" to India's territorial claims. If Ladakh doesn't have native scripts, that's not because the territory is disputed, but because editors have applied the India-wide style guideline. – Uanfala (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Earlier the same region was called Northern Areas. For the people of the region it was no more northern than it was southern or western. So adding شمالی علاقے would have been another example of conflating sovereignty and administration. The consensus to explicitly mention "region administered by ...," and "disputed region of Kashmir," to not use flags, emblems, scripts had nothing to do with Indicscripts; it had Pakistani editors on board. I have no idea what you are talking about. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) does not have any scripts either? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) doesn't have any scripts because it is – rightly or not – treated as falling under the scope of the Indian guidelines of INDICSCRIPT (I did try to contest that for Dras a few years ago, but everyone else told me that the scripts had to go because the place was in India). I remember the discussion about the current wording of the lead sections of those territories, but I don't recall anything being discussed, let alone decided, about removing scripts. – Uanfala (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what you think about the motivations of others. The more important question is: Are you saying that administration is sovereignty? If not, then we cannot have scripts because those are disputed as much as alternative names. After all, we do not say Indian Occupied Kashmir in the lead sentence of Jammu and Kashmir (union territory). We cannot use Urdu and Balti in this page because in a disputed region we cannot keep out Kashmiri, Hindi (India's official language) ... and very soon the lead sentence would look like a mess. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The infobox says: Languages: Balti, Shina, Wakhi, Burushaski, Khowar, Domaki, Urdu (administrative). Please add the scripts of those languages with the citations. I have added citation needed tags. So, to sum up: we need ciitations for Urdu and Balti, and scripts with citations for the five others, and a citation for why we can keep out Kashmiri, Ladakhi, and Hindi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what you think about the motivations of others. Sorry, I was only referring to what those people were explicitly stating themselves; I only brought that up because I found it funny that they were removing scripts from articles about places in Indian-administered Kashmir for the very opposite reasons to the ones you're giving for removing them from articles in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Now, if you would like to add the native names in Shina, Wakhi, or other languages that are spoken inside Gilgit-Baltistan, feel free. If there's too many of them, they can be moved out of the first sentence. – Uanfala (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I've asked you a simple question: Does a country have sovereignty over a disputed region it administers? If it does not, then what non-English languages do we list? Do we list the official language of the administering country? Do we list the official language of the disputing country? Do we list the languages spoken in the region? If we are to list the official languages, then why are we listing Balti? If we are listing the major languages of the region, then why are we listing Urdu (it is hardly spoken) and why are we not listing Shina which is spoken by 40% of the population? As you are suggesting that I am welcome to add Shina, I interpret this to mean that your interest is not in adding any helpful, relevant or consistent information to the page, but only in Wikilawyering. No wonder you already have more edits here than you do in the Gilgit Baltistan page. That is what is funny. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you're making this into an issue of sovereignty. Articles about regions give the names of those regions in the languages that have official status or are widely spoken there. This has nothing to do with who claims sovereignty. Yes, Urdu happens to be the official language of Pakistan (as well as the official language in Indian-administered Kashmir), but that's beside the point. What matters here is that Urdu has official status in Gilgit-Baltistan. – Uanfala (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

You state, "Articles about regions give the names of those regions in the languages that have official status or are widely spoken there." Well, Kashmir, the flagship article, does not. Why don't you try to change it after ten years?

What do you think the long RfC Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_69#A_proposal_for_Kashmir-related_pages_on_this_notable_day_for_India_and_Pakistan was about if not sovereignty, disputed regions, administration, and the thrusting and parrying of national POVs (which obviously includes by the use of ostentatious displays of scripts).

You are missing the forest for the trees. What does it mean Urdu has official status in Gilgit-Baltistan when we are also disputing the notion of "official" in the very first sentence: GB "is a region administered by Pakistan as an administrative territory, and constituting the northern portion of the larger Kashmir region which has been the subject of a dispute between India and Pakistan since 1947, and between India and China from somewhat later?" Is what is good for the goose (Kashmir) not good for the gander (Gilgit Baltistan)? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

How about we fight these battles on the Aksai Chin page? Our Chinese friends would love to hear F&f's views on sovereignty, I am sure. Just kidding.

On pragmatic grounds, I would prefer the Urdu script to be there, merely because the Urdu Wikipedia is despicable and I would like the Urdu readers to find our pages via Google searches and find some decent material to read, if only via Google translate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, a google search for گلگت بلتستان does not bring up the Gilgit-Baltistan page, at least not among the first 30 returns, but it does bring up the various articles on G-B on BBC Urdu, the premier Urdu-language online site, with 700,000 hits a day. Sadly only 2% of the traffic is from India, suggesting the near extinction of the Urdu script there. So, pragmatically, I don't see the point of Urdu scripts anywhere in the Kashmir-related pages: the Urdu-literate have access to much better sites (such as BBC Urdu, VOA Urdu. DW.com Urdu, Dawn.com Urdu, ...). they don't need this article, and, most Urdu speakers of India who are illiterate in Urdu, at least in the Urdu heartland, will have no ability to read this article.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't mean to intrude in your discussion, but I just wanted to say that I have been watching this talk section to see the developments toward using or not using any non–English scripts in the articles for (predominantly Pakistani–administered) Kashmir territories. I searched for the Pakistani–administered territory of Gilgit–Baltistan on Google in Urdu ("گلگت بلتستان") and the first two returns were from the Farsi (Persian) and Urdu Wikipedia articles (point to be noted: the Farsi–language article came up first). I think Kautilya3 may have a point about the use of the Urdu script attracting Urdu readers to this article. — Xeed.rice (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

In the Government section, the word "annexe" which occurs in the following sentence should be corrected to "annex": In 1993, an attempt was made by the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir to annexe Gilgit-Baltistan but was quashed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan after protests by the locals of Gilgit-Baltistan, who feared domination by the Kashmiris. Atelerixia (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Atelerixia (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Large revert

Zeex.rice, I have had to revert all of your edits over the last few weeks because there was too much WP:POV and WP:OR incorporated in them. If you can find a way to separate controversial edits from non-controversial ones, please do so. Otherwise, I think you need to stay away from this page. Some examples of questionable editing:

• The label of "autonomous" was deliberately avoided in the original content, because there are no independent sources that acknowledge it. It is just Pakistan's dissimulation. But you have added the term.
• Pakistan has not "granted" provincial status. And, even if it did, provinces don't count as "autonomous".
• "Kashmir" was not a "disputed territory" between Pakistan and China.
• The First Kashmir War section had a two-sentence summary of the background. You expanded it to some dozen sentences, with ideas like the "local Kashmir population" was in an uprising (not what the source says). And whether the reason for uprising was "discontent" or incitement by Pakistani infiltrators (in particular, MLNG workers in "green and khaki uniforms") is not a settled issue. (See the 1947 Poonch rebellion article.)
• The Maharaja's supposed "hesitation" to accede to Pakistan is not something Wikipedia has any knowledge of.
• J&K 6th Infantry was not under the "command" of Mirza Hassan Khan. He was a Captain as his page clearly says, and Captains don't command batallions.

I believe whatever background knowledge you have is from random web sites and propaganda books. It cannot be incorporated into Wikipedia. Everything you write must be verifiable from reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, sorry about that. It wasn't my intention to assert a POV narrative on the page or distort historical facts. I will be more careful with my edits in the future. — Zeex.rice (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zeex.rice: I would like to raise similar issues with your recent slate of edits. The addition and modification of notes and additions to the WP:LEAD paras should be avoided in top Kashmir related articles, i.e., Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir (state), Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, Aksai Chin, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. A consensus was arrived at after a wide discussion (see here) and no change should be made unilaterally without discussion.

You other additions such as including recent terms like "Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir" into the notes is news (see WP:NOTNEWS) and not through WP:HISTRS, please wait for scholarly sources to pick this term up as being used by Pakistan than jump on recent news articles. Another addition of yours that G-B is a semi-province now is, as pointed out by Kautilya, patently wrong. The news sources clearly state that the PM, Imran Khan, has only claimed (in election time) that he would give it this status and hasn't as of yet.

Please make your cleanup and content addition/modification edits separate. It makes it harder for other editors to discern edits and no one likes to undo simple cleanups because there are other errors in the same edit.

PS: Please avoid WP:OVERLINKING in articles, which is rife in your edits, it becomes unreadable to the common WP:READER. Your guide should be, if it can be found in a dictionary (such as {{Lexico}}) and is common speech, don't link it. Gotitbro (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gotitbro. I will keep these points in mind as I make edits in the future and try my best to adhere to all guidelines and reinforce my edits with more thorough research / back them up with more scholarly sources. I apologize for any inconvenience that may have been caused by disruptive edits in the past that were made by me and will be more careful with my additions in the future. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Protection isn't allowing addition of Citation

As this page needs to be citated but page is protected Kumail1293 (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Political staus of Gilgit-Baltistan

The following two Wikipedia articles use the term "dependent territory" to describe the political status of Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunza_District

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Azad_Kashmir

Shouldn't that be reason enough to change the term used in this article from "administrative territory" to "dependent territory"? Atelerixia (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

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) 05:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Please read the wikilink Kautilya provided above. CMD (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

CMD, What then is the non-Wikipedia source of the term "administrative territory" that is currently used to describe Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir in Wikipedia articles? Atelerixia (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a non sequitur, no-one here has argued for it as a specific noun based on definitions in other Wikipedia pages. Please indent your talk page posts per WP:TPG. CMD (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Descriptions of popular sentiment

The second paragraph of the introduction makes several claims that imply that full integration within Pakistan (as a province with full rights as a territory) is the majority opinion, however none of the references after these claims show any evidence for that. We see a Reuters article where the writer themself claims that this is the case (without saying why or how they know that) , there are several other articles of this kind where the authors of make the claim that this is a majority opinion, which is in turn used to support that description in the Wikiepdia article. I understand that there are political and geopolitical circumstances that could make the sort of flash polling on status (such as one would see in Quebec, Catalonia, Scotland, etc) difficult, but I think it would be better to just talk about the the plans for integration, the earlier introduction of an elected assembly, etc. If the political leaders or parties elected in Gilgit- Baltistan support these positions, then that should be mentioned. The support within the political class or the wider civil society can be mentioned and explained as part of the context, but the general tone that " this is the will of the people", while it may or may not be true, hasn't been supported by evidence.

As the government won't be holding any direct referendum on this and there doesn't seem to be much polling, it's better to just explian who is known to support it, what previous actions demonstrate support (demonstrations, democratic organisations issuing calls for a particular change in status, etc). Also, opposition to the integration is given short shrift, presumably there are some groups in society that want this process done in a different way, or not at all, or something else entirely to happen, so you see that without being able to rely on any concrete evidence for what the majority position is, descriptions of public support or popular legitimacy quickly become difficult. I realise these are just a few sentences in the introduction but I think its important that the tone on something like this be as neutral and factual as possible.

I made some edits. Please check if they solve the problem.

The population wants a provincial status. Whether it is "merger" or "integration" or whatever is a separate WP:POV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2021

Please remove

region administered by Pakistan as an administrative territory, and constitutes the northern

and add

region of South Asia administered by Pakistan as an administrative territory.  It constitutes the northern

It helps to say where this is (it's not on the Iranian border or adjacent to Sind), and the first sentence is so long that it would help to split it in two. I assume this region is still considered South Asia, since Pakistan and India are both considered such, but if Kashmir is far enough north that it isn't considered South Asia, please replace "South Asia" with the correct term. Thank you, 64.203.186.84 (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Adding in "South Asia" wouldn't be relevant at this point in the lead sentence, as geographical location is already mentioned via referencing Pakistan and Kashmir. Thanks for the suggestion though. — csc^-1 21:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Balti name for region in infobox

We do not normally footnote the topic of an article, but I suppose someone is saying that the text that is there is wrong in some way. Could somebody explain the issue? This will vastly improve the odds of it getting addressed. Elinruby (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Found the answer to the question in the section titled Native Scripts above. There does not appear to be a consensus at this time. Elinruby (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Enormous note in lede

This sort of note is not ideal, as it is intended for other editors, not readers. But I see the big issue, and I left it there pending consensus from other editors. But I am also copying it here for discussion in hopes it might be resolved and go away.

Note: I did not write this text and do not know who did. I am a copy-editor who strayed into the article, and I do not know what the answer to this might be. I just feel it is more of a talk page thing

Footnote on first-order Kashmir-related pages

CITATION Close [13] The application of the term "administered" to the various regions of Kashmir and a mention of the Kashmir dispute is supported by the tertiary sources (a) through (d), reflecting due weight in the coverage. Although "controlled" and "held" are also applied neutrally to the names of the disputants or to the regions administered by them, as evidenced in sources (e) through (g) below, "held" is also considered politicised usage, as is the term "occupied," (see (h) below): (a) Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannia, Kashmir, region Indian subcontinent, Encyclopaedia Britannica, retrieved 15 August 2019 (subscription required) Quote: "Kashmir, region of the northwestern Indian subcontinent ... has been the subject of dispute between India and Pakistan since the partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947. The northern and western portions are administered by Pakistan and comprise three areas: Azad Kashmir, Gilgit, and Baltistan, the last two being part of a territory called the Northern Areas. Administered by India are the southern and southeastern portions, which constitute the state of Jammu and Kashmir but are slated to be split into two union territories."; (b) Pletcher, Kenneth, Aksai Chin, Plateau Region, Asia, Encyclopaedia Britannica, retrieved 16 August 2019 (subscription required) Quote: "Aksai Chin, Chinese (Pinyin) Aksayqin, portion of the Kashmir region, at the northernmost extent of the Indian subcontinent in south-central Asia. It constitutes nearly all the territory of the Chinese-administered sector of Kashmir that is claimed by India to be part of the Ladakh area of Jammu and Kashmir state."; (c) "Kashmir", Encyclopedia Americana, Scholastic Library Publishing, 2006, p. 328, ISBN 978-0-7172-0139-6 C. E Bosworth, University of Manchester Quote: "KASHMIR, kash'mer, the northernmost region of the Indian subcontinent, administered partly by India, partly by Pakistan, and partly by China. The region has been the subject of a bitter dispute between India and Pakistan since they became independent in 1947"; (d) Talbot, Ian (2016), A History of Modern South Asia: Politics, States, Diasporas, Yale University Press, pp. 28–29, ISBN 978-0-300-19694-8 Quote: "We move from a disputed international border to a dotted line on the map that represents a military border not recognized in international law. The line of control separates the Indian and Pakistani administered areas of the former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir."; (e) Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannia, Kashmir, region Indian subcontinent, Encyclopaedia Britannica, retrieved 15 August 2019 (subscription required) Quote: "... China became active in the eastern area of Kashmir in the 1950s and has controlled the northeastern part of Ladakh (the easternmost portion of the region) since 1962."; (f) Bose, Sumantra (2009), Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace, Harvard University Press, pp. 294, 291, 293, ISBN 978-0-674-02855-5 Quote: "J&K: Jammu and Kashmir. The former princely state that is the subject of the Kashmir dispute. Besides IJK (Indian-controlled Jammu and Kashmir. The larger and more populous part of the former princely state. It has a population of slightly over 10 million, and comprises three regions: Kashmir Valley, Jammu, and Ladakh.) and AJK ('Azad" (Free) Jammu and Kashmir. The more populous part of Pakistani-controlled J&K, with a population of approximately 2.5 million. AJK has six districts: Muzaffarabad, Mirpur, Bagh, Kodi, Rawalakot, and Poonch. Its capital is the town of Muzaffarabad. AJK has its own institutions, but its political life is heavily controlled by Pakistani authorities, especially the military), it includes the sparsely populated "Northern Areas" of Gilgit and Baltistan, remote mountainous regions which are directly administered, unlike AJK, by the Pakistani central authorities, and some high-altitude uninhabitable tracts under Chinese control." (g) Fisher, Michael H. (2018), An Environmental History of India: From Earliest Times to the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge University Press, p. 166, ISBN 978-1-107-11162-2 Quote: "Kashmir's identity remains hotly disputed with a UN-supervised "Line of Control" still separating Pakistani-held Azad ("Free") Kashmir from Indian-held Kashmir."; (h) Snedden, Christopher (2015), Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris, Oxford University Press, p. 10, ISBN 978-1-84904-621-3 Quote:"Some politicised terms also are used to describe parts of J&K. These terms include the words 'occupied' and 'held'."

Elinruby (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The note is the result of a longstanding and hard-won consensus on WT:INDIA and WT:PAKISTAN with an administrator presiding and over a dozen administrators weighing in. I don't mean to be blunt because I know you mean this in earnest, but there is no consensus that you will garner here or anywhere else that will approach the preexisting one. There is a reason that all the Kashmir-related major sub-regions: Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Aksai Chin, Ladakh, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan have the same lead sentence, the same note, and the same infobox structure. Please see those talk pages for the links to the RFC. The same applies to the infobox maps. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Please also note that there are ARBCOM discretionary sanctions in place on Kashmir-related pages. I haven't examined the edits you have made, but Kashmir is a political hot potato, and I would be very careful about making so many edits all at once. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

Modern history----Inside Pakistan On 16 Sept, Pakistan has decided to elevate Gilgit-Baltistan’s status to that of a full-fledged province. An unimportant person (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done ~ Amkgp 💬 19:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

References

I was about to make this comment, since parts of the intro still say it is a territory. I can make the change, just noting here that I am making it. Elinruby (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid you are generating fake news. "Decided to make it a province" is not the same as "made it a province". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2021

CHANGE “Much of the population of Gilgit-Baltistan wants it to become a fifth province of Pakistan” TO “Few Regional Political Parties of Gilgit-Baltistan wants it to become a fifth province of Pakistan whereas a few are demanding for Gilgit-Baltistan to become an autonomous state. The Balwaristan National Front is fighting to get the status of a separate nation comprising Gilgit-Baltistan, Chitral and Shhenaki Kohistan.” Mayankmalviya64 (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

References

 Done Run n Fly (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. I reverted it. This kind of a change needs WP:CONSENSUS. You can't simply file an edit request. If you want to pursue it, you better explain first why you wanted the original sentence deleted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 July 2021

" The then President/Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto abolished the FCR system and gave administrative districts of the then "Northern Areas" comprising the Political districts the permanent names: Gilgit, Baltistan and Diamer. The princely states of Hunza and Nagar were dissolved along with several tiny entities in Gilgit such as Yasin-Gupis. The Minister of Kashmir Affairs Abdul Qayyum Khan and the then Resident and Commissioner for Gilgit and Baltistan, Ijlal Husain [ An Officer of the now defunct Civil Service of Pakistan - CSP] played an important role in creating these administrative divisions in 1974–75.[1]" RizwanHu63 (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 August 2021

Pakistan Standard Time is abbreviated as PKT not as PST, please fix by changing PST to PKT SoftwarePrince (talk) 11:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2021

Please add a hatnote to this article.

{{Redirect|Northern Areas|the location in South Australia|Northern Areas Council}}

Thank you. 64.203.186.117 (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Done, CMD (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2021

In the third line in the first paragraph it's written as "It borders Azad Kashmir to the south" But it should be replaced by "It borders Pakistan administrated 'Azad Kashmir' region" as this area belongs to 'Jammu & Kashmir' and the so called term 'Azad Kashmir' is coined and recognized only by Pakistan.

Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azad_Kashmir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azad_Kashmir#cite_ref-brit_1-0 Scitrs (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I don't agree with your argument, but I did add "Pakistan-administered" in this context, because multiple countries are involved in the neighbourhood. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2021

There is a grammatical mistake in the 4th line of the 1st paragraph. Kindly change :

thePakistani province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to the west,

to :

the Pakistani province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to the west, Scitrs (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. That you for notifying fellow editors. Dimadick (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2021 (2)

Please remove

But it was devoid of legislative powers. All law-making was concentrated in the KANA Ministry of Pakistan. 

and add

However, it was devoid of legislative powers, as all lawmaking was concentrated in the KANA Ministry of Pakistan.

Thank you for fixing this comma splice misuse of sentence-first "but". 64.203.186.117 (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Why do we need a causation from one statement to the other? Does any source imply it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's already indicated by the current wording, but if you're concerned about that, you could instead render it "However, it was devoid of legislative powers, and all lawmaking was concentrated in the KANA Ministry of Pakistan." The goal is getting rid of the improper use of "but" at the start of the sentence. 64.203.186.117 (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

What is improper about "but"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Note: Closing request while under discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2021

Can you please change the "گِلگِت بَلتِستان" text in the infobox into Nastaliq? Urdu is written in Nastaliq and the "گِلگِت بَلتِستان" part is even written in Nastaliq in the lead section of the article. Thanks in advance! ThatDohDude (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. (pinging ThatDohDude) — LauritzT (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

As you can see from the picture, the "گِلگِت بَلتِستان" text in the infobox is in Naskh form yet in the lead section of the article, it's written in Nastaliq form. Can you please change the font variant in the infobox so it could also be in Nastaliq? Urdu is always written in Nastaliq so it would make sense to do this. ThatDohDude (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Princely state of Jammu and Kashmir

I placed a POV template on this section (formerly called "Dogra rule") since it covers a narrow POV of one area only (Baltistan). All the areas shown in the map need to be covered. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Change heights from feet to meters

In the Mountaineering section, values of heights should be in meters (the SI unit) not feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.230.45 (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

"Etymology of Gilgit–Baltistan" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Etymology of Gilgit–Baltistan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 11#Etymology of Gilgit–Baltistan until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The Current Political Status of Gilgit-Baltistan

Gilgit-Baltistan should be described as a dependent territory of Pakistan rather than as an administrative territory of Pakistan. The presently used term "administrative territory" implies that Gilgit-Baltistan is already part of Pakistan, which is clearly not the case. The Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), on the other hand, was previously an administrative territory of Pakistan before its incorporation into the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province and, as such, it was an integral part of Pakistan. Gilgit-Baltistan, however, is dependent upon Pakistan and is under Pakistani sovereignty but is not yet legally part of Pakistan. Under the Pakistani constitution, Pakistan currently consists only of five first-order administrative divisions -- the four provinces of Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab, and Sindh, and the Islamabad Capital Territory. In order for Gilgit-Baltistan to became a full-fledged province or even a provisional province of Pakistan, the Pakistani constitution needs to be amended, an action which clearly has not yet taken place. Atelerixia (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Trakhan dynasty into Gilgit and History of Gilgit-Baltistan

Moved to Talk:Gilgit § Proposed merge of Trakhan dynasty into Gilgit and History of Gilgit-Baltistan

 – TrangaBellam (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Repeated wikilinking in lead

I was going to be WP:BOLD and just make some changes myself, but this article is obviously controversial and I do not want to violate any possible consensus achieved in the past that I am unaware of. So, just a quick question for anyone who may have the answer: is there any reason there is repeated wikilinking in the lead of this article? Internal links that direct readers to other articles such as Azad Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Kashmir, Kashmir conflict, as well as some others that I removed in my most recent edit on this page (e.g. "Pakistan" was linked multiple times in the first two or three paragraphs). I have no problems if this phenomenon is intentional, but I am seeking to clean it up if it is not in light of MOS:OVERLINK. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It is just newbie editors trying to do their thing. Please feel free to edit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Zeex.rice, I have reverted your edits, which have attempted to do much more than stated above, generally interfering with the India-Pakistan consensus on Kashmir of August 2019. Please don't tinker with these pages in such a fashion again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The big discussion reached consensus for the first sentence of these articles; I'm not sure anybody would have agreed to repeating that sentence further down the lead, or for repeating the main links several times within the lead. – Uanfala (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Look at the doozy in the first few sentences of "attempted" above. I'm wise to the conceits of India-POV edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I've corrected the lead paragraph in line with the consensus. When people claim to be making gnomish edits but end up making more these problems arise. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

For correcting Actual area of pakistan occupied girgit baltistan.

The actual official area of POK(Gilgit baltistan) is 64,817 km² (28,174 mi²) Not 72000 sq km. Plzz edit the above data. Total area of full j&k is 222,236 sq km. From which JK in india occupied is 101,387 sq km. POK is ( 64,817 + 13,297) 78,114 sq km. Aksai chin is 37,555 sq km. Area given by pakistan to chin in 1962 is 5180 sq km. Plzz administrator correct the above data Ashutosh singh 761980 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The neutral terms are Pakistan-administered Kashmir, India-administered Kashmir, and China-administered Kashmir. For correcting areas, a very reliable source will be needed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This is correct. The area is 222,236 sq km. I which india administerd kashmir is 101,387 sq km. And pakistan admisters area is 78,114 sq km. Where as china has occupied 37,555 sq km & 5180 sq km which was given by pakistan to china in 1962. Ashutosh singh 761980 (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand you to say that, but we need reliable sources, preferably scholarly ones, to support those claims. Also, Indian or Pakistani governments will not do, we need third-party sources that state that. Please supply the source(s) (or references/citations) here. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Plzz understand. You are numerically wrong. According to your data J&K area will cross it's actually figure of 222236 sq km. Ashutosh singh 761980 (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, thank you, I will look into it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2022

"Gilgit-Baltistan (Hindi:गिलगित-बल्तिस्तान/ˌɡɪlɡɪt ˌbɔːltɪˈstɑːn, -stæn/; Urdu: گلگت بلتستان[10])" Hindi makes pronounciation easier Anneliesmariefrank17 (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 Dec 2021

Gilgit-Baltistan has been given the status of a province. Pakistan now has five provinces. Please update the article to reflect this. [reference] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.187.138 (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3, shouldn't this new information be incorporate into the article? – Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not new information. The article is from December 2020. It is covered in a single sentence (the last) in the Inside Pakistan section. I don't know what else to say unless something actually happens. (The OP is wrong to claim that it "has been given" the status of a province. It was promised. Something called a "provisional province" status.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Uanfala (talk) Gilgit-Baltistan has not been awarded the status of province yet. The region is not even a provisional province of Pakistan. There had been talks for elevating it to a provisional constitutional province of Pakistan which were concluded without taking any decision, the status of G-B is thus not changed so far, and it is still in the limbo. -- Kazmi¹¹²² 13:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

GDP and GDP per capita

Can you please add the GDP and GDP per capita of Gilgit-Baltistan? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pakistani_administrative_units_by_gross_state_product $5bn GDP 119.155.62.109 (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2022

The first sentence is extremely long: Gilgit-Baltistan (/ˌɡɪlɡɪt ˌbɔːltɪˈstɑːn, -stæn/; Urdu: گِلگِت بَلتِسْتان[11]), formerly known as the Northern Areas,[12] is a region administered by Pakistan as an autonomous territory, and constituting the northern portion of the larger Kashmir region which has been the subject of a dispute between India and Pakistan since 1947, and between India and China from somewhat later. Please change "territory, and constituting" to "territory. It constitutes" 49.198.51.54 (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done SWinxy (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

 Undone in this edit. Fowler: Fair enough reasoning. My apologies for violating the consensus! SWinxy (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

No problemo Amigo Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, we can't really do that. It is a part of a much discussed Wikiprojects India and Pakistan consensus. All the first-level Kashmir-related article's have the same format. The same lead sentences, the same number of infobox pictures and the same prohibitions about asserting sovereignty. If the first sentence stands alone, without within it the immediate qualifier about a dispute, it changes the emphasis. For the administration is very much a part of the dispute about sovereignty. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I grant you it is a mouthful. My sympathies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Good to know the full thing. Also, good lord that citation! No wonder the prose must be exactly that. ps i think those pics are beautiful SWinxy (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. :) The first-level regions are this page, Azad Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh and Aksai Chin. You'll see the common format. Btw, I'm supposed to on Wikibreak. It just happened that I have to finish something on, and couldn't help noticing this. If in the future you see folk veering off the consensus, please don't hesitate to call them out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

... on Darjeeling, I meant. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

If the difficulty is simply that the first sentence must mention a dispute, couldn't it be "...is a disputed region administered by Pakistan as an autonomous territory. It constitutes..." It's not as if there's only one way to convey facts with which everyone agrees. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what all articles are included in "first-level Kashmir-related article's", but I assume Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) are included. Its first sentence, while still really long, is much shorter than the ones in this article and Azad Kashmir. If you exclude notes and the parenthetical bits about pronunciation, L is 199 characters, JaK(ut) is 260 characters, and G-B and AK are both 314 characters. Clearly there's not a boilerplate that must be followed extremely closely. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)