Talk:Skardu

[Untitled]

Skardu is the main town of Baltistan along the wide bank of the river Indus. Skardu is the largest district of Gilgit Baltistan. Baltistan is home to some of the highest peaks in the world, the Karakoram Range, Skardu is very popular with Mountaineering Expeditions. It is equally popular with high altitude trekkers, who treks to Baltoro Glacier, K-2 Base Camp and Concordia. Skardu by road, lies approximately 5 hours away from Gilgit and 10 hours drive from Besham. A daily flight to and from Islamabad is also in operation. The flight is always subject to weather.

Skardu has a character of its own and has a very interesting scenery. The Indus becomes wide and still here. The town is surrounded by dry rugged mountains and sand dunes.

Skardu is famous for the many trekking and adventure spots around it. There are numerous treks starting from Skardu. The near by Satpara Lake and Shangrilla resort are very famous among the local travelers and is visited by people from all over the country during June & July.

Shigar: Shigar is a beautiful village just a few miles North of Skardu its picturesque village with beautiful terraced fields growing all sorts of crops. Shigar was once a small kingdom and the Shigar fort was once residential fort of the local ruler. Recently the Aga Khan shown interest in the fort which has now been renovated and is open for tourists. The Shigar fort has been made to be a residential fort once again

Tours In Skardu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.139.154.221 (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:100px-Pk-punj.PNG

The image File:100px-Pk-punj.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hindi script maliciously being used

Several presumably Indian editors are constantly attempting to include the Hindi transcription of Skardu to the project. This should not be done so because 1) it is politically motivated, and 2) Hindi is not an official language in EITHER Pakistan-Administered Kashmir, or Indian Administered Kashmir. It's use is political, and unacceptable. This statement or claim that Hindi is not the official language has been "presumably" made by a pakistani editor or their supporter ever since the Revocation of the article 370 hindi is now the official language of Kashmir which is the union territory belonging to India.

    The British Parliament has condemned Pakistan's move to declare Gilgit-Baltistan as its fifth province. The British Parliament passed a resolution rejecting Pakistan's position on the region in PoK.

A motion was passed by the British parliamentarians announcing Gilgit-Baltistan as a legal and constitutional part of Jammu and Kashmir illegally occupied by Pakistan since 1947.

The motion had been tabled in the British Parliament on March 23, 2017 by Bob Blackman of the Conservative Party. It says that Pakistan is attempting to annex an area that does not belong to it.

The British Parliament motion reads, "Gilgit-Baltistan is a legal and constitutional part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, India, which is illegally occupied by Pakistan since 1947, and where people are denied their fundamental rights including the right of freedom of expression."

The British parliamentarians accused Pakistan of adopting a policy to change the demography of Gilgit-Baltistan region in violation of State Subject Ordinance. They called the construction of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as illegal.

The 'forced and illegal construction' of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has interfered with the disputed territory, the motion said.

The Gilgit-Baltistan area is under Pakistan's control since it invaded Jammu and Kashmir soon after partition of India. It forms the northernmost administrative territory under Pakistan's control just beyond the Kashmir region - a part of which is illegally occupied by Islamabad the British parliament passed a resolution regarding this issue.

     UNSC UN Security Council

Resolution 40 Date 21 April 1948 Meeting no. 286. The Resolution recommended a three-step process for the resolution of the dispute. In the first step, Pakistan was asked to withdraw all its nationals that entered Kashmir for the sake of fighting. which simply implies thatKASHMIR IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF INDIA AND HAS BEEN OCCUPIED ILLEGALLY BY PAKISTAN SINCE 1948!So thus begs the question as to why this article shouldn't have any content in Hindi and why the supporters of the Hindi language are "presumed" to be Indian editors? They could very well be editors from UK who are aware of the British Parliament has passed a resolution, condemning Pakistan’s recent decision to declare Gilgit-Baltistan as its fifth province. The resolution said that the region is a legal and constitutional part of northern Indian province of Jammu and Kashmir, and an integral part of India. It also said that the region has been illegally occupied by Pakistan since 1947. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.183.0.122 (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. It doesn't make any sense here. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Wrong map or information

Some of the region above Jammu and Kashmir some place belongs to Pakistan on the map but not added in Pakistan's map E.g: skardu is shown as a part of Pakistan but included in India's map Pravin0810 (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That's the map in the infobox of the article, right? From a quick look, I don't see any problems. And I'm not sure I understand what you've written: how is Skardu included in India's map? – Uanfala (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Spasage revert

Spasage, can you explain why you reverted my edit? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3You made the changes and there were not many comments on the change. On the second look, changes look good. Thanks. --Spasage (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

NPOV - Kashmir War

The section Kashmir War is slanted by taking the POV of the anti-Indian forces. Its factuality is also dubious: the partisan tone and selection of facts suggest that it is omitting equally relevant information. It needs rewriting in an objective manner. I am sorry I don't have the knowledge to do that. My suggestion would be to delete most of it, since the amount of detail seems excessive for WP. Zaslav (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I reverted a recent WP:POV edit. The rest is fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Maqpon dynasty into Skardu#Maqpon period

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Observations:

• GScholar gives 11 hits for "Maqpon Dynasty", none of which are reliable sources. Gbooks give about 10 hits.

• In a discussion on another local dynasty which claimed to have been ruling for about a millenia, most editors agree that there are issues with sources (read, Dani) and consent to merging with the parent.

They should have been hints to not insist on having a dubious article. Yet, we have one because the process reigns supreme. Let's see the sources as of this version:-

The first and last (twentieth) references are to a heavily faulty chronicle drafted by one bureaucrat over 100 years ago. This has also been the primary (read: only) reference of Dani, whom we will arrive at soon.

The author Ḥashmatu'l-Lāh Khān was a Dogra official, who oversaw the administration of Gilgit-Baltistan and drafted a gazetteer of the entire region, borrowing from official documents, local clerics, epic literature, oral folklore, ruins, etc.; it did not primarily depend on previously written histories of the region.[28] Dani found his history of Gilgit to be "very brief and faulty" with imaginary chronologies—which were even internally inconsistent[28]—and advised caution in using the material.[27] Despite, it has become an authoritative reference for local historians.[29]

The second is to a travel agency.

The third (used repeatedly) is some unreliable book, published by a Kashmiri Pandit.

The fourth is a local NGO.

The fifth is a decent source but it provides vital trivia: Maqpons are nothing more than Dukes.

This is also supported by another reliable source:

The local title of the Balti rulers was makpon/maqpon.

Or another (Daniel Bredi):

maqpon = lord of Skardo

Or yet another (John Bray):

Maqpon (ruler) of Skardu

Now, think of creating an article on Shah Dynasty: how nonsensical it would be?

Ref 7 and Ref 8: Dani's history of Northern Areas which is apparently a HISTRS but in reality, was a government-sponsored project to draft a semi-official history of the regions. Self-admittedly, premodern chronicles, coins, inscriptions were absent and he had to borrow heavily from local legends even when they were faulty and internally inconsistent.

For areas which have been since subject to scrutiny by historians [Gilgit], Dani's legends do not corroborate with evidence.

This however raises the question of the reliability of the folklore and the conjectural dating for the rulers mentioned therein. An attempt in this direction for the early period has been attempted by Prof. Dani based upon Shah Rais Khan's History of Gilgit (Dani 1987:116). At the present state of our knowledge there seem to be NO CONVINCING GROUND for equating the rulers of the inscriptions with those of the folk legends.
— Vohra, R. Early History of Ladakh: Mythic Lore and Fabulation in Recent Research on Ladakh 4 & 5: Proceedings of the Fourth and Fifth International Colloquia on Ladakh

Ref 9 does not mention our subject.

Ref 10 is, ahem, yet another travel agency.

Ref 11, 12, 13, and 15 are from unreliable/local publishers with no record of rigorous peer-review. Neither are their authors of any repute. That being said, it does not appear that either of the four mentions our subject.

Ref 17 is not very-reliable; anyways, it has no mention of our subject.

Ref 18 and Ref 19 has nothing on the subject.

In short, we have an article that is the product of original research and synthesis. Most of the sources do not even mention our subject and those who do, are unreliable. There is also an interesting attempt to inherit notability from Ali Sher Khan Anchan who is the only notable (and verifiable) entity of this legendary dynasty. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Merge - Clear that the dynasty doesn't need a separate page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - There are still sufficient evidences that the dynasty did existed. So, the article should not removed. Obviously if someone finds out any unreliable information in it, He can get it remove. The article was previously quite short, I just expanded it from already existing information on Wikipedia articles like Skardu, Baltistan and Ali Sher Khan Anchan. If you disagree with it, you can just remove these details.Sutyarashi (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Sutyarashi, if the page was short and you expanded it by copying content from other pages, that is in fact a reason not to have a separate page. It doesn't serve any purpose to have the same (or related) content on a number of page. You need to justify your vote on the basis of policy, WP:PAGEDECIDE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

    @Kautilya3 Check my note on their talk-page, which they have not bothered to engage with. I missed this !vote. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Per @Sutyarashi Ytpks896 (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked as a sock. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose merger Keep article. 202.69.12.231 (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• Sock. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - It is quite significant, no need to merge.Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked as a sock. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sukardu disputed

It is not Pakistan but Pakistan administered area of J&K. It is still under dispute hence mentioning it as part of Pakistan is incorrect. 2405:201:A003:7A70:B017:2F5F:7957:7EF8 (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Everything in J&K is disputed, including places like Leh, Kargil, Srinagar and Jammu. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Lede

...city located in Pakistani-administered Gilgit−Baltistan in the disputed Kashmir region.

Just gonna point out that the lede is pretty sketchy. I was going to change it as I thought some NVOP user added it before I realised it was part of a 'consensus' (?). Should the specific consensus really cover every single city in the Kashmir region?

Also, the Shina/Tibetan spelling – is that attested in the Shina language anywhere? نعم البدل (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)