Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2022

The political status of Gilgit-Baltistan should be changed from "administrative territory" to "dependent territory," since the territory has never been officially incorporated into Pakistan. The following two statements in the article verify that fact: "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." "Officially, the Pakistan government had rejected Gilgit-Baltistani calls for integration with Pakistan on the grounds that it would jeopardise its demands for the whole Kashmir issue to be resolved according to UN resolutions." Atelerixia (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CMD (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The Administrative Map of Pakistan that was published by the CIA in 2020 contains the following important statement: "Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan are not constitutionally part of Pakistan." Atelerixia (talk) 06:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

How come CIA becomes authority for Pak and India. 2A00:23C5:26BC:3901:3057:44BD:A301:6CFD (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The map of the disputed Kashmir region that is currently shown in Wikipedia article titled "Gilgit-Baltistan"

The map of the disputed Kashmir region that is currently shown is out of date and should be replaced by the following map:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Kashmir_Region_November_2019.jpg Atelerixia (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think it is out of date? I updated both maps. There is no difference, only the one currently in place is higher-def than the other. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Look at the Kashmir Region map. It is clearly out of date. It shows "Northern Areas" instead of "Gilgit-Baltistan," "North-West Frontier Province" instead of "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa," and the former Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir, which has now been divided into the two Indian union territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. Atelerixia (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. Someone is playing games with the file, reverting it to an older version which affects all the Kashmir related pages. Please keep checking the image file’s history. Pinging @Abecedare, RegentsPark, and Vanamonde93: I vaguely remember them complaining about Demchuk and claiming a moral duty about something or other. Maybe it was on my user talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is that post Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you again @Atelerixia: for noticing. You’ve done stalwart work. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

So, Fowler&Fowler, how can this map https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Kashmir_Region_November_2019.jpg replace the outdated one that presently appears in all the Kashmir-related pages? Who can make the necessary change? Atelerixia (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Atelerixia: The one that currently appears on this page, for example, is this version which does not have the

Northern Areas and other older names. If you see it has been changed again to an older version (and has thus affected all the pages in which it is being use), please inform me. Thanks Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Why Aksai Chin is not mentioned since 1965? `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨ 06:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that means. Please rephrase in a manner that makes the context clear. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, My apologies. Aksai Chin was part of India since independence (1947) and was lost to China in 1962 war(apologies again it is not 1965). However, India never recognized it being territory of China. Claiming sovereignty over territory and terming it Aksai Chin which roughly translated to 'Snatched by China'. Therefore, I was asking why it was not written since 1962?? `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨ 16:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It was part of India in the Indian government's view, but not in the Chinese government's, especially not after the second world war, and more especially the Chinese revolution, when the dust had settled on China's turbulent times. The Indians had no clue of the Chinese road construction in the later 1950s, until the Americans informed them. Please read Neville Maxwell's India's China War. It was that remote. In any case, contemporary maps don't refer to history. Maps of India don't say "since 1947." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2024

I WANT TO ADD UPDATE SOME INFORMATION SPECIALLY OF ITS CHIEF SECRETARY NAME ChutendraChodi (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2024 (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. — Czello ^(music) 11:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Astore 🖤✨

Astore is the main city of Astore District in Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan. The city is situated at an altitude of 2,546 metres. The major Astore–Burzul Road, which linked Gilgit to Srinagar was indefinitely closed in 1978 following the development of the China–Pakistan Karakoram Highway. 37.111.159.225 (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 July 2024

1) point 1 you forgot to mentioned the burusho people of the region!

2) point 2 There are 99.9 percent Ismaili Shia and tewelver Shia in Hunza Gilgit and Nagar regions of Gilgit baltistan ..... Abbas habiii (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC) 1') The ethnic groups include Shins, Yashkuns, Kashmiris, Kashgaris, Pamiris, Pathans, and Kohistanis.[139]

2') The populations in Gilgit, Hunza and Nagar districts are composed of a mix of all of these sects.[148]

 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. Jamedeus (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

India WikiLink in lead section

Hey @SheriffIsInTown,

I recently observed that you have reverted my edit which added a link to India. I believe that added a link to India is important, especially as this is the first occurrence of the country name in the first paragraph of the lead section, and that India is a crucial party for the history, and present of the administration of the region. Therefore, I believe that the link is really needed for the page. Please feel free to correct my understand of the reason of your revert.

Thanks! Bunnypranav (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

According to MOS:OL, commonly known information generally does not require linking. In addition, major examples of the following categories should generally not be linked: Countries (e.g., Brazil/Brazilian, Canada/Canadian, China/Chinese) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand, but in the same page this is also clearly written, Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, words and terms understood by most readers in context are usually not linked. Both India, and Pakistan are relevant terms, and with the fact Pakistan is already linked, I believe that India should also be linked. For example, the article Falkland Islands, has the links for Argentina, despite being qualifying for the Countries clause in MOS:OL

Thanks! Bunnypranav (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

In my view, India and Pakistan have different levels of global recognition. I believe that Pakistan is less well-known compared to India. Additionally, the quoted text supports my point words and terms understood by most readers in context are usually not linked. This means that well-known terms are typically not linked, even when they are used in context. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand your opinion about Pakistan having less global recognition, but as India and Pakistan are both equally relevant in the context of the article; despite being well known, India needs a link. Also, based on this page views statistic, Pakistan has more recognition than Brazil (the example in the MOS) for their Wikipedia articles at least, signifying some importance that even Pakistan is considered well-known in the context of Wiki and MOS.

Thanks Bunnypranav (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Page view statistics aren't a reliable measure, as the opposite could also be true—people may be less familiar with Pakistan and therefore seek more information, leading to more views. Relevance and context are considered when linking terms that aren't widely known. However, well-known terms shouldn't be linked, even if they are relevant and contextual, such as avoiding a link to poetry in a poet's article since it's a common term everyone is likely familiar with. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand about the page views, but if we compare poetry in a poets article, then doesn't Pakistan also classify for that contexts existence, as people reading about a Pakistan administered area are likely familiar with the country? As the article is about a geographical region (disputed in fact), shouldn't there be some link to the countries that claim it.

Thanks! Bunnypranav (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, in the articles of Aksai Chin and Azad Kashmir, which are articles related to the administrative areas of Kashmir, and India, Pakistan, China all are linked, despite classifying for well-known terms. Here China is mentioned in the MOS example also. Then why does the link for India is considered not needed? Awaiting @SheriffIsInTown's response.

Thanks! Bunnypranav (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

If others haven’t followed the policy in other articles, it doesn’t mean we should do the same here. Two wrongs do not make it right. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I still believe that the other articles have followed the policy. Do you consent for a Third Opinion? Thanks! Bunnypranav (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with WP:3O. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a problem having an internal link to India. The lead also links China, a very much notable country. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me if I misunderstood WP policies, but am I now allowed to add the link back. Thanks @Fylindfotberserk for the third opinion. Thanks! Bunnypranav (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, for parity. Besides, it is difficult to compare and quantify the notability of country names from various POVs. In the Americas, for example, people recognise the terms India/Indian with the Native Americans, Indo-China, etc more often as compared to India, while Pakistan is more easily recognised by people of Europe, China. At a global level, China is much more notable than India, which is linked here. Secondly, a good chunk of the Pakistan-related articles (biographies] etc, do not have an internal link to Pakistan in the lead. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Understood, and thanks a lot for the third opinion and accompanying explanation! Bunnypranav (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)