Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan

Pakistan B‑class Mid‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pakistan Unassessed

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pakistan, Kashmir

Considering Northern Areas as part of pakistan occupied Kashmir is questionable as the area was first liberated by the people of the area themselves and volunterily joined Pakistan.

It is the Indian Viewpoint and IMHO must be presented here for the sake of NPOV. -- Paddu 21:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir / Pakistan-occupied Kashmir

India certainly does not refer to the Northern Areas as Azad Kashmir since that term means 'Free Kashmir' and would imply that India was occupying the rest of Kashmir (an implication that is obviously against the Indian government's policy). The usual term used by the Indian government and the media is PoK or Pakistan-occupied Kashmir to refer to all of Kashmir under Pakistani rule. That part of the article which incorrectly states that India uses the term 'Azad Kashmir' should be changed.

That thing was due to an apparently unintended edit. This was cleaned up by this edit, but to maintain NPOV IMHO (see my previous comment above), I added back the statement that India calls it a part of PoK. -- Paddu 20:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV Section - History

The following description presents only the pro-Pakistani point of view. --DuKot 21:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But the people of Gilgit-Baltistan regard themselves as being distinct from Kashmiris and many want to become the fifth province of Pakistan. And they oppose being included in Kashmir. Their opinion is that invasion of Mahrajas doesn't mean that this is a part of Kashmir, just like British invasion over the India in 19th century does not mean that India is a part of Britain.

Actually, the view is that of the people there. The Pakistani govt. doesn't want to extend make them a province because they believe that would make the Indians believe that they have agreed to a defacto permanent border. What do you propose be said instead then? The people there go up within Pakistan and often work in Pakistani cities in other provinces as well. You might as well call the views of someone in Karachi pro-Pakistani as that's all you'll hear. Tombseye 23:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I oppose the proposed merger between this article and Gilgit Agency, because the Agency was an entity which existed until the 1970's and the Northern Areas were created by merging the Agency with Hunza and Nagar principalities. Green Giant 22:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I see your point. You're right, the article has been refined, but it wasn't clear enough on the Gilgit Agency page that the Gilgit Agency is now a part of Northern Areas, there is no sentence on this page that refers to the article Northern Areas. (Although it's mentioned on the Northern Areas page.)

Otherwise, you're right, the two articles stand on their own. How about adding a conspicuous sentence on top of the Gilgit Agency article? I would say that the Northern Areas page is just fine the way it is.

And I saw a couple of articles referring to Gilgit Agency, and not to Northern Areas, in a way that created more confusion. Also, the Gilgit article refers not to Gilgit city, but "Gilgit region", not specifying whether it's about the district, or Gilgit agency... It also states, "Gilgit has an area of 14,680 mi² (38,021 km²).", it is not specified whether it's the area of district or Gilgit Agency. It needs refinement as well. Waqas.usman 00:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Strongly Oppose the merger. They are different and should exist in two separate articles. --Spasage 07:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed merge tags from both articles after adding Northern Areas link on top of Gilgit Agency Waqas.usman 03:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Northern Areas Districts - Overlay in Google Earth

For identifying towns, villages, peaks, lakes etc by districts, use the following placemarks alongwith the overlay map for district boundaries of Northern Areas: Northern Pakistan detailed placemarks in Google Earth

Open the above mentioned overlay map in Google Earth and it clearly shows what lies in which district (but this map is old, Astore district was carved out of Diamer District later on in 2004, works for all other boundaries). User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 02:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article is becoming increasingly one-sided

This page needs to be checked for its neutrality as the article is increasignyl becoming one-sided. Idleguy in particular seems to be adding alot of this. All of the sources added are from Indian sources, and i know that the countries of Pakistan and India have a bitter enemity, so I can see why sources from one country would be derogatory towards the other. So, hence, I request using neutral sources For example, there is use of double-sources. The person added that The Hindu(an indian source) wuoted a Pakistani source The Dawn. "Though outwardly calm, the Northern Areas of Pakistan are simmering with a crisis that has all the ingredients of boiling over the rim" But I did a search on google, with the quote and it came up with nothing. I then emaied Dawn (www.dawn.com), and they said their records do not show anything with those quotes.

ALSO, I think Poltical substance of the Indian-Pakistan conflict should be kept out of this, and perhaps be put in the Kashmir article in wikipedia. I can sense that this is becomign a propaganda war. --Cranberryjuice10 19:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Herald" is a Pakistani publication. have you even read that? First you disputed its contents trying to sound rude in my talk page then when it was provided, you simply tag it as POV. True, rediff is an Indian website but The Hindu used a double source. I've emailed them myself to check which date they got the selected quote. Until I get that I can't comment on it. Idleguy 01:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've added half a dozen sources - mainly Pakistani and an international one - and all of them still talk about the fact that there is violence and discontent in NA due to the lack of legal and political representation. I hope you read the sources before levelling allegations at me as if I'm making up things. --Idleguy 02:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FANA vs Northern Areas

THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN DOES NOT CALL THIS REGION "FEDERALLY ADMINISTERED" SO DO NOT CHANGE IT TO WHAT YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE CALLED

Response, 12/20/07:

The government of Pakistan uses both a short-form name and a more formal long-form name to refer to this territory. NORTHERN AREAS is the short-form name and FEDERALLY ADMINISTERED NORTHERN AREAS is the long-form name. See the following sources:

For more sources, do a Google search on the name "federally administered northern areas" with the name in parentheses.

164.214.1.54

I moved the above comments from the article to the talk page, note doing a Google search for "Northern Areas" site:.gov.pk gives 3,250 hits, doing a search for FANA gives 310 hits. Also searching for FEDERALLY ADMINISTERED Northern gives 35 hits. I reverted the article for this reason.

Pahari Sahib 06:58, 5 January 2008 (GMT)

protection?

If the page is protected, please say so at the top of the page. 85.227.226.235 (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jammu and Kashmir link

Please add a link to the Jammu and Kashmir article when first mentioned (right after the linked mention of the Pakistani-controlled part). 85.227.226.235 (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jammu and Kashmir

If the page on Jammu and Kashmir doesn't say in the intro that Jammu and Kashmir is disputed between Pakistan and India, then this page shouldnt' say that Northern Areas of Pakistan is disputed between Pakistan and India. Currently we have Jammu and Kashmir page showing that it is part of India without mentioning that Pakistan disputes its Indian control, but we have the Indian POV on the Northern Areas of Pakistan as well. Stop adding it again and again, otherwise I'll put a POV tag on this page. 76.100.10.26 (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As that page says "The territory is disputed between Pakistan and India and it is referred to by Pakistan as Indian-occupied Kashmir. Conversely, India refers to Pakistan-administered Kashmir as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir." you can relax. 85.227.226.235 (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this page will not include disputed tag as this tag is absent in articles like Ladakh and Jammu so you can relax my indian freind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.237.192 (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

District/ Divisons update

The table on districts and divisions needs updating. The updates can be picked from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Districts_of_Pakistan#Districts_of_Northern_Areas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momers (talk • contribs) 06:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy paste move

This article was copy and pasted to Northern Areas, according to WP:Move this shouldn't be done as it removes the edit history. I have copy pasted back (as the majority of edits are on this page- including talk). Pahari Sahib 22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested a page history repair, and it's been done. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Following on from the above, I will request that the article is moved to Northern Areas. And perhaps the edit histories can be combined somehow. Pahari Sahib 22:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this is moved, a hatnote will need to be added:

70.55.85.40 (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support no need for a DAB page at Northern Areas. A hatnote will do just fine. — AjaxSmack 01:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A name merely Northern Areas is too vague. Many nations etc have northern areas. (I histmerged for the cut-&-paste move). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But none are actually called "Northern Areas" so the hatnote will take care of that. — AjaxSmack 02:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - But it should be rephrased: For similar names, see Northern (subnational entity). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is there a template for that? Like {{confused2}} or something? 70.55.85.143 (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

title wrong

northern areas is part of the disputed territory (dispute bet pak. and ind.)..as per UN..not part of Pakistan per se..neither india nor pakistan are part of this. ..belongs to "princely state of jand k"..after that, the status is under dispute..Kashmircloud (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too object to the title, the current title seems to imply that the Northern Areas are part of Jammu and Kashmir state and while the government of India and many Indians may believe this *should* be the case - it is *not* the case. Indian claims to the territory may or not be valid - but as it stands the territory is neither control or administered by India. Nor is part of India's Jammu and Kashmir state. Pahari Sahib 20:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"(kashmir)" is ok in the sense that it is not (pakistan) or (india) ..but ideal wud b 2 say "erstwhile j and k kingdom" since kashmir valley is but a small part of the disputed kingdom..Kashmircloud (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jammu and Kashmir is totally misleading and indians like yourself would obviously love to rename it wouldnt you. Kashmir valley srinager and jammu and brumalla are all disputed are you crazy its a whole massive chunk of indian occupied kashmir which is disputed get your facts correct freind 86.163.154.87 (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is a indian editor and his claims are pathetic i shall remove this silly jammu and kashmir claim of the title jammu and kashmir is occupied by indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.132.156 (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC) tell me how to reverse this title as this wise guy indian kashmir cloud (probably not even kashmiri) has edited without consensus on the article and is vandalising several other articles with his pro india garbage86.153.132.156 (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POK indian biased propaganda

if the indians persist in there reference less claims i shall begin to edit pages about indian occupied kashmir such as jammu and ladakh and srinagar dont start nothing there wont be nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.70.25 (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be reasonable

Hi all, can you guys please take a deep breath and count backwards from 20 to 1? I think that will considerably help you in reducing your hatred towards each other. There's a guy, using BT connection from somewhere in the UK, who accuses me of being pro-Indian. My dear friend, (the IP editor, and pls don't think that Paki is a deregatory term as used in the UK. It merely means a person with a Pakistani origin in India), I am no blind Indian. But the kind of abuse that you and your fellow editors heap on others, will definitely force any self respecting Indian to become a staunch supporter of all her policies. This was exactly the case even with the Germans during Hitler's reign.

By the way, I DO NOT support moving this page to a title like Northern Areas (J&K). Hope, I have made myself clear. Shovon (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all non BJP facist from India please remove your facist mind from wikipedia it doesnt belong here making pathetic articles with your indian chums Kashmir cloud and others and redirecting neutral pages such as azad kashmir and northern areas to your filthy POK page which is without a doubt the most un neutral page i have ever seen is just a another peice of evidence of your hypocrasy and pro indian mentality you can sweet talk all you want but i wont allow edits by editors who believe there nationalistic indian veiw (such as POK used only by INDIANS) should be included on wikipedia keep that to your school books kapish (no its not hanuman or anything related to monkeys) 86.158.177.243 (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

In line with naming conventions applied to other Pakistani provinces, e.g. North-West Frontier Province (and equally Federally Administered Tribal Areas), I propose that this article's title should be Federally Administered Northern Areas (presently a redirect to Northern Areas (Kashmir)). Apart from the reason already provided (i.e. consistency), I would add two more:

It would make the generally applied abbreviation FANA more easily understood.
I find the current title somewhat oblique with the parenthesis (Kashmir) more obfuscating than helpful. Since this is part of a contested area, the title should be as neutral, descriptive and unambiguous as possible, even at the cost of being lengthy and officious sounding.

__meco (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i oppose this 86.153.130.184 (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]