Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan

Shina and kashmiri languages

It is absolutely wrong that there is no connection between languages spoken in Kashmir valley and Gilgit/Chilas region. In fact Kashmiri also called Kausher is a sister language of Shina. Both languages share upto 30% common everyday vocabulary. Shina and kashmiri/kausher together with swat kohistani language belong to Eastern subgroup of Dardic languages. Shins and kashmiris do originate from the same linguistic ancestors, this is proven with presence of shina speaking people in Gurez region within kashmir valley, some ethnic kausher/kashmiri tribes like "Lone" tribe in northern kashmir are often billingual in both kashmiri/kausher and Shina, the reason is quite simple Shins and Kausher/kashmiris are from the same roots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.69.21.94 (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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.

The above statement is untrue. The British decided to make it a bone of contention and one Major Brown of the British army without authority raised the Pakistani flag in the area just before the withdrawal of the british army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.1.52.48 (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

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.

The whole article has a pro pakistan slant. It speaks of the UN resolution on plebiscite. But does not speak of teh pre-condition that Pakistan must withdraw from the Pakistan occuppied areas. It also does not mention the fact that now plebiscite is an impossiblity because teh areas have been extensively occuppied by Pakistanis from other areas making the Pakistanis a minority whereas India did not do that. It speaks of "annexation" etc. again rather slanted.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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:

• Pakistan Embassy
• Ministry of Education
• Northern Areas Development Gateway
• iEARN Australia
• Yahoo News India
• Daily Mail News
• Daily Times
• The Hindu
• Irinnews.org/
• PTV.Com
• Encarta MSN
• Individualland.com

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Requested move Aug 2008

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Consensus for the move, and the hatenote takes care of an indirect disambiguation problem. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

Not to be confused with Northern (subnational entity).

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

• Support no need for a DAB page at Northern Areas. A hatnote will do just fine. — AjaxSmack 01:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • But none are actually called "Northern Areas" so the hatnote will take care of that. — AjaxSmack 02:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
      • But it should be rephrased: For similar names, see Northern (subnational entity). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Is there a template for that? Like {{confused2}} or something? 70.55.85.143 (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

"(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hmmmm... so what do you say about the all and sundry pathetic religio-political parties in your country? Simply speaking, you guys will never learn. That's why half of the present world is in the midst of some kind of violence with you guys on one side! Check my mainspace edits. You won't be able to point to a single one where I have taken the sides of Hindus or India in case of a dispute. But, guess, you guys think this to be a sign of weakness instead of upholding the policies. Your entire range of IPs is hading for a block. This much I can assure you. Shovon (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say "so what do you say about the all and sundry pathetic religio-political parties in your country? Simply speaking, you guys will never learn. That's why half of the present world is in the midst of some kind of violence with you guys on one side" who are "you guys" please follow your own advice and "be reasonable". You started this section relatively reasonably (apart from the curious comment about Hitler and Germany at the end) Your argument with one editor has resulted in you making comments like this. Pahari Sahib 19:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for generalizing the statement. Shovon (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm our political parties dont use pathetic kids of the poverty stricken streets of india and brainwash them with pro pakistani ideology and force them to edit over wikipedia(life story of shovon) thats why you biased editors like you worm your way into pakistani articles and vandalise them with kaali maata type garbage thats why indias religous groups are always oppressed christian sikhs muslims all have been fighting bjp nazis like yourself once atleast look at the news your country men burn churches 86.153.130.184 (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Try not to insult people no matter how bad they seem. You are going off topic and it detracts from the agreement you are trying to present. Pahari Sahib 19:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell I am even responding to you. You will never learn. This is the last time within the next 30 days at least that I would write anything related to J&K. Btw, your politicians do not use poverty stricken kids to edit Wiki because they have a better use for them. They turn those kids in to suicide bombers. So much! Shovon (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

yes and your hindu facist bjp government trains your brave indian hindu army to rape women indian soldiers always seem to be first in south asian when it comes to raping in indian occupied kashmir want proof just type in kashmir in google whats the matter cant fight men? 86.163.155.56 (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

this shovon called me a paki now i say something to him and he has a sissy fit and then becomes ghandi after acting like hitler hes a worm unless he apologizes for calling me a paki this row wont stop kapish 86.163.155.56 (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move September 2008

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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:

1. It would make the generally applied abbreviation FANA more easily understood.
2. 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)

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

I agree with Meco and think it should be moved from the current title to Federally Administered Northern Areas, this is the official name. I moved the article to its current location as the previous was more vague. Can you explain your objections to this move? Pahari Sahib 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The "current title" mentioned above was Northern Areas (Kashmir), It has been moved since then back to its old title. I am now not sure whether it should be moved to "Federally Administered Northern Areas", see reasons above. Pahari Sahib 06:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

woops i got confused i thought it was being moved to that pathetic pro indian "POK" article carry on i have no objection sorry again 86.163.155.56 (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I have just implemented a WP:RM to move this page to Northern Areas please do not move it within the next six months without putting in a WP:RM. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with that procedure, but I have no objections to going along with it. I have now tagged this talk page and noted the proposal at Wikipedia:Requested moves. __meco (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support less ambiguous name. 70.55.89.214 (talk) 06:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UCN (use common names). "Northern Areas" is widely used even at the official level. See Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas website, http://www.visitnorthernareas.gov.pk/, or http://www.tourism.gov.pk/northern_areas.html with a full list of admin units here including "NWFP" proving there is no general aversion to acronyms. The current title is not ambiguous. There is no other place called "Northern Areas." — AjaxSmack 00:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

S3000

this user is putting in claims which tilt on the pro indian side which is unacceptale he accuses me of bias but he happily edits jammu and kashmir with the pakistan administered tag and removes indian administered sentence from northern areas S300 do you have any reason for this you claim Jammu is the proper name SO WHAT its still administered territory instead of going off to other users talk to me and sort this out86.162.67.217 (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Suitability of Pakistani Flag

Since the territory is still in dispute, how is it NPOV to have the flag of one country? If the local administration under the Pakistani federal government has a separate flag it could be inserted in the political section like the flag of the indian administered state of Jammu and Kashmir is in that article. Currently the flag and the info box details directly contradict each other.Andy anno (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

flag of the state of gilgit baltistan is the same as that of Pakistan--111.68.96.117 (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Pashto Language

Pashto is not spoken any where in the Northern Areas, thus it is inaccurate and may even be considered offensive to list it as a regional language for the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.184.92 (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight by Indian pov pushing vandals

This including the Azad Kashmir article have recently been infected by a rash of Indian pov vandal editors who have added vast amounts of info regarding the conflict in Kashmir while deleting it from the Indian occupied Kashmir page that page has no mention of any "competing territorial claims" or any mention that the state is administered by India while this article and Azad Kashmir article has been loaded with administered terms and Indian claims its written everywhere there’s even separate sections for these disputes such “Competing claim” these articles need to be revamped and be made equal to the Indian occupied Kashmir page which has only one line mentioning the dispute in the intro. Undue weight to Pakistani Kashmir is not acceptable considering that most of the pro freedom and anti Indian activities go on in Jammu and Kashmir and all the human rights abuses go on in IOK why isn’t this mentioned in that page why here? I will tell you why Indian editors recently have bombarded these two pages with there Pro Indian trashy propaganda the Indian occupied Kashmir page makes it out as that it is not even a disputed territory just a wimpy mention in the introduction will not suffice it needs whole paragraphs like the ones which have been forced upon the northern areas and Azad Kashmir articles by Indian pov pushers86.154.149.161 (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Gilgit-Baltistan. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Northern Areas → Gilgit Baltistan — There has been much debate about this page's name, but now that the Pakistan government has given it a new name "Gilgit Baltistan". "Cabinet approves ‘Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self Governance Order 2009’" 29 August 2009 I think that we should use it. This will remove alot of the ambiguity of other names, and is consistent with the history of the area. --Bejnar (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what any one government does, the real question is whether the new name is in widespread use among third party publications. That's how we remain neutral in these issues. Are recent news reports about the area using "Gilgit Baltistan"? Is, for example, the CIA almanac? Is the UN?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Support I think it unlikely the CIA almanac would have caught on until its next edition is published. However, the new name does appear to be accepted in Pakistan's English language press and internet community, and even predates the Pakistani Government's decision :-

Talking to SANA here on Sunday, he said that Pakistan’s administrative control over Gilgit-Baltistan did not imply that they were slaves but they were only given more freedom and autonomy. from South Asian News Agency : Fazal Hails Decision on Gilgit-Baltistan Internal Autonomy

The constitutional head of new set up would be called governor and Qamaruz Zaman Kaira to be the first governor of Gilgit-Baltistan, the cabinet decided. from The News International : NAs to be called now Gilgit-Baltistan 29 August 2009

Under the order, Gilgit-Baltistan Assembly will formulate its own Rules of Procedures, while legislation on 61 subjects will be done by a council and an assembly in their respective jurisdictions. from Dawn : Autonomy Package for NAs Approved 30 August 2009

Ideological terrorism is being promoted in Gilgit-Baltistan and if the students of the region do not rise to defend the ideological boundaries of the region and defeat those who are hatching conspiracies against the nation then we will lose everything. from Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization : Gilgit Baltistan: Ideology Dissuaded 10 March 2009

Aga Khan Health Services, Pakistan, is collaborating with the Department of Health (Govt.) to establish a Medical College in Gilgit-Baltistan which will house 100 beds. from Ismaaili Mail : Establishment of Medical College in Gilgit-Baltistan 15 August 2009

“The so-called provincial like set up is fraudulent and blackmailing offers of the government which aimed to conceal the political atrocities and brutal colonial control on the people in the occupied region”. This was stated by Manzoor Hussain Parwana Chairman Gilgit Baltistan United Movement reacting over the "Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self Governance Order 2009", recently announced by the government of Pakistan to Gilgit Baltistan. from Gilgit Baltistan United Movement : Gilgit Baltistan: Provincial like Set up Rejected 29 August 2009

Since partition of the Indian sub-continent, in 1947, and the coming into being of Pakistan the democratic and political freedom and the Human Rights situation in Gilgit-Baltistan is very bad and the population has been suffering. from J and K Insights : The Human Rights Problem in Gilgit-Baltistan 28 June 2008—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinsmoke (talk • contribs) 11:12, August 30, 2009 (UTC)

I figured that someone would focus in on my reference to the CIA factbook (LOL). The answer to that specific point is that we shouldn't be in a hurry here, we can wait to make a truly informed decision. Regardless of that though, after reading your reply and taking a brief survey of the existing references in the article, I'm leaning towards Weak Support. The use of "Gilgit" is far from universal, and I'd also like to point out that those who use it typically seem to leave off the "Baltistan" portion as well... However, barring any significant opposition, I'll go ahead and say OK.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Think you may be getting confused with Gilgit, the capital of Gilgit Baltistan there! Skinsmoke (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Has it yet become Gilgit Baltistan officially? At any rate, the current title is awful, so I'd mildly support any move that promises to have the article in a less ambiguous location than Northern Areas. john k (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hell, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if I were confused. I think that the residents of the area(s) are confused themselves! I don't really oppose doing just anything to bring about some clarity here, but this sort of seems like renaming for it's own sake here. If the name "Gilgit Baltistan" really is common, I think some editing of the article is in order beforehand, anyway.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had a (very brief) look over the article, and the editing seems OK (I'm not saying I haven't missed something!). Gilgit and Baltistan on their own seem to be used in the correct historical or sub-regional context; someone appears to have jumped the gun a little and substituted Gilgit Baltistan for Northern Areas in the text when the whole region is referred to, but that was going to have to be done anyway if the move goes ahead. Did you have anything specific in mind? Bear in mind this is a little like Baden-Württemberg; an administrative region composed of two historical areas, where it is correct in historical or sub-regional terms to refer to simply Baden or Württemberg. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Suport current title is rather ambiguous. 76.66.200.21 (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Question Should this be hyphenated, like Baden-Württemberg? Most of those quotations seem to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Governor 2009

Until 9 Sept 2009, the info box listed the governor as "Mir Ghazanfar Ali Khan" citing the 26 November 2008 document http://www.unpo.org/content/view/8937/236/ and http://pamirtimes.wordpress.com/. On 9 September this was changed to "Qamar Uzaman Qaira" but the citation was left the same! "Qamar Uzaman Qaira" seems to be Qamar Zaman Kaira. I have removed all reference to a governor pending identification of a current reliable source. A Pamir Times news release on 10 Sept. said "Minister for Information and Broadcasting and Governor‑designate Gilgit‑Baltistan Qamar Zaman Kaira assured the people of Hunza that their grievances would be properly addressed with equal distribution of funds and development schemes, as per size of the population." A UNPO document dated 3 September 2009 indicated that "There shall be a governor of Gilgit Baltistan as proposed under Article -20 and shall be appointed by the President of Pakistan." --Bejnar (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

”

Area of Gilgit-Baltistan

The total in the area fo subdivisions of Gilgit-Baltistan is not correct it does not add up to the figure mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivazir (talk • contribs) 11:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Khajuna

I deleted the Khajuna as one of thE listed regional languages of Gilit-Baltistan as Khajuna is just another name foR Burushaski. Fred-Bolor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred-Bolor (talk • contribs) 22:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Flights

"The flying time was approximately 50 minutes,dand the flight was one of the most scenic flights in the world, as its route passed over the mountain Nanga Parbat, the peak of which was higher than the aircraft's cruising altitude."

If the flight passed over the mountain, and the mountain was higher than the aircraft's cruising altitude, no wonder the bloody aircraft crashed! Skinsmoke (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Military Presence

You might want to consider including these new facts in this article: China has sent approximately 10.000 Soldiers into the area, securing and speeding the process of building streets and railroad tracks to upgrade their trading routes to the arabian peninsula and everything surrounding and connected to it. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/opinion/27iht-edharrison.html?_r=1

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/2010/08/china-deploys-troops-in-pakistani-kashmir/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.246.233.75 (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Meerofgilgit, 13 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} change the name of governor gilgit baltistan because she has died and new governor has been nominated

Meerofgilgit (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

FANA (redirect)

The article doesn't explain why the acronym FANA redirects here. I'm adding it to the disambiguation page Fana (disambiguation) with the unhelpful notation FANA; see Gilgit-Baltistan, but I always find it frustrating when I'm redirected to a page and the introductory section doesn't tell me why. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rahimjohar, 26 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Syed Pir Karam Ali Shah is appointed new Governor for Gilgit-Baltistan http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=10133 http://geo.tv/1-26-2011/77668.htm

Rahimjohar (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2011 (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. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 08:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rahimjohar, 26 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Syed Pir Karam Ali Shah is appointed new Governor for Gilgit-Baltistan Please amend the name of governor to Syed Pir Karam Ali Shah from (Dr. Shama Khalid) Ref: http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=10133 http://geo.tv/1-26-2011/77668.htm

Rahimjohar (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 08:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add "Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan both constitute an area known as Pakistan-administered Kashmir which is referred to in India as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir." to the beggining paragraph as Mar4d has done the same on the Jammu and Kashmir page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.84.14 (talk)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Bias

"The people of this remote region were liberated from the Dogra regime of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir on 1 November 1947 with the help of the Pakistani army and then became citizens of a self-liberated and very short-lived independent state (17 days only). The new state asked the government of Pakistan to provide it with necessary assistance with which to conduct its affairs, as it did not have the necessary administrative infrastructure of its own. The government of Pakistan accepted the request and sent Sardar Muhammad Alam Khan, an extra assistant commissioner from the NWFP, to Gilgit. Sardar Muhammad Alam Khan then took control of the territory's administration as its first appointed political agent." - The single source is a pakistani newspaper and it cannot be accepted as a neutral source. Please come up with a non-Indian, non-Pakistani source for this story.76.218.92.239 (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've kept part of the info, but clearly attributed it to the newspaper. You are correct that relying so heavily on a single source for such a claim is questionable. You're right that we need better, more independent sources for corroboration. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Autonomous status and present-day Gilgit-Baltistan

Added the Wikipedia Internal link for the Gilgit-Baltistan United Movement The section containing Gilgit baltistan package also needs to show the reaction of various stakeholders and the reasoning for their stand on the package. The references which are from newspapers Dawn, Reuters and Dailytimes also provide further information for persons looking for a better idea on these topics. Mustihussain kindly do not remove this section.dBigXray 08:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepeshraj1 (talk • contribs)

sorry, your latest edits on "kashmir conflict"-page shows, yet again, that you push your pov rather than sticking to wp:npov. what you are doing here on this article is a clear example of wp:coatrack. you are duplicating the content from the "kashmir conflict"-page here as it suits your agenda. wikipedia is all about collaboration...and in order to have collaboration you need your fellow editors trust. this is something you won't get by you pov-edits.-- mustihussain (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The content is valid and vital for the subsection. How can you call it POV when the citations are provided from Dawn and Dailytimes Both Pakistani News sites as well as Reuters (a neutral source).I have provided both citations to improve the neutrality of the editing and not a biased one sided POV that you are pushing here. In fact it appears that you are POV pushing and deliberately reverting and deleting the content about any criticism of Pakistani Stand on Gilgit-Baltistan. Besides you keep on removing the internal wiki links and valid references and citations, so that other editors are deprived of the references to cross-check the content. What is your problem with the internal wiki links ? besides i would request you to discuss on The mentioned topic rather than indulging in Personal attacks that serve no purpose.dBigXray 10:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)dBigXray 10:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

that you're a pov-pusher and a disruptive editor has been noted by other users as well. you have no consensus either here nor on the kashmir conflict page. i wonder why? another policy you always breach is wp:npov. i don't mind criticism of the so-called pakistani stand on gilgit-baltistan but the fact that you fail yet again to mention the main demand of gilgit-baltistanis to join pakistan (as reported by reuters, indian express and other reliable sources) shows your true biased colours. your littering of the whole section with cherry-picked content from another wiki-article is not acceptable. in addition, wp:npov requires that the view of the majority of gilgit-baltistanis, who want to join pakistan as reported by reliable sources, should be more prominent than the views of certain politicians. you violate not only wp:npov but also wp:undue. finally, the current version includes criticism, rendering your allegations nonsensical -- mustihussain (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia

The 21:43, 14 December 2011‎ TopGun version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia.--Wing (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"Claimed districts"

User: Qwyrxian has removed two of the sources which I knew to be invalid; the last (http://jainbookdepot.com/servlet/jbgetbiblio?bno=007408) while not available online, is extremely unlikely to support any Pakistani claim on Kashmir as it was published in India. --Rvd4life (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCEACCESS. Offline material has to be actually accessed to verify or challenge. In anycase... Pakistan claims the Indian controlled parts of Kashmir and this area would come under this section. There might be dispute on the region but India certainly wouldn't deny that Pakistan claims the area. The claim itself is not disputed or contentious. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not debating the reliability of the sources, but the article Jammu and Kashmir does have a seperate section for "claimed districts" too for geographic purposes. Reciprocally, it makes sense that there be a section for claimed districts on the Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan articles. Mar4d (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but whether a seat for these districts is actually reserved and vacant in the Legislative areas of the respective regions is disputed. --Rvd4life (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We need to have reliable sources that verify exactly what it is that Pakistan claims. This is a claim that does not fall under the "common sense" provisions where we can forego references. I'm saying that it disputed, because we can't just take someone's word on what the government of Pakistan's official line of claim is. TopGun, can you please tell us exactly what the source says? If no one can verify what it says, and we have reason to doubt that it says what the line in the article says, then it should be removed, and we should probably remove the unverfied information as well. WP:SOURCEACCESS does not mean that when someone adds a print source we just have to automatically accept it without discussion; rather, it says that such sources are fine, but if their content is challenged, someone needs to say what the actual document says. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we'll have to ask the IP that asked for this edit (I just answered the edit request by adding the districts here) [1]. In anycase... all of Indian controlled Kashmir is claimed by Pakistan which is widely covered and even stated and referenced at Pakistan article. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

News update: http://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1695381&language=en http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/archives/archives2006/kashmir20061211d.html --Rvd4life (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Though there might be objections against that too, but how is that related to this (as the legal claim is that of GB and/or AJK and not the government of Pakistan). Infact your source actually supports the claims as AJK and GB are Kashmiris - the source says Kashmiris want to be a part of Pakistan. But then again, the claims are not related to that alone. Pakistan in anycase claims the territory as disputed. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No one has shown actual text of this book. It seem like unprove claim to be deleted