Talk:Baltistan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment[edit]

I propose adding a list of villages in Baltistan to the list. As a Balti, it would be interesting to me, to see how many villages there are and possibly a map to see what villages are around the one I'm from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.106.30 (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain whether this is against some Wiki-policy[edit]

So best I ask... I've got this Baltistan page in my watch list and see an edit come up linking to www.k2international.com.pk, what appears to be a commercial outlet. Does this go against the grain of Wikipedia or is this an unobjectonable addition? Feel free to enlighten me. Qwrk (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


{{editsemiprotected}} I suggest that 'islamic republic of pakistan' be changed to 'the Islamic Republic of Pakistan'.

 Done Thank you!  fetchcomms☛ 01:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

interwiki[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} please add an interwiki for hi:बलतसतान

Done Favonian (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please add to page[edit]

Please add the following to the page, or create a template for it:

The template is here. Frietjes (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 92.8.202.26, 18 June 2010[edit]

{{tn| Where said "is a region in northern Pakistan", please add "and India" as the paragraph below explains that the region has been divided between the two states. Here is a sufficient reference also, [1]

92.8.202.26 (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until we have a source for this, there is not a need to change the article. Please let us know when you have a good source, and we will make the change. Wordpress is not a reliable source. :)
 Not done Avicennasis @ 02:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a better reference: [2]. Thanks. --92.8.202.26 (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, thanks. Chzz  ►  15:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done {{editsemiprotected}} This has been reverted by a user, please reinstate the requested addition.

Done I don't know why the person said it wasn't in the source. That being said, the source isn't very reliable overall (not just for India, but also for Pakistan), so it would be great it if we got a better source here and for the rest of the article.

{{editsemiprotected}} Hello there, I've had a second look at this very vague source and must confess, there is no mention of Baltistan falling into Indian-administered territory. The source is simply some random research clipping talking about cross-border interaction between Baltistan and Kargil (which as I take it, falls into Ladakh in Indian-administered Kashmir: a completely different region from Baltistan; the information that Kargil is in Baltistan in the second paragraph of the article is unsourced, self-inserted and should probably be removed). In fact, the source itself very explicitly states the location of Baltistan; here's an extract from this very source:

For several years Dr. Magnusson has been involved in Tibetan studies, looking especially at the social dynamics and development of the Tibetan refugee community in India. He has also initiated a research project dealing with the so called Baltistan movement and the revival of Tibetan identity in Baltistan (an area located in the north eastern part of Pakistan).

There are also no reliable or Indian government sources that I can find on the net which indicate the contrary (i.e. that there is an 'Indian-administered Baltistan' and Kargil falls into it). I have temporarily moved the Indian mention into a seperate sentence in the first paragraph, and unless no source is given to respond to my dispute, I am challenging removal. Mar4d (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: You can edit the article yourself, no need to use the editsemiprotected template. -Atmoz (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some sources. --RaviC (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noorbakhshia Youth Federation[edit]

Is not WP:RS. please stop adding it. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map inaccuracy[edit]

It is not clear what the map in the article is showing. It should either show the present-day Baltistan region (dark blue portion) or the pre-1947 Baltistan district as shown, e.g., in Schofield's book. The present map is neither here nor there. This is a serious problem. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I now have authentic information that Kargil has never been part of `Baltistan' and its native people are not `Baltis'.
  • Ladakh and Purig frequently fought to control the Kashmir trade in the 17th and 18th centuries and, in these conflicts, the chiefdoms of Purig often allied themselves with the chiefships of Baltistan, who shared their Muslim faith (Petech 1977:102ff). Nevertheless, by 1758, Purig was permanently incorporated into the Ladakh kingdom and Leh was established as the centre of power and trade in the kingdom (Petech 1977:105 & 110).[1]
  • In Kargil itself, the ethnic group of Baltis is specifically taken to include those sections of its population that once migrated from Baltistan or residents from villages such as Kharul and Karkidchu that were culturally Balti but were ceded to Kargil when the Ceasefire Line was drawn...most of the Baltis that settled in Kargil town were from the Kharmang valley in Baltistan... Even though it was handed to the Pakistani side after the Partition, inhabitants from this area working in Kargil town as traders, government employees, laborers and students stayed behind on the Indian side.[2]
Accordingly, I will get rid of all references to Kargil on this page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Grist, Nicola (1998), Local Politics in the Suru Valley of North India (Ph. D. dissertation), Department of Anthropology, Goldsmiths' College, p. 15
  2. ^ Aggarwal, Ravina (2004), Beyond Lines of Control: Performance and Politics on the Disputed Borders of Ladakh, India, Duke University Press, p. 199, ISBN 0-8223-3414-3

Country[edit]

Baltistan is a region of which territory lies on both sides of the LoC.

One example is the village of Turtuk. A simple Google search confirms this.

"Claimed by Pakistan after the end of British rule in 1947, Turtuk was annexed to India in 1971 during the Indo-Pakistani war, when the province of Baltistan was partitioned between the two countries." - BBC Travel

"Turtuk, in Ladakh district, is in the Indian-administered part of the Baltistan region and borders Pakistan’s Gilgit-Baltistan area." Scroll.in

"At the edge of Baltistan, enclosed by the Karakoram mountain range with the Shyok flowing in the valley below, Turtuk was one of four villages captured by Indian forces" Open Magazine

--RaviC (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need a better source than a travel guide to say that "Baltistan was partitioned". In my opinion, Turtuk is not that large an area to warrant the term "partitioned". But I am willing to stand corrected if there are scholars that use the term. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether the terminology of partition or not applies, it's certainly a fact that parts of the erstwhile Baltistan division are now within the Leh and Kargil districts of India. Your source (Schofield's book), shows this. --RaviC (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can't make inferences from vague hand-drawn maps used for illustrative purposes. It would have to be a proper cartographic map, or it should be stated in words.
There is no official definition of "Baltistan". Neither was there a "Baltistan division". There was a Ladakh district in the princely state, with three tehsils: Leh, Skardu and Kargil. It is reasonable to take the Skardu tehsil to be "Baltistan" because Skardu was the pre-eminent of city of the region. If you have information that substantial portions of the Skardu tehsil came under Indian control, please provide it. Then we can discuss. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Baltistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turtuk[edit]

Turtuk was taken back from pakistan's illegal occupation by Indian Army during 1971 Indo-Pak War, it was illegal because it was under area of kashmir which was surrendered to India through Instrument of accession signed by region's King. It is now part of Indian Administration. The user Kautilya3's objection is baseless, may be user lacks information regarding article. I suggest country should be changed to India. Kswarrior (talk) KLS 16:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kswarrior, The "objection" (in the section #Country above) is that Baltistan is not an administrative unit. If you disagree, please provide a WP:RS that says otherwise.
As for legal/illegal, "occupation" etc., again we need reliable sources, in fact multiple sources, because they are value-laden WP:LABELs. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For you objections, I am providing you sources where you can find terms clearly mentioned as "Administrative unit" of a country:- 1- https://www.britannica.com/place/Kashmir-region-Indian-subcontinent 2- Gilgit-Baltistan is not state according to Constitution of Pakistan, Pakistan SC questions Pak Gov about region's Constitutional status Ref- https://www.dawn.com/news/1456060 3. Illegal occupation is stated because of region was captured without being party in the dealing for accession by India from its king. For this resources are in public and also provided in the article itself. -- Kswarrior (talk) KLS 17:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do know that Gilgit-Baltistan is an administrative territory, and it is described as such on its page. But Baltistan, the subject of this page, is not called an administrative territory, which is what your edit did.
For "illegal occupation", I am afraid you need a source that says exactly that. No WP:SYNTHESIS is permitted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, the recently created article Battle of Turtuk could possibly do with a bit of review. – Uanfala (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Baltistan Division into Baltistan[edit]

Very similar regions. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 09:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Ytpks896 (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Political divisions are not identical to the geographic regions after which they are named, not least because the boundaries of the former are far more rigid than the latter. Who's to say that the historical land of Baltistan is delimited by the boundaries drawn by Islamabad currently? The fact that the other article is a stub can be fixed easily and is not, by itself, a reason to merge. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing given the uncontested counter-arguments and stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time to hunt down the etymology[edit]

I added an explanation of the etymology of baltistan. it seems so simple that there are no research papers or the like for it. only source was an quora answer: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-etymology-of-Gilgit-Baltistan-region-of-Pakistan https://www-jstor-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/stable/41926824?seq=6 -> this article from 1969 hints that the regions name (Baltistan) was not created by the Balti people, however it sources 5 E. Chavannes, Documents sur les Tou-kiue occidentaux, St. Petersburg 1903, p. 149 seqq; W. Fuchs, Huei-ch'ao's Pilgerreise durch Nordwest- Indien und Zentralasien, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, Phil. -hist. Klasse 1938, Berlin 1939, p. 20/21 , of which I could not find any trace of it (only people linking to it) online, or in my universities database Sjobenrit (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baltistan&oldid=1219532380"