Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following to the "Population" section:

According to research published by the think tank Centre for Joint Warfare Studies, demographic change is rapidly reshaping Gilgit-Baltistan. The current ratio of outsiders to native Baltis in 2025 stands at 3.5 outsiders for every 4 native Baltis, which is forecast to become worse by 2030 when the increase of outsiders like Punjabis and Muhajirs (both of whom are predominantly Sunni) is projected to result in Baltis (who are predominantly Shia) becoming the minority. This projected shift is expected to displace the indigenous Shia Balti population from positions of political and economic power, effectively reducing their status.[1]

Thank you. 220.255.242.109 (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: The second sentence is pretty convoluted, and "become worse" is non-neutral. "reducing their status" seems charged and too vague (In what way is their "status" reduced?). Feel free to reopen the request once you made these edits. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• What I think should be changed: Hi, I think the language breakdown done by local sources should be added, it also perfectly matches the figures given by the government for the 2017 census
• Why it should be changed: It will be very helpful to people of the and interested in the region and it shows the complexity of the region
• Refrences supporting the change:^[1] , ^[2]

Ricky dickler (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2025 (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. You need to propose the actual text that you would like inserted into the page. It cannot be copy-pasted directly from the website. SI09 (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nanga Parbat The Killer Mountain.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi, I think adding a piechart to the "Languages" section of this page according to the data given on this source is useful and provides insight into the region. Add a piechart like the one here and a para preceding it saying:

"In Gilgit Baltistan, approximately 37.92% of the total population speaks Balti, followed closely by 35.86% Shina speakers  and 17.07% Burushaski speakers. Khowar and Wakhi, though less prevalent, shares 3.16% and 2.48% of the linguistic landscape in the region. Other languages, including Domaki, Gojri, and Urdu, represent 3.53%. Balti is the most spoken language in Baltistan, Shina in Diamer, and Burushaski in Gilgit Division.[1] Ricky dickler (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment: There are already quite a lot of images in the article. A pie chart may make the problem worse, although I agree it's a good addition. Maybe some excess images need to be removed Newbzy (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

i respectfully disagree, if the goal is making the article shorter than maybe creating new pages such as the "history of gilgit baltistan" and "demographics of gilgit baltistan" are a better avenue Ricky dickler (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done: Given no serious objections raised over its addition pie chart have been added, along with removal of unnecessary cluster of images. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Kautilya3, you've restored the tag indicating there's an active dispute regarding the "Under Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir" section, but I don't see any dispute taking place. It's also not clear what specific content needs to be added to resolve the issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The template says {{POV section|date=December 2021|reason=All aspects of the region under the princely state need to be covered in this section}}

There is nothing in the section about the Gilgit region. Whoever wrote that section didn't know much about how the pricely state was administered. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi: I do have an issue on your current idea of the government as a simple Parliamentary government

1. this rejects the current order that is commonly used in infoboxes (Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy, Federal presidential republic, and Unitary parliamentary republic as some examples)

1. Articles like Bangsamoro are more detailed on what governmental system it operates under, and doesn't look plan the compared to parliamentary government.

From where I live in, it's late at night and expect for me to respond later so make sure to get your reasoning on why you think that we should have it as "Parliamentary government".

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I'm getting what exactly you're disputing here since I believe my edit summary was sufficient for the rationale. For starters, what are your sources which call Gilgit-Baltistan "a republic" and "self-governing"? Sutyarashi (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

1. For your question about the republic part.
   1. I couldn't find any sources referring to Gilgit-Baltistan as a republic, so you're right. But I do want to say that it's a territory instead as we usually don't do add government in the infobox, at least for the countries.
2. But about the self-governing part, let me share some sources about it.
   1. The two self-governing administrative territories of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan form part of the disputed Kashmir region.
   2. Although both regions are touted as "self-governing entities," the reality is far from it. Azad Kashmir, Pakistan-Administered Kashmir is under Islamabad's direct influence through a powerful bureaucratic machinery.
   3. Gilgit-Baltistan, formerly known as Northern Areas, Karakoram, and Hindukush is a semiautonomous and partially self-governing region of Northern Pakistan.
   4. Gilgit-Baltistan, an internationally disputed region in Northern Pakistan, might be an “autonomous self-governing region” on paper. In reality, however, the area is in a political limbo: even though Islamabad claims it as part of its territory, Gilgit-Baltistan is being subjected to political and constitutional exclusion and denied any meaningful representation in the country’s parliament.
   5. The order granted self-rule to the people of Gilgit-Baltistan, by creating, among other institutions, an elected Gilgit-Baltistan Legislative Assembly and Gilgit-Baltistan Council. Gilgit-Baltistan thus gained a de facto province-like status without constitutionally becoming part of Pakistan. (Not meaning to cite wikipedia, I'm trying to highlight that even the article itself directly state itself that Gilgit-Baltistan is self-governing^[a])

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no de-jure autonomy in case of Gilgit-Baltistan. If anything, three of these sources contradict the claims of self-governing. Sutyarashi (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Don't you mean 2? I only see 3 sources that directly state that Gilgit-Baltistan is self-governing (1, 3, and 5 specifically)

The sources can clash with each other and we have to maintain WP:NPOV, so according to Wikipedia:Conflicting sources, we would have to:

1. Prefer up-to-date sources
2. Report all significant viewpoints
3. Omit unimportant details

So we would be required to get more sources and use the criteria listed in order to find a conclusion about it. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Calling it "self-governing" or "autonomous" is against NPOV since multiple RS describe it as contrary. The third source further calls it only partially autonomous. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

A potential proposal: both of us would get 10 to 15 sources that explicitly state informations that support our claims about Gilgit-Baltistan. We then get someone from WP:3O to assess our examples and then choose on who has the more convincing argument.

This seems a pretty good way to solve this polite dispute, what do you think of it about it though? GuesanLoyalist (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Sources you shared are enough. Feel free to ask for 3O, though. Sutyarashi (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I provided with 5, so is it possible for you to find five sources to back your claim as well? I want to give some due weight for your claim and have equal arguments for the WP:30 to examine, and then have them come up with a conclusion.

Note: if you want to find things on the internet that directly use a certain word or phrase, you can go to google, add said word in quotation marks, and search. For example, if I were to search for websites that say the word Hamster, I would search up "Hamster" on google with the quote marks. For more features like this, use the advanced search tool if you can.

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I know how web search works. It is unnecessary since above quotes support my objections. You can go ahead with 3O. Sutyarashi (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright, will do about that! GuesanLoyalist (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

 RESPONSE TO THIRD OPINION REQUEST

@GuesanLoyalist and @Sutyarashi; Before rendering an opinion, I always prefer to ask participants to distill their best arguments into a single paragraph; it also serves as an opportunity to include any last-minute arguments that you may have thought of. Obviously I will read everything here, as well, I just like having two concise summaries to reference if-needed.  — MWFwiki (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The five sources that I have gotten here directly state some sort of de jure autonomy for Gilgit-Baltistan. Another reason on why I believe in my option about this is because just Parliamentary government isn't how we usually describe the government within an infobox, we do instead something more like Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy, Federal presidential republic, Unitary semi-presidential republic. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't need to await Sutyarashi's response. Sutyarashi, you have been asked at least once to produce sources to support your position. You have supplied pure opinion, instead. You may very well be 100% correct. It matters little, for our purposes. I feel @GuesanLoyalist has met the burden which WP:ONUS places upon them. Enough sources have been shown to provide that at least a mention of some sort along GuesanLoyalist's way of thinking is merited.

Now, in all fairness, considering that two of the proffered sources contest this autonomy, I do feel that some form of compromise wording is necessary. I don't mind "de jure" but I prefer not to use it/de facto unless I can locate sources using it. I also don't like utilizing it as we should be writing in an easily understood manner; those of us that didn't grow-up playing Paradox Interactive games aren't likely to know what those two terms mean. Yes, we can wiki-link them, but then we get seas of blue like: "de jure autonomous unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy". I suppose we can place "de jure" in parentheses. Regardless, I'm open to hearing options. It may be as simple as:

"Self-governing (disputed)[insert an explanatory footnote which provides the sources which call it 'self-governing'/'autonomous' and explain why this may not be accurate, with sources] parliamentary republic within a federal parliamentary republic"

Calling it "autonomous" or "self-governing" is not an NPOV violation. If anything, it would be a WP:V violation (which it isn't, here).

All of this being said, GuesanLoyalist, I do wish to point-out two quick items:

• What is done on other articles doesn't really matter. WP:OTHERCONTENT explains it well enough. Local consensus stays local, unless consensus takes it wider and solidifies it via policy or an RfC.
• Nit-picking, but; Please only use underlining to indicate when you have added content via an edit. Otherwise, stick to italics (preferably) and boldface (secondarily) for emphasis.  — MWFwiki (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I really like the compromise that you gave out @MWFwiki for the de jure thing, but I am aware of WP:OVERLINK so I only plan to link some stuff in it, something like:

Autonomous^[a] parliamentary republic within a federal parliamentary republic

And then we could add a note that would go like this:

But to be fair for WP:COMPARE, I couldn't find any sort of wikipedia guideline or consensus about doing the type of description on government for countries and subnational governments (Feels like some sort of unwritten rule that I didn't get to check about) so it can get really difficult to go "I think we should do this" without comparing other articles.

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

That's fine, but I would prefer to see the sources inside the EFN, as I mentioned. Both sets.

I don't blame you for being hesitant where policy doesn't cover you. In such cases, you take it to the Talk page for consensus. If people respond, great; you follow the rough or preferably general consensus. If no one responds, great; you claim consensus via silence and do what you will. It can be annoying, but it is preferable over being called-out for having no backing via policy.  — MWFwiki (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

​ MWFwiki, I don't know which opinion you are talking about but I mostly agree with you. However regarding the phrasing proposed by GuesanLoyalist, I have following objections:

• Firstly, Gilgit-Baltistan is not a republic, no source describes it as such, as agreed by GuesanLoyalist above. The term "territory" maybe more accurate here.
• Second, the usage of de-jure implies some kind of constitutional guarantee or provision regarding its status. Unless sources can be provided for existence of such constitutional clauses, it is original research, at best.
• Lastly, the status of autonomy is disputed among sources. Two of them (or three, counting one calling it only "partially" autonomous) reject the notion. I don't see how its addition to the lede section is justified. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@GuesanLoyalist talk page discussion is still going on and so please avoid readding content until consensus is reached. You have also inserted "republic" back even though this was accepted as OR. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I thought that MWFwiki agreed with my side, thus reaching a consensus. I do apologise for my premature action to do so. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

But to be fair, is Gilgit-Baltistan supposed to be some sort of monarchy? if it's not a republic? Also while I wouldn't mind having "territory" in the name, I changed my view on it and now think that we should avoid putting "territory" if possible as being a territory isn't some form of government. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

It is not a republic, that much is clear. Its status is closer to a province than a republic (see government section of the article). Sutyarashi (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Calling gilgit Baltistan a republic is probably funniest thing I've heard so far. Lorem Ipsum maximus (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

De jure can also be used for things "on paper" (what is meant to happen in theory), so I wouldn't be wrong to do so GuesanLoyalist (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@GuesanLoyalist — I'm not opining on the use of "republic", merely on the use of "self-governing" or "autonomous". We don't have consensus for anything yet, save for that part; I should have made that clearer. As far as what type of government we describe it as, I'm open to hearing alternatives, @Sutyarashi, and I will review the proffered sources. If there are discrepancies among the sources, we note the discrepancy. I agree that we should limit the use of "de jure" if at all possible to source-able mentions, otherwise yes, it smacks of OR. De jure and de facto are utilized a little to freely on Wikipedia.  — MWFwiki (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Given its disputed status the term "autonomous" should be dropped altogether. I suggest the following phrasing:

• parliamentary territory within a constitutional federation

or, dropping the term "territory":

• unicameral parliamentary legislature within a constitutional federation. Sutyarashi (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

unicameral parliamentary legislature within a constitutional federation wouldn't work as well since we also don't use "Unicaremel" and "legislature" when describing a subnational entity. Gilgit Baltistan isn't some sort of big legislative assembly, it has it's own government and is basically de jure autonomous. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Why government type cannot be described as unicameral legislature? And what sources call it "de-jure" autonomous? Sutyarashi (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Gilgit-Baltistan is a subnational entity of Pakistan, not a legislative body. The descriptions of "unicameral" and "legislature" should only be for when talking about legislative bodies and would not make sense to use.

And for the "de jure" thing that you talk about, MWFwiki suggested it as a compromise as the sources state something contradicting each other. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

In that case I propose first phrasing. If there are conflicting sources, the characterisation as "autonomous" should be dropped. Infobox is meant to summarise not to place all of the information. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I think we should then consider getting 10 sources that support our claim about Gilgit-Baltistan's autonomy

I get 10 sources that state that Gilgit-Baltistan is autonomous/self-governing while you get 10 sources that state otherwise. We then compare said sources and say on which is reliable or not. (and we may even ping MWFwiki again as a form of tiebreaker) GuesanLoyalist (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy-tagging @Sutyarashi — Given the contentiousness, I would not mind seeing a collection of sources. However, if a few strong sources utilize the term "autonomous" or "self-governing", I think we have enough to at least mention it, possibly as I suggested in my response, above; or we add an EFN about its disputed autonomy. E.g.: Wicked interesting government type^[a]

I would really prefer to avoid "de jure" unless we explicitly have sources which utilize it. As I said, I think it used slightly too freely on Wikipedia... but I also acknowledge that is likely a personal bias. Regardless, yes, I think "de jure" should be a last resort as a compromise. It's not that I think it's a bad or useless term, but as I stated earlier, I think it's a bit archaic and I don't like freely using terms that aren't supported by sources.

Sutyarashi, do you have a policy-based argument as to why the sources which utilize "autonomous" or "self-governing" should be discarded entirely? I cede that at least two of the sources cited above do indeed explicitly state that the autonomy is questionable (at-best). However, two of the sources don't say that. Furthermore, I see some support for the term. There is even light support for "self-governing" (this actually utilizes both terms). Just so we are clear, as long as the sources are reliable, simply because one source goes more in-depth into a certain aspect doesn't invalidate what the other source says. Now, if it can be shown that two sources say "autonomous/self-governing" and dozens of sources (or what have you) say it's not, then yes, that would be weighed appropriately.

As for what, precisely, the region is referred to (beyond the "autonomous" part), I will definitely need to see some sources on that. Just a very quick search on my behalf doesn't turn-up much in support of "republic".  — MWFwiki (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The best result that I could find was from https://www.dawn.com/news/1587950 and https://tribune.com.pk/story/2581514/gilgit-baltistan-some-history-some-future that there once was a "Islamic Republic of Gilgit" but that should be long gone now? Ehh, we'll go with territory then.

Just to add further evidence that Gilgit-Baltistan is autonomous, this pdf directly stated that On 29 August 2009, the Gilgit Baltistan Empowerment and Self-Governance Order 2009, was passed by the Pakistani cabinet and later on signed by the President of Pakistan. The order granted self-rule to the people of the former ‘Northern Areas’, now renamed Gilgit Baltistan, by creating, among other things, an elected legislative assembly. There has been criticism and opposition to this move in Gilgit Baltistan region as the Gilgit Baltistan United Movement, while rejecting the new package, demanded that an independent and autonomous legislative assembly for Gilgit Baltistan should be formed with the installation of local authoritative government as per the UNCIP resolutions, where the people of Gilgit Baltistan can elect their own President and Prime Minister. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

My argument was really based on a number of sources which describe it only partially or on paper autonomous. I think as a compromise, instead of de-jure, "nominally" can be used:

nominally self-governing territory

I do not have any objections over the rest. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy-tagging @GuesanLoyalist; Okay, so, let's try "Nominally self-governing territory", see how it looks with sources. We don't want to attach an EFN anywhere? I, personally, wouldn't mind seeing one after "nominally self-governing", but that's just me.

Part of the "republic" issue is that it's fairly rare for sovereign republics to contain republics as political subdivisions within them. The only exception, off the top of my head is Russia (which is a big exception, granted). Even the United States, each 50 states is Constitutionally mandated to be founded on republican principles but none are explicitly identified as "republics", last I checked. This is all OR, but my point is that sources will tend to shy-away from using the term "republic" within a sovereign "republic", in my opinion. From the sources I've seen, "territory" seems to be the most commonly-utilized term.  — MWFwiki (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll agree to that compromise as per my previous message GuesanLoyalist (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree, but what about Nominally self-governing parliamentary territory within a federal parliamentary republic instead? GuesanLoyalist (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I am fine with it, although it does read a bit verbose. Sutyarashi (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah... I'm not entirely convinced we need that last part, @GuesanLoyalist. Do political subdivisions normally read as-such?  — MWFwiki (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I would like to give out an example and all, but due to the policy at WP:COMPARE that you told me about, that's very discouraged. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Eh. When there's nothing else to go off of, I don't mind. Short of policy or a strong RfC, I think content consistency can be a marginally decent of settling things, particularly if they're strong articles. At this point, it's just us three trying to form consensus, so, we can expand our horizons a bit.  — MWFwiki (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright them, I can see it on articles such as Hong Kong, Macau, and Bangsamoro where there is also some sort of within a [INSERT SYSTEM OF HOME COUNTRY] such as Unitary communist state or Unitary presidential republic GuesanLoyalist (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Alrighty, well, if @Sutyarashi doesn't have any objections or alternatives, i think we can call it a day.  — MWFwiki (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with the present version. Thank you for your input in this matter. Regards. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Glad we could all reach an agreement for this, thank you all for discussion this with me GuesanLoyalist (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)