Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan

India WikiLink in lead section

Hey @SheriffIsInTown,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notable Scholars

Dr. Ali Gohar from Nagar, Gilgit-Baltistan, is widely regarded as the first documented PhD holder from the region. He completed his PhD in 2003 at the University of Bath, UK, with a thesis on sustainable forest management in Northern Pakistan. Kamil Abbas hasnain (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Is this the same person you are talking about? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

References

Edits to link and terminology of "Domaki"

Hello!

I have noticed what I believe to be an error within the list of languages. "Domaki" is listed as one of the languages spoken in Gilgit-Baltistan and links to the article Doma (caste). I believe this is an error. "Domaki" in this context is presumably referencing the Dawoodi language, which is spoken by the Doma, and the term is a slur against the Doma people. This is information I found on the article Dawoodi Language, which has a source for its claim. I am unsure how to link to the original referenced source (sorry).

In summation: Under languages, "Domaki" should maybe be replaced to Dawoodi, and also link to the Wikipedia article Dawoodi language.

This is my first comment on Wikipedia, so I hope I have done this correctly.

Thank you! Dartzcz (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The link to Domaki in this article is imprecise, indeed, as the text is about the language while the link leads to an article on people. As long as we do not have an article on "Domaki language", I agree the link should be changed to the separate article on "Dawoodi language" until the situation changes.

However, what the name of that article itself should be as opposed to a redirect page, is a matter of discussion. The name Dawoodi is adopted from a research project page stating the speakers consulted for the research had asked for their language/community to be called Dawoodi instead of Domaki/similar, as it feels derogatory. It is questionable whether all the communities speaking this language even know this idea to call it Dawoodi, as well as for how long this decision will prevail. In previous scholarly literature, as well as official materials, the language is called by its traditional names derived from the ethnonym Dom(b). Yak-indolog (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2025

I wish to edit this page as i want to add the kyrgyz language in the language section as it is spoken in Gojal primarily speaking the Pamiri kyrgyz dialect. 116.71.30.248 (talk) 09:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Day Creature (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Adding Language Breakdown

A spoken languages breakdown was done by local demographers here if an administrator would kindly add it Ricky dickler (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

This is really interesting. The author has estimated the number of speakers for each language in Gilgit-Baltistan based on household multi indicator cluster survey 2017, and the writer used 2017 census data for estimation. Bearing in mind the limited data, I would be inclined to say that it should be added to the article with a pie chart, but I would be interested to hear other people's opinions. نعم البدل (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd say: After checking if the author extracted the data correctly from the 2017 census, it would be useful to include the table or a pie based on it in the article, stating the method and linking source article.

If you have the editing rights, may I suggest you also tackle the issue of the Domaki language link (see the relevant topic here: it leads to an article on a people, not language, as we currently do not have any article named Domaki language, while we have and article on "Dawoodi language", a recent, limited-use, neologism for the same) Yak-indolog (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2025

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. 

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)