82.132.238.135 (talk) |
|||
Line 228: | Line 228: | ||
*'''Comment''' I just reverted an IP sock of Nangparbat and have requested semi protection, Re the content dispute I have to agree with Mar4d,the dispute in the area really has little bearing on this mountain. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 19:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''' I just reverted an IP sock of Nangparbat and have requested semi protection, Re the content dispute I have to agree with Mar4d,the dispute in the area really has little bearing on this mountain. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 19:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
I have to agree with the banned ip this is mountain for crying out loud not a political bashing box for nationalists Mr T with respect your logic is terribly flawed I have removed your edit since itbis purely tenditious and does no good to betyering the article nationalists must detest from this sort of editing |
|||
== Protest these page protections == |
== Protest these page protections == |
Revision as of 07:00, 24 February 2013
![]() | Mountains C‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | Pakistan C‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
|
If anyone is interested and thinks this is worthy of an update, there's a story over at the BBC about a climber who got stuck up there:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4137160.stm
Nanga Parbat not deadliest peak
Annapurna has a higher death/summit ratio.
Some changes/additions
I changed a few things:
Spelling: Rakhiot, not Raikot.
I changed "vertical cliff" to "mountain face" since "vertical cliff" implies dead vertical, which this is not.
I corrected the statement about the vertical rise above the Indus: it's actually greater than was stated before, and it happens in 27km; but a few other peaks do actually rise 7000m in slightly less distance (e.g. Manaslu, Annapurna I).
I also added a couple of links; in particular, summitpost.org is usually much, much better than Peakware.
I may come back and flesh out the history at some point.
--Spireguy 03:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I have added that "among the eight-thousanders, it is the largest single mountain. It is so large a mountain that let's say you cannot see k-2 peak from the top of nanga perbat but nanga perbat will be in prominent view from the top of k-2. Similarly nanga perbat also can be viewed from very far off places. It is due to its very LARGE size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khuramonline (talk • contribs) 07:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Added more climbing history
I just hit the highlights; I may come back and add one or two more entries.
Also, I changed the comment about deadliness to reflect the fact that in recent years NP has not been as deadly as other 8000ers (e.g. Annapurna, as the comment above noted).
I am also suspicious about the Sherpa/"Maneater" line---I have not seen this documented, and the Sherpas don't live anywhere near. So I hedged it a bit but did not remove it. --Spireguy 19:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Seven Years in Tibet
I'm not sure that Nanga Parbat really does appear in the movie. The IMDB does not list Pakistan as a filming location (although that could be their omission). I haven't seen the movie so I can't say for sure. -- Spireguy 19:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Fairy Meadow
I am proposing that Fairy Meadow Nanga Parbat be merged into this article; it's good info but I don't think it needs to stand alone. It would make a good section here. -- Spireguy 14:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that both pages be merged. Siddiqui 15:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I dont agree with this suggestion, as many of the tourists have attraction for fairy meadows itself apart from nanga parbat, like those who don't want to climb the nanga parbat but wish to know and visit fairy meadows. and more info can be added to this article, as i will do in near future as i recently visited the place and have some updated info. (Mgu1981 (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC))
Fairy Meadow -2
Mr Spireguy. Thanks. I tried to write article about Fairy Meadow but could not as the name is already there. Can it possible that Fairy Meadow use twice. I have to add Nanga Parbat for article.
Well Fairy Meadow has its own attraction. I have gone there twice. Many people dream to go Fairy Meadow. It is many kilometres away from the base camp as you can see in the picture.
I'm a bit suspicious about the Fairy Meadow section, it has been rewritten in a manner that looks rather like attempted advertising to me, or least contains duplicate sections and 'micro-local' information. I have contented myself with correcting the language, however, it would be good if someone who has been there would like to rewrite it Summitscribbler 11:56, 25 May 2007
There are two Fairy Meadow articles as noted here. Both were very similar and, as noted elsewhere, had microlocal content that looked very much like advertising. I have cleaned up one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_Meadows,_Nanga_Parbat) although it needs further work. The other (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_Meadow_Nanga_Parbat) has been left. The latter should be deleted and/or merged into the former. I'm not sure whether the former should be merged into Nanga Parbat, and leave that to the discretion of others.
Rakhiot or Raikot
I am puzzled too that why a neighbouring peak of Nanga Parbat in an article is named as Rakhiot. I am not sure 100% but upto 80% that the exact word is Raikot. Raikot Bridge is just few kilometer away from this place on the Indus River where karakoram Highway changed its direction along the river.
Rai + kot are common words in the whole sub continent. Rai is an indo european word and even can be found in european languages.
Rai = king, kot = fortress. There are many towns in India Pakistan where this word is used for example Sialkot etc.
Rai becomes Real in Spanish and Royal and Regal in English.
Thanks for you invitation to wikimountain group. I am new at wikipedia. I am seeing the environment. Will participate.
- Thanks for participating! "Rakhiot" is the spelling used in most European and American climbing literature, and it appears on the German topographic map from the 30's: Rakhiot Peak, Rakhiot flank of the mountain, Rakhiot bridge. If you have a source for the spelling "Raikot", feel free to make the change and cite the source. However if you are just 80% sure, or even if you are more sure but have no source, don't make the change. The key is that content is supposed to be verifiable, i.e. you can cite an authoritative source for it. -- Spireguy 17:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please just write Raikot Peak in google search and you will easily find abundant sources about Raikot Peak. Those early Germans must have misunderstood the word.
- You are probably correct, but note that Google Searches for "Raikot Nanga Parbat" and "Rakhiot Nanga Parbat" turn up just about the same number of hits. So that's not conclusive. On a cursory look, I didn't see anything that looked like it would lead to an authoritative source--a source that relies on documented, reliable research--but maybe I didn't look hard enough.
- It may well be that most of the "Rakhiot" hits derive ultimately from the German sources. But it may possibly be the case that the original word was Rakhiot (perhaps in an obscure local dialect?) and later got misinterpreted as Raikot. I'm not trying to be negative, but just pointing out that it is hard to be sure unless you can point to an authoritative source. The page WP:Verifiable is a useful guide here. -- Spireguy 22:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly 1998 when I went to Nangaparbat base camp. There I met a German scientist Mr Oswald who was a senior scientist at CERN laboratories Switzerland. And my God he also had 1930's map of Nanga Parbat.
- Yes, this might still be the best topographic map of the mountain; I know of no better one. Many mountain areas are still poorly surveyed. However, recent advances might supersede it if that hasn't happened already. -- Spireguy 22:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Pakistan/India issue
I reverted the change in the location section back to Pakistan, but I put yet another footnote in that section (which should have been there already, sorry). I realize that this is a touchy issue, but the de facto jurisdiction of the peak belongs to Pakistan, so it makes more sense to say it is in Pakistan in the main body of the article, but also carefully footnote the Indian claim. Anyone concerned about this may want to look at the K2 page and Talk:K2, as this was discussed there and it seemed to come to a consensus. -- Spireguy 03:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I see that an editor has removed some of the instances of the footnote about the disputed status, characterizing them as redundant and POV. I'm not going to revert the change, since I think that it may well be appropriate only to mention the issue once. But the original reason for having multiple instances was that this is a touchy issue, as I mentioned above, and hence I figured that footnoting any place mentioning the location was the safest strategy. I realize that can come across as POV-pushing for the Indian claim, but it was not intended that way. Other editors can comment if they like about which strategy is preferred. -- Spireguy 18:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I must apologize for editing before discussion. I agree with footnoting the issue. But repeating the same footnote each time doesn't seem appropriate. As on History of Pakistan discussion, I would suggest using the expression once in the article at a suitable place.--IslesCapeTalk 00:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Translation Error?
"Buhl continued alone, after his companions had turned back, and spent a night standing up on the descent"
I think that in German to stand up is to wake up, and this sentence doesn't really make sense in it's current form. Can anybody who actually speaks german verify that this is a translation error? -- nuffin (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's a translation error. This is in an English-language source. The point is that he had to bivouac on the descent, but he had so little clothing or equipment for such a bivy that he had to stay standing up to keep warm. Should we make that clearer? -- Spireguy (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- He was indeed standing upright, and his own account in Nanga Parbat Pilgrimage bears out that he was on a small ledge with barely room for his feet. I don't think it was the temperature that kept him upright - he mentions trying to reach a larger ledge where he's hae had room to sit or lie down, but darkness overtook him too quickly. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
31 deaths pre-1953?
I wonder if I'm missing something? Mummery and two companions died in 1896, ten people in 1934 and 16 in 1937. That makes 29. The accounts of the 1932, 1938 and 1939 expeditions that I've read don't mention any deaths (apart from Rand Herron, who died falling off the Great Pyramid of Giza on the way back from the 1932 expedition, which I don't think counts), so what are the other two? The number 31 does seem to be fairly widely quoted, including by John Hunt in his introduction to the account of the 1953 expedition, so it's not just something which a newspaper has copied from Wikipedia, but I'm wondering whether I've missed something, or whether it's one of these mistakes which has been repeated so often it's become the truth? Can anyone help? Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind - worked it out. A couple of British climbers disappeared low on the mountain in 1950 while studying glaciers. As they weren't actually attempting to climb it I'll adjust the wording of the article to avoid any confusion. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
External Link
I posted an external link http://www.ali.net.pk it got deleted!! there is nothing wrong on that page why it got deleted?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaar19 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you read our guidelines on external links. That webpage seems to exist mainly to promote a business - "At Fairy Meadows best option for stay is Raikot Serai run by Rehmat Nabi, log cabins are available having the fascinating views of Nanga Parbat..." and so on. As such, it's unsuitable under point 5. Additionally, it's not at all obvious that the page meets the definition of a reliable source; it looks like a self-published website, and while there's nothing inherently bad about self published websites, Wikipedia practice is generally not to link to them, because they don't add anything to the article, and an encyclopaedia is not the same thing as a web directory. As the guideline notes, in general external links in an article should be kept to a minimum, and used only if they provide important information which could not reasonably be included in the article itself. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 20:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- This was also discussed at the Help Desk: [1]. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 01:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit request from 84.186.156.6, 31 March 2010
{{editsemiprotected}}
Would you please be so kind to remove Salewa in the part shown below, the movie was made by director Joseph Vilsmaier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Vilsmaier) and is - by the way - only based on the books of Reinhold Messner
Movies
Nanga Parbat (2010) A movie by Salewa about the tragic expedition by the two Messner brothers in 1970, on which Reinhold Messner's younger brother Günther died [1][2].
84.186.156.6 (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Done Welcome and thanks. I also removed the imdb.com reference, since it is known to be unreliable. Cheers, Celestra (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from 95.244.205.31, 20 June 2010
In Sanskrit "mountain" is "parvata (पर्वत)", not "parvat"
95.244.205.31 (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Done Done. Qwrk (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Jozef, 12 August 2010
Would you be so kind add the successful Slovak expedition of 1971 to the list of ascents? Two climbers, Michal Orolin and Ivan Fiala, reached the summit.
Done Done. Qwrk (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Typo right above "References in popular culture"
Nanga is spelled Naga and I cannot edit the page because of protection.
Also, the sentence "Nanga Parbat has never been climbed in winter" isn't very accurate. There has been at least one attempt to climb the mountain by Polish climbers during the 06/07-winter, which was thwarted by bad weather at about 6800m. But there has (to my knowledge) never been a successful winter ascent of Nanga Parbat. NiclasCage (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Fixed by myself.NiclasCage (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- In the context of mountaineering, it is generally understood that the word "climbed" refers to a successful ascent of the summit. Whereas an unsuccessful ascent would be called an "attempt". In my opinion the context was clear in this case and therefore the statement "Nanga Parbat has never been climbed in winter" was accurate. However, that being said, since you yourself interpreted a different meaning from the phrase, it is possible that other users are also misinterpreting the phrase. I would say your current revision of the phrase, "There has not been any successful winter ascents of Nanga Parbat as of March 17, 2011" is better in the sense it would be less likely misread. The "as of" date at the end is not necessary however. I will fix this now. Racerx11 (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I have changed my mind on this. I am changing it back to "has never been climbed". The use of the terms "climbed" and "attempted" are one of the few consistencies used across the board on mountaineering subjects here. I am not going encourage such a change of use in this article, not to mention all other related articles. Racerx11 (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Over emphasis on climbing
There isn't anything wrong with inclusion of climbing related information in this article, but it appears heavily oriented towards climbing at the expense of useful geomorphic, geological or cultural knowledge about the mountain.
Where, for example, is the section dealing with the fact that this is reputed to be one of the fastest growing mountains on earth? The article needs a fair bit of work in my opinion. Peter b (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Update. There is information on the last point I mentioned above (regarding active orogeny) in the article on Geology of the Himalaya. Peter b (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
1953 Movie
A documentary was made by the 1953 expedition. Here's the IMDB link: Nanga Parbat (1953). I'm not fluent with English to make the edition of the article myself. --Santisis (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
File:ApproachingNangaParbat.JPG to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:ApproachingNangaParbat.JPG will be appearing as picture of the day on February 1, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-02-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Gilgit Baltistan is a disputed territory and it's not subject to POV
Gilgit Baltistan is a disputed territory and it's not subject to POV. There is no question of POV here. Mar4d get your facts straight [2]. Mr T(Talk?) 11:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's disputed in the context of the Kashmir conflict, and in that case Jammu and Kashmir is also regarded as an internationally disputed territory pending a UN plebiscite; however: that Gilgit-Baltistan is a federal autonomous territory under Pakistani administration is a fact. Your edit calling it 'disputed' is WP:POV and is irrelevant to this page which is not on the Kashmir conflict. It would be akin to mentioning on all Jammu and Kashmir-related pages that "Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory administered by India." Mar4d (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't care about Jammu and Kashmir. If you think "Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory administered by India" needs mention somewhere you may do it, but don't edit war. Mr T(Talk?) 12:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- I do care, plastering sentences on all Kashmir related articles that so-and-so territory is "disputed" is not only irrelevant but also enforcing a WP:POV. We have the Kashmir conflict article to deal with that issue, mentioning territorial status of Kashmir on non-related articles is irrelevant. Mar4d (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Then don't mention "a region of Pakistan" it gives a false impression. Just say it is "a part of Gilgit-Baltistan". Would it be acceptable to you? Mr T(Talk?)
- There is no false impression; Gilgit-Baltistan is a region of Pakistan. It is a federally autonomous region and the government of Pakistan exercises de facto jurisdiction over Gilgit-Baltistan. The neutral international community i.e. the United Nations recognises it as Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Which part of this are you finding hard to understand? And for the last time, the Kashmir conflict is irrelevant here. Mar4d (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Then take it to a noticeboard, if you wish. But I am not going to accept that. How can you even say that it is a part of Pakistan esp. after World Bank refused to fund Diamir Dam-because of its status?? Mr T(Talk?) 12:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- It would be same as saying the whole Kashmir is a part of India simply because India controls a part of it. Mr T(Talk?) 12:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have no mood to argue over trivial matters with you. Gilgit-Baltistan is de facto territory of Pakistan, period. Your arguments on the territory being disputed are related to the Kashmir conflict and that issue has no place here. You may take the issue to a noticeboard. I am going to restore the original status quo of the article, as it previously was. All article on Wikipedia mention Gilgit-Baltistan as a region of Pakistan, and the standards on this article should be no different. Mar4d (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- It would be same as saying the whole Kashmir is a part of India simply because India controls a part of it. Mr T(Talk?) 12:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Then take it to a noticeboard, if you wish. But I am not going to accept that. How can you even say that it is a part of Pakistan esp. after World Bank refused to fund Diamir Dam-because of its status?? Mr T(Talk?) 12:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is no false impression; Gilgit-Baltistan is a region of Pakistan. It is a federally autonomous region and the government of Pakistan exercises de facto jurisdiction over Gilgit-Baltistan. The neutral international community i.e. the United Nations recognises it as Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Which part of this are you finding hard to understand? And for the last time, the Kashmir conflict is irrelevant here. Mar4d (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Then don't mention "a region of Pakistan" it gives a false impression. Just say it is "a part of Gilgit-Baltistan". Would it be acceptable to you? Mr T(Talk?)
- I do care, plastering sentences on all Kashmir related articles that so-and-so territory is "disputed" is not only irrelevant but also enforcing a WP:POV. We have the Kashmir conflict article to deal with that issue, mentioning territorial status of Kashmir on non-related articles is irrelevant. Mar4d (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't care about Jammu and Kashmir. If you think "Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory administered by India" needs mention somewhere you may do it, but don't edit war. Mr T(Talk?) 12:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
"All article on Wikipedia mention Gilgit-Baltistan as a region of Pakistan"
- except for the main article itself and for Azad Kashmir and for Jammu and Kashmir and whatnot. "Pakistan-administered", or "Pakistani-controlled", is an entirely different phrase. I don't mind using it. None of them say Baltistan is "a region of Pakistan".
Mar4d, I have given you sources and I am factually correct, it's not question of personal feelings, it's about factual correctness. "Region of Pakistan" is for obvious reasons, misleading. Don't press me. If you restore it you will be reverted. I have not made any abusive edit, Mr T(Talk?) 12:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Your sources are irrelevant and I will maintain as before that only the factually correct version of the article will stay, as it has since the beginning. I repeat: the territorial status of Gilgit-Baltistan in regard to the Kashmir conflict has no bearing on the presently accepted status quo which is that Gilgit Baltistan is de facto territory of Pakistan, the government of Pakistan maintains de facto jurisdiction over Gilgit-Baltistan as a region of the country and the region is an autonomous territory that is politically a constituent/entity of the federation of Pakistan. With regards to the subject of the article, which should be the point of discussion and not the Kashmir dispute, here is what a mix of academic sources on K2 mention with regard to its location (and the same applies to Nanga Parbat and vice versa):
Pakistan's tallest peak is K2. It reaches 28,250 feet and is part of the Karakoram Range in the North. K2 stands on the border between northern Pakistan and western China.
— How to Draw Pakistan's Sights and Symbols (Cindy Fazzi), p. 26)
K2 mountain is Pakistan's highest mountain and the world's second highest after Mount Everest.... It lies on the border of China and the Northern Areas of Pakistan.
— Pakistan: A Global Studies Handbook (Yasmeen Niaz Mohiuddin), p. 301
The second tallest mountain in the world lies on the border of China and Pakistan
— Pakistan (By Marc Taylor Nobleman), p. 5
As leader of the 1975 American K2 Expedition to Pakistan and the second highest summit in the world, I was discouraged to see years of dreaming thwarted by the vagaries of storms, avalanches and porter strikes
— Popular Mechanics, Jim Whittaker, p. 97
Located in the Karakoram Mountains of Pakistan, K2 at 861 1 metres is the second highest mountain in the world and is considered by many to be the most difficult of the 8000 metre peaks.
— Pushing the Limits: The Story of Canadian Mountaineering (Chic Scot), p. 416
At 28,259 feet (8,478m), the mountain K2 at the China-Pakistan border is the second highest peak after Mount Everest
— The Little Giant Book of Science Facts ( By Glen Vecchione, Joel C. Harris, Sharon Harris), p. 241
Standing at 28,251 feet tall, K2 is located on the border between China and Pakistan
— The Book of Man: Readings on the Path to Manhood ( By William J. Bennett), p. 190
K2 is the second highest mountain in the world. Professional mountaineers consider this mountain in Pakistan to be much more difficult and dangerous to climb than Mt. Everest.
— Take Five Minutes: Fascinating Facts About Geography (Ruth Foster), p. 73
Not mentioning Gilgit-Baltistan as a region of Pakistan is both misleading and in contradiction to the majority of sources written on the subject which show the mountain in Pakistan. Wikipedia will follow what the sources say, your personal opinion/POV-push on the matter has no standing whatsoever. Mar4d (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- We have to be careful. Some of the books you mentioned are for kids.
A fact is fact, it doesn't change with context. Besides, We are talking in context of territorial claim and control. Don't obfuscate it. We need more tertiary sources:
- We have to be careful. Some of the books you mentioned are for kids.
K2, Chinese Qogir Feng, also called Mount Godwin Austen, called locally Dapsang or Chogori, the world’s second highest peak (28,251 feet [8,611 metres]), second only to Mount Everest. K2 is located in the Karakoram Range and lies partly in a Chinese-administered enclave of the Kashmir region within the Uygur Autonomous Region of Xinjiang of China and partly in the Gilgit-Baltistan portion of Kashmir under the administration of Pakistan.
K2 (k t ) also Mount God·win Aus·ten (g d w n ô st n). A peak in the Karakoram Range of northern Kashmir in the region controlled by Pakistan.
The world's second tallest peak is commonly known as K2, and is actually hundreds of miles north of Mount Everest. It is also known as Mount Godwin Austen and Dapsang. Locally known by the name of “Chogo Ri,” which means "The Great Mountain," K-2 is located in the Karakoram range of the Himalaya in Northern Kashmir.
- The third source doesn't mention Gilgit baltistan as a region of Pakistan, doesn't mention it at all.
a mountain peak in the Karakoram Range in northern Kashmir; the 2nd highest peak in the world (28,250 feet high)
K2, Godwin Austen, Dapsang
Karakoram, Karakoram Range, Karakorum Range, Mustagh, Mustagh Range - a mountain range in northern Kashmir; an extension of the Hindu Kush; contains the 2nd highest peak
- This 4th one also doesn't frame it as an inherent part of Pakistan.
ABSTRACT: Godwin-Austen, Mount, peak, Kashmir
Baltistan, geographic region of Gilgit-Baltistan, in the Pakistani-administered sector of the Kashmir region, in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent.
Definition of BALTISTAN: region Ladakh district N Kashmir; under Pakistani control
a region of the Karakoram range of the Himalayas, to the south of K2 peak. Also called Little Tibet.
- Again doesn't say it is a part of Pakistan. Doesn't mention Baltistan.
Nanga Parbat, also called Diamir, Nanga Parbat one of the world’s tallest mountains, 26,660 feet (8,126 metres) high, situated in the western Himalayas 17 miles (27 km) west-southwest of Astor, in the Pakistani-administered sector of the Kashmir region.
Nanga Parbat (nŭngˈgə pŭrˈbət) [key], peak, 26,660 ft (8,126 m) high, in the W Himalayas, located in Pakistan-held Azad Kashmir; 7th highest peak in the world. Six expeditions—almost all ending disastrously—were sent to climb it. A German-Austrian team led by Herman Buhl finally reached the peak in 1953.
- The number sources you have quoted was uncalled-for. It's not a question of reliability of information.
And nobody is saying that Pakistan doesn't control the area. But to imply that it belongs to Pakistan would be undue misinformation. Don't edit war. This issue is serious and beyond question. We have to be neutral and objectively correct about it. Mr T(Talk?) 15:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- The number sources you have quoted was uncalled-for. It's not a question of reliability of information.
- So, let's desist from hurling sources. It is not helping, at the end of the day we need to be judicious and neutral about it. What is your reason for rejecting my proposal to place "a Pakistani-controlled region" instead of "region of Pakistan", for clarity's sake? Mr T(Talk?) 16:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I just reverted an IP sock of Nangparbat and have requested semi protection, Re the content dispute I have to agree with Mar4d,the dispute in the area really has little bearing on this mountain. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with the banned ip this is mountain for crying out loud not a political bashing box for nationalists Mr T with respect your logic is terribly flawed I have removed your edit since itbis purely tenditious and does no good to betyering the article nationalists must detest from this sort of editing
Protest these page protections
Don't let them protect this page! Protecting these pages, like Darkness Shines wants to do, is a tactic that is being used widely over many of the Bangladeshi-Pakistani-Indian pages so that the editors who do this can game the content for their own POV biases. What they do is to semi-protect a page, finding whatever excuse they can dig up. Then they go after editors who do not agree with them. It's much easier for them to game the system once they've protected a page. Sanction lists have been abused -- that's an established fact! Other are being accused of being sock puppets in order to get their accounts blocked so that minor content disputes from those editors will disappear. Editors are being ganged up and then goaded into making more than 1 revert so that they will be blocked, especially inexperienced editors. BLP is being abused to no end in order to game content. This has got to stop! We need to protest this tactic. Wikipedia policy is being abused in order for some editors to turn pages into their POV fiefdoms Crtew (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
See the current discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.Crtew (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)