Talk:Khanate of Kalat - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kautilya3 (talk | contribs) at 02:58, 19 February 2023 (→Contested edit regarding accession: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:58, 19 February 2023 by Kautilya3 (talk | contribs) (→Contested edit regarding accession: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Pakistan: Balochistan High‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Balochistan, Pakistan.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Pakistani history.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country

Dravidian civilizations (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dravidian civilizations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dravidian civilizationsWikipedia:WikiProject Dravidian civilizationsTemplate:WikiProject Dravidian civilizationsDravidian civilizations

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Afghanistan Low‑importance

	Afghanistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved to Khanate of Kalat. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Kalat (princely state) → Kalat Khanate – For centuries this was a khanate and only for a short time it was a princely state. Do away with the parentheses. Imperium Romanum Sacrum (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. No great objection, but may I suggest instead Khanate of Kalat? The ruler was called "Khan" from the mid eighteenth century and the princely state was commonly referred to as that much more often than "Kalat Khanate". NB, the present article is pretty dire, it would be good if Imperium Romanum Sacrum could find time to improve it. Moonraker (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Support for "Khanate of Kalat" - more formal name, just as we would refer to the ruler as the Khan of Kalat and not the Kalat Khan. Equally I would support a renaming of several other similarly named "princely states". 119.154.144.242 (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khanate of Kalat. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20011030054949/http://www.bdd.sdnpk.org/kalat.htm to http://www.bdd.sdnpk.org/kalat.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Fix in Kalat's History about Afghanistan

Hello fellow Wikipedian Friends, I have added on to Kalat's history with its mention of it being under Durrani Suzerainty under Source Iranica, let me know if you have any concerns below. -Noorullah21 6:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Kalat's Independence date is wrong.

Kalat got it's independence on 12th August 1947, not on 15th, as mentioned in the article.

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/degrees-of-separation-prime-minister-narendra-modi-independence-day-balochistan-kashmir-unrest-2996390/

Adding The Truth (talk) 07:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The Khan might have declared on 12 August, but it would have taken effect from 14/15 August, which were the official dates of the departure of the British. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Merges

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Unanimous consensus to merge. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

We know almost nothing about most of the rulers of this Khanate. It was not a significant pre-modern power and at best, we can write a single decent paragraph (or, in some cases, a single line) about most rulers prior to 1800. After that, courtesy British meddling in the region, we have considerable details about politico-military affairs of the state but biographical details etc. continue to be absent.

Ahmad of Kalat—under whom Balochistan acceded to Pakistan—is an exception and has not been proposed for merge. We also have a page on Khan of Kalat, which I have not proposed for merging. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: - FYI. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, good idea! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Any ideas on what purpose Khan of Kalat might serve? Or else, I will add that to merge-list. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Khan of Kalat should merge, along with all non-notable individual khans. -Evansknight (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2022 (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.

Unsourced template is not referring to the lead

Hi @Sutyarashi,

I saw you removed the top template and said "Clearly sourced". Some clarification, the top template is not referring to the lead. Its actually to the article as a whole. So, the subheadings of Geography, Subdivisions, Princely states under British Raj and Rulers of Kalat are not sourced. So instead of including a "citation needed" or "unsourced" template on each of those headings (which looks ugly) I just included one at the top.

So this is why the template was placed there in the first place. The lead is sourced but the other parts of the article is not. This is how it is for all wiki pages. Btw, the lead doesn't even need citations if it takes info from the contents in the article based on wiki policy. Danial Bass (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Danial Bass you didn't pinge me properly, so I didn't even receive the notification. Now I happened to see this while scrolling casually, and I agree with you. Feel free to re-add the template. Thanks! Sutyarashi (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Contested edit regarding accession

Moved from User talk:Kautilya3

Please do understand what Neutral point of view means before adding it to edit summaries it means including all view points not just the one you like Amirali, Alia (2015), "Balochistan: A Case Study of Pakistan's Peacemaking Praxis (Volume III) this source very clearly needs to be expanded and its information included otherwise Salman Rafi must be removed censoring is not acceptable. 2A02:C7C:6782:7A00:A981:D590:5F91:AE83 (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear IP, what is meant by "Rafi must be removed" as well as "censoring is not acceptable"? Isn't that a contradiction? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear Kautilya please do understand my entire statement and do not crop the comment to misinform people I stated we cannot maintain npov while censoring out other view points and if thats the case than Rafi to should be deleted but please do at least try and be sincere when trying to misconstrue someones statement. I have noticed that many editors would like to paint a certain view which suits their point of view but when a counter argument comes along they try all the tricks in the box to divert and down play it maintaining npov takes much more than posting misleading edit summaries. 2A02:C7C:6782:7A00:A981:D590:5F91:AE83 (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Can we discuss the statement from Amirali, Alia now? 2A02:C7C:6782:7A00:A981:D590:5F91:AE83 (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question: Why should Rafi be deleted? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

If you are incapable of (or intentionally dishonest) understanding my reply thats a problem you need to address I have explained everything now you tell me why you are hell bent on censoring Amirali? 2A02:C7C:6782:7A00:A981:D590:5F91:AE83 (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Amirali irrelevant. She doesn't know and she doesn't have a view. She is included only because people keep inserting state-sponsored narratives, which she has summarised. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Amirali is very relevant considering its addition seems to be annoying those who only want to push one narrative in fact I would say reliance on one source Salman who was a student working towards his PHD at the time when he wrote this book also brings into question the neutrality and not including a counter summary would be censoring as always its usually editors from across the border who would like to paint one narrative. 2A02:C7C:6782:7A00:A981:D590:5F91:AE83 (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

For reasons described here, Rafi Sheikh (2018) needs to be discarded as a source. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure I would agree with you that he is a "propagandist". Even Axmann is saying it is unclear whether a referendum actually took place or not. And the "British-Pak conspiracy" is also acknowledged now. (see pp. 21-22).

Moreover, the text that was used here is not his own. It was summarising a book Balochistan, Azadi Say Subai Bai Ikhtairi Tak by Ahmed Salim, which was also reviewed in Dawn.

The Khan might have signed the accession seemingly willingly. But the scholars are pretty much unanimous that threat of force and actual force were still used, and it amounted to annexation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Categories: