Talk:Gilgit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gilgit article.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
WikiProject Buddhism This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Gilgit, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Gilgit and Gilgit (disambiguation)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was Move to Gilgit. Duja► 16:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The page should stay at Gilgit, a disambiguation page can be created separately at Gilgit (disambiguation), because the word Gilgit usually refers to the Gilgit that IS described on this page. Just like Opal has the main page and other meanings are written at Opal (disambiguation). Waqas.usman 12:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Opal is much more known than Gilgit. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Who defines "much more"? I don't know Opal, but I do know Gilgit. To anyone who's been to the Northern Areas (or has even heard about the places there), the single word Gilgit means Gilgit town, unless you specify Gilgit River or Gilgit District.
Also, see New York, it doesn't waste the main link of "New York" for a disambig page that says
New York may refer to
  • New York City
  • New York State
  • New York Police Department
  • New York Yankees
Did you note that New York City is more popular than New York State? The page New York by default tells about the main thing that's called New York, and that is New York State, unless you specify New York City (and it has a disambig link on top, just like the Gilgit page had before as well, you could expand that to a full disambig page). Same should be the case with Hunza and Gilgit; they should talk about the main thing that the word means, instead of wasting the most useful link on a disambig page. Do you get the point now or not?
If you still don't get it, I'd like you to change New York to a disambig page, first move the whole page to New York State. If you can't do that, don't do so with Hunza and Gilgit either. Waqas.usman 22:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
What would it help if I move New York to dab? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with Waqas.usman. According to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic: When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article[.] Clearly, the "majority of links in existing articles" test is met -- I went through the 79 pages that, as of today, contained links to Gilgit, and found that only 17 of them needed to be repointed to articles other than Gilgit, Pakistan (which I did). Of course, that is not the sole test, since it could lead to defining "consensus" based on who edited most recently. But I also note that Waqas.usman, who appears to be the only editor here familiar with common usage in the vicinity, has pointed out that "Gilgit" refers to the city in everyday use unless it is otherwise qualified. Finally, and to me most importantly, this is not a case like San Jose or Kingston where we have to disambiguate among a series of articles on places that are entirely unrelated except for coincidentally sharing a name. All of the "Gilgit" disambiguation targets are related to the city and its vicinity; a reader who accidentally ends up on Gilgit, Pakistan while searching for, say, the Gilgit Valley or Gilgit River will not have much trouble navigating to the correct article. So, that's a long-winded way of saying I support moving the disambig page to Gilgit (disambiguation) and changing Gilgit into a redirect to Gilgit, Pakistan. --Russ (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - how did the country name end up in the title anyway? This is an obvious move. --Yath 11:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - other uses seem much less prominent than the city. --Polaron | Talk 13:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

[edit] Kashi

The Kashi that is being discussed in the Article, is it same as Varanasi? Currently that is where the redirect sends too. If this is not so, please mention the Kashi in the article into Kashi (disambiguation) and change the link.--Anupamsr 01:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It was a reference to Kashgar and has been changed. --Bejnar (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brahmi text??

The text is not in Brahmi script. Any sources for the same? --the preceeding comment was added by 203.200.95.183 (talk) at 05:06, 14 November 2006 (UCT)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:C130.JPG

Image:C130.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable people of Gilgit

People listed in the "Notable people" section of this article need to be notable under Wikipedia standards. I removed the entry "Sar Shad Khan Gold maddlist,Pride of performance." because I could find no mention of him (her?) in any newspaper (LEXIS-NEXIS) or on the Internet. I gather that Pride of Performance is a civil award issued by the government of Pakistan.; however, no recipients are listed in its article. It is unclear what endeavor earned Sar Shad Khan a gold medal. If Sar Shad Khan is notable, write an article about him (or her) to Wikipedia standards that demonstrates his (or her) notability and is supported by citations to verifiable, reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed :Supersian your reference and Citation seems to need correction

Supersian the new section added by you seems to have a problem with the citation .page Text provided by you states  :_
” The rulers of Hunza and Nager also claim origin with the Trakhàn dynasty. They claim descent from an exiled Kayani Prince of Persia by the name of Azur Jamshid, who secretly married the Buddhist king Shri Badat's daughter. Although prince Azur Jamshid succeeded the king after overthrowing him, he abdicated after 16 years of rule in favour of his wife Nur Bakht Khatùn until their son Garg, grew of age and assumed the title of Raja and ruled, for 55 years. The dynasty flourished under the name of the Kayani dynasty until 1421 when Raja Torra Khan assumed rulership. He ruled as a memorable king until 1475. He distinguished his family line from his step brother Shah Rais Khan (who fled to the king of Badakshan and with who's help he gained Chitral from Raja Torra Khan), as the now known dynastic name of Trakhàn. The descendants of Shah Rais Khan being respectfully known as the Ra'issiya Dynasty. Ref History of Civilizations of Central Asia By Ahmad Hasan Dani, Vadim Mikhaĭlovich, Motilal Banarsidass Publ 1999, p216-217"


Now the reference and citation pages you have provided viz 216 and 217 to support this from History of Civilizations of Central Asia By Ahmad Hasan Dani, Vadim Mikhaĭlovich, Motilal Banarsidass Publ 1999, p216-217 . But page 216 and 217 discuss the Bronze age in Iran and Afghanistan with no mention whatsoever of the entire paragraph you have provided on the article page . You may have inadvertently provided the incorrect page and may like to correct this . Here s the link for the online edition I looked this up from .

History of Civilizations of Central AsiaBy Ahmad Hasan Dani, Vadim Mikhaĭlovich Masson, János
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Intothefire (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation is correct, your book is wrong

Hi intothefire,

The citation is absolutely correct, however the book you sourced may be wrong because as per this reference it is exactly page 216 and page 217. In fact the prince, Azur Jamshid himself is not mentioned anywhere as a Mohammedan (a false term, since Muslims are Muslims, who follow all Prophets with special onus on Muhammad (pbuh), this is a colonial term which displays the outdated and poorly sourced input of the reference you state) YET it states that the last king in fact was Buddhist.

Now I believe you added this added this reference because of your Hinduisation campaign reasons, since no scholar supports Sri Badat to have been a known confirmed acknowledged Hindu (great if he was, but kind of unfair to Hinduise a known Buddhist king dont you agree? Maybe not your fault dear boy, but certainly your authors fault lol).

References of this misinformation, and corrobration of Sri Badat's devoute Buddhist faith include;

1. Recent Research on Ladakh 4 & 5: Proceedings of the Fourth and Fifth by Henry Osmaston, Philip Denwood (1995 Motilal Banarsidas, p226)

2. History of Northern Areas of Pakistan by Ahmad Hasan Dani (1989, p163)

Gilgit has an immense Buddhist treasure of monuments etc to his day. My own opinion, I think previously in these remote areas, there was such a homogenous synthesis of cultures and races, that a definied religion may be hard to define since it would have extended and developed and progressed according to the nature of it's people etc.

Either way, citation stands correct, it was clearly NOT WRONG. I am removing your quote as it not only incorrect, but also uninformative as the info has already been recorded in the para's above, much more informatively by a recent book, rather than a rumour quote of nil proof....--Raja (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have also endeavoured to bring a little history of this Sri Badat that you so ignorantly tried to romanticise with the title of the Last Hindu King intothefire, appears he was so hated and tyrannically oppressive, his people TO THIS DAY celebrate his destruction with celebrations annually....
Some authors though, still contend he was Hindu? Maybe that should be elaborated also....--Raja (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Response to Supersian

Supersian your responses violate all the three principles of debate on wikipedia it is

  • impolite (Be polite) –
  • Does not assume good faith (Assume good faith)
  • Contains Personal attacks(No personal attacks)


1) As to my contention that "You may have inadvertently provided the incorrect page and may like to correct this . "
It would have sufficed for you to have simply repaired/ improved the online reference by either linking to the page or providing the ref to the volume, as apparently the book which you have cited ,appears to be in 5 volumes. .

Which is why we have the curious situation of two completely separate contents appearing for the referred pages from the book through ,

Contributor of link Link
Intothefire History of Civilizations of Central AsiaBy Ahmad Hasan Dani, Vadim Mikhaĭlovich Masson, János where Page 214 to 217 discuss the The Bronze Age in Afghanistan
Supersian History of Civilizations of Central AsiaBy Ahmad Hasan Dani, Vadim Mikhaĭlovich Masson, János


2) Next instead of concentrating on the article, in your haste to attack me personally (and my perceived motives) you have remarkably had to post content contradicting yourself in successive posts both in the article as well as in the talk page. For example on this talk page

Supersian post 17th March:

“ Now I believe you added this added this reference because of your Hinduisation campaign reasons, since no scholar supports Sri Badat to have been a known confirmed acknowledged Hindu (great if he was, but kind of unfair to Hinduise a known Buddhist king dont you agree? Maybe not your fault dear boy, but certainly your authors fault lol) ”

.

Supersian post 18th March

“ I have also endeavoured to bring a little history of this Sri Badat that you so ignorantly tried to romanticise with the title of the Last Hindu King intothefire, appears he was so hated and tyrannically oppressive, his people TO THIS DAY celebrate his destruction with celebrations annually....

Some authors though, still contend he was Hindu? Maybe that should be elaborated also

 ”

If your intention to insert balance , then where was no need to post this response . replete with sarcastic innuendos on this talk page .

3)Regarding your highlighting cannibalism and Shri Buddhot , this is best left to scholars with higher erudition than you or me , which is why I have provided a link to an interesting article by a Fullbright scholar . The demonizing of Hindu /Buddhist/Sikh indigenous sovereigns is not uncommon , a case in point that parallels the demonizing of Shri Buddot the last Hindu/Buddhist ruler of Gilgit , is the Chach Nama written by the relatives of Muhammad bin Qasim which demonises Raja Dahir the last Hindu ruler of Sindh .

As to weather Shri Buddhot was Hindu and Cannibal or if you would like to elaborate on prevalence of cannibalism in Hinduism and as you suggest "Some authors though, still contend he was Hindu Maybe that should be elaborated also" , please go ahead and elaborate .

4)Lets look at another point you make here justifying deletion from the article of cited content from a verifiable and notable source .
Supersian:

“ I am removing your quote as it not only incorrect, but also uninformative as the info has already been recorded in the para's above, much more informatively by a recent book, rather than a rumour quote of nil proof.... ”


Well the cited content you have deleted from the article calling it a "rumor of nil proof " happens to be a quote from an important source on the subject viz Tribes of the Hindoo Kush by John Bidulph . I also fail to appreciate your appropriating editorial privilege by sitting in judgment of known historical sources .

In conclusion :

  • Be more civil in your debates
  • Stop deleting cited content on this or other articles .

Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)