Talk:Sultan Khan (chess player)

Untitled

The phrase "His meteoric rise was parallel to Morphy's, who conquered the chess world in about three years. About eighty years later, Sultan Khan almost conquered the chess world in about four years. His was another bittersweet story in chess." strikes me as fawning hyperbole. Sultan Khan certainly quickly rose to the top of the chess world, but he was hardly on the verge of conquering it, especially considering his poor record against Alekhine (+0 -3 =1).

Anyone else have any thoughts? WarmasterKron 20:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Scrubbing

I was dismayed to see that Maliksaim had scrubbed this article to remove any references to Sultan Khan or Miss Fatima as having been servants of Sir Umar. See [ http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Mir_Sultan_Khan&action=historysubmit&diff=396785750&oldid=394582058 this revision]. Maliksaim's explanation was that "Comments about him being a servant or a serf are plain wrong and need not be mentioned. He is from a very well respected family of landlords." Maliksaim gave no support for this assertion. Numerous sources, cited in the text, refer to Sultan Khan as having been Sir Umar's manservant. I have "unscrubbed" the article. Krakatoa (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's been "scrubbed" again. I realized something was wrong because it first says he was from a family of landlords, but later it says Fatima was "also a servant". The source for the "landlord" claim is an article credited Khan's son and granddaughter. Probably not a reliable source.

First name has also been switching back and forth between Mir and Mian. Rcaetano (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Dawn is Pakistan's leading English language newspaper and would normally be considered a reliable source. If Sultan Khan's own family dispute the narratives that have been pushed in Western chess books and magazines, this should be recorded in the article. For example, he certainly wasn't "illiterate". He could read Urdu and probably Arabic, and learned enough English to hold a conversation about chess, at any rate. His granddaughter was extremely disappointed with Daniel King's biography, which she says perpetuated factual errors and had no input from Pakistani sources or from his family. [1]

References

Requested move 16 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Mir Sultan Khan → Sultan Khan (chess player) – "Sultan Khan is often accorded two other names, Mir Malik, but these are honorific. Mir is akin to addressing someone as 'sir'" [2] Sources typically call him simply Sultan Khan [3][4][5] although some include the Mir or Mir Malik 130.208.182.103 (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support we don't use honorifics in title pages, i.e. Isaac Newton, not Sir Isaac Newton. Elton John, not Sir Elton John. cookie monster 755 03:11, 18 September 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.

Posthumous title vs Achieved title

Wanted to ask whether it would be more appropriate to list Sultan Khan's rank as he achieved it within his lifetime prior to his posthumous promotion to grandmaster. Other chess players on wikipedia like Rudolf Marić do not have this on their pages, but I feel this would be in line with a common practice for military figures who recieve posthumous promotions such as Col. John Pelham, who serves as an example. Relmcheatham (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

He was arguably stronger than many players who were awarded the GM title for past achievements in 1950, like Mieses and Kostic. FIDE's recent action could be seen as correcting an injustice. Now that a precedent has been set, we may see a few more posthumous GM's, but probably only those who were alive in 1950. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

What I am moreso asking is whether it is more apt to list both the achieved title and his posthumous title - in the same way that posthumous promotions are usually handled on Wikipedia. Relmcheatham (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The wording "achieved" implies that his title was unearned, which it clearly wasn't. Leaving him off the GM list in 1950 was a glaring omission. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, my point is separate from Sultan Khan's playing ability or a nebulous judgement of whether he should have earned it. I am merely suggesting that the title achieved in his lifetime should be mentioned somewhere on the page for clarity and consistency. Relmcheatham (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)