Talk:Phulkian sardars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sikhism (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject India (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

WP:STYLE[edit]

Have tagged the page for peacock terms and copy-edit. I think these are the lightest tags that the page can get. In fact, I wonder if it could even be a copy-vio. Anyway, these tags are added to help IMPROVE the article and not as a comment or for criticism! Please do not remove it without dealing with the problem. THis has already been done once. Prashanthns (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:STYLE for details on how to deal with this. Prashanthns (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I came across this article while i was reading about Jat Surnames. My mother is a Phoolka and we are very proud that the family has such a wide and eventful history down so many generations....specially the blessing by so many Guru Sahiban. I had dug out some mention of Phulkian Misl on the internet but nothing as detailed as this....History and Sikhs in particular should be proud of this illustrios family of Jats 220.224.121.237 (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that these people ruled over Ghazni in Afghanistan at any time. And since satluj river doesn't flow in Rajasthan, did they make a comeback from these parts and finally settle in Lakhi Jungle area before the formation of Phulkian Misal 123.239.230.96 (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=TBANAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA368&dq=misl+punjab&as_brr=1&ei=5uPBS8eQFKOsMrjEvbMH&cd=2#v=onepage&q=misl&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profitoftruth85 (talkcontribs) 15:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

What parts of Phoolka are not covered here? Jojalozzo 19:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

  • @Sitush: I request you to please merge the two articles, if at all there is anything worth merging, which seems little. This merger roposal dates to 2011. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Dharmadhyaksha: sorry, I missed your ping above. I am in agreement with you, although I suspect the merged article will end up at AfD some time in the next few months. Does anyone have a preference regarding which title should be used? I think we should merge this one into Phoolka but I'm not too fussed either way. - Sitush (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I pinged you so you can WP:BOLDly decide whatever you find suitable through a hell lot of sources you usually are surrounded by. Obviously no one here has any preference on either topics since 2011. So go ahead. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 02:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
One problem I have is that I can't recall seeing this community in any sources of merit. My memory may be playing tricks but I think I have looked in the past. That's why I think AfD might be on the cards but I'll take another look at it first. - Sitush (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Phulkian sardars/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 01:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 02:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Biased reversions[edit]

I've closed this "RfC", because it's malformed; in no way are RfC supposed to be about other editors. Please read the page Wikipedia:RfC for more information. Note especially where it says "The use of requests for comment on user conduct has been discontinued." Since your problem involves sources, 183.88.26.145, I suggest you take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. But note that, like all discussion on Wikipedia, posts on that page are supposed to be based on content, not editors. Compare the policy No personal attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor" (bold in the original). If you approach the dispute in the manner you have done here, you will get nowhere. It's just not how this site works. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC).
The following discussion 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.

Hello, I would like to report an issue with another user on wikipedia, who has clear bias. He claims the citations being used, which involve John Murray (publisher) and the Calcutta journal (a very good journal at the time) are "unreliable", without providing any evidence to support his claim. He made similar reversions on the Phulkian misl page with the same vacuous reasoning. His edit history suggests he has a religious bias, and I am concerned that he will continually revert valid sources to favour perception of his own culture, which at the time was considered a rival to the clan who this article is concerning. I find it hard to believe this user can make such reversions without procuring any sources to support his claim. I am urging others to please investigate this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.88.26.145 (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a long-standing consensus that sources from the British Raj era and earlier are not reliable for history, for caste-related matters etc. There are some notes about this at User:Sitush/CasteSources, among other places, and of course there is also information of a more general type at WP:HISTRS. Please do not reinstate them. And please do not ascribe motives to people without good cause, of which you have none in this instance. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

edit: Just to go further. I do not feel this situation will be resolved easily, given that the reverter is someone who is "affected" by the conclusions drawn in the work by the scholars. He referred me to his home-made page that masquerades itself as an objective and scholarly assessment of "bias" (User:Sitush/CasteSources), where this page claims work by esteemed scholars such as James Mill is "biased", likely because he is offended by their observations (he has the right to be offended). Unfortunately, I do not share his offense. He must show why the claims and provided citations are wrong, which I do not think he is able to. I also feel that if he cannot provide similar quality sources of similar age, that his reversions are, at best, not impartial. An impartial assessment of the citations supporting the claims is welcome. If I encounter further difficulties I believe mediation will be required.

There is nothing about caste here, Sitush. This is simply an objective documentation of the tribe south of the Sutlej. Your edits suggest you have a clear bias, and I am taking this to RFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.88.26.145 (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2016 (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.

Raj era sources[edit]

Sources from the British Raj era are not reliable for matters relating to caste etc - see User:Sitush/CasteSources. That something is on Wikisource does not over-ride this consensus on English-language Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)