From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Szentgyörgyvölgy cow[edit]

As written, the significance of Szentgyörgyvölgy cow is vague (world model?) and unsupported (no references). What is Szentgyörgyvölgy cow, and what does it have to do with writing? There is even a picture. The significance of Szentgyörgyvölgy cow needs to be clarified or the two sentences and picture removed section removed. (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


hourghushti is one of the largest village located in the Chach Valley in Distrck Attock of Punjab Pakistan. The key stake holder of this village are pathan according to some views. However, which pathan group or khel or kom came to this land is still unknown and there are no reliable resources to verify this information. Nonetheless, it is today one of the large village based on pathan population along with other koms or groups. Pathans Koms includes the following: Inayat khel, dilawar khel, sulman khel, kara khel, najab khel, asad khel, haider khel, Dilazak, Sawati, Awan, Babri, chach khel and others such as Shah or sehyad. The other akwam includes the following: Julah, Lohar, Tabehay, Komhar, Rajhey Choudary, Kasmires includes Butts, Dar/Mirs.

Many different views exists today who were the key stake holders of Ghourghushti. There is no doubt that the Inayat khel known as KHANs are predominate bread winners as they occupy majority of lands in the village. According to certain views they inherit majority of land in the village during the British Raj. The land or area of Ghourghushti also belong to other Pathans khels. The majority goes to Maliks, Chach khel, Dilazak and others.

Ghourghushti belong to Sikhs/Hindos before the particiton of Hindostan, and majority of area were belong to them such as Bazaars and others. After the partictions the land was divided into different pathans and others. Majority of Pathans tribes in this area migrated due to wars and killings in their own area. These pathan tibes had no choice but to move from their area such as Hazara, Peshawer, Sawat, and other areas during the wars.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). </ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazad12p (talkcontribs) 08:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please find my research publications[edit] Sujay Rao Mandavilli (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


Regarding Chinese characters, the entry now says "In Chinese, about 90% of characters are compounds of a semantic (meaning) element called a radical with an existing character to indicate the pronunciation, called a phonetic. However, such phonetic elements complement the logographic elements, rather than vice versa." --> However, radicals were added to the phonetics for purposes of disambiguation, not the other way around. Many books on the Chinese language acknowledge this. Am I misunderstanding that last sentence? Bao Pu (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

False claim in article[edit]

"By definition, the modern practice of history begins with written records. Evidence of human culture without writing is the realm of prehistory."

The great philosopher of history and archaeologist RG Collingwood demonstrated the falsity of this claim: the distinction between "history" and "pre-history" is based on the outdated idea that history is what the people there at the time wrote down. Before writing, we just do history with one fewer type of evidence! GeneCallahan (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)