Talk:Sherwani

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Fashion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. India Low‑importance 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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pakistan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. 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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

pakistan did not even exist when this was made

Could the name have something to do with the Pashtun tribe, Shirwani, which became widespread throughout what is Punjab and its members were in important positions throughout North India? Furthermore, just because a name did not exist historically does not mean a culture, people and their history did not exist. India did not exist but Hindustan did - just as Bharat existed before Muslims conquered and renamed it. Sherwani was developed in Hindustan by descendants of Turco-Afghans, Mughals etc. just as they also gave Hindustan their adapted language, food, dress and customs etc. These are the antecedents of Pakistan. o — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moarrikh (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan is commonly used now to mean the region of the British Indian Empire that is now Pakistan. The British gave the region sovereignty. The realms of the Mauryas or the Mughals never became as big as the British Raj, and did not last. They simply did not have the technology for surveillance and control as the British did. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that why Barthateslisa restored the article to its previous version even when the previous version was full of errors, false information, unsourced content and merged the two different kinds of cloths with different origins (Achkan and sherwani). They even have seperate articles on Wikipedia. I am restoring the article to its previous version and if anyone find anything wrong in that then the problem should be discussed in the talk page. Thanks. Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all stop lying, which PREVIOUS VERSION are you talking about? Before you started vandalizing it on 17th May and even started editing on WP, the page was pretty much with the same content, just coz you disagree with it doesn't make any information FALSE, it has been sourced. The page has had almost the similar content for many months now, its you who are adding biased POV, false information and irrelevant pics. Achkan and Sherwani are related, if you do not even know that much, i doubt your knowledge on the topic to begin with. The content related to both seems to be well documented and written. Next time bring out all the changes, you want to make, point by point on the talk page, BEFORE editing. Barthateslisa (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With your tone and language I can assume that you are not a cooperative editor and basically you are being biased. It doesn't matter how hard you try to defend your views, Facts will remain facts and no one can change them, irrespective of what exists on Wikipedia. I do not have that much time and energy to prove that everything I added or removed is correct, so lets solve this conflict by inviting any Non-Indian, Non-Pakistani and neutral administrator to compare both, the old version and my version of the article to decide which one should be published or how both should me merged together to reflect the consensus of the editors. Thank You! - Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you are new on WP, with no experience, WP is not a book or diary to add personal experiences, or POV rather it is to add scholarly, encyclopedic content. You seem to be down with a nationalist bias, with no regards to citations, NPOV and proper source, stick to the topic, its facts and discuss. Barthateslisa (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Askdefine is not a reliable sources and is itself seem to be sourced from Wikipedia, not relevant. Barthateslisa (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Askdefine is not a very reliable source, but all the references cited to support the content of the article are not very good and well documented except two or three. Well I believe that article can only be further improved if we discuss the given references supporting the content. Thank You. - Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now can you please clarify the relation ship between Achkan and Sherwani, Please also Clarify the Term "Achkan Sherwani" and reason that why both the dresses can not be dealt separately even tough they have different Origins. Thank You! - Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Muhammadahmad79 has started vandalizing the page since 17th May, 2016. He deleted the previous content, including the pictures and added statements and irrelevant pictures of his own choice. He changed the content of the page and its narrative, the user appears to be bias driven, no single edit has been explained, all of them seems to be his own imagination and POV. The user has been reverted by other users on other pages also.

I request you to kindly mention the changes you want to make and discuss on the talk page, BEFORE editing in future. More vandalism by you will invite blocking on your part. Barthateslisa (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism should not be reported on talk pages, if you want to report vandalism then you may report it here. Thank you! - Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide some reliable sources and clarify the tearms which are not clarified. Citation needed and Clarification needed is marked on the article where it is needed. Its been quite a time and if the info is not sourced soon with some reliable sources, then I fear that the unsourced info might get removed. Thank you! - Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See I am trying my level best to cooperate with you Barthateslisa, and I know that you are also trying to cooperate with me on our very minor differences, I respect your Research work (If you have done any) on the Topic and on very Friendly terms, can you please tell me the "uncited information" in the Article's Origional Version. Thank You! Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "original version" you are talking about, you started vandalising the page on 8th June onwards during my sabbatical. I reverted back the vandalism, restoring the cited material. Do not engage in POV pushing, this is Wikipedia not a blog. Barthateslisa (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Please! Could you just Point out the Uncited Informat? Thank You! Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I never engaged in vandalism when you were absent, I respect everyone's time and commitments. I Just removed/replaced the uncited or unclarified information about which I waited for several weeks, I even raised my concern on Talk Page. Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get all dramatic, you removed cited material, if you have any doubt bring them on the talk page, case by case. Stop vandalising the page when other editors are not around. Barthateslisa (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User @highpeaks35 is reverting my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sherwani&diff=895627859&oldid=895590090 without giving a proper reason. The content I added were supported by reliable sources and these sources are verifiable. So I want to know why @highpeaks35 is reverting my edit

The contents i added were:

The sherwani evolved from Persian cape (balaba or chapkan) which was given buttons down the front, following the European fashion
British India as the European style court dress of regional Mughal nobles and royals of northern India,[2] 

Originally associated with Muslim aristocracy during the period of British rule,[3] 

I modified this sentence by removing the phrase "as a fusion of British frock coat and an achkan" because this peice wasn't supported by the cited source you can check it out

before being more generally adopted in the late 19th century. It appeared as a fusion of the British frock coat and an achkan, first at Lucknow in the 1820s.[4] 

2405:204:1118:A3E:4A34:F881:41DF:D02E (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is true and Highpeaks35 has been banned from Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]