Talk:Lund Khwar

Note

A HUMBLE REQUEST

Do not edit if you cannot provide a factual reference. Every edit must be backed up by a scholarly reference. Do not vandalizes, do not add personal references. Learn to respect and appreciate differences of opinion without personal prejudice. This after all is the sharing of collective human knowledge and bringing it to the world.

Msrafiq (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sudum and Sodom

Finding an English printed citation for it is almost impossible, well at least as long as someone actually writes a whole book on Lund Khwar!! It is a local legend, a well known one at that. Two references of it are from Bard poetry verses. Unfortunately, Pushto Bard poetry is not a subject well covered by printed material. Msrafiq (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Please prove with clear references and don’t do injustice with History

Dear Bro, Straight to the point:- 1. You made changes on my 'Dilazak' Page which you cannot prove at all. You created a false flag for 'The Dilazak' (Though it made me happy for some time), you wrote wrong spellings for this Tribe (Both in English and Urdu) and above all you are misleading the readers. e.g. the truth is 'The Dilazak were first to enter plains of Peshawar valley' but you wrote ‘Another famous tribe the Dilazak also settled here much later'. so and so forth. Please give exact authority because taking references from forums and talk groups is not justified. You and I didn't live in old times, we can only try to find, study, sift, analyses and compile different facts from different historical sources like books, antiques, relics etc. along with opinion of different existing authenticated historians. Just make a list of all history books (e.g.) from oldest to newest, make periodic distribution, analyses every writer, his times, his references, his motives, his position in society, his own tribe/caste and so and so forth, ONLY then you will be able to say something with some certainty BUT even it may not be very true. Because only God Almighty knows what actually was the situation then. So my dear Bro, please don't become part of that group whose task is to deshape history and create confusion. I can assist you any way you feel like, would be my pleasure but "Please don't do injustice with History" Regards Dilazak1 (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.136.228 (talk)

Mr Safi

This page is closely monitored. Adding personal info for living people is a violation of Wiki rules, this is not Yellow pages 101, refrain from adding your father's info and your own or you will be banned for spamming. If you are so inclined, make your own website and put all your personal info there. This page is a historical document about the Lund Khwar, no personal data or that of family and friends will be added. Failure to do so will get you permanently banned by the moderators. Msrafiq (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Serious Problem With this Article

Established history has been turned upside down in this article. It is strange to see this page as of 'Mid-importance '. There is a serious problem in coherence and authenticity of references. As such it requires a complete overhaul. Dilazak1 10:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilazak1 (talk • contribs)

Sourcing

I've just removed some content again because (among other things) the sourcing looks suspect to me. Raj gazetteers and similar writings are not generally considered to be reliable sources for history. What need are modern sources that discuss the village. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Again I would say, we here do consider the gazeteers reliable. Your generalization is wrong. It might hold true for your part of the world but not so here. We are talking about info that I know to be accurate both from the gazeteer and the other source as I have visited this place & researched its history. Deleting known to be true information on this basis is wrong. I do not agree with it. As for reverting back my edits and asking me to take it to the talk page, yeah we know it basically means deletion without replacing the deleted material. What I want to know is WHY? What is your reason for deletion? Please explain. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure who the "we" is to whom you refer. However, the Wikipedia community - which is the "we" that matters here - has repeatedly come out against using these old Raj sources. Indeed, it generally doesn't favour old sources from any country or regime if only because the standards of historiography have changed dramatically in the intervening time. If this stuff is notable then it will have been mentioned in more modern sources. - Sitush (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No offense Sitush, "we" meant "we here" "this side of the border" in the sense that the gazeteers are one of the only sources of recorded history of current Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, as you know the region has not been known for the vast number of its local historical sources so these gazettes are oft used here as sources. This does not stand for other countries/places but the same cannot be said here.Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm confused about which border: Wikipedia has no borders and if you were referring to me then I'm in the UK and there are quite a few between here and KP! If there are no reliable sources then we say nothing - those are the rules. - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lund Khwar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070711060153/http://www.afghana.com:80/ to http://www.afghana.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)