Talk:Jalaluddin Surkh-Posh Bukhari

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hi. I've tried to improve this as much as I can. I think the family lineage sections need to be clarified. What is the relationship of these people? Better citations are needed in places. Kind regards, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Family tree of Jalaluddin Surkh-Posh Bukhari

No rationale to be a separate article kashmiri ^TALK 19:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, merge the two above articles. I don't see any reason why Family tree of Jalaluddin Surkh-Posh Bukhari should be a stand-alone separate article.Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Family tree of Jalaluddin Surkh-Posh Bukhari was deleted by prod on 18 September 2017 as a "content fork of Jalaluddin_Surkh-Posh_Bukhari#Family_lineage." --Bejnar (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Doing huge cleanup

The article says almost nothing about Bukhari himself; basically his whole career is wrapped up in one short paragraph totally lacking sourcing.

To be blunt, it appears the vast majority of the page exists just to provide people a claim to fame via descent from a Syed, so I've had to remove a ton of material that was just lengthy descriptions of where his (largely non-notable) descendants went. Anyone who lived 800 years ago is going to have a *ton* of descendants. While I realize this may be a vitally important issue to some communities, I submit that it is very unhelpful for an actual encyclopedia article on Bukhari. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Uch

faqqer 37.111.130.101 (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)