Talk:Shalwar kameez

Urdu spelling mistake

The spellings of Shalwar kameez in Urdu in the article are شلوار قمیض. I believe that it should be شلوار قمیص. I know that it will then be pronounced as Shalwar Kamees but قمیض is not the right word, it is the wrong form that just got popular. The spellings that I have suggested are also the ones used for the Shalwar Kameez article on Urdu wikipedia شلوار قمیص --Wahj-asSaif (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• So not *qamīḍ, but qamīṣ? DavidLeeLambert (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Kurta and Kameez

I believe most of these pics are kurta and not kameez, I think kameez have collars and kurtas don't. At least that's what I've been taught. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.106.79 (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right in a way, but the "kameez" worn by women has usually been similar to a kurta; not the male style kameez with the collar you are referring to, which in any case, is not traditional. It is modeled on the western shirt and began to be worn in northwest (British) India only in the 19th century. There are no earlier photographs or sketches of anyone in India or Afghanistan wearing a kameez with a shalwar. This article should really have been about the shalwar only, but like many things on wikipedia, it has been grandfathered in and it is too much work to change it. Still, I agree, there should be some pictures of the kameez worn in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Let me see what I can do. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

In many localities, the dress is also known as the salwar kurta, while in others it is known as the shalwar qameez. The difference between the qamiz and the kurta is that the latter is collarless. Shalwars, however, can be worn with either a kurta or qameez, thus giving rise to both of these names. I agree that it would have made more sense for this article to be titled "shalwar". I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It actually looks like User:Malikhpur already created Salwar - thank you! Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 06:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid Salwar is a content fork. I'm happy for it to be judged on any independent WP forum. Village Pump, even WT:INDIA. Either the later sections of this page need to be in that page only (and they already are), or it needs to be redirected. The term in all current dictionaries of English is Shalwar kameez or salwar kameez or other slight variations. There is no clear cut usage difference for the presence or absence of the European collar, the latter making it a kurta when worn with a shalwar. Women have traditionally worn collarless tunics with their shalwars and they have always been called kameez. Also, I'm sorry, please please stick to only scholarly sources (i.e. University Presses, or Routledge, Wiley, Blackwell, Springer, Taylor&Francis, Macmillan, ...). Otherwise, we can pretty much source the wildest assertions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler, while I respect that you wish to improve this article, I do not appreciate edit summaries such as this one. You wrote "How can you quite [sic] the Oxford Dictionary of English entry for churidar and then finesse the words to insert it here?" The source was talking about the churidars, which is why the sentence it butressed said "The kameez or kurta are traditionally worn with the shalwar, as with other similar garments, such as the churidar or pyjama." You'll notice that I also added other sources to corroborate the fact that the shalwar is also worn with the kurta. There was no "finessing" here, as any editor can plainly tell. I'd therefore be grateful if you could retract your unfounded accusation. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 19:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Shalvar Qameez has always been worn by Pashtuns. Akmal94 (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

its shalwar qameez not shalwar kameez

its shalwar qameez not shalwar kameez. plz correct it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.63.143.24 (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedic writing

Dear @Malikhpur: I'm afraid this article too has become bloated with WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. I will be editing the the first part of the article to reduce it in size and to make it encyclopedic. As I mentioned to you on the Talk:Kurta page, I don't relish doing this, but WP is held to some basic encyclopedia standards. These include basic expository writing which explains what a garment is, what distinguishes it, who wears it, and so forth, before it gets into the details of etymology and of regional variation. This page has become too much of a list. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I made the edits many years ago. Please do what you feel is necessary. Many thanks. User talk: Malikhpur 14.44 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I've taken a stab at the lead. Will work on the remaining section, about some of which I am less knowledgeable, later. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Shalwar Kurta

The alternate term "Shalwar Kurta" was recently removed by User:Fowler&fowler from this article, despite the fact that this is the name of the dress in some localities. I think that this term should be restored to the lede, as it was referenced. I look forward to hearing the thoughts of others on this matter. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Shalwar kameez is the majority usage by 64 to 1. A Google binary search for Shalwar kameez and other spellings but not including kurta gives 27 million 200 thousand returns For "Shalwar kurta" OR "Salwar kurta" but not including kameez there are 423 thousand returns. 27,200,000/423,000 = 64.301. Without that kind of lop-sided, minority, "shalwar kurta" can be included in a footnote, but it is not worthy for inclusion in the main text, especially not extended disquisitions. Also the usage "kurta" for "kameez' is used only for the women's garment in India, outside the garment's core historical regions. No self-respecting Sikh farmer in the Punjab, or boy in Afghanistan (see picture in lead), will call his shirt (whether with or without a collar), a kurta. Best regard, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I have mentioned the kurta in the lead paragraph: "The kameez may have a European-style collar, or it may be collar-less; in the latter case, its design as a women's garment is similar to a kurta. But we can't topload the lead with also Shalwar kurta, also salwar kurta and variant spelling. Same rationale as toploadng Indic scripts, which are frowned upon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Anupam, I completely agree with you. There is enough supporting literature and population for the inclusion of "Shalwar Kurta". This is a clear example of Fowler&fowler's my way or the highway-POV, constant edit-warring as seen in the user's history, makes major revisions of articles without building WP:Consensus, and most importantly WP:OWN attitude. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC))

(edit conflict)The other thing is simply precedent. I have been editing the article since 2007, i.e. 12 year. In that entire time, I've never seen "Shalwar kurta" or "salwar kurta" in the lead. You are attempting to add it now. That sort of thing will require consensus on the talk page. The spelling "shalwar qameez" I have left in because it has been in the article for a long time. It reflects the correct English transliteration of Urdu/Persian/Arabic pronunciation in which it is spelled with a qaaf (q) not a kaaf (k). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Highpeaks35: Instead of making unsubstantiated accusations against me, why don't you find those vaunted references and contrast them with the references for "shalwar kameez" Find me five dictionary entries for "shalwar" which says "typically worn with a kurta." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Anupam already gave the references, and you removed it. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC))

You always use unnecessary sentences like: "I have been editing the article since 2007, i.e. 12 year." -- to make an argument for your version. This is not acceptable, among others, that violates WP:OWN. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC))

@Highpeaks35: Please read carefully the first line of WP:OWN#Single-editor_ownership. If you are convinced there are violations, please take me to ANI and let the chips fall where they may. But this is no place for making unsubstantiated allegations. As for Anupam, how many references does he have? For introducing alternative nomenclature you need to show evidence of substantial usage, outside the "Overseas women's club of Chennai," that has been cited. Consider Google scholar. The returns for scholarly article that use variations of "Shalwar kameez" but not kurta are: 4,400], for "salwar kurta" and variants spellings, but not kamiz, it is 107 returns. What is 4,400/107? It is approximately 41 to 1. In scholarly publications "shalwar kurta" is minority usage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler, your Google Scholar search link provides further support that this is a notable term and should be included in the lede and in the body of the article. User:Highpeaks35, would you like to go through some of those articles and see what we can add to the article? I thank you for your help and look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 22:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

By that logic Fowler&fowler, vast majority of wiki articles will be redundant. Even with your search, there is enough supporting references to have a place for Shalwar Kurta. I don’t see Anupam violate any Wikipedia policy for your reversal and your need to edit war. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC))

Thanks for your comments, User:Highpeaks35. I'm glad that you agree that the term "salwar kurta" should be restored to the lede. Please understand User:Fowler&fowler, that I'm not trying to state that the article should be moved to shalwar kurta. I'm simply stating that this is a very widespread alternate term that belongs in the lede. If you're not familiar with this dress, User:Fowler&fowler, shalwars are simply baggy trousers worn in South Asia—they can be worn with the kurta or with the qameez. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler, you stated that "we can't topload the lead with also Shalwar kurta, also salwar kurta and variant spelling". In order to resolve this issue and compromise, I'm willing to add just one of these terms, salwar kurta to the lede. If User:Highpeaks35 concurs too, I will go ahead and restore that term. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 22:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Highpeaks35 and User:Fowler&fowler, I have restored the term "shalwar kurta" to the lede of the article and have added its alternate spellings as a footnote. I have done the same for the alternate spellings of "shalwar kameez". Along with these are several scholarly references that treat the two as synonyms. There should be no reason why the alternate term should be removed, in my opinion. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Anupam: I'm afraid you are introducing new phrasing into the article, you will need to do a lot more that claim you have one person's support, when you don't have support in the sources, nor in your own history of edits. As a matter of fact:

• • In my edits of 14 April 2019 there was no "kurta" in the lead.
  • in Highpeaks35's edit of 15 March 2019 there was no "kurta" in the lead,
  • in Malikhpur's (the top editor's) edit of 20 February 2019 there was no "kurta" in the lead;
  • in your own edit of 21 March 2018 there was no "kurta" in the lead;
  • in your own edit of 6 September 2017 there was no "kurta" in the lead (it was not even mentioned in the Kamiz section).
  • in Malikhpur's edit of 27 August 2015, there is no "kurta" in the lead, neither is it in the Kameez section.
  • in Malikhpur's edit of 12 June 2013 there is no "kurta" in the lead, nor anything in the Description section.
  • in your own edit of 23 September 2010 there is no "kurta" in the lead, nor in the Description section.
  • in your own edit of 22 September 2007 there is no "kurta" in the lead, nor in the Description section
  • in my edit of 1 January 2007 there is no "kurta" in the lead.

There is no precedent in the history of this page for inclusion of "kurta" in the lead until your edit of 15 April 2019. You need to establish that such a change in the article's history as evidenced in your history of edits (and of @Highpeaks35:) is warranted. I will be reverting your edits. Per B (your bold edits of 15 April 2019) R (my revert), D (discussion), you will need to establish consensus, not facilely get one person's perfunctory support. I warn you to not edit war with me. I'm smart enough (as are the presiding admins) to know when someone is edit warring by adding sources helter-skelter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@RegentsPark, Drmies, and Bbb23: so sorry to take your time. But, this is getting out of hand. Fowler&fowler uncooperative attitude is too much. The user's recent history is filled with constant edit wars and refuses to compromise or get consensus. This is yet another example. Even on a minuscule subject like "Shalwar Kurta" which was added by Anupam in good faith, with sources and clear use on the ground, in India, and other parts of South Asia; I suspect FF is edit warring since "Shalwar Kurta" is mainly used in India. Anupam clearly stated: "I'm not trying to state that the article should be moved to shalwar kurta", however, FF's response goes back to history of their ownership of the article: "I have been editing the article since 2007, i.e. 12 year." That is not productive. I hope you can see, even on a minuscule topic, the user FF refuses to be respectful and work in a cooperative manner. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC))

If you feel there is a behavioral problem, please take me to ANI as I've already suggested. Meanwhile, please answer my query as to why when—(a) the OED, the major reference for the English language mentions only kameez (see footnotes 2 and 3 here) in conjunction with s(h)alwar (b) Google searches favor "shalwar kameez" to "Shalwar kurta" by 64 to 1, (c) Google Scholar favors "Salwar kameez" to "Shalwar kurta" by 44 to 1 (see the data above) and (d) there has been no history of including "kurta" in the lead in the much edited 14 year history of this article—we should include "sharwar kurta" now. Please note that in India itself (in in domain names .in) "shalwar kameez" is preferred to "shalwar kurta" by 657,000 to 10,600 which is 62 to 1. In other words, please don't make random insinuations about usage in India in a discussion such as this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I will let the admins decide Fowler&fowler. I will leave the faith of "shalwar kurta" to them. However, my response to your point (d) there has been no history of including "kurta" in the lead in the much edited 14 year history of this article—we should include "sharwar kurta" now. Simple, Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC))

I don't seem to get that either. Just because it wasn't included in the past doesn't mean that it shouldn't be included now. Articles are contantly developing and improving themselves from previous states. If that wasn't the case, then Wikipedia would no longer need editors. User:Fowler&fowler's own search results demonstrate that the term "shalwar kurta/salwar kurta" is notable and belongs in the lede. Of course, it isn't as widespread as "shalwar kameez", which is why this is currently the title of the article and not "shalwar kurta". Although I personally think that my version (with the alternate spellings footnoted) looked cleaner, I can accept User:Fowler&fowler's revision with alternate spellings in the lede as a WP:COMPROMISE. What are your thoughts on having the alternate spellings footnoted versus having them all listed out User:Highpeaks35? I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I liked your version Anupam. Which is for sure cleaner. I am hoping more editors and admins will join the next few days to give their input. Best, (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC))

I don't think you understand. I've removed the footnotes so that everyone can see the poor quality of your edits. As I have said, it is minority usage, 1 to 64. It doesn't belong to the lead in any form. It hasn't been in the lead (in your own edits might I add) and you didn't have an epiphany last night to add it, and then to willy-nilly justify your edits with third rate sources such as the "Overseas Women's Club of Chennai." It doesn't belong. WP policy on reliable sources and due weight does not allow it. 1 to 64 is undue weight. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

What does Encyclopedia Britannica say about "Shalwar kameez?" Its shalwar-kameez page refers the reader to three pages:

• Bangladesh: Daily Life and Social Customs which says, "The sari is common among women, but girls and younger women, especially students, prefer the shalwar kamiz, a combination of calf-length shirt and baggy silk or cotton trousers gathered at the ankles."
• India:Clothing which says, 'Although throughout most of India women wear saris and short blouses, the way in which a sari is wrapped varies greatly from one region to another. In Punjab, as well as among older female students and many city dwellers, the characteristic dress is the shalwar-kamiz, a combination of pajama-like trousers and a long-tailed shirt (saris being reserved for special occasions).
• Pakistan: Daily Life and Social Customs, which says, "Pakistani clothing styles are similar in many ways to those found in India. The shalwar-kamiz combination—a long knee-length shirt (kamiz, camise) over loose-fitting pants (shalwar)—is the most common traditional form of attire."

Are you seriously attempting to make the case for "shalwar kurta?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

PS As Jimbo Wales has said elsewhere (subscription required), "The greatest misconception about Wikipedia is that we are democratic." In other words consensus does not mean holding hands, raising a toast, and arriving at a solution with which all participants are personally pleased, and no egos are bruised. Rather, it is the formulation, however unacceptable personally to individuals, that the predominance of sources drives them toward. I don't see the sources doing so for "shalwar kurta." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Finally, please note that at all times I have followed talk page guidelines before making my edits.

• • See my post in the section above addressed to the leading editor of the Shalwar kameez page, Malikhpur, eliciting his assent for my doing what needed to be done (see here). I did not edit the article until I had heard from him.
  • In contrast, @Anupam: made this post here which says, "The alternate term "Shalwar Kurta" was recently removed by User:Fowler&fowler from this article, despite the fact that this is the name of the dress in some localities. I think that this term should be restored to the lede, as it was referenced. I look forward to hearing the thoughts of others on this matter." He forgot to mention that I was removing what he had added to the article only a couple of hours before, without any earlier intimation on the talk page about intending to do so. Also, after inviting others to weigh in, he has been will nilly adding poorly sourced text to the lead.
  • How poorly sourced is the text he is adding? One source which he cites for claim, "The kameez usually has a collar, while the kurta normally does not" and which itself states, "The kurta, or tunic-length shirt, is collarless or has a mandarin- or Nehru style collar" (see page 570 here), has a picture on the very next page (p. 571) titled, "Young men wear kurta in Karachi, Pakistan, 2006" and all the young men are sporting Western style collars on their shirts! (see here). The publisher ABC-CLIO has published a book in which six of my articles on Indian famines have been plagiarized (and I mean copied verbatim without attribution), see here Please also note admin Doc James comment there, "ABC-CLIO is not a serious publisher." (see here)

• • In contrast, I have use only WP:SCHOLARSHIP ("Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."), in my case searches with publisher restricted to: Oxford OR Cambridge OR Harvard OR Princeton OR Michigan OR Warwick OR Manchester OR Edinburgh OR Indiana OR Yale OR Columbia OR California OR Chicago OR "university press" OR Routledge OR Wiley OR Palgrave OR Springer
  • I believe what Anupam and Highpeaks35 are engaging in is disruptive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable sources, circular citing, and original research

@Anupam: has added two sentences:The kameez and kurta are long shirts or tunics. The kameez usually has a collar, while the kurta normally does not.

The author of the first source does indeed say, "The kurta, or tunic-length shirt, is collarless or has a mandarin- or Nehru style collar." (See page 570) However, on the very next page, the author has a picture with caption, "Young men wear kurta in Karachi, Pakistan, 2006." But what are the young men wearing? In fact, they are all wearing kameezes with collars! (See here). So, are we confident that the author knows what a kurta is?

The third source (i.e. [3]) is quoted in the footnote as saying: The kameez is a long shirt or tunic, often with a western-style collar”(“Shalwar kameez”).

When you examine the cited page, the author has said:

11. A shalwar kameez is the "traditional dress of South and Central Asia, especially of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where it is worn by both men and women.... Shalwar are loose pajama-like trousers.... The kameez is a long shirt or tunic, often with a western-style collar" ("Shalwar kameez"). (see here, note 11)

At this point I became aware of a few things: a) "traditional dress ..." is in quotes; b) at the end it has ("Shalwar kameez") (i.e. in quotes within the parenthesis); c) the prose began to sound familiar.

• I checked ("Shalwar kameez") in the book's index. It showed: "Shalwar kameez." n.d. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalwar_kameez. (In other words. the author had cited from Wikipedia) That explains why the "traditional dress etc." is in quotes.
• As the language in the longer quote sounded familiar, I went back and examined my edits.
  • I had introduced the words "strictly with a Western-style collar" in an edit of 13 August 2013 with edit summary "more on collar" and with the words "
  • An editor, Khestwol, had changed "strictly" to "usually" in an edit of 2 September 2013, but had also added non-English scripts.
  • Finally in my edit of 10 September 2013, I removed the scripts, and this is the version, the author of Anumpam's source has selectively quoted from

So where are we? We have a (second) sentence: The kameez usually has a collar, while the kurta normally does not. The first part of the sentence is in effect cited to my own and Khestwol's edits of five years ago; the second part is cited to an author who doesn't seem to know what a kurta is (i.e. who is calling the kameezes of the young men in Karachi, with their Western collars, kurtas). But most importantly, the two have been linked with a while, making it an example of WP:SYNTHESIS, for neither author is making that comparison between the two tunics.

Similarly, the first sentence, "The kameez and kurta are long shirts or tunics" is cited to two sources. The first is purely about the kameez, the second about the kurta; however, joining the two by "and" again makes it synthesis, as a similarity is implied in the garments, which is not implied in either source.

In other words, there is precious little evidence for what is being attempted in the argument: that kameez and kurta are essentially similar, but superficially different. Without that argument there is no rationale for introducing kurta in the lead. If I don't hear a cogent response, I will be removing all mention of kurta in the lead, i.e. the WP:STATUSQUO in this article for twelve years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Since we haven't heard from the admins, I am pinging @Kautilya3: who know a good bit about sourcing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

References

• Comment - Yeah, the source [3] is indeed copying Wikipedia. It acknowledges it on p.59.

• I think this collar stuff is a red herring. Yes, a kurta isn't expected to have a collar, but nothing can be said about the collar of a kameez.
• In my view, salwar-kameez is a whole dress, designed as such. The way Afghans wear it is the traditional salwar-kameez, unadulterated by any modern fashion. They key distinguishing feature of kameez is its length. It is expected to be knee-length or below-the-knee length to give it the long, flowy feel. Of course fashions vary. But that is the traditional style.
• As for kurta, there is no particular length required. It can be as short or as long as you like. It also doesn't have to go with any particular bottom. South Indians have worn it with dhoti for centuries. College students wear it with jeans. For modern life style, the kurta is more practical than salwar-kameez.
• Given that this is a page trying to describe the authentic salwar-kameez, adding "salwar-kurta" as a synonym is badly muddying waters. The "salwar-kurta" is a modern consumerist invention, I think, perhaps to help with modern vagaries of life. It can be added in a section in the body. But please don't put it into the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

References

User:Fowler&fowler, I am curious as to whether you are claiming that the shalwar is never worn with the kurta? We have scholarly sources that claim that this is the case, which I have added into the article, but you insist on censoring this fact. Why? For example, Fluidity and acculturation: the case of Pakistani Punjabis in Brunei Darussalam by Abbas Zaidi & Maya Khemlani David, which is published in the academic journal South Asian Diaspora states: "Both in urban Punjab in Pakistan and with the educated Punjabis elsewhere, kurta–shalwar as dress is preferred to kurta–dhoti, and it is only in the villages that kurta–dhotiis worn..." You and I know both know that the qameez with modern set sleeves is a relatively new garment in comparison with the older kurta that has been worn for centuries with the shalwar and pyjamas. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is reliable sources and it is on this principle that you will be reverted if you try to remove sourced facts. As you have been reverted by both myself and User:Highpeaks35, you are warned not to edit war and learn here, on this talk page, instead. We will all collectively reach a solution together. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 18:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

In agreement with you and User:Kautilya3 about the ABC-CLIO reference being a circular source, I have no objection to its removal. What I do oppose removing from the introduction is mention that the kurta is worn with the shalwar. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler, I am curious as to whether you are claiming that the shalwar is never worn with the kurta? We have scholarly sources that claim that this is the case, which I have added into the article, but you insist on censoring this fact. Why? For example, Fluidity and acculturation: the case of Pakistani Punjabis in Brunei Darussalam by Abbas Zaidi & Maya Khemlani David, which is published in the academic journal South Asian Diaspora states: "Both in urban Punjab in Pakistan and with the educated Punjabis elsewhere, kurta–shalwar as dress is preferred to kurta–dhoti, and it is only in the villages that kurta–dhotiis worn..." You and I know both know that the qameez with modern set sleeves is a relatively new garment in comparison with the older kurta that has been worn for centuries with the shalwar and pyjamas. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is reliable sources and it is on this principle that you will be reverted if you try to remove sourced facts. As you have been reverted by both myself and User:Highpeaks35, you are warned not to edit war and learn here, on this talk page, instead. We will all collectively reach a solution together. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 18:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying that if a tunic is worn as an upper body garment with the shalwar, ti is called a kameez, no matter what is collar looks like (see here), as long as its side seams are open below the waist. It is the same with the rural boys in File:Afghan_boys_in_shalwar_kameez_in_Badakshan.jpg; they are wearing a veriety of collars, European-style, Mandarin, and none, but all have long tunics, with side seams open below the waist which the windy day highlights with good effect. Are some people calling this combination wear, "Shalwar kurta?" To be sure they are, but in a miniscule proportion as to be statistically insignificant. 1 in 64 is approximately: 1.56%. That is certainly not worth mentioning in the lead.

As for your warning, Wikipedia never guarantees that any citation with a source is worthy of using in an article. It recommends that the source be scholarly for the best, most water-tight, citations, but most of all that the narrative not constitute WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Any inclusion of kurta in the lead would constitute Undue Weight. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Some people call the same combination "kurta shalwar" or "kurta salwar." Apparently 198,000 people do in contrast to the 383,000 that call it "Shalwar kurta" OR "salwar kurta" in contrast to the 27 million that call it "Shalwar kameez" or variant spellings. Well, "kurta shalwar" is 1 in 128. Where do we stop? If 1 in 64 is allowed, why not 1 in 128? So, we will have "kurta shalwar' in the lead sentence also. Undue weight is undue weight. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

PPS More people call it "kameez shalwar" as a matter of fact, 829,000 do, that is only 1 in 33. You can easily find an academic citation for it: Bonner, Arthur (1990), Averting the Apocalypse: Social Movements in India Today, Duke University Press, pp. 89–, ISBN 0-8223-8163-X, which says, "... dressed in simple kameez shalwar, a long loose shirt worn over loose trousers, gathered at the waist, and narrow at the ankles." So, we should list "kameez shalwar" before we list "shalwar kurta." You see, it soon descends into chaos. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Anupam, I hope Fowler&fowler is not saying that Kurta "cannot be worn with shalwar". It can be worn with anything. But I don't see what difference that makes. We are not going to introduce terms like "dhoti-kurta" or "Jeans-kurta", are we? "Salwar-kurta" falls into the same camp.

On the policy issue, please see Verifiability does not guaranteee inclusion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for both of your comments. I'm willing to respect the consensus here, whatever that may be. However, I'd like to hear from User:Highpeaks35 on this issue before any changes are made. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 20:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 :) Of course not. You can wear a kurta with a salwar; however 63 out of 64 onlookers will call it "salwar kameez." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts do not change much:

1. Shalwar kurta has its place, but for the greater good removing it from the lead is fine. But, can we at least have it in a later section? Maybe modern "version", etc.? In addition, a "note" in the lead?
2. I still do not see how Shalwar kameez became a "history(ish)" article, from what I get from Kautilya3's points. It is about clothes.
3. However, I don't want to waste time. It is best the article be developed further by Fowler&fowler. If FF agrees to have something in later sections of mentioning "Shalwar kurta", and if possible, a note in the lead that would be great per WP:COMPROMISE.
4. I am not going to do what was done to me in South Asian pickle. Kinda became discouraged from editing and improving the article, because did not know if I was adding Indic type pickles or pickles of Iranic cultures of Afghanistan. I could not get it through, those sources do not support the existence of the term South Asian pickles; some sources only stated South Asians eat it (obviously). So Anupam, if you have time, and want to help me improve South Asian pickles, then change to "Pickles (Indian subcontinent)", or better yet, achaar. That would be a much better use of our time and helping the Wikipedia project. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC))

Dear User:Highpeaks35, I can live with that too. In the spirit of compromise, I can agree to have "salwar kurta" footnoted. Also, I would be happy to help you with other South Asian-related articles. Feel free to let me know anytime you'd like my input. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The picture of a Scythian warrior from 500 BC

From the tomb of Xerxes, the middle figure is Scythian

It is a historical costume. That is why everybody wants to claim the term. But 90% of what gets sold in India/Pakistan today as "salwar-kameez" is better called "churidar-kurta", which is/was a Moghul costume. It morphed into "salwar-kameez" in the last few decades when the knee-length kurta became high fashion, and they needed a new name to brand it. But neither the "salwar" nor the "kameez" of the modern invention is practical for daily wear. The Afghan versions are.

The new "salwar-kurta" is probably trying to move in the practical direction (i.e., allow the kurta to be shorter). But what they call "salwar" is still the churidar. See the Indian government definitions in the citation I provided above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The shalwar certainly is historical. According to the OED, in English, the term goes back to 1824: 1824 J. Morier Adventures Hajji Baba II. ix. 144 Can I offer him five tomâuns, and a pair of crimson shalwars? 1828 J. B. Fraser Kuzzilbash I. xv. 200 His huge shulwars, or riding trowsers..fell in folds over the large red leather boots. 1840 J. B. Fraser Trav. Koordistan II. v. 118 The Sheikh's cloaks and shulwârs.

But Morier had already used it in 1812: James Justinian Morier, Esq, His Majesty's Secretary of Embassy to the Court of Persia (1812), A Journey Through Persia, Armenia, and Asia Minor, to Constantinople, in the Years 1808 and 1809; in which is Included, Some Account of the Proceedings of His Majesty's Mission, Under Sir Harford Jones, Bart. K.C. to the Court of the King of Persia, Paternoster Row, London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, pp. 247–{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), and with humor. Someone should tell the OED to update their history of usage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, go ahead with the improvements. However, let Anupam and I know if a note in the lead and a later section on modern styles mentioning Shalwar Kurta is acceptable to you. Because that compromise works for us. Let us know or what concern you have. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC))

I'm in a hurry right now. Will reply later to all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Anupam: @Highpeaks35: Let me see what I can do by way of compromise. Will try, and post here later today. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Massive addition as well as removal of established content

FF, explain these massive changes of yours. Why remove these established images and content here. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC))

The lead and section 1 were in place by 14 April (see here) except for the kurta reference, and shalwar kurta reference, in the modern styles section, to which I have not even got. You signalled your consent on 18th April (see here). Today is the 24 April. Neither the lead nor section 1 have changed since you gave your consent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I notice now that @Hammy0007:, who has no history on this page, and who until very recent was an IP, is now facilely repeating your edits her and removing content. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

i do have a history here, i was editing here as an IP. Hammy0007 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hammy0007: Where are the IP's posts in the building of consensus on this talk page? You have no history of weighing in on the pros and cons of the various issues on this talk page. With such absence of background, you are edit warring, after having already been warned by an admin elsewhere. I'd say, take a step back and try to gain consensus here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

you are the one edit warring here, all the rest of the users are calling you edit warrior, secondly dont try to act smart now and do gradual removal of references from kurta, you have even removed the history and ethymology references which you mentioned in your edits. Hammy0007 (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Central asia and afghanistan reference is a bit bogus

i think that shalwar kameez is not declared as one or used for the afghani dress, it is called perahan tunban and clearly stated in the captions, hence the terminology shalwar kameez is only used in the indian sub continent and specifically in the indo gangetic region and more specifically in western indian subcontinent. The baggy pants and shirts are also worn for instance in turkey or armenia etc, but it doesnt make it shalwar kameez to be honest.

i dont know if afghanistan is the one being referenced as central asia or is it south asia, because the political denomination of central asia doesnt have any dress resembling shalwar kameez and neither mentioned in this article neither has afghanistan as part of it, there is no dress called shalwar kameez in either Afghanistan or any baggy pants being worn in central asia or being referenced as one, so really dont understand imposing central asia in the article.

i think that afghani dress which is called perahan tunban needs a separate article just like nepali dress which has its own article, and this article should solely address the Indian sub continent dress. including india, pakistan and bangladesh which is not south or central asia but only indian subcontinent as its political definition. Hammy0007 (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you Hammy0007. However, I am bringing senior editors @Anupam and Kautilya3: so that they can give their input; and we can have a discussion on what they think and suggest. We need to maintain transparency, before someone stoops low into attacking us with ad hominem attacks to get their way. As they clearly have demonstrated it before. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 07:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC))

No sources have been provided. So there is no input I can give. But Perahan tunban page says it is a kind of Salwar Kameez. If so, I don't see a problem.

On the whole, I think Salwar Kameez is turning out to be a fairly generic term, of which many specimens are found. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

i just want to know where the term central asia applies here to be honest, afghanistan has been considered within the geographical and political confines of South Asia, and only afghanistan has been referenced here, so where is shalwar kameez dress from central asia? until and unless we start considering afghanistan as part of Central Asia. The user who is imposing central asia here doesnt give the examples of shalwar kameez for instance from uzbekistan, do uzbek, tajik, kazak people also wear shalwar kameez? i think the user is using or rather manipulating certain sources which probably define afghanistan within the confines of central asia, i think the user needs to provide the geographic confines of the term of shalwar kameez, since no uzbek, kazak people wear a dress minutely resembling shalwar kameez, as i have already stated turks also wear baggy pants and so do armenians, should turkey be included in this definition of baggy trousers being labelled as shalwar kameez as one reference of the user Fowler indicates that? Hammy0007 (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hammy0007: Fair point. Part of the problem is that Afghanistan is not unambiguously in South Asia, the Wikipedia page for South Asia notwithstanding. The OED, for example, says, "Etymology: < south adj.+ Asian n., in sense A. 1 now chiefly after South Asia, the name given to the southern part of Asia, now usually taken to comprise India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, and usually also Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldives, and sometimes also Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Tibet, and Iran." The Afghanistan page describes it as lying in South-Central Asia. We could either change it to: "some/different regions of South and Central Asia." That way we would not need to change the references. Or we could say, "worn in South Asia, as well as Afghanistan," in which case some people might object that Afghanistan is in South Asia. Or we could say, "worn in South Asia" (without mentioning Central Asia), and then others might object, "but what about Afghanistan?" (implying that it is in Central Asia). I think the "different regions" might be the most accurate description, because, after all, the Apatani people of Arunachal Pradesh, living firmly in South Asia, (i.e. when China is not insinuating they are living in East Asia :)), don't exactly wear Shalwar kameez. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

yes definitely you need to mention that since central asia is a pretty big geographical area, since afghanistan is considered part of south asia by most of the definitions, i think you need to scrap the central asian part since i think that attributing shalwar kameez to central asia will be highly misplaced, even if afghanistan is sometimes considered part of central asia or middle east doesnt make it middle eastern or central asian dress tbh, shalwar kameez element is definitely not representative of central asia proper at all, while shalwar kameez terminology is more oriented towards south asia and kameez terminology has its origins from the province of Sindh through arab contacts, afghanistan as i already stated only uses a style of shalwar kameez and their dress have its own name, so shalwar kameez terminology is only attributed to the western indian subcontinent and not afghanistan or by no means central asia. So i think you need to exclude central asia and only mention afghanistan with south asia as in brackets. i think it should be in that way because nobody thinks shalwar kameez is worn in central asia, and people dont usually think about afghanistan as a central asian state. Hammy0007 (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: They are objecting the sentence: Shalwar kameez, (also salwar kameez and less commmonly shalwar qameez) is a traditional dress worn by women, and also by men, in South Asia, as well as Central Asia.

references
References

I have to bend over backwards to be precise and scholarly, and they can't even express their objections in cogent prose. Look at the garbage they are stuffing in Kurta#History, where they have divined a kurta on the torso of a mahout riding an elephant in a six-inch high chess piece. I've just added a reference on the Central Asian nomadic tunic origin of the kurta in the lead. Now watch them do a song-and-dance to somehow remove that and restore the "Indian subcontinental" origin. If they can't restore "India" by hook or by crook, they complain that I'm being rude, attacking their character, etc. etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I have previously been a major editor of this article as well as the kurta article. I know there have been changes to the shalwar kameez article but i have not commented. Aftr reviewing clothing sources, i believe the term Shalwar kameez covers regional styles of Afganistan, Balochistan and Punjab. Each region has its own style. The Perharan tunban style is from Afghanistan which traditionally has a voluminous shalwar and tunics which tend to flare out and tend not to have chaaks. The Balochi kameez also is traditionally long with a baggy, pleated shalwar. The Punjabi kameez is knee length with side slits and a tighter salwar. I think the article needs to reflect the different styles. Please also note that Punjabi clothing in Afghanistan is known as Punjabi dereshi which refers to the Punjabi suit. I hope a consenus can be be reached. User:Malikhpur (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

shalwar kameez is worn also in sindh and also in india proper not just restricted to punjab region, i have seen videos about UP people wearing what they call shalwar kameez, so to say shalwar kameez is restricted to afghanistan, punjab and balochistan is highly dubious not to mention the kameez is most likely a sindhi borrowing from arabic word and not punjabi borrowing. Secondly the word is only a terminology, i dont really think there is a major difference between kurta or kameez, shalwar or payjama, these terminologies have been used interchangeably, the women call them kurti more often than kameez, does it make it a different dress, i think the article should be solely used as a terminology, there is nothing different between kurta, kameez etc in my frank opinion other than minor differences. Hammy0007 (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hammy0007: I have already covered the Sindhi and other regional styles in the article. I was trying to confirm that the phrase shalwar Kameez covers different regional styles. Indeed the different styles are worn in other areas, outside of the place of origin just as western jeans are worn in many parts of India etc.User Malikhpur talk20.38 27 April 2019 utc

@Malikhpur: I'm assuming you are including NWFP (now Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa) in either the Punjab or Afghanistan. Ultimately, we can only go with the reliable, scholarly sources, especially for a more generic description needed in the lead. We say South and Central Asia. That is fairly generic. Later in the lead, we add a little more detail, about being worn in Pakistan (which obviously includes Balochistan), Afghanistan, and Punjab. But we cannot get any more specific than that in the lead. I am reasonably sure it would be both UNDUE and OR. However, the rest of the article, i.e. sections 4 and beyond, I am not touching, and it will continue to reflect the different styles, as will as your painstaking work. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• This doesn't settle our debate, but a nice set of slides on the history of Indian clothing over the millennia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Some links for Tajikistan [1], [2], [3], [4]
• Some for Uzbekistan [5] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hammy0007: Please do not make silly edits in the lead sentence. If you think Central Asia shouldn't be mentioned, please attempt to explain: Alkazi, Roshen (2002), "Evolution of Indian Costume as a result of the links between Central Asia and India in ancient and medieval times", in Rahman, Abdur (editor) (ed.), India's Interaction with China, Central and West Asia, Oxford University Press, pp. 464–484, ISBN 978-0-19-565789-0 {{citation}}: |editor= has generic name (help):

"Taking the Kushan period as a starting point the changes that took place in Indian costume as a result of the connections with Uzbekistan in Central Asia are discussed The ordinary dress of the people of India till then had consisted usually of unstitched garments as antariya/dhoti, uttariya/dupatta and a kayabandh/cummerbund with a turban for men. (page 465) ...Timur's large empire in Central Asia influenced the garments worn at all Islamic courts including India. Babur who himself came from the Ferghana Valley in Uzbekistan was the first of the Mughals and he and his progeny continued exercising their influence on Indian costume right till the advent of the British. The role of the Mughals in creating new and fashionable modes of dress started to percolate to the masses in the same way that British costume did in a later period. What we see today in the trousers, shirts and coats is the British influence on Indian dress, just as the kurta, pyjama, salwar, achkan is that of Central Asia ... (page 468)"

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hammy0007: You are a new editor, you have already been warned by an admin, please, for heaven's sakes, do not make unencyclopedic edits to the lead sentence. You need talk page consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Highpeaks35: what do you think man, i suspect, the user Fowler is just adding central asia, for his agenda, and nothing else, Fowler, i have told you to define geographic confines, you accepted my argument that central asia denotes not uzbekistan, kazaistan etc but only afghanistan here and you emphasized on afghanistan being the case and not the rest, now you are removing my edits which elaborates on central asia being meant as afghanistan, what do you want now? if you are backtracking on your own acceptance, where is uzbek, kazakh shalwar kameez? Hammy0007 (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

FF already admitted they have a bias for "South Asia". In this case, to help new readers and the most accurate term in the lead paragraph is: "Indian subcontinent as well as Afghanistan". FF is using South Asia, excluding Afghanistan, and Central Asia, including Afghanistan. Wikipedia WP:Consensus is clear, Afghanistan is part of South Asia, not Central Asia. As such, my proposal is the best. I am pinging @Anupam and Kautilya3: for their input. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC))

@Hammy0007: Wikipedia does not respect what I say, only what the sources say. Two reliable scholarly sources already mention "Central Asia" which is cited in the lead sentence. They don't say (Central Asia, including Afghanistan) and South Asia (not including Afghanistan)" In addition, just yesterday I found a more detailed source, from which I have quoted above. These are all originally Central Asian garments that have evolved over the years. They were worn in India, by a privileged few after the Kushans, and by the masses after the Muslim conquests. Be warned again, this is an India-Pakistan-Afghanistan topic, there are discretionary sanctions in place you have been warned by an admin, please stop this cavalier POV-pushing, and edit warring. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

your central asian references have not been removed, only elaborated by means of afghanistan, as i say it again, if you have any sources which explain uzbek, kazakh, tajik shalwar kameez, please add them, i will have zero objections, but i do have objections you projecting a south asian dress/ as i have already stated the terminology is south asian and not afghani as well as central asian, ad i wont allow you manipulating this article, you are also trying to give kurta a central asian colour when even your own sources state its only south asian, i think your edits are only imposing your POV and agenda and they are not constructive edits. Hammy0007 (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, As mentioned before, Wikipedia WP:Consensus is clear, Afghanistan is part of South Asia, not Central Asia, that makes those sources possibly WP:FRINGE. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC))

Fowler&fowler, I reversed it to the undisputed version that stood for years, per WP:STATUSQUO. Please keep it there, until WP:Consensus is reached. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC))

I'm afraid you are not free to decide what the status quo is. The lead author Malikhpur has expressed no argument yet with the version that was here before you and Hammy0007 began to edit war. For argument's sake I could say, why stop at 2015, why not return it to the version of 2014 that was in this page for much longer? See here. There is no discussion on this talk page about why South and Central Asia was removed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Consensus is not between say a hypothetical Wikipedian Tweedledum and a Tweedledee, but in the sources. The premier resource in the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary defines South Asia to be: Etymology: < south adj.+ Asian n., in sense A. 1 now chiefly after South Asia, the name given to the southern part of Asia, now usually taken to comprise India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, and usually also Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldives, and sometimes also Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Tibet, and Iran." So, why only include Afghanistan? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, you need to go South Asia talk page and change it first. You can't use one source to change WP:Consensus for this one article. The onus is on you. Please go to South Asia talk page and exclude Afghanistan. See if you get support. Cheers! (Highpeaks35 (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC))

No I don't. There is no Wikipedia rule that says that if an error is being made on one page, it needs to be made in every reference to that page. That page, by the way, has qualifications. "South Asia" has even more limited spread in Physical Geography: "South Asia, in the limited sense of the term, consists of the Indo-Gangetic Plain, peninsular India, and Sri Lanka. The Indo-Gangetic Plain is formed from the combined alluvial plains of the Indus, Ganges (Ganga), and Brahmaputra rivers, which lie in a deep marginal depression running north of and parallel to the main range of the Himalayas. It is an area of subsidence into which thick accumulations of earlier marine sediments and later continental deposits have washed down from the rising mountains. The sediments provide fertile soil in the Ganges and Brahmaputra basins and in irrigated parts of the Indus basin, while the margins of the Indus basin have become sandy deserts. Peninsular India and Sri Lanka are formed of platform plateaus and tablelands, including the vast Deccan plateau, uplifted in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic. The region includes tablelands with uplifted margins, such as the Western and Eastern Ghats, and terraced and dissected plateaus with lava mantles or intrusions." (See Britannica)</ref> Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Fine, Fowler&fowler, build consensus here. Hammy, K3, Anupam and many other editors are here. No one seems to be agreeing with you. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC))

Highpeaks35 Before you misinform me breezily about a "consensus" on the South Asia page, please examine the definition there. It says, "South Asia or Southern Asia, is a term used to represent the southern region of the Asian continent, which comprises the sub-Himalayan SAARC countries and, for some authorities, adjoining countries to the west and east." Do you know what "sub-Himalayan" means? If so, please explain? Do you also understand, what "for some authorities" means? Please explain. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Simple, all countries in SAARC is associated with South Asia, per WP:Consensus. Cheers! (Highpeaks35 (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC))

It doesn't say SAARC countries, but "sub-Himalayan SAARC" countries. What does sub-Himalayan (Webster's, " situated under or at the foot of the Himalaya Mountains") mean? What is the western anchor of the Himalayas? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Highpeaks, Hammy: Afghanistan is part of both South Asia and Central Asia. See Afghanistan#Geography. You guys are out on a limb and need to stop.

I have shown you images of Salwar-Kameez like clothing being worn by Central Asians going back to 500 BC, as well as in contemporary times. See also Kushanas. There is no question that the ideas for Salwar-Kameez originated in Central Asia, and the reliable sources say so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Saraiki Singer Patka & cholistani Saraiki chola.JPG

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of grammar edit

I made a minor edit for grammar which has just been reverted. I did not give a detailed explanation at the time of editing, so I thought it would be helpful to provide it here. 'Latter' is correct only when referring to the second of two items; for longer lists, 'last' is correct. The list in the article contains three items, so it is better to use 'last'. For this reason I would ask that the edit is restored. Collisam (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, that is true generally, but "latter" has various meanings. The OED (revised for this term in 2015) says, "Latter (adj) 3. That has been mentioned second of two, last of a group of more than two, or at or near the end of a preceding clause or sentence. Frequently opposed to former." It gives many attested examples, one of which is: "1971 Guardian 24 Dec. 17/5 The Berlin Wall stands unbreached, passes are needed to get into Bethlehem and Father Christmas has been arrested in Oxford Street. It's the latter item that fascinates me." Anyway, there are many ways to resolve this seeming conflict. We could change, "The kameez may have a European-style collar, a Mandarin collar, or it may be collarless; in the latter case, its design as a women's garment is similar to a kurta." to "The kameez may have a collar, European style or Mandarin, or it may be collarless; in the latter case, its design as a women's garment is similar to a kurta." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC) You could also go for an m-dash: ... a collar—European style or Mandarin—or it may be collarless; ..." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

etymology, etymology, etymology

The Etymology section is too wordy; when multiple sources say the same thing, we need not quote each of them separately. I may take a crack at this mañana. —Tamfang (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that Shalwar Kameez was first adopted by women (with the exclusion of men)

Hi, it seems that the claim that the shalwar kameez was first adopted by women (with the exclusion of men) is unfounded in the citations provided. Although the sources go more in depth regarding the process of how it got adopted by women, the style seems to have proliferated among the Indian Muslim men and women simultaneously following the introduction of the gender-neutral style of the loose fitted trousers from Western and Central Asia, albeit at different paces and modifications. What thoughts on this?

Thanks Aksumz (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)