Talk:Dhar (guerrilla warfare)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No definition
There is no explanation as to what Dhar actually is, just examples of its use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.44.149 (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Factual accuracy disputed
Take a look at Talk:Shivaji. This concept too seems highly dubious given that. In the only RS present, I couldn't verify the presence of even the word "dhar" or "guerrilla" in the entire book. I checked : 4th edition 1991, 1992 and volume 3 1991. Just maybe the editions have a mismatch, given that the source presented says the much older 1934 with the 426th page number, all I've checked are the reprints which don't even have that many pages. But I don't think we can bank on that, till evidence is presented per WP:BURDEN. I think we ought to redirect (I found mentions of Jats using unconventional tactics, the name "Dhar" is found just one passing mention probably some relevance in etymology otherwise nonexistent) to more broader page or retitle this page to remove the "guerrilla" term at least--till more work on done on how the term guerrilla is frequently mislabelled. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll clarify that I don't dispute the source but the overall way it's presented and whether it warrants a separate article because of the probably mislabelling of it. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)