Talk:Kulachi (tribe)

World Placenames
Modern dictionary sources really should not need quoting in the article - they aren't usually open to interpretation or otherwise contentious. So I removed the ridiculous quote needed tag that was recently added. However, to put an end to this repeated display of bad faith, the source says: "Said to take its name from the Kulachi, a Balochi tribe; however, it has also been suggested that the name comes from Kalachi, a tribal chief or, less likely, a humble fisherman who lived in the area."

As you will note, our article says may take it name from Kulachi, not does. There is no need to give the variant origins in this article, although they would be valid at Karachi.

Becoming very fed up of this time-wasting. - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Sitush It seems you like to rush a lot. I added the quotation tag because I couldn't view the source you had added. Not even a snippet view. WP:VER
 * Also, kindly stop removing content. I updated the link with a full pdf doc of the book which you can also view, so you don't start saying snippet view. Also, I added a quote. And you have added Some now live in Sindh and speak the Sindhi language. It's not what it says in the quote, the quote is talking about Balochistan. Specifically mentioning "Sindhi races" separately from Brahui, Baloch & Pathans. Then goes on to name Sindhi tribes, starts from "Abra" and then mentions "Settled there for the last many centuries", he's talking about Balochistan, settled in Balochistan. Not Sindh. Kindly at least read what it says instead of speedily removing content. Be neutral. Also please read WP:VOICE. Thanks.
 * And yeah, I also have more references about Kolachi Jats. Sir Calculus (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus That's a good catch. I misread it. Will remove completely as it is clearly a fringe viewpoint when so many sources say Baloch origin. - Sitush (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush What do you mean it's fringe? It's an academic source, not even from the 90s. A detailed one. Which you can fully read as it's linked. It is also a secondary source and has references mentioned in detail in the last chapter. So your objections are invalid. Actually read references. Don't rush. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Girth Summit As you can see @Sitush is unnecessarily causing trouble here.
 * I made a promise few weeks ago that I will prove that snippet view. And now I have done that yet he is still refusing it. Kindly check It's the first reference in that version of the article. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus all higher quality sources seem to agree that Kulachi is a Baloch tribe. Now, it's possible that some of its members moved to Sindh and also spoke Sindhi, but it doesn't mean that whole tribe can be labelled as Sindhi now. You're pushing unnecessary POV here and, quite honestly, just wasting time of other editors. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sutyarashi Please stop your assumptions. I'm not labelling a whole tribe as Sindhi. I'm adding that a Sindhi tribe exists as well. The source I posted is high quality and is recent, not older than 2000's. And it's not talking about some members who moved to Sindh. Kindly read the source in the previous version of the article, I updated it, you can view the full doc. I'm not pushing any POV, but you are suppressing neutrality. I'm presenting both viewpoints and it's not minor, it's an academic reference. Stop wasting mine and your time over arguing for no reason. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus What you promised was to go edit non-tribal articles for a while so you would gain a better grounding of how things work before getting involved in a notoriously difficult topic area that has been a graveyard for many a new contributor. Instead, you can't leave it alone, have breached numerous policies & guidelines, claimed other editors are racist etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush I gained experience. Learned some things. Now have you seen me using RAJ era sources? Also, whenever I have been made aware by others, I have stopped doing things like what you call "breaching". Even recently just 20 mins ago, I restored the Abro article back to the surname list. I have been using reliable and academic sources now for every article I edit. And that discussion at ANI is closed. I retracted my comments and issued a sincere apology. So please stop escalating this any further. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You've pinged me above, but I don't see anything approaching Sitush 'unnecessarily causing trouble' here. I think that the last time we spoke, I advised you to listen to what Sitush has to say - they are an enormously experienced and talented Wikipedian. If I was editing an article that was within Sitush's area of interest, and Sitush told me that they had problems with a source I had used, I would start from the assumption that they were probably correct, ask what the problems were, and put myself into 'listen and learn mode'. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Except he rejects every source. Even the academic ones. Like the one I posted in the link I shared with you. So it is "unnecessary". Sir Calculus (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus It is a view wildly out of sync with other sources both in its geographical claim and its terminology ("races" rather than "tribes"). - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush The author calls tribes as Sindhi races. Not Race. So it is evident he is talking about tribes, especially so when he goes on to say the tribe names. A single person can't be "race". And it's not just a single source, there are other sources as well about Kolachi Jats which I can post but they are in Sindhi language. So the current one is better especially since it's from a reputed academic source, has references for every sentence at the end of the book. And a publisher's word is also included, so you can check if you have doubts. Most importantly it respects WP:RS. So all your objections are invalid here. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)