Talk:Shalwar kameez/Archive 1

Images

 * Images would be useful in order to better understand and remove the links which read like advertisements. I am sure someoene on wikipedia has shalwar kamiz or a friend whom would pose in it. gren 11:49, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who put the Folkwear link there. I have no financial interest in Folkwear. They just make the best-known series of ethnic and historic patterns. I've been sewing from them for years. I wouldn't consider that an advertisement, especially as I don't know of any OTHER salwar kamiz patterns. I don't know where to find a picture of someone wearing a salwar suit that wouldn't be copyrighted. Zora 12:35, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Which of course had me googling like mad to see if I COULD find a picture. I found a picture from a book published in 1922, the famous Tilke book on Oriental costume, which is out of copyright. I'll see if I can figure out how upload it ... Zora 13:07, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to imply someone was trying to benefit from the link. I just believe that if we can have a picture not related to a commercial endeavor (and public domain preferably) that it would be superior.  The link you had worked very well in absence of such a picture. gren 13:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've added another picture of a modern-day salwar kamiz that I thought was fairly representative. It may not be perfect, but it's free use, and I thought that it demonstrates what a salwar kamiz looks like a bit better than its predecessor. I moved the other to the Sewing section, as it shows the individual components of a salwar kamiz. Anne M. Daniels 23:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Punjabi suit?
I think the term "Punjabi suit" is used only for a specific type of Kamiz, not all types of them. So, the term cannot be applied to all sorts of salwar-kamiz suits. --Ragib 04:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me what the differences are between a "regular" salwar kamiz and a Punjabi suit? I believe that I've seen "Punjabi" used on a few web retail sites to describe somewhat loose and baggy salwar, but it's far from universal. Zora 04:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, my wife could have described it better, but she's on vacation now, so I'd try my best ... the Punjabi styled salwar kamizes, when worn by women, are somewhat plain and have a straighter cut. Also, the colors tend to be lighter. Look into the Punjabi dress worn by North Indians and Pakistani men ... the punjabi styled kamiz is perhaps more like that. I'm really bad at describing this, I think I'd come up with an example image to clarify this. Thanks. --Ragib 04:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Pictures would help. When you say the cut is straighter and the colors are lighter, I immediately think of the Lucknowi style chikan-embroidered suits in very light muslin. I haven't seen those called Punjabi suits, tho'. Zora 05:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've always heard Punjabi suit and salwar kamiz used interchangeably, but I'm very willing to believe there are exceptions. The edit is fine. Anne M. Daniels 23:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Merging
I'd suggest that the stub articles be renamed salwar and kamiz, any info merged (if there IS any info that isn't already in the main article), and that salwar, kamiz, and Punjabi suit be set up to redirect to the this article. Zora 21:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I second you on that. Amen Gurubrahma 10:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Anon with agenda
Anon, the "embroidery with mirrors" is called shisha embroidery and it's just as characteristic of Rajasthan as it is of Pakistan. In any case, it's not universal. Probably more characteristic of rural/tribal clothing than urban kamiz. Trying to give "Hindu" gloss to dupatta is again silly. Trying to change Islam-associated history of salwar suit is just wrong. Moreover, your edits are ungrammatical. Please stop. Zora 00:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Shalwar Qamis??
This is with reference to the spelling Shalwar Qamis and a redirect from Shalwar Qamis leading to this article. Shalwar Qamis is a non-standard spelling where as Salwar Kamiz is a standard spelling. The former generates 139 hits while the latter generates 7,00,000+ hits on Google. Also, I'd like to say that consensus should not be at the cost of credibility of Wikipedia. --Gurubrahma 08:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that's some anon Pakistani editor who feels that the Indian version of the word is being favored. Just as we had an anon Indian editor who wanted to remove all connection between salwar kamiz and Islamic invaders from Central Asia. People are refighting the Partition over the unlikeliest topics imaginable! I'll remove the ref. Can you remove the redirect? Zora 09:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should favor the vastly more common spelling, but I don't think mentioning the alternate spelling hurts, and I strenuously disagree with eliminating the redirect page, if that's what is being suggested. Redirect pages are virtually free; even if such a page only helps a small minority of users, it's worth it. -Rholton 13:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think the alternate spelling should be mentioned. The Pakistani I know spells it "Shalwar kamiz" anyways... but, I'm for removing it in the intro but keeping a redirect. gren グレン 17:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is interesting how Khat-Partug (Shalwar kamiz) are now either Punjabi, Pakistani or Indian dress code. Khat Partug is the Pashtun/Afghan or "Pathan" dress code. It was known as Pathani in India, and still is known by this name. Punjabis adopted it, and Sikhs adopted after countless invasion by Ahmed Shah Abdali, and later their rule over the Peshawar valley the Sikhs adopted many other customs, Bhangra, a local dance called "Bangray" which means a ring. Bangray or Balbala was is a domesticed version of the Afghan warrior dance ATTAN, whiceh is performed by men before going to war. They also adopted the rooster turban, the type you see today the border guards of India and Pakistan wearing. The Indian/Pakistani dress code are Lungi, Dhoti and Sari. Afghans introduced this type of dress code with their countless rules over a span of 800 years. Iranian, Turks don't wear anything close to Khat Partug, there clothing is more like Arab. From the word "Khata", means dirt, the British invented Khaki (meti color), another dress code that originated during the time of Anglo Afghans wars. Today it is known as Khaki Warde worn by government employees in India. Keray (Pathani Chapal) are now famous in both India and Pakistan. Karakul Afghan hat is also famous, worn by both Jinnah and Hamid Karzai. Pakhtun hat, or Afghan war hat is now famous all over the Muslim world after its famous use in Afghan-Russo war.


 * You are absoltely correct. Punjabis and Sindhis adopted this dress from Pashtuns and Balochs and in the 70s Pakistan made it its national dress because the bulk of its population used to wear it, and the famous soap operas of Pakistan Television made it popular in India in the 80s. Before the Muslim rule Indians were unaware of stiched clothes and used to wear Sari and Lungi. It is ironic that once pure Pashtun/Afghan historical dress and attire is now known as Indian in the world who adopted it just two or three decades ago.Asfandshah (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest you guys update this article, the dress code of Punjabi/Pakistan/India was Lungi, Dhoti, and Sari. Khat Partug (shalwar kamiz) originated with Afghans horse riders (Asvazais/Yousafzais). Even Mughul used to wear long skirts over pajamas, while Afghans/Pathans wore KHAT PARTUG (shalwar kamis), and was known as Pathani in those days. Khat Partug today is also famous over Muslim world because of it spread from again Afgan Russo war. American wore it, and British wore it. Arabs took this dress to their countries. Today it is famous all over mosques in North Americas. So is the Afghan hat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sync2k5 (talk • contribs)

Sync, your claims sound suspiciously nationalistic to me but ... I don't think we have any good articles on the HISTORY of costume in South Asia. There's a little bit of history in the Sari article and a little in this article. Rather than use current "national" units, however, it seems to me to make more sense to write articles about court costume and peasant costume under the Ghaznavids, Mughals, Marathas, etc. Their territories just don't coincide with the lines on contemporary maps. Zora 23:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Shalwar Kamis is associated with Islam, and who were the Islamic rulers of India before the Mughul? Sayyed, Lodhi, Suri, Ghori, Ghaznavi, Abdali etc. all Afghans. To mention “Persian” and “Turkic” but not to mention Afghanistan where this dress code is practiced by 99 percent of the people compared to Iran/Turkey, where many won’t even know what it is, is ridiculous and poor research. Salwar Kamis also became famous because of the influence of NWFP, Khans, and Pathans over Pakistan. These are historical facts, nothing “suspiciously nationalistic” about them. Unless you can provide concrete evidence to say otherwise, I suggest less assumptions and more common sense. There are other famous Afghan influences that are never mentioned at all, tanduri (Pakhto/Pashto = tanur = oven) Shish Kabab (Pakhto/Pashto=Shish/Sikh = metal) etc. etc.

The misspelling of shalwar kamiz
The proper word and spelling of the dress is SHALWAR KAMIZ OR QAMIZ not Salwar kamiz which used only by non urdu, non pashto speaking inhabitants of India. The word itself is of Pashto origin and is pronounced with a voicles ALveopalatal "SHHHHH" sound not a voiceless Alveoloar "SS" sound. Please let the correctons stand. Also if any one can change the Main title spelling to Shalwar kamiz that would be great as well. But Salwar as an alternative specific geographical pronounciation should be indeed mentioned. Thankyou, omerlivesOmerlives 00:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Your opinion is welcome, but the spelling Salwar Kamiz is more common. The proverbial google test reveals 100 times more hits (1.2 Million vs 13,000) for Salwar Kamiz as compared to Shalwar Qamiz. So, according to Wikipedia convention, this article is correctly using the spelling. You might look above for more discussion on the topic. Thanks. --Ragib 01:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Nagib, From whence is the spelling more common? First off that is a totaly irrelevant thing. The proper pronounciation does not depend upon how many people pronounce a certain thing some way but on the speakers of langauge for whom it is the mother tongue. And in the least it should be desgnated as the main pronounciatoin before geographical alterntive adaptations are considered. Even so Google returns more than double the hits for shalwar kamiz than salwar kamiz i:e 1.47 million vs. 684k. But this is not by any stretch any criteria or method to pick and choose terms God forbid. Unless one wants a comic releif. I am changing the article back to the more accurate form. Please donot change th article lest I report you. Please feel free to convey as to why Salwar Kamiz be the main spelling. omerlivesOmerlives 01:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed everything back. Please don't be silly. If encyclopedia users want to find out about salwar kamiz, they are going to type in the term that they know. In language, majority rules -- and in this case, salwar kamiz has become an English word. You can spell the word as you like in the Urdu Wikipedia, if there is one, but this is the English Wikipedia and we use the terms that are the most common in English. Zora 02:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Zora. Regarding google's results, did you really use google and found out "Shalwar Kamiz" gives more results? Because right now, I checked back, and "Shalwar Kamiz" returns 148,000 results whereas "salwar kamiz" returns 1.2 million results. The point is, using the more common term is a tradition in wikipedia, and that's what is being applied here. It is not  something like misspelling of a south asian word by non-south-asians ... rather the usage of a more common spelling as used in the region where salwar kamiz is prevalent. Thanks. --Ragib 02:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry guys, unsound arguments. First offs in most dictionaies the word appears as Shalwar along with mentioning that it is of udu/persian origin (which infact isn't quite true as it is Pushto albeit of the Iranian family).

Secondly, just like a variety of urdu word are mispronounced by non urdu speakers in India such as the urdu letters and words begining with the voiceless velar fricative "kh" as in khan, khun, khuda are pronounced by hindi speakers or indians in general as an aspirated voiceless velar plosive like Kahn, kuhn and so forth. This does not make it right or acurate.

Let me give you a simple example. Majority of the muslims in the islamic world are overwhelmingly non arab, hence numerically the majority pronounced the word ramadan as ramzan. This does not make it right nor acceptable as the main pronounciation. The english equivalent tries to be quite faithful to the original arabic "duad" as Ramadan.

The dress is associated with the muslims and the culture of afghan, urdu, indo-persian. Just because in UK there are many indian expatriats who have popularized salwar does not mean that it becomes the original or conventional pronounciation or should be attempted to pass off as such on an encylcopdia. That is bias. Just as I am sure Ramzan might be more popular in UK instead of Ramadan.

To write Salwar as the original or somehow more conventional pronounciation just because the some editors may pronounce the word that way is never a criteria for providing info on a subject. I am not against for mentioning Salwar as an alternative pronounciation because of linguistic reasons from certain ethnic groups, but that does not mean that the original word should be sidelined.

And Nagib. Here are the two search links for google pertaining to Shalwar kamiz and Salwar Kamiz. And just like I said earlier this is a foolish criteria and is totally irrelavant when deciding upon this issue. Elseways i'll take the issue to a thid party administrator. I will not edit the article again until later tonight if I don't see any other alternative suggeston or pov s. Thanks omerlivesOmerlives 03:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Google result of Shalwar kamiz gives 1.47 million hits:

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=shalwar+kamiz&btnG=Google+Search

while for Salwar kamiz gives 1.27 million hits. http://www.google.com/search?hs=S03&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&q=salwar+kamiz&btnG=Search


 * Different results will come of putting the name in quotes or not. Without quotes, the results only indicate at least one of those words is on the page, not necessarily both and not necessarily in conjunction.  To necessitate both you need plus signs in front of both words (+shalwar +kamiz).  To get the exact phrase, you need quotes ("shalwar kamiz").  Also, you can get results for pages that mention the one term without mentioning the other, for example:
 * "shalwar khamiz" & not salwar http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%2B%22shalwar+khamiz%22+-salwar&btnG=Search 572 results
 * "shalwar kamiz" & not salwar http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%2B%22shalwar+kamiz%22+-salwar&btnG=Search 123,000 results
 * "salwar kamiz" & not shalwar http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%2B%22salwar+khamiz%22+-shalwar&btnG=Search 708 results
 * "salwar kamiz" & not shalwar http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=-shalwar+%2B%22salwar+kamiz%22&btnG=Search 1,220,000 results
 * Also, for what it's worth, onelook gives two results for the individual word shulwar (the spelling I would have picked), five for shalwar and seven for salwar. For me, these results suggest the page is best titled "Salwar kamiz" with a redirect from "shalwar kamiz" which should also be mentioned on the page as one of the more common (and also correct) spellings. If you know how to put the arabic word in arabic letters on the page, you could do that.  The most commonly used spelling for English language users is a consideration; consider, masjid redirects to mosque. Schizombie 07:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

google search results are irrelevant for deciding conventions in my opinions especially in cases like these. What is standard should be the criteria used. Salwar is not the rendering of the English speaking peoples for Shalwar like gibraltor is for jabal tariq or mosque for masjid or ganges for ganga or admiral from amir al bahr etc.

Salwar on the internet is more abundant precisly because there are more indian websites, indian computer users etc. who use the term as such NOT because the Brits in the subcontinent took to pronouncing Shalwar as Salwar. Secondly, no one from pakistan or afghanistan from whence came this dress or the urdu speakers in northern India pronounces the word as Salwar. only non-urdu speaking indians do because of linguistic reasons I mentioned earlier.

Most westerners as well as other folks (including hindi speakers pronounce Afghanistan as afGAnistan. They cannot pronounce the voice velar fricative (gh) sound. Now say search results give us afGAnistan hits more than afGHAnistan because of web sites then what? Salwar should be a redirect as this would educate the person about the original pronounciation of the word.

Another example: if the search for the term for a national of Pakistan gave us more hits on PAKI or Pakis doe not make it right just because it is more popular or most websites use it as a reference than the proper term Pakistani which the inhabitants of the country and the government use. This is not about preference like which is proper: color or colour, honor or honour. This is about standards and education in an encyclopedia. It would be like redirecting an info search about the word "THING" to an article labelled "THANG" after the ebonic vernacular if the google search result made it more popular. lol. This is hilarious.

I hope folks now understand. Our purpose is education and redirecting salwar to shalwar would definitely be educational. Thankyou. omerlivesOmerlives 12:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How the word is pronounced is irrelevant to the spelling a person might be most likely to use when searching on the term. 123,000 hits for your preferred spelling is not a lot.  Thing/Thang is a bad analogy, as people who say "thang" are aware it is slang, and know the proper spelling, and that the written thang is only appropriate in dialogue. Most Westerners pronounce Afghanistan as AfGANistan actually (AfGAnistan would be stuffy), but still spell it Afghanistan which search results also show is far and away the preferred spelling.  Even on Amazon's search inside this book I get 172 for "shalwar kamiz", 199 for "salwar kamiz".  If you really want to persist, I guess you must go for mediation, which I find more sad than hilarious.  Schizombie 15:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent Move
I'd just like to get your rationale for moving Salwar Kamiz to Shalwar Qamiz? Salwar Kamiz is by far the most common English spelling of the item of clothing and as per Wikipedia policy, that should be the name of the article. It certainly should not be "Shalwar Qamiz" which is almost unheard of in English. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm also confused by the undiscussed move, as the consensus in the discussion page was to have "Salwar Kamiz" as the spelling. Since this was already a controversial issue, the move should have been discussed, and making it without discussion was totally inappropriate. Unless the rationale is shown, I'd revert the move pretty soon. Thanks. --Ragib 18:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * شلوار قمیض Shalwar and Qamiz is the correct spelling of clothes wore by people from Turkey to Pakistan. It changes to Salwar Kamiz in India and further east to Bangladesh and is worn by only women. The words are Turkic and Persian and are written and prounounced differently from India. Clearly if it is Pakistan and Afghanistan national dress then the spelling of these two countries should be preferred.
 * Siddiqui 19:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Salwar Kamiz is the more common English spelling to refer to what you call "Shalwar Qamiz". So what if it's the "national dress" of Pakistan and Afghanistan?  Surely India has more people that wear the Salwar Kamiz than Pakistan and Afghanistan combined?  And it's Wikipedia policy to use article names that are most common to English speakers.  Oxford English dictionary has both 'Salwar Kamiz' and "Shalwar Kamiz".  It certainly does not have "Shalwar Qamiz". Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The word Q (ق) and K (ک) have distinct pronounciation. But many people don't distinguish and pronounce Q as K. Like Qatar is pronounced incorrectly as Katar. Nonetheless, the spelling of Kamiz is with Q and not with K, thus Qamiz. Another issue is that in English U always follows Q. Which is not the case in other languages.
 * Siddiqui 20:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The distinction is that Shalwar Qamiz is the transliteration from Arabic script where as Salwar Kamiz (or even Shalwar Kamiz) is the ENGLISH spelling. However, if the rest of the English speaking word decides to use your transliteration, I'd be more than happy to change the article name.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I must add that if this wasn't a common English word, I would support the name change to 'Shalwar Qamiz' if that was an accurate transliteration. But as it is quite a common English word then we must follow the common spelling.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Dhoti was common Indian dress worn by men while women wore sari and Shalwar Qamiz did not exist in India before the Muslim arrival. Although it was common in areas west of Indus river. Punjabi suit' and Salwar kamiz are new words in India. According to the Dhoti page:
 * The dhoti is the traditional male garment of India and its use extends back to the earliest known period. Indeed, although many modes of draping the dhoti obtained from very ancient times, no mode of male clothing other than a length of unstitched cloth appears to have been known in India until the muslim invasions of the 10th century AD. The dhoti also closely resembles the Indian female garment, the Sari; experts regard such resemblance as being evidence of the garment being used in that society from the earliest times.
 * Siddiqui 20:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's fair enough, but what relevance has this got to do with the spelling? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am only making following points: Firstly, Shalwar Qamiz was not a Indian dress before 10th century. Even now it is mostly limited to women in India. Secondly, Shalwar Qamiz is the correct spelling while it has changed to Salwar Kamiz in India. Now people are defending this new variation of name while correct spelling is being ignored.
 * Siddiqui 21:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think anyone who has learnt English knows that its spelling is often illogical and unpredictable. There are plenty of instances where words change over time and one spelling becomes prominent.  That's probably what has happened here.  It may be due to the fact that Indian English exerts considerably more influence on Global English - but that's life. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand what kind of a disgusting personality you poses, probably kinda of a proud/show off and irrational person, just because of the fact that Indians breed like rats and have underdeveloped tongues, does not give them the right to change words, and prove your last sentence please. Because other people dont accept it, you just keep saying it, just to pretend that you are boss. And BTW, i didnt use tabs on purpose; on a tres lame 14:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salh474 (talk • contribs)

This is English Wikipedia, and any argument using the pronunciation of any other language is completely irrelevant. Yes, Q and K are pronounced differently in Urdu and Arabic, and were in Phoenician for that matter - which is where the Latin, Arabic and all other alphabets come from. But Q and K do not have a different pronunciation in English as it is spoken *anywhere*, other than presumbaly in Urdu- and Arabic-speaking areas. 'Salwar kameez' is the comfortable, partially Anglicised spelling, and *by miles* the most common globally. This is simply how the term is spelled in World English, not with a 'sh' and not with a 'q'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Newton (talk • contribs) 10:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Pronounciation
I'm not sure this is correct and I have removed it:


 * The dress itself is known by slightly different names in different areas. Pakistanis and Afghans say "shalwar"; Indians say "Shalwar". Indians spell as "Qamiz" as kamiz and "Shalwar" as salwar. Different systems of transliteration from South Asian languages may also result in variant spellings.

Now, wouldn't it be more appropriate to talk of language speakers instead of countries? For example, I presume Punjabi speakers on both sides of the border would say "Salwar Kamiz", but if spoken properly in Hindi/Urdu it would be Shalwar Qamiz? Further information would be appreciated. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, Sukh. Let's make those changes. Zora 23:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that's not correct, no one in Pakistan pronounces it as "Salwar", especially in Punjab, contrary to what you stated above. So I think that sentence should be there. Waqas.usman 06:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In Hindi, it is actually usually सलवार क़मीज़ &mdash; with a Sa. -- Olve 08:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Chemise
I'm pretty sure Qamiz comes from Arabic Qamis (Ethiosemitic Qemis), and not the French "Chemise," given that France never had that much influence in the region, while Arabic did. Plus, there's no reason for Ch->Q when there's a "sh" sound (as the "ch" is pronounced in French) in Urdu (and in Punjabi, I believe). I am changing it now.

Yom 07:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood what it said. The latin word camisia and the Arabic word qamīs are related through borrowing one way or the other. The ch- in the French word is a later historical development. The claim is not that kamiz came from chemise. The claim is that the two are related through a common "ancestor". -- Olve 08:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that chemise comes from Arabic, or that Arabic Qamis comes from Chemise? You would be hard-pressed to show that. Assuming "ch" was pronounced "k" in Old French, the word has existed in Ethiopia for at least 700 years (in the Hagiographies, they refer to receiving the "monastic habit," which includes the Qamis) it is very difficult to say it entered Arabic from French before 1300 and was able to enter Amharic before 1300 (especially hard, as from 700-1300 there was very little contact with the outside world). It could have come through the Egyptian Abunas, after the Arab conquest of Egypt, but that still assumes that Arabic had enough contact with France to acquire the word at such an early date.
 * See :


 * (semitic root q-m-s)


 * Yom 08:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No. I am saying that French chemise comes from Latin camisia. The change from camisia to chemise is completely normal for French. Now forget about France (that is a side track), but think of Latin. Latin has had a great deal of contact with Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic, and there are plenty of examples of loanwords either from Afro-Asiatic languages to Latin or vice versa. I do not know the earliest usage of Latin camisia, but I would not be surprised if the word was borrowed from an Afro-Asiatic language into Latin, though that is speculation from my side.
 * Think of it as a family: The Latin word camisia and the Arabic word qamīs are siblings. Now, Camisia moved westwards to France and had a daughter named Chemise. Her brother, the Arabic Qamīs, went to Persia, where his son Qamīz was born. Qamīz in his turn moved south and got a son, Qamiz, in the Delhi area. Qamiz again got two children &mdash; the Panjabi Kamiz and the Hindi Qamiz (who is also known as Kamij). So in other words, Chemise is not the mother of Kamiz, but rather a cousin twice (or thrice) removed. -- Olve 09:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are arguing it came from camisia (which is obviously the case, I never argued against that), then they are not brothers unless the semitic q-m-s was absorbed by Latin. Either way, unless the word was absorbed by Latin (and you will have to provide some proof of this), then there's no reason to link to imply that they have the same root (which is what the link did). I'm all for chemise being included as a comparison (i.e. similar usage, different country, like a "see also" link would be), just not one that proposes a false etymology.

Yom 09:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * See http://www.bartleby.com/61/12/C0271200.html -- Olve 17:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Both 'kameez/qamis' *and* 'chemise' originally came from Latin 'camisia'. Yom, you seem to be implying that if a word has a triconsonantal root, that is evidence that it must originate from Arabic, as if Arabic has never borrowed words from other languages. This is patently untrue; words from non-Semitic sources include 'carat' (qarat) 'elixir' (al-iksir) and 'alchemy' (al-kimiya) from Greek. Notice how the Arabic versions all have three consonants. Does that make them somehow come from Arabic? No. There was a very long period of contact between Arabic and Greek cultures, starting in the 7th Century, when Arabs conquered the largely Greek-speaking Levant. During this time, Arabs learnt and developed a great deal of Greek and Latin science and philosophy, and Arabic picked up a few words from the sources along the way. Such as 'camisia'. Jacob Newton (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Jacob Newton (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Latest edits
Various editors have been working on this article and IMHO, not always improving it. Someone dropped the picture and put the whole first para into bold; I restored the picture and dropped the bold.

The opening para was acquiring a clot of transliterations and versions in various non-English languages, which made the first sentence completely unreadable. I moved all that material to a new Etymology and history section. Knowing the history of the words helps one to understand the history of the fasion. Zora 04:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've changed the page as so: . I've done some Google tests and it returns under 1,000 hits so I doubt it's any sort of common spelling in Pakistan either. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I was taking it on faith. We had an editor here for a while who was extremely insistent that shalwar qamis was the transliteration used in Pakistan, it was the ONLY proper transliteration, and that Pakistani usage should rule. He was edit warring to get his way. I didn't agree that Pakistani usage should rule -- salwar kamiz gets nearly all of the Google hits -- but I never suspected that this transliteration wasn't common in Pakistan either. I guess I shouldn't trust anonIPs who may be a bit, um, unbalanced :) Zora 10:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the anon is correct by saying that "ਸ਼ਲਵਾਰ ਕ਼ਮੀਜ਼" (sorry don't know Arabic script) is accurately transliterated as śalvār qamīz (Shalwar Qamiz).  However, I don't think that's relevant in so much as the English rendition is almost always Salwar/Shalwar Kamiz.  And even Pakistanis seem to write Kamiz!  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The word Q (ق) and K (ک) have distinct pronounciation. But many people don't distinguish and pronounce Q as K. Nonetheless, the spelling of Kamiz is with Q and not with K, thus Qamiz. I just have given up on this issue. Just keep Salwar Kamiz as title with explanation. I usually change to Salwar Kamiz|Shalwar Qamiz in Pakistani pages.
 * Siddiqui 13:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The predominant Pakistani usage is Kamiz (ab. 343 hits) rather than Qamiz (ab. 48 hits). Now that that argument is falsified, please let us keep the form normally used in English. -- Olve 20:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me repeat what I wrote: The word Q (ق) and K (ک) have distinct pronounciation. But many people don't distinguish and pronounce Q as K. Nonetheless, the spelling of Kamiz is with Q and not with K, thus Qamiz in Urdu. Search Google for قمیض (Qamiz) then for کمیض (Kamiz). Then you will know that in Urdu there is no word called Kamiz کمیض. Then search for  شلوار (Shalwar) and then for سلوار (Salwar). In Afghanistan and Pakistan Shalwar Qamiz or شلوار قمیض is the national dress. In India it is called Salwar Kamiz.
 * Siddiqui 21:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the English Wikipedia. English-language web pages on the .pk domain clearly use K in the overwhelming majority of cases. The Urdu spelling is interesting, by all means, and important too &mdash; but it is not the English spelling used by most Pakistanis according to Google. Yes, the velar and guttural unvoiced stops are pronounced differently in most forms of (at least educated) Urdu. But in English, this difference is not normally expressed. I fully agree with you that this is a shortcoming. But at the same time, we are supposed to work with the established, source-verified English spelling as the point of departure. In this case, the established local forms in Pakistani and Indian English have K rather than Q &mdash; much the same way as your user name has a simple S rather than the emphatic Ṣ, and qu rather than just Q or Ḳ. A similar problem is the one of dupatta &mdash; it really ought to be dupaṭṭā, with retroflex Ṭ and long Ā, but English doesn’t use that writing convention. Frustrating, I know, but English is a bit limited at times. -- Olve 19:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Middle Eastern Clothing
I see User:TheEditrix has added the Middle Eastern clothing category. Is it even worn in the middle east? I didn't think so... but maybe I'm wrong? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Why, yes, Shalvar and Kamiz are worn in the Middle East, just not together as an outdoor "suit".

The shalvar/shalwar/salvar/salwar - however one chooses to spell it - is a garment that goes back to the pre-Muslim Persians and was worn by Muslim Persians and Ottomans.

And qamis is the name of the white tunic worn next to the skin by many Muslim Arab men and women.

The problem as i see it is the idea that some people are claiming exclusive access to these two undergarments now in *modern* use together as outerwear.

These garments both have long histories separate from each other, and i am distressed (but it's not keeping me up nights) that i cannot find a pages about them separately. There's no page on the long history of the shalvar/ shalwar/ salvar/ salwar - however one chooses to spell it - by itself, with pictures of the various ways it was cut and worn. Nor is there a page about the qamis/ kamis/ kamiz/ kameez/ qameez - however one chooses to spell it - by itself, either.

Plus someone has put up a separate wikipedia page with pretty much one nationalistic paragraph on it under the alternate spelling "Shalwar qameez" - no doubt someone who insists that their spelling is the One Right True and Only Way. And they've DELETED the Talk Page.

Sorry, but there are alternate spellings from many words not originally written with Roman letters, and even for words always spelled with Roman letters. Try learning to live together rather than making yourself separate. History shows long and complex history for both garments running through several religions, many cultures and peoples... Ellenois (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sentences
"It is the usual everyday dress for both men and women in Pakistan where it may be transliterated into English as shalwar-qamiz." Doesn't that make it sound like it is only transliterated/pronounced SHalwar-Qamiz in Pakistan? I'm sure Urdu speakers and even Hindi speakers in India would also pronounce it that way. Mar de Sin  Speak up!  21:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Shalwar Kamiz as men's wear
Is it just me, or does this article focus mainly on shalwar kamiz as it's worn by women? I would like to see more on the male version of the garments. For instance, it could be mentioned that they are often worn with a waistcoat by Pashtun men in Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan (and possibly elsewhere?). 71.136.248.17 09:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Rev. Uncle Neil Banana Head, aka 'Anthropophage'


 * Good point, anon. (You can sign comments by using four tildes, like this: ~ . Software turns that into a sig.) I've written a lot of the article and I'm a female who wears salwar kamiz, so I'm unconsciously prejudiced. Zora 20:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I just purchased a black Shalwar Kamiz suit imported from Pakistan. Perhaps I could somehow post a picture of myself wearing it here on the (article) page 71.136.248.17 09:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Rev. Uncle Neil Banana Head, aka 'Anthropophage'


 * If it's a good picture. We could also look for public domain pictures on Flickr, I suppose. Zora 09:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Shalwar Qamiz
The correct spelling is Shalwar Qamiz, according to the Urdu spelling that is shown alongside the English spelling. Just because the majority of the hits on Google come from Salwar does not make it the correct spelling by default. I have encounterd this situation regarding Google several times when it comes to the spelling of foreign words.


 * Salwar kamiz is the form that is the most familiar in English. Those are now English words and this is the English Wikipedia. All your words are belong to us. Bwahahaha! As my friend James Nicoll said, "English pure? English is as pure as a cribhouse whore. She follows other languages down dark alleys, coshes them, and rifles their pockets for vocabulary."


 * The Polynesian word tapu or kapu is now the English taboo. I live in Hawai'i; I'm learning Hawaiian. In Hawaiian, the word is kapu. Should I rage against the English language version, taboo, because it is inaccurate? Nah, it's just the English form of the word. Zora 07:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Kamiz/Qamis
The word kamiz most probably comes from the word Qamis, meaning shirt in Arabic (mentioned in the Quran).


 * That's in the article. It could also come from kamisia, Roman, shirt. Zora 07:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Reason of moving and correcting spelling
Salwar kamiz is a better spelling than salwar kameez, because in this word exist phonetically letter i, but not two e spelled e and e again. In this way I updated both article and discussion, changing all kameez to kamiz. Even saree article was corrected to sari. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikinger (talk • contribs) 21:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Why you restored worser spelling? Obviously ee is other than i. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikinger (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC).


 * If you can't write grammatical English, why are you correcting other people's English? "Why you restored worser spelling?" s/b "Why did you restore a worse spelling?" or better yet, "Why did you restore an inferior spelling?" We use the commonest spelling in English, and that's kameez. Check google! Zora 21:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to claim this article for Pakistan
One editor is putting a WikiProject Pakistan tag on the page, and other editors are removing it. Salwar kameez are worn in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and throughout the South Asian diaspora. The outfit is even being worn by non-desis -- like Theresa Nielsen-Hayden, editor at Tor books and well-known in science fiction and fantasy fandom. She started a trend when she wore salwar kameez to various conventions and award ceremonies. Articles like Skirt or Trousers don't belong to any one nation, because they're worn so many places.

It would serve no purpose to have half-a-dozen templates plastered at the top of the article. Please desist. Zora 09:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * XD--D-Boy 07:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh, Ryulong, it's just not right to remove India and leave Pakistan. There are probably MORE people who wear salwar kameez in India than there are in Pakistan. I'm removing the dang flag-waving tag again. It's an outfit worn in many countries. Including the US. Zora 21:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Pakistanies, It makes me laugh when people fight about those small things. I also think that in term of %, Salwar kameez is most prominently wear in Pakistan (I love to wear it too) then any other country in the world and it is Pakistan national dress but who cares about tags. I think as long as article mention that it is our national dress then its OKAY. We can put India tag on it too or remove all the tags. We have more important issues in hand for example improving Islamic articles and remove abuses against Muslims/Islam from them (using references) as compare to these useless nationalistic harmless and useless things. --- ALM 18:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Images
I've added images to the History and Purchasing sections. Enjoy. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  18:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Churidar and Salwar
The lead says that the churidar is a narrow salwar (or words to that effect). My own sense is that the two garments have different provenance. First, both were initially (up until sometime in the late 18th century) worn only by men; until then, the salwar was worn in mostly what is now northwest India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, however, the churidar was worn in only north and central India. Second, the salwar was worn by mostly Muslim and Sikh men; whereas the churidar was worn by Rajput men as well as Muslims and Sikhs. (For example, the Kathak dance, in which women dancers now wear churidars, was performed exclusively by men up until the late 19th century.) I think it was only after women started wearing both garments, especially in the latter half of the 20th century, that the garments began to be seen as variations on a theme. My conjecture is that the word "churidar salwar" is of recent vintage; the older version is "churidar payjama."

Unfortunately, right now, I don't have enough time to look into the question thoroughly; but, perhaps, someone else can. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  21:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The churidar and the salwar are cut exactly alike; the churidar is just cut closer to the body. Cutting on the bias and making it extra long give it the ease necessary for a "leggings" look done in cloth rather than knit material. I speak here as a seamstress who has sewn a great many salwar. I don't wear churidar because I'm fat. If I were thin I'd wear them!

Churidars were worn under the lehenga by Moghul women. See the churidar article for an old picture. The palace lehenga seem to have been diaphanous, translucent; the combination of the tight churidar and the thin dress is very revealing in a "wet sari" sort of way. One can be indecent while being decent.

Really, no dancing women before the late 19th century? That seems unbelievable. If the tawaif weren't doing Kathak, they were doing something. Traditionally, Asian courtesans dance. Zora 22:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Moghul Indian art from the 16th c. shows women wearing churidar. Ellenois (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bias and Errors
This articles makes it appear that the shalwar qamiz is mainly a womens dress. It gives two paragraphs on how women wear the shalwar qamiz, but only mentions in passing that men wear it also. "In Bangladesh, India and Pakistan one simply visits the local tailor and has a salwar suit made to order." This is not completely true as many people buy ready made shalwar qamiz. This once again shows bias as its mostly women that go to the tailor and have it made, while men just purchase it in the store. Afghanistan - even if you disagreed with the spelling why did you remove that it is the national dress of Afghanistan. As for spelling does anyone disagree with the fact that the Central Asians(Turkmen, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz) called it shalwar. It doesnt matter that salwar gets more google hits. More people call pashtuns pathans but that doesnt really mean anything. Putting it as 'Shalwar Kameez' is a comprimise between (the correct spelling) shalwar qamiz, and salwar kameez. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.7.249.101 (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

No, it's not biased. Who's picture do you see in the Tailoring etc section? Doesn't look like a woman to me. The reason why the text is not there is simply that no one has written it. Please feel free to add that portion. Same with the text about ready-made vs. tailored. Please feel free to add. That doesn't make the article biased. As for spelling, it doesn't matter that in all the languages of Central Asia, the spelling is Shalwar. This is an English Wikipedia, we need to determine what the primary English language spelling is (for the garment). More on this later. Removing bias tag, as there is no evidence. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  22:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's female-centric because a lot of it was written by me, I'm female, and I sew and wear salwar kameez. Info re male usage is appreciated. Zora 01:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

How does shalwar translate into english as salwar? The only reason that their are more google hits for salwar instead of shalwar is that their are more Indians than Afghanis and Pakistanis combined. While "we determine what the primary English language spelling is", why does the article have to say salwar instead of shalwar right now. 198.7.249.101 23:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Because the rule on WP is that if there are several forms of the word current, we use the one that is most common. Salwar kameez gets 600,000 or so google hits, shalwar kameez gets some 100,000. Salwar is what has been adopted into English. We go by what is convenient for users. We don't bend the rules for you. Zora 01:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the US and everyone i know, all around the country, says "shalvar"... Ellenois (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

How many people do you know? I live in India, and everyone I know calls it "Salwar Kameez", so what's your point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.97.85.80 (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

google hits
shalwar kameez is getting 730,000 hits while salwar kameez is getting a little more than 600,000. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.7.249.101 (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Here are my results "shalwar kameez" 115,000 google hits and "salwar kameez" 609,000 google hits.  Any objections? Show your URL and search using double quotes only otherwise it look for seperate words which does not make much sense. --- ALM 17:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

They are seperate words. 198.7.249.101 18:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

National dress
Another editor modified the article to claim the salwar kameez as the national dress of Afghanistan.

For years this article has been the scene of constant nationalistic skirmishing. Pakistani editors have tried to claim that Pakistan "owns" the outfit and have insisted that the Pakistani pronunciation and Arabic-leaning English transliteration be used. If I point out that there are more Indians who wear the outfit than Pakistanis, the response has been, "Well, that's not fair, it's just that they have a bigger population."

Now we're going to get Afghan nationalism mixed into it.

I therefore added a section on the salwar kameez and nationalism, which needs references, but at least puts the argument out there. It's better than it be out in the open rather than carried on by proxy wars over transliteration. My new section may not be the best presentation of the argument, but it's at least a start.

My own opinion is that this is all complete nonsense, about as sensible as the US claiming the T-shirt as the American national dress and insisting that only Americans get to say how the word should be spelled or pronounced. Or that anyone else wearing a T-shirt is just an ersatz American. Clothing migrates, like music and food. In this networked age, if something catches the public fancy, it's all over the globe in a flash. Zora 19:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  Even an Indian site acknowledges that the 'salwar kameez' is the national dress of pakistan. National dress of Afghanistan   

Just to let you know im not afghan, but wikipedia itself states that it is the national dress of Afghanistan. Thats the only reason i included it. 198.7.249.101 20:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Also the t-shirt example you give is misleading. A t-shirt is a t-shirt everywhere. No one has a problem with Indians, or Bengalis wearing the shalwar kameez. However, the problem is that you are changing the spelling of the word. Their are more Indians than Pakistanis, Afghans, and Central Asians combined. The original word was shalwar not salwar. Salwar is a hindi word not an english word. A lot of Indians have difficulties pronouncing the h, thats the only reason its salwar in India. 198.7.249.101 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The way English-speakers speak and spell determines the pronunciation and spelling of a word! English has absorbed salwar kameez. It is now an English word. We have stolen it. We may not have stolen the form you prefer but ... that's vocabulary theft for you. 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"The way English-speakers speak and spell determines the pronunciation and spelling of a word! " I dont get it. For example Pneumonia is spelled one way and pronounced a different way. what does this have to with the the shalwar qamiz. Most English speakears wouldnt know about salwar or shalwar kameez. Their were more google hits for shalwar kameez, the original word is shalwar. A comprimise could be to put it as Shalwar/Salwar. 198.7.249.101 21:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Think of it like Gamal Abdel Nasser. It's horrible transliteration but that's how it has entered English usage not  Jamāl ‘Abd an-Nāṣir.  Most English speakers (sadly) don't really know about Nasser but, that's how it goes.  As for your solution isn't "Salwar kameez (also called shalwar kameez)" good enough? gren グレン 21:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood my solution. what i meant was wherever in the article it mentioned salwar, to be changed to Shalwar/Salwar. Not just the first line. 198.7.249.101 22:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * NO. That's using the article to propagandize for your preferred version. Furthermore, your claim re google hits is wrong. You weren't doing the search correctly, with quotes. There is no reason to compromise. By WP rules, re ghits, salwar kameez is the correct version  for English. If you want to use your preferred transliteration when you write letters or newspaper articles or whatever, be my guest. If you get enough English-speaking people to agree with you, the spelling will change. Language does change; I proofread lots of 18th and 19th century writing and the accepted spelling of some words (dispatched/despatched, frex) was quite different then. Zora 23:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. "Salwar" is the English spelling and unless there is overwhelming evidence that the English spelling has changed to "Shalwar," there is no reason to change.  And, BTW, whosoever said that Indians can't pronounce the "sh" sound is talking through their hat.  How do you think they pronounce words like "Shanti," "Vishnu," "Ishwar" (God), "Shiva," "Ganesh" (the Elephant headed god), ...?  The list is endless.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Salwar is not acceptable. I offered a comprimise and you accused me of "using the article to propgandize for your preferred version", something which in reality you are doing. Also Google hits are wrong when they dont match your pov. Their are more Indians speaking English than Afghanis, and Pakistanis, which is the only reason more people say salwar rather than shalwar. native English speakears do not know the difference between salwar or shalwar. 198.7.249.101 00:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dearth of Images
It seems to me, that this article suffers from a lack of decent images. I like the images of the men's salwar (particularly the image where the waist band is held completely open), but I think that the addition of some images of people wearing salwar kameez would make this article considerably better. Obviously, it would give the public a much better idea of just what the heck this article is all about. There are sources such as flickr, which could be mined for relevant images, which are in the public domain.Rev. Uncle Neil Banana Head 12:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Anthropophage

Intro
Are Pakistanis allowed to edit this page at all? If user Zora is allowed to put that this is sometimes called a Punjabi suit, then the fact that it is also called a pathani suit should also be put in. As for stating that this is the national dress of Pakistan, a link was provided, and this was already in the page before user Zora removed it. Their is nothing "nationalistic" about this. IP198 19:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, as user Zora, said above, no nationality "owns" the apparel. Mentioning the national dress of Pakistan or Afghanistan does not belong to the lead; at best, it belongs to the history section, and you need to produce a better attribution that a Government website, which has the spin-of-the-moment.  As for Pashtuns introducing the dress into the subcontinent, you need to source that, and that too belongs to the history section and not the lead.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning that it is the national dress of Pakistan does not mean that Pakistan "owns" it, just that it is worn their everyday. This is a link from BBC. Look in the box that says facts. Also try these Indian links that mention that the "salwar kameez" is Pakistans national dress, ,. This link mentions that the pashtuns introduced it in the subcontinent. IP198 00:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

mentioning that it is sometimes called a "Punjabi Suit" merits being in the intro, but mentioning that it is also called a "pathani suit" apparently does not. IP198 00:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't see the Punjabi suit. It too belongs in the history section.  I think an average reader who doesn't know what SK is, wants to get to the description rather than get bogged down in where it is worn and what it is called in different languages.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * PS. Unfortunately, none of your citations qualify as reliable citations. The origin of SK is already mentioned in the history section and it is still awaiting a proper citation.  I am moving the national dress sentence to the last sentence of the lead and for now I will add the Government web site as the citation.  Also SK is a common noun, it can't be capitalized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fowler&fowler (talk • contribs) 00:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Even BBC was not reliable? Also people do want to know where it is worn, and who wears it. How about adding to the intro that in Afghanistan and Pakistan it is worn by both men and women, while in Bangladesh and India it is worn mainly by women? The order doesn't matter. IP198 01:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Pathani suit
I googled for "Punjabi suit" and got 21,600 hits. I've seen the term often enough in everyday English.

I googled for "Pathani suit" and got 2,260 hits, most of which were tailor shops. I have never seen the term used in English.

"Pathani suit" may be simply a translation from Urdu. It may be much more common in Urdu than it is in English. However, this is the English Wikipedia and we use ordinary English language.

If IP198 believes that there is something especially Pathan about the salwar-kameez, he could find quotations from reliable sources and add a few quotes (original and translation, if they're not in English).

Let's keep all the squabbling about who "owns" the salwar-kameez in the national dress section and keep it out of the header, where it just confuses readers. Zora 21:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Added more to history
I found some pants patterns online and added them. I also added a reference to Cut My Cote. There are probably better costume history books; it's just that this is the one I happen to own. If someone who has done more research in the area wants to remove that and add better references, please!

I didn't put the book in proper reference format, out of fatigue and laziness. (Not sure how much of each.) Help doing that would be appreciated. Zora 04:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Punjabi Suit
Mentioning that it is Punjabi suit does not merit being in the intro. Also no one in Afghanistan, and Pakistan says we are wearing a Punjabi suit. Please specify in which countries it is also called a Punjabi suit. IP198 23:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The UK. I've seen it lots of times in discussions re the desi community in the UK. My guess: since a great many desi immigrants to the UK are from the Punjab (many of them fleeing the wretchedness of the Partition) and come from both sides of what is now the Indo-Pak border, calling the outfit a "Punjabi suit" avoids lots of arguments. "Uncle's so trad, he always wears a Punjabi suit." Or something like that. My English is Left-pondian, not Right-pondian. Zora 23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Then say in the UK it is called a Punjabi suit. It still does not merit being in the intro. IP198 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The intro has the variant names under which English-speaking peoples might recognize the outfit. The UK is a large part of the English-speaking community.


 * I don't understand why you're so focussed on this. Is this something to do with Pakistani internal politics? Various ethnicities (Pashtun, Baluchi, Waziri, Sindhi, etc.) feeling oppressed by Punjabis? That has nothing to do with the English language. The language is the way it is, even if it's unfair. Zora 23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand why you are so focussed on this. Are you impressed by the Bhangra? No one in Pakistan says we are wearing a Punjabi suit. I know that people in Bangladesh refer to it as a Punjabi suit sometimes, so maybe thats why you want it included. Please remove Punjabi suit from the first paragraph. IP198 23:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

National dress
Oh, I said in an edit summary I would talk about this. There's an article on national dress, which takes it for granted that there IS such a thing. I'm not sure that there is.

When we look at what people in any given country or area wear, they wear a great many things. There is not one item of clothing that is worn by everyone in the country. There may be items of clothing that are so widely worn that they seem common, or stereotypical, but they aren't universal. Furthermore, these items of clothing may be worn in a great many countries or areas. They aren't typical of just one place. Like a T-shirt. The T-shirt is the national dress of ... ???

However, people develop ideas about what is "typical". These stereotypes may differ from country to country, they may change -- they aren't universal or fixed. I grew up in the US and watched cartoons; cartoon Frenchmen then wore horizontally striped shirts and black berets. I don't think that's current any longer. An American six-year-old might not recognize that now. In Europe, a lot of the stereotypes are folkloric. Once a year, at festivals, people dress up in peasant costumes. The rest of the year they wear clothes that wouldn't look out of place in New York or Tokyo.

Governments don't usually intervene to declare a national dress, but in the case of Pakistan, a recent creation that is utterly determined to be a nation with a 5000-year past, it's very important to have a national dress. Because real nations do.

I think this is silly. Indian nationalism is just as silly. Any nationalism is silly -- when it isn't inciting to war and massacre, in which case it becomes tragic. That's why I see all this skirmishing about spelling, and national dress, and slapping national project templates on the article, as a morbid joke. Zora 23:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You just dont get it. It is the national dress of Pakistan, not because we own but because it does not matter what part of the country you are in people will be wearing it. I could be in Peshawar, Karachi, Pindi, Quetta it wouldnt make a difference people both men and women would be wearing the shalwar qamiz. In India the dress varies by region, but in Pakistan it does not. Thats why people in Pakistan take pride in calling it their national dress because it is a symbol of unity. Indians dont have problem with it being called the national dress of Pakistan, so i dont understand why you do? IP198 00:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think most people in India buy into the "nationalism" idea. I can't be SURE, however, without conducting a poll. Neither can you be sure that all Pakistanis take pride in the salwar kameez. I think that's the way you feel, and that you think it strengthens your claim to assert that 169 million people agree with you. Nor is it true that all Pakistanis wear the salwar kameez. Some women wear saris. Some women wear traditional dresses. Some people wear Western-style clothing. Or are they, in your opinion, not real Pakistanis? Are they un-patriotic Pakistanis? Like Musharaff, who wears army uniforms?


 * This article concerns an article of clothing that is worn all over the world. It's not about Pakistani patriotism or internal disputes. Zora 00:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all with Indians not having a problem with saying the shalwar qamiz i was refering to Indian websites that sell salwar kameez, saying it is the national dress of Pakistan. All Pakistanis might not take pride in salwar kameez, but the overwhelming majority wear it everyday. As for women wearing saris, i have never seen in my life a woman wear a sari in Pakistan, besides from at weddings. Shalwar qamiz is the traditional dress. I suggest you ask other Pakistanis if they feel that the shalwar qamiz is the national dress of Pakistan. This is not something i made up myself.

The most amazing part is that before i even edited on this page, it listed shalwar qamiz as the national dress of Pakistan. Do you also have a problem with national flowers, national language, national animals? IP198 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Official flowers and animals are silly notions, but unimportant. If a government (national, state, local) says, "The humuhumunukunukuapua'a is our state fish", well, who cares?


 * Picking an official language is an ugly business. It's usually an occasion for the speakers of a majority language to declare their language "official" and make everyone else in the country second-class citizens. In Pakistan, that would be promoting Urdu at the expense of all other languages. In the US, that's promoting English. I think that governments should try to communicate with citizens, in whatever languages are necessary. You may have to temper this with realism. If there's only one Mandarin speaker in the village, you can't afford to hire an interpreter just for that one person. But if there's a significant population, you should do what you can to communicate.


 * As for national dress -- the only entity that can make a certain form of dress "official" is a government. It can do this explicitly (a resolution declaring the T-shirt the American national dress!) or implicitly (government rules about what officials and diplomats should wear).


 * Popular stereotypes about what people of various countries wear (Dutch wear wooden shoes! Frenchmen wear berets! Japanese wear kimonos!) are ephemeral.


 * What people actually wear is ephemeral. Japanese DON'T wear kimonos. They did once, but Western-style clothing is now the norm. Pakistanis could stop wearing salwar kameez and go to jeans and hoodies. Americans could start wearing salwar kameez. (I know a few, including me.)


 * We need a cite (I think I had one once, but it disappeared) for Pakistani government promotion of the salwar kameez. I'm sure that it exists. That's entirely separate from how many Pakistanis wear the outfit -- which is open to change. Zora 08:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Shalwar is definately a Turkish word.Though I don't speak Turkche' (Turkish) as fluent as my Turkish freinds or my mother (who lived in Turkey for 5 years) I still know for a fact that Shawlar is a word used in that language.Anyways,the top part of the Turk shalwar slightly differs,but the bottom is the same,add to the fact that Shawlar is a Turkish word.No dictionary needed.Just as Urdu uses the word.I don't need a dictionary since I speak the language.--Nadirali نادرالی


 * Nadirali, the fact that two languages use the same word doesn't prove anything about the history or origin of the word. That's the question. Please take a look at the article on etymology. The Turkish word may be a direct descendant of a word in early Turkish that was adopted by peoples living in a swathe from Constantinople to Dacca. It could also be a borrowing from Persian.


 * This article is about an outfit with a shared history that is worn in a certain area of South Asia and Afghanistan. If you want to discuss the wider history of trousers, go to Trousers. That article needs work. Zora 07:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Salwars outside Afghanistan and South Asia
Shouldn't we also list Turkey as one of the countries that has Shalwar kameez? After all Shalwar is a word in Turkish. Most Turks don't wear it except on national holyday occasions. However it still is the traditional native dress in Turkey.--Nadirali نادرالی


 * That's covered in the history section. It now says that salwar-like pants are worn in Turkey and Iran. However -- I think that the salwar kameez, as an ensemble, is Afghan and South Asian. Turkish women may wear salwar-like pants, but they don't wear kameez or dupattas.


 * I haven't been heavily involved in the history of costume articles, I've only worked on some of them. I know something, but not a lot, and I certainly don't have the reference library I'd need for intensive work on it. However, I'd suggest visiting the Trousers article and making sure that African/Middle Eastern/Central Asian/South Asian trousers are covered. Zora 08:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more than just the top.It's the whole dress in general.Take a look at this video

It definitely looks like shalwar kameez to me. Top to bottom.--Nadirali نادرالی


 * Expanding the term "salwar kameez" to cover all outfits composed of pants and a loose shirt would be South Asian cultural imperialism. Here's a dashiki from Africa and a woman's outfit from China . I think that you'll find some variation on this outfit just about everywhere from Morocco to China -- a wide swathe across Eurasia.


 * According to Encarta, we owe pants and seamed tops to the Persians:


 * The Persians, based in what is now Iran, ruled an empire in the 6th century bc that included most of the Middle East and Egypt. They introduced two garments to the history of clothing: trousers and seamed fitted coats, both probably first made from animal skins. These tailored garments differed significantly from the woven rectangles of cloth generally worn in the Mediterranean region, and they served to protect people from cold weather. They were adopted for that purpose by peoples of Central Asia and northern Europe. People who rode horses valued trousers for use when astride, and in that capacity trousers spread to China and India, as well as to the Celtic peoples of northern Europe.


 * It is worth noting that throughout most of history trousers have not been associated with men. In China, both men and women, especially those who worked the land, wore trousers. In the Ottoman Empire (based in what is now Turkey), women wore trousers. Only in European cultures did trousers become associated with men.


 * The same article says that loose knee-length tunics were first worn in ancient Mesopotamia.


 * I checked the Trousers article -- it's exclusively Western-oriented. It would be better to rework that article so that it was truly international. Zora 20:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point.The only reason I inquired about Turkey is because not only do they wear shawlwar kameez as seen in that video,but the word "shalwar" is indeed used in Turkche' (Turkish).--Nadirali نادرالی


 * Did that term come from Persia? Or is it a Turkish word that was imported into Persian, Turkish, and Urdu? If the latter, we could change the etymology. How would we find out? Do you have a Turkish etymological dictionary? Zora 03:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The origin of Turkish word "şalvar" is definitely Persian. Shalvar is more common among Kurds who are closer to Persian culture. Until recent times, there were shalvar like trousers worn by Western Anatolian Turks, somehow different and possibly taken from the Balkans, I am unable to provide a clear name or origin for those at the moment. But, upon request, I would be happy to. cs 23:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do!  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Other words in Turkish that refer to Shalvar like regional trousers are:"Dizleme" "Zıpka", "Potur" "Cağşır" among others. These terms, are regional and much less known. The garments they refer to are all baggy trousers worn by men. I doubt that they all come from Shalvar. I believe there could be cultural influences from Russia or the Balkans that gave them distinctive forms. All needs serious research. Unfortunately, I am not a folklorist. I dont want to mislead.
 * This is a Cağşır from Burdur (western Anatolia)
 * This is called dizlik, dizleme or çaşır
 * This is a potur, the source says Turkey, Egypt, Syria and Palestine
 * But, the same name potur can be found in Bulgarian
 * One last note regarding Nadirali's comment at the top: Male Shalvar is widely worn in Eastern Turkey, especially among Kurdish. It is hardly extinct. For female, Shalvar is still primary dress for rural women all over Anatolia. cs 11:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the scholarly books i've read on garments in the Muslim world, the Arabic word sirwal came from a Persian word which has become 'salwar', not from Turkish. I'm of neither ethnicity, so i'm not pointing to this from national or ethnic pride.


 * Çakşir (chakshir) were worn in the early Ottoman Empire UNDER shalvar by both men and women. There's even a surviving chakshir from the 16th century made of quite sheer burumçuk fabric. So originally, çakşir and şalwar were different garments. And my exposure to the word dizlik is as a garment worn under şalvar in the 19th century Ottoman Empire, especially by women.

Ellenois (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Shalwar vs. Salwar Redux
Hi Everyone, especially Zora,

Although I have been one of the people fighting to keep the spelling "salwar," in the face of assaults by "shalwar" (see my comments in the sections Bias and Errors and National dress above), I came across some information that has made me reconsider my position. Earlier today, while looking up an unrelated word, I happened upon "shalwar" in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)! Well, "shalwar," it turns out, is the preferred spelling there, with "salwar" being redirected to "shalwar." The Unabridged Random House also has "shalwar" as its primary spelling. (Webster's Unabridged and American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, inexplicably, have neither spelling&mdash;it seems that the apparel itself is absent.)   What about Britannica? There too, it is "shalwar." Here is a quote from Britannica's India page: "In Punjab, as well as among older female students and many city dwellers, the characteristic dress is the shalwar-kamiz, a combination of pajamas and a long-tailed shirt (saris being reserved for special occasions)." Does this mean it is a clean sweep for "shalwar?" Well, not quite: Encarta prefers "salwar" and "salwar-kameez."

What about the major newspapers? In the New York Times search, "salwar" turned up 27 hits, whereas "shalwar" turned up 34. What about the major British newspapers? In the Guardian, "salwar" brought 38 hits, whereas "shalwar" brought 131; in the Independent, "salwar" turned up 16 hits and "shalwar," 51; finally, in the Times of London, "salwar" turned up 29 hits, and "shalwar," 87. Magazines? A search in Time Magazine turned up 18 items for "salwar," and 21 for "shalwar." Newsweek? A search there, turned up 1 for "salwar" and 5 for "shalwar." It is true that a search on Google does return many more hits for "salwar" than "shalwar," but what about Google Scholar though? That would give us some indication of which spelling is preferred in academic publications. Well, "salwar" returns 223 references (with the name in the title or keywords), however, "shalwar" returns 321. Google Books? A search there returns 629 for "salwar" and 640 for "shalwar." To the extent that dictionaries, encyclopedias, major newspapers, books and academic publications provide imprimaturs of standard usage, how do they line up? For "shalwar" there is: Britannica, OED, Unabridged Random House, NYT, The Guardian, The Independent, Times of London, Time Magazine, Newsweek, Google Scholar and Google Books; in contrast, for "salwar," it is Encarta and overall Google hits.

As someone who has always used the "salwar" spelling (to the extent I have used any), where does that leave me? I have reluctantly joined the ranks of those who feel that the primary spelling in Wikipedia should be "shalwar." I know it will take getting used to, but I can live with it. I can't help feeling that the reliable sources seem to prefer "shalwar," Google hits notwithstanding (which, as some people have observed, speak to the many more Indian web sites and, perhaps, Indian wearers of the apparel&mdash;"salwar" being the spelling used in India.) So, I am now proposing that we change the name(s) to "shalwar" (and "shalwar-kameez"). I'd like to hear what others think. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  21:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I support this change, as most of the hits on Google for salwar are of Indian websites that sell it. The only reason why salwar appears more than shalwar is because their are more Indians than Afghanis, Central Asians, and Pakistanis combined. Google hits should not be used as the sole decider of what spelling should be used. Otherwise we would have to change the Pashtun article to Pathan. IP198 02:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I had meant to bow out of WP entirely, being exhausted and cranky, but ... the standard metric used for resolving WP spelling disputes is Google hits. All the other sources cited give salwar/shalwar as alternate forms, and in roughly equal quantities. I don't think that's enough to change the spelling.


 * The reason we go by popularity is that WP exists to be of use to users, so we go by the most common form. Saying that it's NOT FAIR that there are more Indians than Pakistanis is to drop the popularity argument and implicitly take up an "ownership" one. I will not accept that Pakistanis OWN a garment that is worn from Istanbul to Dacca, and that I wear myself.


 * I think that there may be some divergence between British and American English involved too. I'm an American and when I talk about salwar pants with other Americans (sewing them, wearing them) we use salwar. I just checked -- figures for 2000 US census, 1,678,765 Indian-Americans, 153,333 Pakistani-Americans. More than ten times as many Indians. I don't know what the figures are for the UK, but I suspect that the Pakistani and Punjabi communities are larger there, which would lead to greater use of shalwar rather than salwar.


 * Look, shalwar kameez and shalwar qamis are mentioned in the first line, and there are redirects from those spellings to the current article. It's not as if people who use the other spellings can't find the article. Changing the spelling, against standard WP policies, would be just another episode in the dang Indo-Pak wars.


 * Get traction for shalwars in real-world English, such that shalwar gets more google hits, and I'll gladly agree to changing the spelling. Zora 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Don't ditch the WP metric for nationalistic reasons (your edit summary)." What is that supposed to mean?    I'm hardly the poster child for nationalism on Wikipedia, besides what makes you sure that I would be fighting for "shalwar," if I had to be nationalistic?  Also, I never said anything about anything being unfair.  The point I'm making is that OED and Britannica both have "shalwar" as their preferred spelling.  That's a big deal.  (And, BTW, Britannica&mdash;despite the name&mdash;is American, not British, and in fact use to carry the words, "published in collaboration with the faculty of the University of Chicago" on its title page for many years.)  Besides, the proportions in the newspapers are not "roughly equal," as you put it, they are in favor of "shalwar" in every instance, and quite lop-sidedly so&mdash;by three to one&mdash;in the best-known British newspapers.  As for American usage, neither "salwar" nor "shalwar" loom large on the American linguistic horizon, at least in the America I know.  As I said above, both Webster's Unabridged and The American Heritage Dictionary don't feature either spelling, not because they prefer a third variant, but because they don't feature the apparel itself.  Still, in the small survey I conducted: New York Times, Time, and Newsweek, "shalwar" won out each time, and the third big American dictionary&mdash;Random House Unabridged&mdash;has "shalwar" only (and not "salwar").  If Wikipedia settles naming disputes by counting Google hits, that's fine, we'll stay with "salwar," but I would imagine usage in other tertiary sources should count for something.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * With the google hit metric, a simple majority isn't enough - it has to be a super-majority. It should at least be a 2/3 to 1/3 ratio before the matter is considered decided. That holds for salwar/shalwar. The other citations aren't super-majorities. OED does count heavily with me (Britannica not so much). However, that could be considered the English spelling, not the American.


 * Look, we've got a murky situation here. It's a word that was an exotic foreign word until a short time ago, and one that's native to several languages, with several pronunciations. When foreign words start to become more common, English-speakers and spellers usually make wild guesses at how to "English" them and there's an initial period of confusion. After a while, people start to standardize on one pronunciation/spelling. I don't think that salwar/shalwar has achieved a fully stable standardized form. It may also be standardizing in different forms in different countries.


 * It could be that I'm so pissed off at angry Pakistanis at this point that I'm not being clear-headed. I'd suggest taking this to the Village Pump, and asking if the OED can over-rule Google hits on a newly introduced foreign word.


 * I'll also ask the copyeditors' mailing list to which I belong. Words are business to those folks and they usually make helpful comments. Zora 04:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Zora, for offering to ask the copyeditor's mailing list. I'll wait for their response before I post at the Village Pump.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting. Three of the US copyeditors picked salwar. One of those editors even buys and wears them, and sees the term "salwar" in the US stores. Two US copyeditors, who don't wear salwars and had never heard of them before my question, said that the OED outranked Google. One UK copyeditor has responded, and she says that they are usually called shalwars in the UK. She said that she did a Google check for UK sites only, and got 2/3 shalwar and 1/3 salwar.

So it's three to three, so far, and the split seems to be between the US and the UK (and a UK dictionary).

When there are US-UK differences in spelling (centre/center, organisation/organization) WP usually doesn't take sides. We go with whatever is there, and don't change it. I DO think that this spelling information should go into the article. I'm still not ready to plump for the UK spelling.

However, I'm willing to listen if other editors, say at the Village Pump, have a different opinion. Zora 12:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at Google Canada Shalwar Kameez receives 12,200 hits [], and salwar kameez receives only 612 hits.[]

Google Australia shalwar kameez receives 1,330 hits [], while salwar kameez receives only 536 hits.[]

Why do we have to go with the American spelling? IP198 23:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Zora, for asking the copy editors. Very interesting.  I'm curious now about why the "sh" changed to "s" in India.  It could be a feature of Indian English.  I wonder how it is pronounced in Hindi ... Will have to ask some informants.  Anyway, sorry, I haven't posted to the Village pump yet, but will soon.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is becoming quite the mystery story. Inspired by IP198's Googling other countries, I tried Googling USA, India, UK etc, but somehow the overall Google numbers seemed a lot more than the sum of the parts. So, I went back to the regular Google and tried to scroll down to the "end" (as it were). Seemed like a stupid idea, since with 638,000 hits, the end could be hours away. So, I was surprised when the end for "salwar" appeared after only 739 sites. There was a message there, "In order to show you the relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 739 already displayed." I don't know for sure what the other ("very similar") sites are. Are they repeats from the same sites, but are older versions perhaps? Or, are they different pages of the same site? Anyway, I expected a similar drastic reduction for "shalwar," and I did get a reduction, but it was less drastic: the end for "shalwar" didn't appear until after 766 sites! So, does it mean that "salwar" sites have more repeats than their "shalwar" counterparts? I don't know. Will have to ask one of my other informants who know about the Google search algorithm!

How can you replicate my experiment? Well, here are the steps:


 * 1) Click on Google Preferences (to the right of the Google edit window).
 * 2) In preferences, select 100 sites (to be displayed at one time).  This will make it quicker.
 * 3) Now do the Google search for "salwar".
 * 4) In the results page, scroll down to the bottom and click on the "10" just below Goooooooooogle.
 * 5) Read the 739 sites statement.
 * 6) Repeat steps 3 and 4 for "shalwar"
 * 7) Observe the 766 sites statement.

Still have my Village pump assignment to finish! Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  03:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:GHITS. Not directly relevant but interesting nonetheless. "Ghits" are not a way to determine notability of terms or whatever. Ekantik talk 04:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's in the context of articles for deletion -- it's not directly relevant to the use of ghits to find out what is the most common spelling. I've never heard anyone challenge the use of ghits for spelling when different spellings are acceptable and it's a question of what spelling would be most familiar to the greatest number of WP users. The relevant issue here, however, may be differences between US/UK spellings. WP accepts both, doesn't exalt one above another, and as a general rule, believes in keeping the spellings used in the original version of the article. We've had nasty ongoing US/UK spelling wars and this is the only way to stop them. The page history for the article doesn't go back beyond 2006, but I think I was the one who expanded the article from a few sentences to a larger article sometime back in ... 2004?, and I'm sure it was salwar then, not shalwar.


 * Just put the spelling dispute IN the article and bold both salwar and shalwar in the intro para. Zora 09:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Have asked at the Village Pump. No responses yet.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Zora, can you provide the link that shows it is a rule to keep the spelling used in the original version? Fowler presented some good evidence, especially the bit about their being more relavant hits for shalwar than salwar in Google. The spelling dispute on this article has been going on for a long time, so it would be best in my opinion to let Village pump settle this once and for all. IP198 21:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The best was to approach this would be to simply present the competing spellings and attribute them to the sources found. See WP:ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Zora
If you want to add salwar to the Jinnah picture, then you should add shalwar to all the other ones. IP198 23:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what I get for trying to be nice -- a demand that we put salwar/shalwar through the whole blankety blank article.


 * You seem to think that I'm lying about going with the original spelling. Here's the link: WP:MOS.


 * I can't stand this any longer. To heck with nationalism, nationalists, Pakistan AND India. Idiots. I'm leaving, that's it. Zora 00:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've pretty much left Wikipedia too, for many reasons, one being the constant waste of time bickering over minor issues such as this. It's a shame to see such committed contributors such as Zora leave.


 * The reason behind the difference in spelling is not because of some US/UK divide. Yes, there are a higher number of Pakistanis in Britain, but there are still nearly twice as many Indians in the UK.  Neither is it due to a difference between India or Pakistan (even though in Hindi the common spelling appears to be Salwar).


 * I suspect that the reason behind the difference is entirely because in Punjabi, 'sh' becomes 's' in speakers that aren't especially educated (or even with those that are educated, but are speaking informally). Just like 'z' becomes 'j' and 'q' becomes 'k'.


 * I think the Google test shows that 'salwar' is the most common spelling. Neither Shalwar nor Salwar are wrong.  Salwar appears to have been here first, it appears to be the most popularly used in English and for gods sake, people here have better things to do than argue about the letter 'h'!   :) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 09:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a shame. I was missing Zora but hadn't realised this had happened. I myself continue to get frustrated by wikipedia editors who tend to look everything from a nationalist angle -- ancient history, language, culture in general, food, and even clothes. It's true that this meme has propagated like wildfire in the last couple of centuries, but as wikipedians we should not let it interfere with our edits. This issue might be worst in the India-Pakistan case, but another place, where I gave up on my efforts on improving an article to FA status was Rumi, a person who detested all borders now being hotly contested between Persians and Turks. That so many editors fail to think beyond it is a big problem on wikipedia. I wonder if it would be long before I decide to follow suit . deeptrivia (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for the record - Zora has been my original inspiration here in editing right, and stading for the unbiased. I miss her dearly. I am sorry that while I was able to talk to her, I spent most of my time arguing (sometimes bitterly). In the end, I have realized how wrong I was and how right she were. I wish she comes back some day. Aditya Kabir 18:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What Indian states is it worn by the majority?
What Indian states is the Salwar kameez worn by the majority of women? Zachorious 09:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Salvar Kameez
In my opinion, due to the pronounciation, the transcription of the hindi word सलवार should be salvar and not salwar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.78.36.143 (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The edits I have made should remain until a convincing argument is put forward to challenge it. Tarikul sounds Bangladeshi and as such his reversions without any plausible reasons are untenable. Accept the fact that that what I've written is history and cannot be Wikified as false. (User: Moarrikh) 17:02 8 April 2009. —Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC).


 * Your facts are wrong and some of your sentences do not make any sense at all. If you can cite reliable sources to your claims, I will be happy to put them on wikipedia. There have been lot of discussions on this already, just scroll up and read. Salwar kameez did not originate from Pakistan and spread to Bangladesh and other countries. Salwar kameez is not modern and it is not even solely a South Asian clothing. South Asian call this type of clothing "Salwar kameez" and other cultures call this type of clothing something else. Tarikur (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please no nationalistic nickel and diming by anyone, be it Pakistani, Indian, Sikh, Afghani, Turk or anyone else. The discussions about spelling have been conducted many times before.   The consensus (in light of Wikipedia policy on precedent) has been to retain the original spelling "salwar kameez."  It may not be the spelling you grew up with, but it is the one that will stay here, unless you can establish fresh consensus around a different spelling.  Please read Wikipedia protocols on establishing new consensus before you willy-nilly go about changing spellings.  I haven't paid attention to the page in a while because it accidentally went off my watchlist.  However too many unsourced changes are being made by people who are vaguely appealing to the norms of the cultural milieu they grew up in.  In Wikipedia, any changes need to be cited to reliable sources.  In other words, if, as justification for making your changes, you are merely appealing to what is obvious to you, please don't both with the changes.  You will need to cite reliable source (such as the academic books cited in the text).  I am therefore rolling back the page to the last NPOV version.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Salvar and Kamiz as Separate Garments
I was rather surprised when i went to look up "shalvar" (or whatever spelling is deemed most appropriate in wikipedia) and found myself redirected to "Salwar Kameez".

Shalvar have a very long history *outside* South Asia. Their existence goes back many centuries, if not a millennium, before appearing in South Asia, where the shalwar was brought through contact with Persia. Additionally, i have read that the Arabic name for pants/trousers, sirwal (pl. sarawil) derives from the Persian shalvar (or whatever spelling). And the Ottoman Turks borrowed the garment and name from the Persians during the Medieval period. So i believe that shalvar should have its own page, with a link to "salwar kameez".

The Kamiz has a very long history *outside* South Asia, and well before appearing in South Asia, brought through contact with non-South Asian Arabic-speaking Muslims. I'd have to check my notes, but i seem to recall a name similar to kamiz dating back to the Ancient Near East, in Canaanite or Phoenician text (obviously i need to find my source), But in any event, the word, as has been mentioned, has cognates in ancient Semitic languages and clearly some of the discussion of the etymology should be there. So i believe that kamiz should have its own page, with a link to "salwar kameez".

In modern times, perhaps the majority of people know about "salwar" and "kameez" because of the South Asian outfit, but each garment has its own long and notable history and each deserves its own page covering its history and development. Ellenois (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Shalwar Qameez is the same as salwar kameez. I'm not sure why there are two separate articles; perhaps because people failed to search under a certain spelling and thought there was no article. Copana2002 (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a weak fork and nothing much there was worth bringing here. I have redirected to here. Green Giant (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Gallery
I've noticed that people seem to be adding pictures in the gallery that have little to do with explicitly showing the garment. Some people seem to be chagrined that there are pictures of people from Pakistan and Afghanistan and they are adding, willy nilly, pictures from India, whether they are relevant or not. The point is that stitched garments were introduced into the Indian subcontinent by the Muslims who invaded from the west and northwest. Before the first Muslim invasions, in the eighth century AD, no stitched garments were worn on the subcontinent, by men and women alike, only draped ones.

As I've written most of this article and other related articles, I've obviously looked at the references. Both the salwar and kameez (as well as the paijama) are garments that either came into India from the northwest, or were created in the northwestern regions of the present-day subcontinent.

It doesn't matter whether there are more wearers of the garment in present-day India or in present-day Pakistan, the point is that the garment has a history which is originally rooted in the culture of the northwestern regions, and in countries, such as Afghanistan farther west. For better or worse, that history can't be changed. So, one will likely not get a perfect geographical balance in this article, unless one allows endless submissions, which is clearly not helpful. Also, I have removed pictures of people who are sitting down or half-pictures of people, or pictures of people wearing different garments only some of which are salwar kameez. The current set of four pictures have the full-length garment, and the garment is salwar-kameez, not churidar kurta etc.

Please try to understand, this article is written for people who do not know about the garment, and the pictures are meant to clarify, not confuse. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Shalwar Kameez is not the import by central asians but native dress to india. Sari is the dress of invaders from Africa in 20000BC as is the hindu religion which was also tasken there. Now donesn't that sound silly to Indians. Why do you people try to own everthing you've been given in terms of cuisine, dress and language and deny their real origin? Do you not remember Nehru's famous oft quoted 'Hindu by religion, Muslim by culture' statement? You claim to be civilised but that civilisation has been influenced by Muslim invaders of Turkic, Iranians, Afghan, Arab and Mughal cultures. After all you will not claim the labels Hundu, Hindi or Hindustan to be of Bharati origin will? Pakistani, Afghanis etc. don't want to own sari and very few among them e.g. a few Punjabis and some Mahajers wear saris on certain occasions only. The real Punjabi dress for men and women is lang as worn by banghra dancers which only recently went out of popular usage - the reason Punjabi Sikhs and Hindus wear Shalwar Kameez is due to them being in majority Muslim region for centuries before partition. So get real, smell the coffee and don't try to change history. I bet if someone write here that Alexander the Great's army brought the dress to India then you wouldn't challenge that - only Muslim claims grate you. It was this same attitude that led to partition when you wouldn't accept Urdu but still ended up speaking it under another name, Hindi, and written in a non-Arabic script. How tragic and the tragedy continues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montizooma (talk • contribs) 02:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Urdu spelling?

 * The first paragraph of the article says "Urdu: شلوار قمیض": this is "shalwār qamīḍ"; the last letter is definitely the dotted letter ḍād. Without the dot it would be the letter ṣād and the word would be "Urdu: شلوار قمیص": this is "shalwār qamīṣ". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan Pakistan Origin
The Shalwar Qameez is the national dress of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is the result of the blending of Turkish, Arabic, Pashtun and Persian attire which ruled over these areas. As a result of centuries of Foreign rule, many of these foreign traits were also imparted on other parts of South Asia, but indian native outifts are quite distinct and unique from the Shalwar Qameez. Furthermore, the style of outfits worn in india and Bangladesh differ considerably from the traditional Shalwar Qameez. The indian version there is no Shalwar, but rather straight narrow trousers quite in contrast to the more baggy wide Shalwar pants worn in Pakistan and Afghanistan. 02:22, 21 December 2010 User:173.32.116.64

salwar suit is also called punjabi suit.salwar suit is traditional dress of punjab and now salwar suit is famous in the whole world. salwar is lower part wear on body and kameez is upper part on the body.kameez can wear looser and fitted both style by taste of wearer. kameez leanth long and short both styles wear. salwar is lower part wear on body. this is flaired from upper part and bottom is narrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.212.50.52 (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It is only known as Punjabi suit in India due to the fact that the largest urban community to adopt the Afghan/Turkish dress were the Punjabis majority of whom were and still are Muslims. The integration of Afghans, Turks and Persians with Indian Punjabi Muslims has a long history. This integration of cultures extended to Hindu and Sikh Punjabis too. The rural Punjabis contnued to wear langh/lenhgah etc. Bangladewshi women similarly adopted shalwar Kameez in large numbers only after their independence in 1971 - they saw it as West Pakistan attire and thus stuck to their own native version of Sari. The spread of shalwar kameez to the wider Hindu population is due to the Bollywood factor. Before the partition of South Asia Shalwar Kameez was viewed as a Muslim dress but after 1971 it begun to be perceived as more Indian and not Muslim anymore. Only the Hindu/Sikh populations in Muslim majority areas wore shalwar kameez. The fact that only in majority Muslim regions Muslim men wear shalwar kameez is telling - Bangladesh is the only exception which proves the point of it being a Muslim dress code that is also extended to non-Muslim and Bangladeshi women. Incidently, Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah, sister Quied e Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah, advised Muslim migrant women fleeing India to leave saris behind and adopt the Muslim dress of shalwar kameez.((User: Moarrikh)) 02:13, 11 December 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.222.26 (talk)