Talk:Kahloon

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles

India Low‑importance

	India portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

kahloon are also living in district sahiwal tehsil chichawatni. by umar kahloon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.110.185.112 (talk) 18:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly edited this page today; took me several hours searching for history, looking for free versions of books mentioned. Still, there are a few shortcomings. First of all, this page needs to be renamed "Kahlon", which is the more widely used form in both India and Pakistan. Second, I could not type the name in Punjabi correctly; You must have noticed it. Also, I want someone who knows Urdu well to check if the name in Urdu is correct. Third, the population figures mentioned are from 1911 census. You may update them with relevant sources. Fourth, a few more reputable people have to be added in Prominent people category; or wait for a few years and I'll be there. The Aryan Prodigy (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE READ BEFORE EDITING:[edit]

1. Stop adding your own name in the list of prominent people. You're embarrassing yourself. If people got famous by editing their names into Wikipedia articles, I'd be an internet celebrity. You may be a professor, owner of a factory or firm, student at Harvard, brain surgeon - it doesn't matter, no one cares who you are. If you're not famous enough to have a Wikipedia article, you don't deserve to be on the list.

2. If you screw up Wikipedia articles to kill time, get a job! We know you've been an idiot at school. If you think "Khatri" is a religion of the Jats, do the world a favor of not trying to edit anything on Wikipedia. You can still watch Youtube videos or surf facebook or go back to being a failure.

3. Since most of the accounts in the book by H. A. Rose were self-narrated by people, they most likely suffer from biases, such as exaggeration. But, this book and a couple of others are our only source of information about the tribes and clans. So, I've used the information from the book sparingly, leaving out mythological clauses and claims to descent from royal lineages, since the nature of their authenticity is dubious.

4. People added to the list of prominent people, either have an article on Wikipedia or are otherwise, famous enough to make headlines in a national/regional state newspaper, or numerous (news) articles can be found on the internet. References have been added in the second case.

5. More than enough citations and references have been added. Wherever books are cited, links to the specific pages in the book have been provided for verification. Wherever opinions are given, their subjective nature has been sufficiently clearly indicated, by citing the source.

The article has been written in the most unbiased way: I'm fairly proficient in both the Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi scripts, secular in religious views (if any), have no superiority/inferiority complexes and hold no bias against any religion/sect/caste/ethnicity/race. Please post on the talk page, the issues; challenging, before editing out any information. Epicurious The Great (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously not a new user, even though your account seems to be recently created. However, you seem not to be aware of the consensus that Rose, Ibbetson etc are not reliable sources, although you do correctly pick up on one reason why this is so. Neither are you qualified to cherry-pick from them, making your own determination of which bits are ok to use and which bits are trash. Regarding caste members, please see User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. Having fixed these recent issues, the article is now pretty much back where it was, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding vain, I am absolutely a new editor (although not a new user, in that I have been a frequent visitor to the site, and certainly not new to history). And therefore, true; I was not aware of any opinion on the matter. Note taken. Regards. Epicurious The Great (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]