Talk:Pukka sahib

2007-02-8 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 23:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Term also shows up in the works of Agatha Christie, Rudyard Kipling, HG Wells and many others. I think it has more "racist" overtones than the current article gives it, referring to the attitude of unassailable superiority that members of the British military and elite showed abroad, which underlay in part some of the excesses of British colonialism. But I'm no expert, that's just my take. 69.237.155.80 (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Your "take" is certainly not expert but it is typical of the post-modern PC mentality that sees racism in everything and everywhere so that the person "exposing" it can show off how "enlightened" he or she is. The term is not racist and in fact denotes someone who treats people of all races and creeds fairly and with dignity. It has nothing to do with "unassailable superiority" which is an attitude most of the British Military and the "elite" (whatever that means in this context) did not have, and certainly not to a "racist" degree. Your so-called "excesses of "British colonialism"" is nothing more than left wing revisionist dogma. I bet most of the Pukka sahib were more respectful toward differing people and attitudes than most of the self righteous humbugs who claim to be unprejudiced around today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.239.197.45 (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The racism of the British in India (and elsewhere) was legendary. Read something of what the actual colonials wrote about the Indians, anonymous, before you rebuke others for their accurate statements. GeneCallahan (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"and Greek"?? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's far more about the class of the person. Yes about superiority, but not racial superiority. In fact, not comparing them with people of other races at all, but with other white people. 86.135.199.240 (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither 19th-century English nor Greek is a current language

"The word "pukka" is still used formally in 19th- and 21st-century English and Greek"

So what is it supposed to mean that the term is "still" used in the 19th-century versions of the language. GeneCallahan (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No valid references

None of the references given are valid. #1, “OED”, is merely a link to the Wikipedia article about the OED. The references to the literary works lack page numbers, publishers, and dates of publication. The reference to “Lexico” appears to be a database lookup to an out-of-date source. I think they should all be removed and the article either deleted or fully revised. Poihths (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]