Talk:Saraiki people

Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article 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 article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ethnic groups Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

This is all wrong there is no saraiki people they are just saraiki speaking people and belong to Baloch, Sindhi and Pakhtun tribes

Photo

There is a photo of Siraiki people .It is not photo of a siraiki person but it is photo of a Baloch Rasoolpuri 14:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Seraiki culture

Look like most of the content there is also here. Merge? And check the POV, please. - Nabla 22:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seraiki people were earlier known as Sauvira .

http://books.google.com/books?id=nG0_xoDS3hUC&pg=PA146&dq=abhira+tribe&hl=en&ei=m8kFTZfYAoyr8AafruneCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=ahir&f=false BOOK---Alexander's campaigns in Sind and Baluchistan and the siege of the Brahmin ... By Pierre Herman Leonard Eggermont--PAGE 146 Sauvira Kingdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumitkachroo (talk • contribs) 07:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-In this cited page where is written that origin of Siraiki language is Sauvira.--Magsi baloch (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. You've looked at the wrong source on the wrong page. The claim that the term Saraiki derives from the name Sauvira is made at Saraiki dialect, and is cited to:

A.H. Dani, Sindhu-Sauvira: A glimpse into the early history of Sind In Hameeda Khusro (ed), Sind Through The Centuries (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1981) pp. 35-42

a source that is not available online. You'll have to find it in a library. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The truth of Saraiki speaking people

Please do your research there is no saraiki people. Saraiki is only a language spoken by Baloch tribes like Notkanis and Qaisranis plus some Sindhi and Pakhtun tribes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.183.249.27 (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources that refer to the Siraikis as an ethnic group, although you are right to the extent that the shared language is only weakly relevant to the ethnic deliniations here. You're welcome to propose changes to the article that will take account of this fact, but you have to find reliable sources to support those changes. – Uanfala 18:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by a blocked user

What sources? https://www.amazon.com/Baloch-Balochistan-Historical-Account-Beginning/dp/1466958960 This book really talks about all the baloch including the Notkanis and Qaisranis, arguably the biggest group of Saraiki speakers in existence. And saraiki is still just a language. The "Saraiki People" in and of itself is all wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.183.249.27 (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: hello my old enemy but still my linguistic brother. Hope in future we can become less enemy and more linguistic brothers. THIS WAS WHAT I TELLING U ALL THE TIME. Now see this Baloch brother his claim is right in the context of my last stances.

1. Most of South Punjabi who claim Saraiki as a language are Baloch , Pathans, Syeds (Arabic), Gailanis (Persion) or Non Natives of Punjab who immigrated lately in the last 500 years. For example Durranis, Rabbanis, Niazis and Tareen tribes were the part of Afghan Empire and later they looted, killed and took away most of the lands from local people of South Punjab. Still Tareens and Durranis are feudals of South Punjab on the same land which they captured and snatched from local population. The separate Seraiki identity stems from the fact that many Immigrant Baloch and Pukhtoon population who inhabited the lands of Punjab refused to integrate into the culture of Punjab and rather they tried to carve out their own identity different from the people of Punjab. The reason of separate of identity of Punjab stems from the racist point of view where Punjabis are considered lower caste converts from Hinduism while Syeds, Gailanis, Rabbanis , Durranis, Niazis Baloch etc consider themselves as a ruler and super class.

2. The same reason led to the strange phenomenon where 15 out of 24 districts of south Lahnda call themselves Punjabi while only 9 claim themselves as Saraiki (A new language) Even in these 9 districts only 60% with exception of DG khan and Rajanpur who are almost all Baloch claiming Saraiki as language.

IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME THEN LEARN STANDARD PUNJABI DIALECT AND SARAIKI DIALECT. both are 95 % same in vocabulary and mutually intelligible.39.33.169.53 (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check your references

The references you provided are by western writers and they do not provide any historical context to "Saraiki People". They only talk about them as fact without providing proof of fact. They are loose references and based on personal perspective rather than facts. They are mere suppositions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.183.249.27 (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Saraiki children.JPG

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]