Talk:Bhati

Article Bhati

Respected Sir Please dont take it otherwise. I really respect you for your wiki contributions. Still, if u permit then may i ask the reason for removal of contents on the article just because of yadava word. where as other caste related words like Jat, Gurjar etc. are present there. One more thing I would like to add what i have seen with my own eyes... The fort of Jaisalmer and all text related to Bhatis, the word Yadava is present there. Indian History too have such mentions everywhere. Sorry,I am not questioning you, just curious to know if there is any specific reason. Actually, I see all the caste related pages and in case of almost every caste i find that Indian Social history is misrepresented at most of the places. Your response in this regard will certainly be a matter of emmense pleasure for me. Regards and wishes Mahensingha (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to read up on the Bhati but it gets very confusing due to ambiguities with Bahti etc. The sources that you added were also confusing. I've little doubt that Jaisalmer was controlled by a family known as Bhati but your sources were vague, as is typical for the name: one of them even referred to the family as Yadav Bhati Rajputs, which makes things even more confusing because Yadavs are a different group again and, IIRC, are not considered to be Rajput. And Yadava is treated as different from Yadav in many sources, so there is yet another problem.

The whole thing is an unfortunate mess &, as you say, it also apparently involves Jats and Gurjars. It is no-one's fault that this is so but quite how we resolve it is beyond me at the moment. It is likely to need some intensive research of the type that for which I've simply not been able to find time. Any suggestions would be welcome but they'd probably be better given on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The Rajput stands at top in the Indian caste hierachy and Yadav or Yadava at a middle position at present. So its nothing but Indian Caste mentality that the lower order group is never allowed to upgradeand will be opposed by all the (heigher/lower) categories. On the other hand giving refernces of Ancient History and the landlordship they own, their present political influence makes grounds for all the Yadavs that they claim their superiority even over the Rajputs or even more than the truth. Even the text and literature in this regard is also influenced by such mentality of the writers. what is written depends upon caste group of the writer (upper, middle or lower). The same goes with the foreign writers who could have easily been misguided as they were not a part of this complex social structure and for they based their accounts on interaction with local people/local literature. Now this conflicting material is a matter of great confusion for a neutral person. The true story is still hidden.

It is proved that in mythology Yadavs are part of Kshatriya category. one branch of them which is closely related to them is Vaishya also. so "Confusion". Evidences exist that due to fear of Parsuram, the brahmin warrior, few kshatriyas were destroyed (the claim is all are destroyed), few of them dropped their arms and took to agriculture and herding and Yadavs were one of them. Later on they again became powerful in some areas and established their kingdoms also and regained their status. Then comes the theory of Sanskritisation or upward caste mobility. Now the question arises that if they regained their status then why upgradation was needed. So, nothing but all "confusion". Still History suggests that they were and are a caste of historical importance. My intention is not to blame any one here but it is very much possible that facts may be moulded or manipulated even on Wikipedia also as many of the editors who are Indians, too belong to either of the categories "Yadavs" or "Anti Yadavs". And it is also possible that whose number is bigger became winner.

Related to this Article Bhati, I can say that you will find at all the places at Jaisalmer Fort and nearby histirical buildings Bhatis are everywhere mentioned as "Yadav" or "Yadav Bhati" as the word Bhati comes after their ancestor named Bhati.the same goes with the many literary evidences too, few of which I mentioned earlier also. At many places I found that " Few of the Yadavs also called Abhiras were merged with Yadav Rajputs". The Bhatis till date feel proud in saying that they are Yadav kulbhushan and Lord Krishna is their ancestor. They are listed almost everywhere among the Rajputs of Rajputana. They are integral part of Rajput community.I therefore humbly request all editors that the articles on wikipedia must be factual. otherwise this will also prove to become a confusing source of information like is the case of literary indian historical sources. its my pleasure if you share your views on these topics. thanx and regards. Mahensingha (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR. - Sitush (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sir, I am afraid to say that the contents removed were not original research and were suitably cited also. Any way I have no complaints. I just tried to explore more facts. so thanx for sparing time for me. Mahensingha (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Submitted below are few more sources, if it serves the purpose

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=FoT6gPrbTp8C&pg=PA134&dq=yadav+bhati&hl=en&sa=X&ei=v40XU4KJJsOOrQe_zYCYDw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA&authuser=1#v=onepage&q=yadav%20bhati&f=false http://books.google.co.in/books?id=gL7pGaL3vooC&pg=PA233&dq=yadav+bhati&hl=en&sa=X&ei=v40XU4KJJsOOrQe_zYCYDw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw&authuser=1#v=onepage&q=yadav%20bhati&f=false http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lXU_AAAAMAAJ&q=yadav+bhati&dq=yadav+bhati&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Do4XU7K-J4vprQe2-YHgBQ&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBTgK&authuser=1 http://books.google.co.in/books?id=p69GMA226bgC&pg=PA165&dq=yadava+bhati&hl=en&sa=X&ei=no4XU_yXJcHWrQeum4Aw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAg&authuser=1#v=onepage&q=yadava%20bhati&f=false http://books.google.co.in/books?id=lXU_AAAAMAAJ&q=yadava+bhati&dq=yadava+bhati&hl=en&sa=X&ei=no4XU_yXJcHWrQeum4Aw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA&authuser=1 http://books.google.co.in/books?id=aAZuAAAAMAAJ&q=yadava+bhati&dq=yadava+bhati&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TpAXU4H9L8WLrQfZv4GoDA&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBjgU&authuser=1 http://books.google.co.in/books?id=9kwIAAAAIAAJ&q=yadava+bhati&dq=yadava+bhati&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tpAXU-jIMsyXrgfr3IHwDw&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCDge&authuser=1 http://books.google.co.in/books?id=3QRwAAAAMAAJ&q=yadava+bhati&dq=yadava+bhati&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YJEXU7GXEMHqrQfGsIG4Cg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwADgo&authuser=1 http://books.google.co.in/books?id=bBIcAAAAIAAJ&q=yadava+bhati&dq=yadava+bhati&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gZIXU4XMBouCrgepjIDwDA&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBThG&authuser=1 Mahensingha (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC

Sources on Bhati

All the Respectable editors are requested to go through the following sources and edit the page as is found appropriate. I fear to edit the page, because every time it is reverted by the experienced editors for some or other genuine or valid reasons . Being new on wiki, I find no place as I am less technical. But the fact is present before everyone that the article has a lot of contents on its Talk Page and has just few or no information on actual Article page. So, I request drawing attention of all to please develop the article and make it informative.

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=xyFiVMCPB5HJuATxmoKgAQ&id=5hNDAAAAYAAJ&dq=chhatrala+yadavpati&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=yadav

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=gL7pGaL3vooC&pg=PA233&dq=yadav+bhati+jaisalmer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vCliVNCfDs6juQSc5oCYCg&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=yadav%20bhati%20jaisalmer&f=false

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=_z1mAAAAMAAJ&q=yadav+bhati+jaisalmer&dq=yadav+bhati+jaisalmer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vCliVNCfDs6juQSc5oCYCg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=zipiVMnQFpaOuASd1oCoCQ&id=gllEAAAAIAAJ&dq=yadav+bhati+jaisalmer&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=yadav+rajputs+bhati+

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=zipiVMnQFpaOuASd1oCoCQ&id=eU3RAAAAMAAJ&dq=yadav+bhati+jaisalmer&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=yadav+stock

Web Resources:-

http://www.welcomerajasthan.com/jaisalmer.htm
http://rajasthantourstoindia.com
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.190.83.169 (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcOhhLBsHV0 Refer Notes

http://worldvisitguide.com/zone/Z0009337.html - Founding the city Section

and many more...Please note the contents of web pages cant be trustworthy or reliable as per wiki policies but why everywhere the same story is written, if Bhati Rajputs are not chndravanshi or yaduvanshi (Not an Original Research). out of the above cited book which are all written after 1900 A.D., may something qualify WP:RS --Mahensingha 17:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Those are almost entirely crap sources. You have also been searching far too narrowly, possibly to push a Yadav POV. - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Its my request please do not misunderstand. I always keeps myself far away from all these controversial matters. I am simply a knowledge seeker and honest contributor and if i am not wrong, I have several times, humbly requested guidance from you as well the others whomsoever I came into contact. I Know I am not perfect, so What ever comes to my vision I simply forward it to the experts, be it you. and further you must agree that I become fully satisfied with all the decisions and reverts and have never given any reaction. Is it wrong to seek advice? I understand well that none of my edits are permanent, it is further subjected to verification. Still, If you find me doing anything wrong, Please do intimate. But, I expect a better communication just like your marvelous work on wiki. I am not here to give anybody a competition or something like that. Hoping for a better discussion and guidance. Thanks and regards.--Mahensingha 19:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be better to search for "bhati". When I've tried that in the past, it has tended to produce nothing of great note. I'm afraid that this article barely passed our notability requirements but I do live in hope that it can be improved. I have recently obtained access to a paywalled set of sources and will be trawling through those. I've also bought a lot more books of late but haven't yet read them all. - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The following Source prominently and significantly mentioned in Article Rajput may give you some clue about bhatti on page 25, 26- - The Rajputs of Rajputana: A Glimpse of Medieval Rajasthan By M. S. Naravane

I've had doubts about M. S. Naravane, who wrote that book. Mainly because he was in fact an officer in the Indian Air Force and merely an amateur historian in retirement. Eg: see this. We might need to take it to WT:INB or WP:RSN for a reliability assessment. - Sitush (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Its OK. Definitely, something better will come out, meanwhile, Whatever comes to my notice i do submit here-

Pastoral Nomadism in Arid Zones of India: Socio-demographic & Ecological Aspects By R. R. Prasad, Page-29
Discover India by Rail By Sandeep Silas Page-233

Bhati as Yaduvanshi/Yadav/Krishnavanshi/Vrishnivanshi

Dear User:Sitush, Projecting below few more sources about the claimed origin of Bhati Rajputs. Though many of them may not be much reliable ,as mentioned earlier by me and other editors on the same claim, but recurrence of the same fact in multiple sources proves that the claim has existed.

• The Tribes and Castes of Bombay, Volume 1, p-133,134 (Bhatias claiming to be Bhati Rajputs of Yadav Stock)- Reginald E. Enthoven

• Discover India by Rail By Sandeep Silas, P-233

• Cultural Contours of India: Dr. Satya Prakash Felicitation Volume edited by Vijai Shankar Śrivastava

• Indian States: A Biographical, Historical, and Administrative Survey By Somerset Playne, R. V. Solomon, J. W. Bond, Arnold Wright

• Jaisalmer, the Golden City Author Nanda Kiśora Śarmā P-15

• Bhati Rajput Slogan "Chhatrala Yadav Pati", Followers of Krishna: Yadavas of India By S. D. S. Yadava P-165

• History of Jaisalmer Author Rāmavallabha Somān P-14

• Vanishing histories: 100 endangered sites from the World Monuments Watch Authors Colin Amery, Brian Curran, World Monuments Watch (Program) P-93

• A Comprehensive History of India: The Delhi Sultanat, A.D. 1206-1526, p-322,818,838

• The Feudatory and zemindari India, Volume 9, Issue 1, P-70

A thousand sources can say it. If the 1000 sources are not reliable, it isn't going in. I've no idea about a lot of the sources that you mention above - they haven't been raised before, as far as I know. There is certainly no dispute that there are/were Bhati Rajputs and it is only the Jat and Gurjar pov-pushers here who seem to have a problem with it. The three groups as a whole - Rajput, Gurjar and Jat - are a damn nuisance across a wide range of caste articles, importing into Wikipedia the inter-communal bickering/jealousy etc that they conduct outside Wikipedia. It needs to stop. - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with you on your above statement and view. If you can recall then on the same talk page I addressed the Indian social situation in detail. You have very correctly recognized that in India most of the people take the caste related issues more sensitively than what it should actually be. I have continuously been telling each and everyone, but I am yet awaiting for the factual accuracy of the contents on wikipedia. The consensus, simply mean the group who can gather the number power of editors and the facts can be moulded. Anyway, your kind gesture to my opinion gave me relief. Thanks.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 19:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@sitush the user is not debating about the existence of Bhati Jats and Gurjar. He is just asking you to add the ancestry claimed by yaduvanshi Bhati rajputs to the article. wiki should be a secular platform free for everyone. Being a moderate contributor you should paste contemprory information also. @Mahensingha ji i am constantly observing your partial and fake ahir references please refrain from vandalisation 61.14.175.114 (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

People from other lower caste communities calling themselves Bhati

"In some parts of modern Pakistan, especially in the Northern and Central Punjab, low-caste doms (or Mirasi singers/dancers) now also call themselves 'Bhattis'; a fact deeply resented by the authentic Bhatti Rajputs."

@User:Sitush for this particular edit. The source for above contents is not verifiable online and no quotation is provided still I don't understand what is the reason that you want to keep it. For almost all the castes Higher to middle in Rank, you will always find some lower castes imitating them. Shall we treat both in the same way. Why have you not redirected the contents on the pages Dom or Mirasi who say that they are Bhatti Rajput. You have been very careful while choosing sources and contents particularly for this article then What happened now. Your edit summary says that even you could not verify or find the source actually. And yes, this is not disambiguation page. I think its better if you create one and place the things on right place. Regards.--MahenSingha (Talk) 16:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Too long hat note

It is now a too heavy hat note consisting of multiple links. In my view a suitable disambiguation page must be considered. Thanks.--MahenSingha (Talk) 22:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Jaisalmer Fort made by Bhatti Rajputs

Fort is only made by battista clan who are rajput in that period of time in that area SoodArnav (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

What is the page about?? Why add Jats and Gujjars in the Bhati clan just for their surnames?

Surnames can be changed, and with sanskritization many groups of some castes took rajput surnames. It doesnt make them belong to Bhati Clan which was Rajput. If today some group from a different castes takes Bhati surname, will that be added in the list too? Is this page about the Bhati surname or Bhati clan? Because if it page for the surname then dont include the history of Bhati in it. Because surname change doesnt change their history of people. If it the page about historical and present rajput Bhati clan then either give the reference for the history of jat Bhati or gujjar bhati that they were the same people and not adopted the surname later not caste survey report of british india which only shows the surname bhati. Sajaypal007 (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Sajaypal007, Rajputs are actually the Sanskritised version of many castes, tribes, communities, etc. So you will find the namesake clans in groups like Jats, Gurjars, Brahmins, Ahirs, etc. Historian Satish Chandra states that "Modern historians are more or less agreed that the Rajputs consisted of miscellaneous groups including shudras and tribals. Some were brahmans who took to warfare, and some were from tribes—indigenous or foreign."

Secondly, the scholarly sources cited in this article clearly mention the existence of clans, rather than Jats/Gurjars adopting a surname. And these aren't some recently created clans, e.g. here is a relevant quotation from an academic source about the 18th-century Bhattis of the present-day Haryana:

• Alavi, Seema (1995). The Sepoys and the Company: Tradition and Transition in Northern India, 1770–1830. Oxford University Press. p. 236. ISBN 978-0-19-563484-6.

The Bhattis were Rajputs and Jats whose ancestors had migrated from Jaisalmer about 600 years earlier, accepted Islam as their religion, and settled as agriculturists and pastoralists west of Haryana. They had chosen Fatehabad as their capital. But this shift towards a sedentary existence had not changed their habits; they occasionally foraged in neighbouring territory for food, cattle and fresh pasture land.

Finally, I am unable to locate any "caste survey report of british india" in this article. - NitinMlk (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

References

@NitinMlk, pls do read what sanskritisation. What you are presenting is neo-theory and writer aren't saying they related to them but may be similar groups, at best these are theories. There is no mention of such clans in those jaats, gujjars before 1880s when sanskritisation started, no evidence whatsover, and we know how people were changing surnames. Pls read the meaning of sanskritisation, it would be better for you RS6784 (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

RS6784, after reading your above comment and the comment at Talk:Tomar clan, it is clear that you are commenting without reading the discussions properly. The above quoted source mentions 18th-century Bhati Jats and Rajputs "whose ancestors had migrated from Jaisalmer about 600 years earlier". So that's many centuries prior to the 1880s. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Where your source is talking about formed from Ahir, Jaat, Gujjar ? Pls don't put words that is not present there. RS6784 (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

RS6784, where did I claim that the above source mentions Ahir, Jats, and Gurjars? But all three and many others are covered in the scholarly/academic source, e.g.:

• Schwerin, Kerrin Griifin (2005). "The Cow-saving Muslim Saint: Elite and Folk Representations of a Tomb Cult in Oudh". In Hasan, Mushirul; Roy, Asim (eds.). Living Together Separately Cultural India in History and Politics. Oxford University Press. p. 182. ISBN 978-0-19-566921-3.

Muslim sultans east of Delhi generally relied on intimate alliances with Rajput warlords with their Hindustani peasant infantry, recruited in the east (purab). Rajput chiefs served as brokers. 'Their [the sultan's] overriding interest in recruitment alliances and consensus with Rajput chiefs were expressed, ideologically, in the syncretist, conciliatory idiom that dominated their courts.'³⁸ Rajput warriors converted to Islam without necessarily giving up their way of life. These pre-Mughal Rajputs were not the Rajputs of the seventeenth century Great Tradition but, rather, 'an open status group of warrior-ascetics in search of patronage and marriage'.³⁹ Via a process of Rajputization, peasant castes (like Bhar and Ahir) of eastern Hindustan (purbiya) were integrated into the open status group of warrior ascetics, adopting Rajput values. The warrior hero's death in the battlefield represents the values of kingship.

• Kothiyal, Tanuja (2016). Nomadic Narratives: A History of Mobility and Identity in the Great Indian Desert. Cambridge University Press. p. 265. ISBN 978-1-107-08031-7.

In the colonial ethnographic accounts rather than referring to Rajputs as having emerged from other communities, Bhils, Mers, Minas, Gujars, Jats, Raikas, all lay a claim to a Rajput past from where they claim to have ‘fallen’. Historical processes, however, suggest just the opposite. Before Rajputs came to be seen as landed aristocratic caste group, Rajput appears to have been an umbrella term used to refer to a number of groups with similar aspirations and capability. In fact as Ziegler suggests, there was no contradiction in being a Rajput and a Muslim at the same time. However, the emergence of Rajput genealogical orthodoxy by the sixteenth century closed the ranks of Rajput ‘caste’ group, and excluded several groups with similar claims. Nevertheless the idea of Rajput as a martial group remained dominant and a number of old and new martial groups like Bhils, Mers, and later Sikhs and Marathas continued to claim Rajput ‘status’.

PS: Please see Template:Ping to know about ping. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

RS6784, please do not respond without reading the above quotes properly. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The first source says Bhar and Ahir attempted to inculcate Rajput value. The second source of yours is based on Jaga which was being used by most communities. Other writer says Jaga are unreliable. Pls go and read some like Zeingler RS6784 (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Ahir, have you read what modern Ahirs are composed of ? It is a identity which is formed in 1920 itself. There is Bharotia Ahir who are from Bhars. All that is written in various books. I am not here to promote any kind of casteism. Just I was highlighting the point. There are lot of inconsistencies here like Scholars said Older Kshatriyas haven't survived till 7th century - yes this is what the source of writer on Rajput wiki page is saying, then what basis word kshatriya is being added on Jaat, Gujjar, Ahir pages. Jaats were present in Sindh area as per Cynthia Talbot in 700 AD, Tomars were ruling at Delhi. So how can Tomar be in Jaat except surname usage? Pls go through reputed source.

RS6784 (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Bhar and Ahir claim in East, there is well documented claim of Rajputs of those region fighting these people. Certain writers have also mentioned it. How can one be descendant someone whom he/she fought ? RS6784 (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair, I will not respond ! Discussion ends RS6784 (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Bhati rajputs

Jaisalmer was one of the Rajput kingdoms of Rajasthan which emerged in sixteenth century India in the modern north-west of the country. It was centred around the city of Jaisalmer, in south-western Rajasthan. It has been nicknamed the 'Golden City' thanks to its yellow sandstone structures and the gold-coloured desert surrounding them. It was once the royal seat of the Bhatti Rajputs (the Yaduvanshi), a sect which had one or two notable warrior leaders. Today's Jaisalmer Rajputs claim descent from these, including early medieval kings such as Jaisimha, Devraj (considered to be the founder of the Jaisalmer royal line), Rawal Jaisal (who established the city of Jaisalmer in 1156), and Rawal Jethsi (who faced an eight year siege by Sultan Aladin Khilji if Delhi around 1294).

The Rajputs who inherited the territory were Hindu warrior clans, and the word 'rajput' itself literally means 'the son of the king', with the people being known for their valour. There were a number of small Rajput kingdoms which emerged between the sixth and thirteenth centuries, including Amer, Bikaner, Bundi, Jodhpur, Malwa, Kannauj, Mewar, and all were eventually conquered by the Moghuls. Sumit banaphar (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is so messed up, it needs cleaning.

It looks like this article became victim of some edit war. Nothing significant about Bhati clan is there and everything is about castes and marriages with turks. If anyone willing to clean it up, please do, if not than I will do it after I get some free time. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The article is really a hotchpotch. If anyone can improve this article, please do. Sajaypal007 (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sajaypal007 Can you please remove the phrases about low caste origin as that entire thing is WP:SYNTH first they took the source where they are described as rajputs later they used the source where they describe how "rajputs" have low caste origin with fabricated linage.it didn't mentions bhati trying to connect them is purely WP:UNDUE WP:OR and violation of WP:SYNTH 42.106.196.88 (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

May I suggest, you login with your account or open the account if not already done so we could discuss this better? I was little busy myself but I suppose I could work on improving some of these articles I wanted to if I could get some help? Sajaypal007 (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Modifying the page as Bhati/Bhatti surname rather than clan

The page should be modified to Bhati/Bhatti surname of today and all the details of Jaisalmer etc should be removed. As it doesn't deals with Bhatti surname but Bhati clan name of particular community. RS6784 (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This page should deal with surname to bring it under the neutral policy of Wikipedia. It looks this page deals with Bhati/Bhatti surname than a clan of particular community. Surname in 21st century used by many communities which are similar due to various efforts of Arya samaj. So the page content should be Bhati/Bhatti. RS6784 (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Changing page name from Bhati clan to Bhati ( surname)

The page name should be changed from Bhati (clan) to Bhati (surname) as this is what the page suggest. RS6784 (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

RS6784, no, the clan is the WP:Primary Topic here and notable people are already listed at the Bhati (disambiguation), which is present as a WP:Hatnote at this article. I will explain other details after reverting your large-scale blankings of sourced content. - NitinMlk (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Bhati is used by 10-15 communities not only by Jat or Gujjar, Mr Nitin ? As editor you should unbiased rather than promoting your own community. There is no need to demean Bhatti Mirasi ( An Scheduled Caste community) who use the surname since the days of Jaat, Gujjar etc. RS6784 (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Recent blankings and other changes

RS6784 has blanked a large amount of sourced content, although they were made aware of the article's scope as well as other relevant details in an older thread of this page. They have also introduced either poorly sourced or improperly summarised content. This source – which was added by RS6784 – is not WP:HISTRS-complaint, as it is authored by an architect and published by the Indian government's publication, neither of which are considered reliable for history/caste-related details. The other source attributes its details to a Raj-era author, rather than presenting them as a matter of fact. So I will fix those details. Similarly, RS6784 seems to have misrepresented the source related to Mirasis, as it doesn't seem to mention the presence of a clan. As I don't have access to that source, I will tag it with the Template:Quote needed. - NitinMlk (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Mr Malik pls don't put caste agenda of particular community on this page. You have deliberately to add things to create confusion for the readers. The Bhatti surname, Bhatti is used by Suthar, Mirasi, and Chuhra community in the same manner like Gurjar, Jaat etc. Even Gurjar and Jaat attribute it to Raj sources. RS6784 (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

RS6784, please do not make baseless accusations. I am neither pushing any "caste agenda" nor confusing the readers. The cited sources for Rajputs, Jats, and Gujars clearly mention Bhati as a clan, rather than a surname. And the Raj-era author's details regarding the Chuhras are presented as per the cited source. Note that the latest state series source added by you is considered unreliable on this project – see the section below this one. - NitinMlk (talk) 09:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Okay suthar part will be removed, but why did you removed the Chuhra part ? Why are you adding the history part here? When the page should connected with Bhati surname. RS6784 (talk) 06:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I did not remove the "Chuhra part": I presented the details as per the cited source. And you have been already told multiple times that this is a clan article. - NitinMlk (talk) 09:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• The page should be caste neutral, it is Mr Malik you who is violating the policy by removing Mr Suresh source RS6784 (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't remove K. S. Singh's source – see here. So please do not make a false claim. - NitinMlk (talk) 09:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding Denzil Ibbettson, it is he who recorded the bhatti Jat, bhatti Gujjar ? Then why are you not writing the same there. RS6784 (talk) 06:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

As you have been told zillion times, the clan-related details of Jats and Gujars are based on modern, high-quality, academic sources, rather than on the Ibbettson's sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 09:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Another Link for Bhatti Chuhra, this case is similar to Jaat, Gujjar etc.

Himachal Pradesh, Anthropological Survey of India, 1996 by KS Singh https://books.google.co.in/books?id=XEduAAAAMAAJ&q=bhatti+chuhras&dq=bhatti+chuhras&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi97OmH6PjyAhXVX3wKHcxlBNcQ6AF6BAgJEAM

Pls don't remove sources without citing proper reasons RS6784 (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Page 164 RS6784 (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the unreliable state series of the People of India. Please see the section below this one. - NitinMlk (talk) 09:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ibettson has mentioned Bhatti Jats, Bhati Gujjars. Is he wrong here as well? Your clan argument doesn't stand here, people use surname and that is what you call it as clan nowadays. Pls don't push only Jat point of view ! The communities wholike Bhatti Chuhras etc also has right to their voice.

Pls find the first link where Bhatti Jat, Bhati Gujjar has been mentioned, it is again related to colonial writer Denzil Ibbettson.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=kt3SswEACAAJ&dq=denzil+ibbettson+bhati+gujjars&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwim7qec7PjyAhVK63MBHXMtASkQ6AF6BAgIEAM RS6784 (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a reprint of an unreliable, 100-plus-year-old, Raj-era source: see here. Please stop using such sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 09:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• RS6784, please reply succinctly by providing WP:HISTRS-compliant sources and the relevant WP:diffs, rather than (yet again) giving your personal views and making unfounded accusations. Please also use WP:Indentation. I will try to reply to your multiple unindented comments above. But please do not put such a large number of unordered comments like this. - NitinMlk (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• "As you have been told zillion times, the clan-related details of Jats and Gujars are based on modern, high-quality, academic sources, rather than on the Ibbettson's sources. "

There is not a single primary source available before Ibbettson's book of 1880s which talks of Bhatti Gujjar, Bhatti Jaat, Bhatti in other communities. Please don't promote your community point of view. I am not accusing you anything but deliberately removing sources without citing any proper reasos.

Regarding K Suresh Singh book, that is based on Ibbettson probably the only claim for Bhatti Jat, Bhati Gujjar which have been repeated by other writers David Emmanuel and you accept it. Pls don't remove any sources which doesn't suit your point of view RS6784 (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

RS6784, you are yet again indulging in WP:SYNTHESIS/WP:OR. Can you provide a reliable source for the claims made by you in the above comment? In any case, it is the work of modern scholars to select or reject their sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, you are again accusing me of promotion as well as "deliberately removing sources without citing any proper reasos". Both of these claims are baseless, as I have properly explained my edits and haven't indulged in the promotion. So please stop these personal attacks. - NitinMlk (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I was going through the talk page and found one more user Sajaypall007 mentioned it earlier that this article is not properly framed, I was just trying to improve it by bringing it under the wiki caste neutral policy. RS6784 (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

RS6784, blanking sourced content and misrepresenting the cited sources are not the ways to bring any article "under the wiki caste neutral policy." And please start indenting your comments. Otherwise, it will be very challenging to follow your responses. - NitinMlk (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I too understand that this page needed cleaning. It was nothing but a random things added without any coherence just because they were sourced content doesn't mean they shouldn't be removed. Most of these type of pages are all mess. I think @sitush as mentioned also cleaned one such page because it was also mixture of random lines. The article need cleaning. Sajaypal007 (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I am of opinion that the mixture of lines and para which are joined without any coherence should all be removed and only lead should remain. Its not even history. And history portion of the Jaisalmer state of Bhati is already given at that article. Why just random things are added here. Sajaypal007 (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Sajaypal007, how is a century-long practice of female infanticide by Bhati Rajputs irrelevant? This content was added by Sitush in 2015 and is relevant to the clan's historical details. So please stop blanking details without discussion. - NitinMlk (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

NitinMlk Because an article that has only single line shouldn't be about a bad practice which is such a small part of the community. A community has long history, its culture, modern achievements and what not thats why one can not represent that community only by a small bad practice. It will have WP:NPOV issue. And by the way i am asking for cleaning of this page since months. See the earlier discussion on this talk page. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean blanking the "small bad practice." Please provide sources that show positive traits of the clan, along with proposing the relevant changes. That will also bring different facets of the clan. BTW, this article isn't a single liner. - NitinMlk (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Firstly for details about the community we need separate Bhati Rajput page, where we can add all the positive and negative aspects along with all the details. This page is not related to Bhati Rajput hence to make these details WP:NPOV we will make the whole article unnecessarily big. Also will make it WP:NPOV ironically because all other communities will be not fully represented. And I am sure there are more communities out there which are not added here but use Bhati name, we should add them as well including their culture and everything too.

The page has a very small amount of content as of now. If it will get "unnecessarily big", we will split it accordingly. But that stage seems far away, especially if you will keep blanking the relevant content as you did in the case of infanticide details. - NitinMlk (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

So why leave it in WP:NPOV issue. You didn't understand, my point is adding more content in the pages like this is needed. And as of now it is WP:NPOV issue. I am talking about the messy condition of the article since long. Anyway I have some work, will continue later. Have a good day. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, you didn't read my comment properly. There is no NPOV issue unless you can show that by providing the relevant sources, in which case we will add them to the article. But you cannot just blank the well-sourced, relevant content and claim that you have "some work". If that's the case then please self-revert your undiscussed blanking. - NitinMlk (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

State series of the People of India

RS6784, the state series of the People of India is considered unreliable on this project, e.g. see here, here, here, etc. So please do not cite them as you did with this edit. The national series (published by the OUP) is acceptable, especially when there is a dearth of high-quality sources. Note that the author of these series plagiarised Raj-era sources and these series have been discussed multiple times on this project. If you still have any query then you can ask Sitush or at WP:INB. - NitinMlk (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes

Sajaypal007, please revert your this edit, as you have misrepresented the source with it. Although the author of the two books is the same, they give different details regarding Gujar and Chuhras. In the case of fomer, the author mention bhati as their clan, whereas in the case of Chuhras, he quotes a Raj-era author who recorded the namesake division in them. He neither mentions the presence of a clan in Chuhras nor mentions that detail as a matter of fact. Please read the relevant quotes from the sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

He doesnt use words like namesake or anything. And if he is quoting someone and doesn't refute that claim means he is agreeing with that. Besides every secondary writer quote someone who did the actual primary research. It is not directly from Primary research. And neither is this article is about Clan or surname specific. Sajaypal007 (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

You are again misrepresenting the source. There is a difference between mentioning a detail as a fact and attributing a detail to someone else. In the latter case, we cannot present the attributed content as a fact simply because the author did not do so and that will be a misrepresentation of the source. As far as "namesake" is concerned, it just means that the Bhati division was recorded by the Raj-era author. And you can replace "namesake" with "Bhati", as that won't make any difference. But you can't add your WP:SYNTHESIS as you did with the aforementioned edit. - NitinMlk (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting the source. It is said by the author. There is no WP:SYNTH issue here. For more clarity can you provide the full quote or whole page because it is not available on google books. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

You are clearly misrepresenting the source by providing an attributed text as a fact. As far as access to the whole page is concerned, you should ask the editor who added it, i.e. User:RS6784. So either fix the detail as per the available quote or remove it for now and wait till you get access to the whole page. - NitinMlk (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

So you don't have access to the full page too then why are you hellbent on removing it? From the details given I think there is no separate mention needed, just like Rajput, Gurjar, Jat etc they should also get mentioned on equal pedestal. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Anyway I did ask quotation so the guy who added it may add the full quotation to verify. As of now we shouldn't remove it because it is still verifiable that Chuhra Bhati exist. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my comment, as I am not "hellbent on removing it". I am actually asking you to self-revert the misrepresentation of the source introduced by you. But you are not listening. And there is a separate mention needed for the exact reasons that I have explained in this thread to you multiple times. We can neither present the attributed detail as a fact nor can mention it as a clan which even the attributed Raj-era author doesn't mention. - NitinMlk (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Sajaypal007, please self-revert, as the quoted text of the source is clearly misrepresented. Otherwise, I will do that for you because we cannot leave the misrepresented detail in the mainspace like this. - NitinMlk (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

NitinMlk, Pls see the details for Mirasi Bhatti at page 996 [1] RS6784 (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

NitinMlk for the source of Bhatti Chuhra, it is mentioned on page 108 and the quotes are in the source. If you are too eager to authenticate pls buy the book and read it, you are very vocal editor and so you can do it. RS6784 (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks User:RS6784. I have added another reference to support the statement. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with RS6784 on the point about Mirasi as well, it is clearly mentioning Bhati as Gotra of Mirasi. How is it different than Jat Rajput or anyone mentioned here. NitinMlk I suggest we add Mirasi in the same language as others not make some kind of distinction like you wanted to do. Sajaypal007 (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

2405:204:218C:3F9B:71C2:6374:CC43:40DB (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Bhatti's are also found in hatt clan this is half information please make it correct as soon as possible otherwise have to take strict action on claiming false informations

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2022

First of all Bhati is a gotra which is found in Jats and Gurjars also (not talking about bhatti which is the punjabi variant). Sufficient sources were given in edit 1048889448. For gurjar, source is "https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Jw9uAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y". This change was made recently. UncannyBeast (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Article must be reverted to edit 1048889448 or at least First line "Bhati is a clan of Rajputs," should be replaced by "Bhati is a clan of Gurjars, Jats and Rajputs" with sources in edit 1048889448. UncannyBeast (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

you are right this editor migh be rajput thats why they're doing such things on others pages to Including Chauhan ,tomara, paramar and many more. Johnbendenz (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem I have that the edit was made without any discussion in the talk page. The current page contains irrelevent information about the Jaiselmer state while the information about the Gurjar and Jat clan was purged without any reason. So I request you to revert to revision 1048889448. UncannyBeast (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It continues to appear that there is no consensus for this edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

please do some reserch and editing before putting such totaly biased article on wikipedia brother

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=bhati+gurjar+jatt+clan 1 (A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and ... - Volume 2) 2 (Hinduism - Page 215) 3 (Origins and History of Jats and Other Allied Nomadic Tribes ...) 4 (A History of Pakistan and Its Origins - Page 205) 5 (FROM SIALKOT TO VANCOUVER - Page 20) 6 (The Gujjars -Vol 04 (Gujjars History & Culture) by Dr. ... - Page 398) 7 (Baluchistan District Gazetteer Series: Sarawan - Page 48) 8 (India's Communities - Page 1125) 9(The Gujjars Vol: 01 and 02 Edited by Dr. Javaid Rahi - Page 589) Here are some book from gooogle.co.book in all these book bhati is mentioned as a clan of jatt gujjar rajput and even to dalit community please revert the right virsion of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbendenz (talk • contribs) 12:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Suresh Kumar

Suresh Kumar's book has been termed unreliable by senior editors. There is a discussion here [2], please check this discussion before adding his source again. Ranadhira (talk) 03:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Bhati Jat

@ Ranadhira i would like to know what source you are even trying to add to make Maharawal Jaisal Singh Rajput, as per the sources you have mentioned no where says the king to be of Rajput Caste, your source= is nothing. So don't edit without any sources just because you want to add Rawal Jaisal Singh to be Rajput, and other than that i had 2 sources from which the 2nd source was a 13th century book that's much reliable than anything you have provided so far, so don't change Wikipedia to your fantasies. The 13th century book= Kvjr0604 (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)