Jump to content

Talk:Jat Sikh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.22.43.187 (talk) at 08:14, 27 April 2024 (→Edits from IP addresses: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Edits from IP addresses

In recent days, there have been similar, unsourced additions from 219.91.185.159, 203.187.210.90, 123.201.45.65, 219.91.185.119 etc. (I guess this is result of something like a forum discussion). The edits are aimed at proving that Sikh Jatts are similar to Muslims Jatts, because they're of a "purer Scything origin", as compared to the inferior Hindu Jatts.

Unless somebody provides a reliable sources for this claim (a reliable source, not some Khalistani or Pakistani ethnoreligious supremacist propaganda site), such edits will be reverted.

Note should be taken of the fact that the great caste of Khatri (the merchants) have nothing to do with the Kshatriya (warrior and kings). A jat-Sikh (kshatriya) has no link to Khatri-Sikh (merchant). Tarsem Singh Toor


Here are some quotes from reliable sources such as published books:

Rosen, Stephen Peter (1996). Societies and Military Power: India and Its Armies. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. p. 46. ISBN 978-0801432101. OCLC 34357943.:


Upadhyay, H. C. (1991). Modernization and Rural Development. New Delhi: Anmol Publications. p. 236. OCLC 25732189.:


Munshi, K. M. (2007) [1942]. Akhand Hindustan. Read Books. p. 54. ISBN 1406750670. OCLC 6078616.:


In fact, many books state exactly opposite of what the IPs are adding: Hindu and Sikh Jatt societies are somewhat more similar, compared to the Muslim ones. For example:

Levinson, David (1996). Encyclopedia of World Cultures. Boston, Massachusetts: G.K. Hall & Co. p. 112. ISBN 0816118086. OCLC 22492614.:


utcursch | talk 15:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above e.g just states one diference between Jatt Sikh & Jatt Muslims and that is bcoz of different religion that they follow not bcoz of Punjabi Jatt culture.... What about the common clan names, culture, language that Punajbi Jatts(Sikhs & Muslims) share.... Jatts & Jaats can never be the same...they are totaly different in all the ways....below are few difference between Punjabi Jatt & Jaats of Haryana, UP & Rajasthan

Jatts are from Punjab & Jaats from Haryana, UP, Rajasthan Jatt Mother Tongue is Punjabi & Jaats Mother Tongue is Haryanvi and Hindi. Jatt Cuisine is Punjabi Khana & Jaats cusine is ...(i have no idea on this) Jatt is Bhangra lover & Jaats is Dham lover. Jatt traditional costumes and outfts are totally different from Jaats. Jatt is Whiskey lover & Jaat is Hookah lover Jatts have diff clan names from Jaats. Jatts are mostly meat eaters & Jaats are mostly vegetarians the list is endless....what do you have to say on above points 219.91.185.85 (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Whiskey lover" and "Hookah lover"! Huh? Find a good reference for such claims. How does your ranting help prove your claim that Hindu Jats are different from Muslim/Sikh ones? You're talking about the regional differences between Punjabi and non-Punjabis, and not "Hindu" and non-Hindu Jatts. utcursch | talk 12:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quote - "Jatt Cuisine is Punjabi Khana & Jaats cusine is ...(i have no idea on this) "
So, you clearly state here that you have NO IDEA on a particular topic, then how can you make a valid claim for any specific differential? Do you know what a 'Menu' is? You contradict youself. Also, do Muslim Jats use Hookah? 86.22.43.187 (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was just an example on the general habbits and difference between jatts and jaat...jatts (being sikhs) do noy smoke hookah which is a tradition in jaat panchayats and elders...any ways you wont understand this123.201.45.81 (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, yes, I do not understand that. What I understand that the Jat/Jatt forums often turn into places where Haryana vs. Punjab and Hinduism vs. Sikhism fights take place; the users end up claiming that the Jatts from the two groups are not related to each other. Each group claims to be of "superior" race, and constructs pseudohistorical/pseudoscientific theories to prove their point. Please don't bring such useless debates to Wikipedia. If you've a reliable, scholarly, academic reference to back up your claims, please feel free to contribute. utcursch | talk 14:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No its not claim of being a superior race that anyway is decided by history....but so clear distinctions as Language, culture, costumes...this thing go back thousands of years (even if you leave religion out of it)how can one ignore that....that is food for thought....isn't it utcursh..binda219.91.185.34 (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jatt sikh is a shudra according to kaka kalekar 1952 act . In sikhism all sikhs are kshtriye but they donot allowed to use jat , khatri like identities if they use this identites then they are using hindu varna system and according to that jat sikh is shudra Harman0123 (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who is a sikh? Sikh is not a jat, khatri , rajput , ramgarhiya . Sikh is a relegion and everyone who become sikh have to leave thete caste like jat , khatri , rajput , ramgarhiya if they donot leave that caste , race , ethinitcy then they have consider according to varna system . According to varna system jatt sikh is a shudra class according to kaka kalekar 1952 act jat sikh is shudra and jat sikh is the ilgetitmate son of Rajput male and jat women . There are many types of jatt sikh like darbari jatt , shahjahani jatts of raja sansi , akbar jatts mihir mitha dhaliwal jatt gaves 150 families jatt women to akbar to get the free land from akbat . Those jatts are known as akbari jatts . These petition is valid under 1936 punjab hoshiarpur high court Harman0123 (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

??

and what vandalism are you talking about.....is showing truth vandalism....and here iam writing about my people..this is what iam ...123.201.45.110 (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sudra

For me, Misterconginialtastical hit the nail on the head regarding the Sudra reference (even though I myself reinstated it previously when it was removed as an "unrelaiable" source): this article is about Jatt Sikh, therefore by definition it is not about those Jats who are of, or originate from, a Hindu caste system. The reference to Sudra is valid for a wider survey of Jat people, but not for this article. -- Timberframe (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Is not the usage of Rajput in the same context then? I am a bit puzzled. Maybe I am reading it wrong of the first paragraph needs to be re-written. It does not seem to read clearly. It sems to be mixing up ethnicity with caste. Saying this there is a strong element of ethnicity amongst caste. For example in Manu Smirti, the Saka (Scythian) is seen as a Sudra. Thanks.--Sikh-history (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree regarding Rajput. The "History" section is a mess, it has grown ad hoc and lacks a clear objective. Stepping back further, I'm not sure what the article as a whole is trying to say: we already have an article on Jat people in general, so I'd expect this article to expand on various aspects of the Sikh Jat community which characterise it or differentiate it from the general Jat population, now and in the past: faith (obviously), social traditions, occupations, historical origins. It doesn't seem to do this at all. -- Timberframe (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sikh-history the caste system im sorry to say isnt in sikhism but hinduism so they can not be termed as anything ,Jats are a ethnic group in the punjab region,these are the ones who converted to sikhism and forgot any caste creed or colour,but there influence in the sikh community is big as they do make up the majority of sikhs thats why there is a Jatt-sikh article i really think you(Sikh-history) are stepping over the mark this time.Pleas see Sense Regards Information-Line (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timberframe I will try and write in a lead, please give me some ideas and assist. You are correct in so much the sikh aspect of Jatt-Sikh should be exploited. I have done work previously on the Tarkhan-Sikh, Ramgarhia pages. A lot of which was not appreciated by their community, but we have to resents things warts and all I suppose.Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Information-Line you and I are aware the first question asked by Jatt-Sikh familes is "Teree Zaaat Kee Hai?". "Zaat" is a peculiar word that not only mean profession, but refers to ones ancestry and lineage. It refers to race. Also Assume Good Faith, we must adhere to WP:NPOV. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jatt sikhs beleive in caste system if they call themselev jat then it means they beleive in hindu caste system . Jat is not ethnitcity . In indian government caste list jat and jatt sikh is a caste who comes under obc in central government list . Sikhs donot have caste but jatt sikh have caste . Jatt sikh comes under shudra varna because they are the descand of the hindu jats . If they remove there identity of jat and become sikh then they are varna less . But they beleive in caste and call themselev jatt sikh accoriding to punjab high court 1936 jat and jat sikh come under shudra varna . Kaka kalekar 1952 act also describe jat and jatt sikh under shudra varna Harman0123 (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp

I have added information that is important for the article but it may need a little cleaning up as for the references link to the Sikhiwiki a Sikh encyclopedia,and i hope that you can use this information in the article during your major revamp of the article as it shows why jatt sikhs were renouned.Regards Information-Line (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, provided that sikhwiki.org cites its sources. I don't think the wiki itself can be considered a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia policy, but if the information it provides is supported by robust citations we can use the citations. -- Timberframe (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sikhiwiki is very low in terms of refernces and you are correct it is not reliable source. I spend a lot of my time removing those references from other articles and finding better ones, so please don't use them here.--Sikh-history (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This raises another concern that I am taking the citations in sikhwiki.org in good faith. If anyone has access to any of the books cited in this article it would be useful to confirm that the quotations as presented in the article are accurate. -- Timberframe (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can check one or two as I have Barstows book somewhere. That quote I remember (which I have tagged), because it was used by a friend of mine to demonstrate differences between Jats per se and Sikhs. The quote seems to be doctored. I will check. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I thought, selective quoting:

On page 155

As has already been explained the virtues of the Jats are identical with those of the Sikhs, but the latter posses in a higher degree the ardent military spirit which had its origin in the warlike precepts of Govind Singh.

I think rather than quotes, what we do is make a statement eg Jatt Sikhs according to Barstow were very good soldiers, and due to the influence of Sikhism possesed more of a martial quality than their other non-Sikh Jat brethern or something like that.

Barstow also talks about Khatris, Mazbhis, Tarkhans etc etc being very good soldiers in the same manner, so we need a summary of what he is saying.

What do you think? Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking those refs. I agree completely. In any case I'm not convinced of the encyclopedic value of the "Description of the Jats Sikhs by British Military Officers" - the authors were writing for a specific audience and in a context which doubtless influenced their perceptions and opinions; they are hardly objective sources. As far as possible I'd like to see the article draw on scholarly references rather than the likes of these. -- Timberframe (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok when I have time I will write the summary and just and the refrences for the reader rather than include quotations from the books. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need To Expand Influence of Sikhism on Jatts

I think this section is key and will the article and also show why their need s to be a separate article for Jatt Sikhs rather than just Jatts. We need to find more sources and more headings. I will have a look. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. The crucial question this article needs to answer in order to justify its existence as an article rather than a paragraph in the Jat people article is about the significance of Sikhism within the Jat community at large, both in the past and in the present. If we can't manage more than a paragraph then why have a separate article? We've a little on its origins, but nothing yet on how it shaped the community culturally, socially and politically. Sadly I have no sources for this topic, but I'll happily help to copy-edit anything that's forthcoming. -- Timberframe (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pagan and Buddist Jatts Highly Dubious

I will give 3 days to find sources that concur that there were Buddist and Pagan Jatts in Panjab in the 17th and 18th Century. If none are presented, I will kill these two points. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair enough. I wonder why the additions were made without citing references in the first place. -- Timberframe (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably my fault. I was searching for some old Persian references I had on how Jatts from Muslims had become Sikhs and tagged the part about Muslims Jatts, while I found the source. Information-LIne decided to add Pagan and Buddhist (I don't know why). Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Buddhism was in the punjab at the time and still is although it may be a minority,you may kill the pagan part i just thought if anybody had seen it they may want to give references ,but i am still working on a reference for Buddhist jatts so please do not remove it and still ,and also how can you prove muslim jatts became sikhs if you do not find any sources i will also kill that point within 3 days :) Information-Line (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC) L[reply]

NO Oneness is on you to demonstrate Buddhism was in Punjab and there were Jatt Buddists in the 17th to 18th Century. If you cannot provide a link then it will be removed. You will not kill Muslim Jatts in 3 days because I can demonstrate there were Muslim Jatts in Punjab from many sources. In time I will find the source that demonstrates some Muslim Jatts becamoe Sikhs too. I am going through Sikh History from Persian sources at the moment by Irfan Habib and Grewal. It will take time. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I jhave done a cursory search and there seems to be much mention here of Muslim Jatts in the 17th century and NO mention of Buddist Jatts in the 17th century here. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apoligies

On over zealous tagging of personalities. Whoops--Sikh-History 18:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries. I hope the rationale I put in my edit summary is acceptable to all. I left the "cn" tag against Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale because his article doesn't directly assert a Jatt origin. For the other three which I removed the respective articles assert that the respective people are of Jatt Sikh and assert what is said about them in this article. While wiki isn't a suitable reference, I felt that if there was anything questionable about the biographical info in this article it should be questioned at source, because that's where the external references are. Cheers -- Timberframe (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jatt influence on Sikhism

There must have been an influence of Jatts or Jat culture on Sikhism not only just religion on Jatts ?

Jatts are innate fighters, to suggest that Bhappe are a martial bunch too is laughable and its putting down Jats en masse Analtap (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are bhappe who like to see themselves as jats and even call themselves jats, its quite obvious after a while who they are !Analtap (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVt8eSD7FEk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Analtap (talk • contribs) 21:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Why do the Bhappe have anything to do with the Jat-Sikh article :S , most khatris i meet never say they are Jatt ,Khatris are the Kshatriya varna of Hinduism but i would have to agree that they werent renound warriors ,but Sikhisms influence of a martial type came from the opression it suffered by the Mughals and had to take up arms eventually not because Jatts wanted to make an army ,you have to remember by insulting the Sikh Bhappe it is just like insulting our Guru's ,please refrain from the obsession with Khatris. They have also spread the word of Sikhism quite far they make up the Majority of sikhs in Afghanistan ,Kabul .

ਖ਼ਾਲਿਸਤਾਨ Information-Linetalk 21:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm Bhappe. A racist term used to describe Khatri's in Punjab (one who emigrated from Pakistan side I think, because of their accent). Khatri's from what I understand are from Kshatriya lineage (as described in Dasam Granth) who have taken to trading. Just I have read Jatts were originally Kshatria and have taken to the plough. I think it's important to cite reference and places. I have no doubt as the article expands we can add more about how even Jatts influnced Sikhism in the 17th and 18th Century by making the bulk of the Confedaracies (Misls). I must stress the need for good citations and present all views. Thanks --Sikh-History 08:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are joking, right ? Analtap (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info-line, most of the sikhs in Kabul are refugees from 1947, but now most have fled the wrath of the Taliban in recent years despite NATO occupation and most have moved back to India, my point is that many bhappe (not a racist term) do actually pretend to be jatt or many internet sites if you get my drift Analtap (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not joking at all. This page is for discussion of part Jatt-Sikh, and not of "racism", or whether people are pretending to be Jatt or not. In my experience Khatri's are proud people who have no need to pretend to be Jatt (internet or reality). Please focus on the content of this page. Thanks --Sikh-History 07:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If your going to use dabestan e mahzeb (as you normally semm to do) as a rsource to say Muslim Jats converted to Sikhism, I wouldn't bother.

Most Sikhs and Hindus converted to Islam during the defeat of all the Gurus, and again in Partition there was a huge conversion in the middle part of the last century...I will find sources to find them too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.171 (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why how and where?Where is your proof for this? Where are your reference? --Sikh-History 18:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a Contradiction?

How is Sikhs being brave in general a contradiction? Please STOP this POV NOW. The page is about Jat SIKHS (emphasis SIKH). What is it that makes a Jatt Sikh different from a Jat. Otherwise there is no need to have this page, as many editors have been trying to delete it. The same applies to Rajput Sikhs, Julaha Sikh (Ramdasia), Mazbhi Sikh (Chamar/Churah Sikh), Ramgarhia (Tarkhan) etc etc. The list goes on. The only reason to create these pages is to highlight what makes the Sikh element make these people different. Major Barstow goes into this in some detail (as do other books). I suggest you read them. Thanks --Sikh-History 21:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jatts vs bhappe

I think we should have a realistic look at the historical relationship between jatt and bhappeya?

Bhappe traits and thier obsession with paise

Any contributions based on actual observations would be greatly appreciated ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliosphere (talk • contribs) 20:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what has this conversation to do with article Jatt-Sikh?--Sikh-History 13:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are Sodhi Jatts?

Of Course not. But for some reason or other everyone seems to be dying to be included in Jatt category. All the Sikhs are not jatts, look at Sodhi stub and check it's editors' unwarranted yet relentless attempts to included in jatt class  Jon Ascton  (talk)

Singhboi

Sorry Singhboi, you refuse to reply to my warnings and tehrefore I have no option but to ask for your block. I suspect you are also the Vandal IP which has been blocked. Thanks --Sikh-History 17:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction

Hi,

According to both references,

(1-The transformation of Sikh society‎ - Page 92 by Ethne K. Marenco - The gazetteer also describes the relation of the Jat Sikhs to the Jat Hindus ...to 2019 in 1911 is attributed to the conversion of Jat Hindus to Sikhism. ...,)

(2->Social philosophy and social transformation of Sikhs‎ by R. N. Singh (Ph. D.) Page 130 - The decrease of Jat Hindus from 16843 in 1881 to 2019 in 1911 is attributed to the conversion of Jat Hindus to Sikhism. ...)

Jat-sikhs converted from Jat-Hindus and no ref. of conversion from Jat-muslims to Jat-sikhs,,and moreover mostly Jat-sikhs were in east punjab and were hindu converts,,and Jat-sikhs of west-punjab were muslim converts...moreover Jat-muslims were also converted from Jat-hindus..

anyway...with due respect,if anyone find anything wrong in my minor edit,,please explain and then make your correction..

Thanks !

-- Last Emperor (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References Require Clean UP

References require correct ISBN numbers as well as page numbers. Thanks--Sikh-History 19:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the Bhachu article here and cannot find any stats on Jat populations? Thanks--Sikh-History 15:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you find the article and its not included in the reference, please add it. thanks--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jatt Sikh majority mentioned right on page 12 as mentioned. Read carefully, SH.3swordz (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There really is nothing to discuss. All information is solidly cited and SikhHistory wants it gone for ego reasons, as he has stated unequivocally. He wants to maintain an atmosphere of shoddiness to the information by putting "citation needed" tags to statements already solidly backed up by reliable academic sources (peer-reviewed journals, about as academic as you can get).

He would much prefer sources in book format, which anyone, even non-experts can write (as opposed to PRJs, which only experts in the field can write and are peer-reviewed by experts, hence "peer-reviewed journal"), and which are published with presses with ISBNs and all (which he demands continuously, then considers it a personal attack when I inform him repeatedly that online PRJs don't have ISBNs, and say that he seems unfamiliar with them.) I added the Bhachu book source so that he would simply get off my back, though now he's saying he can't find the info, in large print as it is.3swordz (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, found the information. Issuing final warning to 3swordz regarding personal attacks. Please change this behaviour. It is unacceptable for Wikipedia. Thanks --Sikh-History 14:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Yes. All references must be provided in the correct cited form for Wikipedia or they will be removed. No question about it. Thanks --Sikh-History 14:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And they were in the correct form the whole time. PRJs do not have ISBNs, for the umpteenth time. Noticing how you've stopped deleting information and putting up tags to suggest shoddiness... as long as you continue refraining from doing those things, and not tamper with my information at all or oppose it on such grounds as "bigging-up," we'll be good.3swordz (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I have time, I will go through each of these "solid References", and to ensure impartiality, I will get other Admins involved. So do not be surprised if many of these "references" are cut. Best Wishes--Sikh-History 13:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with that. They're as professional as you can get (Peer-reviewed journals, find out what they are, for the last time. Many college professors don't accept any other source types for research papers). Look through them, by all means, though this continual driven scrutiny of my references only, as opposed to any other, isn't assuming good faith, as you needlessly bleat to me. Consider the institutes and universities that sponsor and carry these scholarly articles (evident if you look at the references section). I'm sure all of them back a bunch of Jatt-Sikh-supremacist hacks, as opposed to book authors, who are no doubt immune to partiality.
Face it, you just loathe the information, look at the lengths you will go to try and get rid of it. You won't get those deleted, try as you may. Demographics and statistics are perfectly legitimate encyclopedic material, and one group kinda has to constitute the largest percentage. In this case, it's Jatt Sikhs, and their numbers, farmland possession, and affluence affect Punjabi social and economic life reciprocally in a big way, as villainous as you consider these truths to be. Such is life. 3swordz (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhs from muslims from hindus

I reverted the previous edit without realizing that there was an edit war in progress. Apologies. But it does seem unnecessary to say that the Jat Muslims were descendants of Jat Hindus. That is both fairly obvious as well as stated in the linked article. Finally, the clarification is added in a para that seems to summarize a single source and we would need to verify that the source actually presents the information in the same way and in the same context before inclusion. --rgpk (comment) 16:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are crrect, it is unnecessary and you were right to revert it. Thanks--Sikh-History 08:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section was categorically talking about the lineage of Jat Sikhs, I have elaborated that and find no reason for removing it unless one has an agenda to push here.Winston786 (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the WP:Manual of Style. The reference is not valid. As you edit stands it will be removed. I have no intention of engaging in disruptive editing. Thanks --Sikh-History 09:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you are reverting my edits in view of ur POV, you have made edits without any source.Winston786 (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sikh-history made an unsourced addition in the lineage section here and reveretd my sourced edit here, only to push his POV.Winston786 (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Err that's called a "fact" tag. I don't think you understand the issue here. MUslims in India no doubt came from Hindu's, but we already have a Jat Muslim page that makes that statement. It seems pretty ridiculous to keep re-asserting what has already been stated. Thanks--Sikh-History 13:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So why are u stressing on a source for my edition when that is also a known "FACT", I have not added the whole process of them becoming muslim, the reason and the time period of their conversion etc. I have just added a sentence coz we are talking about the lineage of Jat Sikhs, so the fact that the Jat Muslims were also Jat Hindus once is worth mentioning here as it is related to the lineage of Jat sikhs.Winston786 (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fact tag indicates that we need a source that Muslim Jats converted to Sikhs. We do not need to keep reasserting the same facts on different pages as is the case here. The choice is yours. You can either work with fellow editors, or pursue the path you are and evetually end up with a block. The ball is firmly in your court. Another point to note is that you have not added the citation correctly WP: Manual of Style, and therefore other editor are entitled to challenge them and remove them. Thanks--Sikh-History 07:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know what a FACT tag is, I am just saying why don't u imply the same logic to my edition(though i have added the source too) and as I said, I have added a brief line about lineage not long essays, this is an encyclopedia with the intention of informing the people and thats what i did, nobody is 'asserting" anything here. I have added the citations in accordance with the way they were already mentioned on WP.Winston786 (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you haven't complied with WP:Manual of Style. ISBN number? Chapter? Page? Author? Volume? Link?. All these things and more you have missed off. You don't have to assert things twice if the link already makes that point, as is the case here. Thanks --Sikh-History 10:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Glossary of the tribes and Castes of Punjab, Author = H A Rose, Page = 136, though there are no links for many others, why you are specially targeting my edition that to when its a known fact.Winston786 (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Every other link is cited properly and just for that you will get a warning for not assuming good faith. Thanks --Sikh-History 10:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can add the FACT tag rather then deleting the whole sentence.Winston786 (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the FACT tag.Winston786 (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Err no, a fact is not the problem, it is WP:Manual of Style. The hyperlink clearly states that Jat Muslims are originally Hindus. Thanks--Sikh-History 11:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
also it is self evident that there is an element of WP:GAME going on here. It will be interesting to see the outcome. Thanks --Sikh-History 12:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh!!, so? i m just adding a sentence on this Page, not the full essays about conversions, its a well known fact, its written here only once.Winston786 (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly element of WP:GAME is going on here on your part, you seem to have an anti-Hindu mindset and are hence reverting the factual editions.Winston786 (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to polluting the article with the "Sikh" bias

I have an objection with several opinions being expressed within the article, of poor (or absolutely non) citation. The Jatt Sikh article is regarding an ethno-religious group i.e. an ethnicity which is traditionally Sikh due to their ancestory. Therefore there should be no room for quoting from sectarian orthodox "Sikh" sources, which are bound to have religious bias (mainly due to the reason that orthodox sikh ideology does not support the preservation of ethnic or tribal identity, which is often mistaken by such orthodox sikhs as participating in the practice of "the caste system". I have already sent SH a message regarding this on his talk page.

It is for the same reason, a very bad idea to associate this with "WikiProject Sikhism". Please keep this article non-sectarian, before it is polluted with politically and religiously motivated bias.


For example: "(something encouraged and taught by Guru Angad[21][22] to the Sikh people)" is uneccessary, because pehlwani was a well recognised rural hobby in the Mughal era, which i'd presume many rural would practice regardless of religion or ethnicity (providing they had the dietary wealth).


"Dr. Irfan Habib, Professor Emeritus, Aligarh Muslim University, argues that Sikhism did a lot to uplift[11] the status of Jatts in general." I think 'Sikhism' in this quote should be renamed to the 'Khalsa movement' or uprising. Sikhism alone is just a set of religious teachings (and like all other teachings, does no economic or social good to anybody), it was the militarized Sikh/Khalsa movement which allowed Sikh Sardars to establish themselves. (More on this from a book called "Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab" by Lepel Henry Griffin, which talks about the rise of the Misls specifically).


I have made several modifications to the article providing original quality sources (unlike the poor quality quotes from professors making opinions in a sectarian sikh website without citing any sources). Hope you like the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.132.217 (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is titled Jatt Sikh. Not Muslim Jatt or Hindu Jat. I would suggest your edits are more appropriate to Jat people. Also note 19th century quasi historian are not deemed a valid source for such article, and have already been quoted. Something you deleted. The article was due for speedy deletion in the past just because of edits you have done. Editors therefore ensured that any sources for the article were restricted to those to do with Jatt Sikh specifically. Not Sikh or Jat. Also please do not misuse warning templates as you did on my talk page. You are already on your final warning so please do not do this againThanks SH 10:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use a single warning template on your talk page. FYI, that long explanation about the lack of validity for your sources was my own. And besides, most sources are not from historians but quotes from the work of recruiters of the "Sikh Regiment" themselves, i.e. Col. Falcon, which you do not seem to like, possibly because of your sectarian views, which should not be imposed on the "Jat Sikh" article, as most "Jats" are not Orthodox Sikhs like yourself, but still refer to themselves at Jat Sikhs. I believe Wikipedia should re-access your role in acting as an Admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.132.217 (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the article. I have included Falcon et al, despite objections from other editors that they are defunct pseudo-historians who base their theories on the discredited Martial Race theory. The problem or the advantage (depending on your perspective), with Wikipedia is the need to maintain WP:NPOV and avoid WP:OR. Both of these rules you have broken, on this article and many others. I also find your comments about Dr Irfan Habib incredible. He has done more to help and promote Jatt Sikh identity and studies than any other historian. Thanks SH 08:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are Falcon et al speaking of Sikhs in general or of Jatt Sikhs specifically? I'll try to read them myself some time today but if the two of you already agree at least about that then it would save me some time. I can see that Barstow is talking in specific terms. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've read them all. Major A E Barstow summarises Falcon et al etc. He set out a booklet for recruiting men. He tended to favour Jats, Mazbhi's, Ramdasia, Labana's as foot soldiers and Khatri's, Tarkhans etc as officers. Only Barstow talks specifically about Jatt Sikhs. In anycase Falcon has been quoted here. In any case, I tend to give more credence to people like Grewal, Jagjit Singh and Habib (21st Century historians) rather than people like Mcleod who base their theories on the defunct Martial Race theories, which is akin to the world being flat. I also find it interesting that the anon IP would use emotive language such as "polluting". How would Sikh be polluting if the article is titled Jatt Sikh? hehe Thanks SH 09:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With Sikh bias, what I meant for was extremist Sikh bias, the Sikh ideology which quotes and purposely interprets the Granth Sahib to portray tribal and ethnic identities within the Sikh "panth" or religious order as a sin, or against sikh teachings. I was specifically referring to your quote of the following website:-

http://worldsikhnews.com/13%20August%202008/The%20Malaise%20of%20Jat%20Consciousness.htm The website is clearly related to a fanatic sikh ideology, as is obvious with the overwhelming bias in the articles, especially against the BJP party, and articles in favour for the internationally banned terrorist organisation group "BKI" (or babbar khalsa international). The article itself does not contain a single citation, and for all we can see, the quote which he uses (and you site in this article) of Prof. K Singh could be made up, as there is no citation or explanation of the source of it from the article. Overall, I do not have any objection to Sikh related sources, its just when all these articles from 'fanatic' or extremist sikh organisations and publishers come in which is worrying and thus I use the term "polluting".

And in terms off Captain Falcons work, you haven't provided any specific quotations, hence why I added them (and you later deleted them). My original final edit is available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jatt_Sikh&diff=467895790&oldid=467716532, on the left hand side, before Sikh-history removed them. As you can see, almost everything has been quoted.

And besides the point of me actually specifically quoting Captain Falcon was not for his historical interpretation, but to show how Jat Sikhs of a particular background where actually favoured in recruitment within the Sikh-regiment, hence why I included it as a blockquote: "still the Jat must ever be the main source for recruits, as he far and away outnumbers the other people, and possesses as a class qualities which no other people can claim. If, too, a Sikh belonging to a good Sikh tehsil (sub-district), does not give the name of a well known Jat Sikh tribe (clan) as his, he is pretty sure not to be a Jat…" R. W. Falcon, Handbook on Sikhs for Regimental Officers (Allahabad: Pioneer Press, 1896)

[1].


I also felt the need to mention the cultural and traditional titles exclusive to Jatt Sikhs in East Punjab, as this is still very evidently a part of today's Punjabi culture, and this too Sikh-history deleted, the title Sardar has been used by Jat land-owners in Punjab ever since the misl period:-

"Jatt Sikhs are referred to as Zamindars in Punjab, often titled Sardar. [2]

[3]

I would like to ask Sikh-history what objection he has for the above mentioned citations which he deleted?

86.17.132.217 (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worldsikhnews is not a great source for anything other than a discussion of that organisation itself. I would much rather see independent sources.
As far as the Barstow/Falcon etc thing goes, if only one of those writers refers to Jat Sikhs then only that source should be used - the entire rationale for this article appears to be that there is a need to distinguish Jat Sikhs from other Sikh groups, and we cannot assume what Falcon etc intended to say (WP:OR anbd WP:SYNTH.
The martial race theory was a primarily a control mechanism that was epitomised by the scientific racism of Herbert Hope Risley etc. The effects of it upon Jat Sikhs have a place in this article, as a historic fact. The fact that those theories have been discredited can also be mentioned (they were on their way out as a general theory by the time of the 1911 census).
If more modern reliable sources are available then they should at the very least be given more weight than the works of McLeod etc. - Sitush (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly the above IP, is again not WP:AGF. A rational discussion cannot be had with comments like "bias" or "fanatic". The same charge could be directed to those that try and "big up" the status of Jatts in general. In the same way we need to distinguish from Sikhism per se, we need to distinguish from Jats per se, otherwise this may as well be a subsection of the article Jat people. This section is very important because it shows why Jatt Sikhs are different from Jatts in general. World Sikh news is a valid source, because it quotes leading intellectuals who have studied Jatt Sikhs, and importatntly it quotes Professor Kishan Singh, which is a valid despite issues with the site itself. I will search for an ISBN source for this quote. Profesor's Grewal, Habib, Kishan Singh and Jagjit Singh have all written extensively about Jatts and Sikhism (incidently Jatts make up over 50% of all Sikhs). The Zamindar issue is irrelevant and is a title to Jatts as well as Jatt Sikh's so outside the scope of this article In anycase we have a section on landownership here. Falcon has been included if you read the relevant section. (Here is the quote "According to R. W. Falcon, Jatt Sikhs (alongside other Sikhs) were seen as a good source for recruitment.[4]). There is no need to quote him again and again, otherwise the article becomes non WP:NPOV. In summary, these are the same debates we had about a year ago, where administrators wanted to merge this with Jat people. At the moment the article distinguishes itself because itself from Jat people and Sikhism. Lets keep it like that, and not use emotive terms like "extremist" and "bias". Both are irrelevant to wikipedia, and help no one. Despite what the anon IP thinks, Sikhism has has a profound influence on Jatts (as summed up by Professor Kishan Singh). ThanksSH 09:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Most Sikhs - particularly in the army - are descended from Hindus who were Jats by caste before their conversion; in the time of Gobind Singh, the Jats of half a district at a time would go through the pahul and join the order. The [recruitment] handbook contains therefore an account of the Jat people." title='A Matter of Honour: An Account of the Indian Army, Its Officers and Men' Author='Philip Mason' isbn='0224009788'
  2. ^ web|url="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uw8wAQAAIAAJ&q=jat+sardar&dq=jat+sardar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4eb3Tri7M4-a8gO3z7y4AQ&ved=0CGoQ6AEwCQ" title="People of India: Volume 37; Volume 37" author="Kumar Suresh Singh" publisher="Anthropological Survey of India, 2003" isbn="8173041237, 9788173041235"
  3. ^ web|url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aSYJp4R54kMC&pg=PR19&dq=jat+zamindar+punjab&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LeX3Tsj7GYzT8QOSprjAAQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=jat%20zamindar%20punjab&f=false title=Musalmans and Money Lenders in the Punjab publisher=Mittal Publications author=S.S. Thorburn
  4. ^ Falcon, R.W. (Captain, 4th Sikh Infantry, Punjab Frontier Force), Handbook on Sikhs: for the use of Regimental Officers, Printed at the Pioneer Press, Allahabad, India, 1896, pp. 64–65.

Who become a sikh is no longer have their different identity . According to sikh every sikh have same same identity which is khalsa . They join sikh ethnicity so there is no thing like jatt sikh . If they beleive in jatt caste then they are not true sikhs Harman0123 (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagat Singh

Why is Bhagat Singh's name mentioned here, when he is generally known to be an atheist and he even self-identified as one, authoring an essay Why i am an atheist? before his death? The fellow who claims otherwise is a right-wing Sikh named Trilochan Singh who is obviously not a reliable source on this matter, and even supposing he was, cannot override Bhagat Singh's self-identification. Jatt Sikh is not a separate ethnicity, but a Sikh sub-group. While his name can be mentioned in the Jatt article, it shouldn't be mentioned here. As such, i propose that his name be removed from this article. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 10:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although WP:BLPCAT obviously does not apply to a dead person, if he did indeed self-identify then we should respect that. His act of renunciation should suffice for our purposes. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - with Joyson. Bhagat Singh though born into a Sikh family, adopted 'atheism'. In the article Why i am an atheist, he also explained his rationale. His only religion was the freedom of India, for which he laid down his life. In general, IMHO, Wikipedia articles should not be on different castes. The persons born into a particular caste have not done so by their choice. Maharaja Ranjit Singh or the others in the list are notable today due to their work and not since they belonged to a particular caste. Why is this attempt made by a caste to portray that these people were notable since they belonged to this caste? Would it have made a difference if Maharaja Ranjit Singh had a different caste? Would he not be king? Or have done the great things he did? Caste is not notable. The article needs to be suitably amended. --Tinpisa (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Caste can be significant. If, for example, someone was born an outcaste but rose to become a renowned philosopher or member of a royal court then that would be quite a remarkable achievement in the face of the strictures of the traditional caste system. This is not relevant in this instance but I think that it needs to be borne in mind more generally: there are exceptional situations - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant caste is not notable in the context of this article. --Tinpisa (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood you. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting, User:Sikh-history! I will remove him from the list, unless you provide a good reason for why he must be included here. 07:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you need to give a bit more than 24 hours for a response and for others to have their say. He is dead, so this is not a BLP violation unless you think that there is family who may object. - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention how long! I will give him three days. It doesn't have to be a BLP vio, for me to object to his inclusion. If he renounced Sikhism, it would be erroneous to mention him in this article. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 07:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't phrase that well. What I meant was, there is no massive urgency to remove it because it is not a BLP situation. It does need resolving, however. - Sitush (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for clarifying! To me it's always an urgent matter to fix perceived errors, but i am open to hearing his views on this and if he makes a convincing argument, i will just leave it be. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 08:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I had some internet problems. I originally wanted to remove Bhagat Singh because he proclaimed himself an atheist, but in the interests of WP:Balance I included the reference you see in the article from Bhai Randhir Singh who was incacerated with him, who claims he reafirmed his Sikh faith. I do know his family and they say he was an atheist, although most of them are Sikhs (not devout). I am easy either way. I have no objections to him being removed. I just didn't want to spark another edit war, the last time I removed him. Thanks SH 16:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No issues! As there is consensus for its removal and no one has objected so far or seem likely to object, i will remove him from the list. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 16:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is how problems are supposed to be resolved here. Well done, all. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sikh-history should not have reinserted Bhagat Singh's name to the list. In his book, Sangat Singh seems to have just uncritically accepted Randhir Singh's claim. The popular and mainstream consensus among historians is that Bhagat Singh died an atheist, and we must not go against that. Randhir Singh's claim cannot be verified, and the view that Bhagat Singh accepted Sikhism before his death is just a fringe view. Hence, it must be disregarded as per WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, even supposing that support for both views went something like 50/50, it would still be inappropriate to mention it here as his religious orientation or lack thereof, in such a case, couldn't be positively concluded. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 09:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Add, I don't really care, but the issue here is one of whether we want to avoid an edit war. For Jat-Sikhs, they see themselves as a distinctive group regardless of whether they are religious or not. Thanks SH 12:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have means to deal with edit wars, and Joyson's policy-based arguments + your "I don't really care" indicate that the item should be removed. I will do it now. - Sitush (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ Sikh History: Whatever! Since you don't care, just don't reinsert it again. It only looks weird. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 16:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, when I see an anon IP remove cited text my instinct is to revert, hence why I did it without even seeing what it was. ThanksSH 09:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article title seems wrong

Why is this article entitled "Jatt Sikh" rather than "Jat Sikh". Unless there is something I am missing, the latter is correct as WP:COMMONNAME applies. The same goes for the spelling through the article, which in any event is inconsistent. - Sitush (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Msgs below copied from User talk:Sitush#Jat vs Jatt
--start copy--

Although they are the same people it demonstrates the difference in language. Punjabi's sat "Jatt-eh" where's are Harayanavi's and others say "Jaaat". The two spellings relect this distiction. Thanks SH 21:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, that is awkward. We should be working off WP:COMMONNAME and I am not sure that it covers original research related to audio stuff. I am pretty darn sure that "Jat" is the more common in writing, so that is the way we need to go. Feel free to disagree. - Sitush (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rijms jatten dat heet bijten en dat zul je berouwen! (Ha, try to GTranslate that!) Drmies (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the old Punjabi Vs Hindi argument. The groups are racially the same but due to cultural difference seem ethnically different. Here read this nonsense on it. I'm easy either way. Thanks SH 10:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]

--end copy--

- Sitush (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As user SH says it's a old argument. Most people in Punjab write and pronounce it as Jatt not Jat like in some other parts of India. Most Jatt's in Punjab are Sikh. It should be Jatt. Among other reasons. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, SH had no particular opinion. I would be interested to see the other reasons because, right now, the world is a bigger place than Punjab and thus COMMONNAME applies on a global scale. - Sitush (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah COMMONNAME applies on global scale, but i think you don't get what i mean to say. Jats belongs to same race or caste (as many historians call Jats as race and some as caste) irrespective of their religion. Addition of one extra t is common among Jatt Sikhs. This is probably due to difference in language, culture and religion etc. Jatt is also common in writing among Sikhs who are Jatts. This article is about Jatt Sikh not about who belongs to other religions. This title Jatt Sikh is perfect as per COMMONNAME guidelines among others. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many people in India call the Ganges Ganga but that doesn't mean we change the name of the article. This is English Wikipedia and WP:COMMONNAME is based on a global perspective of usage in English. This has been determined time and again in the numerous discussion concerning renaming Ganges etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jats in Europe is knows as Jutes. Many historians including Collins sees a connection between the Jats and the Jutes of Europe. Asia's "Jats" and "Alani" Become Europe's "Jutes" and "Alans". These people in Europe, India except Punjab region (mostly Hindu & some Muslim), and Punjab region(Sikhs) are respectively known as Jutes, Jat, and Jatt. Here is link, [1] Thanks Theman244 (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely irrelevant to this discussion, and the various theories of migration to India etc are best dealt with elsewhere. Your source, by the way, is very poor. Just read WP:COMMONNAME because that is all that matters in the context of this thread. - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are repeating same thing. I don't want edit war or something like that. I know what i am talking about. It's not your opinion or my opinion. Jatt is common among Jatt Sikhs as well as in their writing as far as WP:COMMONNAME is concerned. I strongly oppose the idea of title change. Jatt Sikh is a perfect title rather than Jat Sikh as far as policies of Wikipedia are concerned. To solve this problem we can add alternative spellings include Jat or something like that in intro. Finish. Theman244 (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we can add alternate spellings. But the most common goes first and should be the article title. This is a piece of piss: I really do not see what your problem is because your arguments have actually supported my initial query. I have no connection to any Indic group and thus no axe to grind. I am merely suggesting that we should follow the norms that exist here. If you do not like them then my suggestion would be to propose a change in the norms, which is not something that should be done in this thread. I am not fond of using Google searches to support situations such as this but, nonetheless, GBooks gives 89 resuls here for "Jatt Sikh" and over 9000 for "Jat Sikh". It is a no-brainer. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... and using a general Google search, the term "Jat Sikh" -"Jatt Sikh" returns 134,000 results while '"Jatt Sikh" -"Jat Sikh" returns 70,000. - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the logical connection between jat and jatt?

Please do not quote bs nijjar ! Logicpl (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Jatt Sikh → Jat Sikh – Move as per WP:COMMONNAME. For the same reason, Jatt people was moved to Jat people. Most modern and British era sources use the term "Jat Sikh" instead of "Jatt Sikh". --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC) Yoonadue (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jat Sikh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions

Recently a para has been added by Hind ji here supported by this source. Since, the source talks about "Jat" but not this specific ethno-religious sub-group, I believe this content is better suited in the Jat people article. Suggestions @Sitush, Мастер Шторм, and Heba Aisha:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a doubt regarding the source, it may not qualify WP:HSC.Tagging LukeEmily .Heba Aisha (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the source here, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, the first page (777) isn't viewable. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jatt sikh are not true sikhs. Sikh donot have different identites . All the sikhs is khalsa identity.

According to sikhism all the sikh have ancestory is khalsa . Every sikh have identity of khalsa . All sikhs have same identity . Sikhs donot have varities in them . Those who differntiate in sikhism are not true sikhs. Its against sikhism delete this page . Sikhism reject the different identity of people according to sikhism all the sikhs have same identity of khalsa who donot beleive in khalsa is not a sikh. Harman0123 (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baba deep singh ji was amritdhari sikh .

In sikhism amritdhari sikh donot have any caste , race , ethnicity . There only identity is sikh , khalsa is their caste , race , ethinicity. Jatt sikh claim them to raise their social status . He was a jatt but when he become a amritdhari sikh all the identity ethnicity was change to sikh and they becoma khalsa sikh Harman0123 (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So that's the reason all sikh guru were khatri instead any different caste background
And this article mainly regarding to Jatt history so it's necessary to add history to clear misconception Truthfindervert (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2021

This is the page of jatt sikh why are you adding the information muslim jat and hindu jat. Jat sikh only contribute in sikh regiment . Hindu jat contribute in many regiment . But why are you mentioning the information of hindu jat in sikh jats . Remove the information there is no source which prove jat sikh contribute in rajputana rifles. Jat contribute in rajputana rifles but not jat sikh. First undertsand both are same but by relegion they both are different . 2402:3A80:1FD4:F946:CAB2:E826:154C:68F3 (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 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) 15:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2021 (2)

You are adding the information that ancient sources prive jat is kshtriya . Their is no authentic souces which prove jat as kshtriya . Kaka kalekar act 1952 and punjab lahore highcourt 1936 proves after the proper study that jat and jatt sikh is comes under shudra varna . Jat sikh are under obc in central list of government pls remove that jat is kshtriya . One side you are mentioning sikhs donot beleive in caste another side you are mentioning jat sikh according to hindu varna what is this? If you are mentioning jat as kshtriya according to hindu varna system then add 1936 punjab lahore high court prove jat and jatt sikh as shudra and kaka kalekar act 1952 prove all jat as shudra. Sources - 1936 lahore high court 551 which proves jat and jatt sikh shudra Second source kaka kalekar act 1952 2402:3A80:1FD4:F946:CAB2:E826:154C:68F3 (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 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) 15:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2023

DB-g7 

Rajputt Singh (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sikhs do not have any caste. This page goes against the creation of principles of Sikhism in which one of the goals was to ablish caste. I've been seeing references to sikhs who are jatt as "jatt sikh" and they are being linked to this page. Once sikhi has been accepted any reference to caste like this page is unacceptable. Trying to differentiate Sikhs based on caste and showing their origins as rajput is not valid nor do any concrete sources exist nor can be provided. The biggest issue is creating a separate identity for jatt sikhs as opposed to just being sikhs which includes various castes and communities and is creating differences on the basis of caste which in essence goes against sikhi. Delete this page which will remove all this jatt castism. It not acceptable nor is any of the information provided in trying to establish themselves as being superior to other communities like rajputs acceptable. You can go to any Rajput page it is never mentioned they are "hindu rajput" in the bio section and nor are they linked to a "hindu rajput" wiki page! Stop this nonsense and fake propaganda in trying to conceal your shudra origins and accept the fact you are not jatt sikh but only sikh. Rajputt Singh (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 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. —Sirdog (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2023

Please change the List of Clans to include the clan 'Sahota'

'Sahota' is also a Jat Sikh clan, please see the below wikipedia links which cross reference the sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jats

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahota

Thank you. 80.7.52.111 (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Next time provide the source so that people resounding to edit request can complete it more quickly. Lightoil (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ethno-religious

@Sitush: Is the 'Jat Sikh' an ethno-religioous group similar to the Jewish people for example? Used in the lede sentence, we need this to be widely sourced. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jat_Sikh&oldid=1221009578"