Talk:Bhat/Archive 1

Archive 1

Totally non-sense and redundant article

What is the point of having this article when Bhatt and Bhatra articles are already in place. This article is connecting totally different communities which are geographically, linguistically and socially totally distinct from each other and on top of that there are separate pages available on some of the communities in wikipedia put under this article. What is the purpose of having a page on "Bhat" when the article itself claims that it is connected to "Bhatt" which already has its separate page on wikipedia. The article is also totally unable to provide reasons for putting pakistani community that uses "Butt" surname with indian communities which use "bhatt", bhatra or batra surnames. Such informatively false articles bring the credibility and repute of wikipedia down. I immediatley request the deletion of this non-sense page.--77.8.92.109 (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Butt are Kashmiri Muslims, Not Bhat, Bhatt or Brahmin

Who was the Einstein that deleted the entire section on the BUTT surname? You maderchod Indians are a disease. We're KASHMIRIS. Period. I'm reverting this article back to what it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ButtPK (talk • contribs) 22:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Butt is a Kashmiri clan, most Butts are settled in northern Punjab of Pakistan and have later migrated to other cities of Pakistan, I don't know why wikipedia has deleted the entire article about the Butt clan of Kashmir; Bhats of India and Kashmiri Butts of Pakistan & the valley of Kashmiri aren't the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.44.3.99 (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It is extremely annoying that indian hindus are merging our pakistani kashmiri muslim "Butt" tribe with totally unrealted hindu people in india like Bhatt, bhatra etc. This is ridiculous as we Kashmiris are a totally different race from indian hindu races who use bhatt or bhat surname and reside in indian maharashtra or karnatka etc. or whatever it is called. It cannot get more ridiculous than that , it is clear that wikipedia is being manipulated by indian hindus who all have huge inferiority complex and trying desperately to equate themselves to superior races like Kashmiri Muslims. Butt-707 --217.187.232.80 (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Butt (Kashmiri surname)

There was no need to merge the Bhat (Kashmiri Surname) article into this one. It simply baffles my mind how ignorant Indians in general are. What do Bhats/Butts from Kashmir have ANYTHING to do with Bhatt's in mainland India? Absolutely nothing. There is NO evidence linking the two groups together. They are two different groups in every respect. And this Anupam doink keeps on merging articles together. I'm a Butt, and I have nothing to do with anybody in Goa that's for damn sure. This article is an absolute disgrace and nothing more than propaganda and intectual dishonesty at its best.

Furthermore, what was the need to delete "Prominent Butts" from the article? Why because most of them were Pakistani? Does that hurt your ego? Bhenchod bharati kanjaro...you can play around on Wikipedia all you want, we all know what happens at Lal Chowk, Srinagar every 14 August. Keep living in denial gashti ma kay bacho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.34.176.177 (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Confusion

I think this article is becoming very confused because it is trying to mix a surname with various caste/tribe groups. That is a dangerous game because of WP:BLP. Far better to have one article as a list of notable people who bear the Bhat name (and similar), and other articles for any castes/tribes that are called by those names. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the very first post on this page says much the same thing. Please note also that, for example, Butt is far from being just an Indic name, eg: Nicky Butt. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this whole article is a joke

I think this whole article is a joke written by some south indian kalu hindus to equate themselves with northern races with dubious supposed similarity in their head about Bhat, Bhatt and Butt family names, this article must be either rewritten and there should be separate articles about every surname Bhat, Bhatt, Bhatta , and off course Butt (Kashmiri), there should be separate articles with the exact spelling as the people belonging those surnames use and the information would exactly how all these people with different surnames regard their origin, it shouldn't be like some kalu south indian sitting somewhere in india or usa writing articles about nepali or kashmiri people's surnames and history, what the hell a kalu south indian kutta knows about people living thousands of miles away from his south india is beyond me, what kind of inferiority ridden fetish is this really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.14.116.249 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should be split into Bhat and Bhat (caste). Maybe add a wp:RfC on this. Jim1138 (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Bhat regarding splitting the article. Jim1138 (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Was any consensus reached? This article is indeed an absolute joke and needs to be split up. Bhat (clan) and Bhatt surnames are not the same. There is ZERO evidence linking the two together. They have ZERO history together. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

As the note at the bottom says, in case it isn't perfectly obvious, This page lists people with the surname Bhat, i.e., it is a page on the surname 'Bhat'. Please take your clans elsewhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Split Article Proposal - Bhat clan vs Bhat caste

When this article was first written I think back in 2006, it was actually a separate article which concerned with the Kashmiri CLAN named Bhat. User Anumpam merged the two articles together without any logical reason at all. Bhat sounds the same, but are not actually the same thing...Bhat is a clan name in Kashmir, while a caste name in India. They sound the same, but that doesn't mean anything. There is ZERO evidence linking the Bhat clan in Kashmir to Bhats in freaking Kerela. This article is an absolute joke and should be split back to its original.

One article should highlight the Bhat CLAN, who share similar family history and one Bhat caste that refers to a religious order. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought you were supposed to be keeping away from this ethnic stuff, and also cutting back on the aspersions ("absolute joke" etc). Assuming I am wrong, what evidence do you have for your claims? And if I am not wrong, please do not respond. - Sitush (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Where in this article does it prove that Bhat clan in Kashmir is equivalent to Bhat caste? They are not the same. One is a tribe/clan, the other is a caste/religious order. The onus is on the person who merged the two articles. Bhat (Kashmiri surname) was its own article, prior to it being wrongfully merged. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is also a Bhat/Butt community settled in Punjab who migrated from "Butt Zar" in Afghanistan. The use of surname Butt in Pakistani Punjab is actually quite complex. Butt has become a collective self-identification of Kashmiri Muslim immigrants to Punjab, even though these Kashmiri Muslim immigrants are of diverse origin and have had various surnames like Butt, Dar, Lone, Mir, Wani etc., Even local Punjabis used Butt to identity Kashmiri immigrants. Most of the people using this surname Butt in pakistani punjab do so to identify their kashmiri ancestory, but of course there would be hundreds of thousands of those for whom Butt was also their actual surname but for the others it has been adopted as a synonym for their Kashmiri identity. Presently in Pakistan Butt = Kashmiri ancestory, it is just like Khan = Pashtun ancestory. That is why there are Kashmiri Butts in Pakistan who are snow white and have sharp features just like Afghans and Pashtuns and then there are those using surname Butt who are very dark. So to put this bluntly....one Bhat is a CLAN of people...the other is a caste. This is pretty straight forward. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Reliable sources in this article state that the Bhats/Butts of Kashmir are of the Brahmin caste (or converts from members of that caste) as are Bhats/Butts in other parts of the Indian subcontinent. Furthermore, other reliable sources state that the Bhats/Butts of the Punjab are "originally Brahmin migrants from Kashmir during 1878 famine". User:PAKHIGHWAY's proposal to split this article seems to be consistent with his repetitive behaviour of trying to drive a wedge between India and Pakistan or Hindus and Muslims, despite the fact that sources do not agree and instead show a common origin. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

May I ask which reliable sources you're referring too? The links you've provided don't actually open up to anything except some books and page numbers, none of which are accessible online. Has any genetic study been done proving that Bhat Kashmiris are the same as Bhat caste? And no, that's not my intention to split Pakistanis and Indians. Again, you failed to read what I wrote. The people who have the name BUTT in Pakistan are mainly in Punjab and are of 3 origins....one from Afghanistan, one from Kashmir and one from Central India. Never said I wanted to put a wedge or whatever you call it. All three have the name Butt...but all 3 are of different origins. By your logic, the currency Thai baht (formally Bhat) and the English Butt (surname) should be mentioned here as well. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

You state that the "links you've provided don't actually open up to anything except some books and page numbers" - these are what are called reliable sources and they clearly state that the Bhat/Butt of the Punjab region are Kashmiri émigrés of Brahmin origin, some of which converted to Islam. There are no reliable sources for your specious claim that Bhats/Butts in the Punjab region are from Afghanistan--this is your own invention. Anupam^Talk 20:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - This article is on the surname Bhat and, as far as I can tell, it has always been that. If one wants to create an article on a clan or caste or whatever, nothing stops them from doing so, assuming there exist reliable sources describing them. There is no need to "split" anything from here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Butt (Kashmiri surname) was its own article, as well Bhat (clan). They were merged into this article by Anupam, might I add without consensus as far as I remember. Bhat (clan) I think was even deleted. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no point in having a WP:CONTENTFORK for the sole purpose of trying to separate Kashmiri and Punjabi Bhats/Butts from the rest of the individuals in the Indian subcontinent bearing that surname. I should note that the individual creating that article is a blocked sock who appeared to have the same intention as you do here. Anupam^Talk 20:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you User:Kautilya3, but note that the creation of the article proposed by User:PAKHIGHWAY seems to be fueled by a desire to separate Kashmiri Bhats/Butts from other individuals bearing this surname, despite the fact that sources in the articles state that the Bhats/Butts of Kashmir are of Brahmin origin as are other Bhats/Butts in India. Anupam^Talk 21:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Again which sources are you referring you? Which study was conducted? I can write anything and publish it as well. Doesn't make it valid. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. He can create "snow white Bhat" and "pitch dark Bhat" and say good bye to Wikipedia for ever. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose this is intended to be a surname list. Nothing to prevent creation of article(s) about communities that bear similar name(s), provided they are verifiable, notable etc. That said, we do seem to have some inappropriate mentions of castes etc within the article, which perhaps led to PAKHIGHWAY's misunderstanding of its purpose - they should go.- Sitush (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is perfect. You can create another article for whatsoever. Anmolbhat (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I am removing the sentence under Kashmir about larger caste because it is not supported in the sources shown. None of the sources said anything about caste or belonging to a larger group.