Talk:Jat Sikh

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.:

“ Striking social similarities among Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh Jats have been observed. ”

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

“ There is great unity in the behaviour pattern of a Punjabi Sikh "jatt", a Haryana or UP Hindu "jar" and Punjabi Pakistani Muslim "jatt". ”

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

“ The Jat Hindu, the Jat Sikh, and the Jat Muslim in the Punjab were more allied to one another than the Jat Hindu of the Punjab and the Tamil Hindu of Madras. ”

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.:

“ While among Muslim Jat the practice of exchange marriage takes place at various levels of lineage organization, among Hindu and Sikh Jat no such exchange... ”

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

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

??

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Apoligies

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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-Line^talk 21:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

References Require Clean UP

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

I have checked the Bhachu article here and cannot find any stats on Jat populations? Thanks--Sikh-History 15:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If you find the article and its not included in the reference, please add it. thanks--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Jatt Sikh majority mentioned right on page 12 as mentioned. Read carefully, SH.3swordz (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You can add the FACT tag rather then deleting the whole sentence.Winston786 (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)