Talk:Bhati

India Unassessed

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Talk

Lahore has never been conqured by the Rajputs from Mahmud Ghazni. It was the capital of Jaipal and once lost to Mahmood, the only Non Muslims to rule it were Sikhs in the reign of Maharaj Ranjit Singh.

خرم Khurram 16:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore was ruled by Prithviraj Chauhan. Do not twist history.

Shivraj Singh 20:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it my friend through an unbiased historical reference. I lived in that city.

خرم Khurram 21:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section

This section doesn't make much sense, but it seems to have some useful content, so someone could add that back in.

They are found in a large area tehsil Chiniot Distrcit Jhang and that whole region in local Punjabi language is called Bhatiore.Their famous vilages are Jaisalwala,Barana,Inayatpur,Kot Ameer,Ghoriwala,Tahtta Umra,Ganja Bhattian,Burani Bhattian, Maru Bhattian,Kot Sultan. TimBentley 03:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bhati/Bhatti merger

These seem to be alternate spellings of the same tribe. I've randomly chosen to centralize discussions here. Which spelling would be preferred? It would be nice for someone who knows something about the subject to merge them. TimBentley 03:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bhatti is the most widely used spellings and it is what is used by Sir Denzil Ibbetson in his work so I would suggest that we use this.

خرم Khurram 15:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google results agree, so I'll change the tags and try to get it merged this evening. TimBentley 15:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bhati and Bhatti are two different tribes in India. It is an insult to keep them under the same name. Please reconsider.

Anirudh

Could you please cite Sir Denzil Ibbetson's work, that you have mentioned on Talk:Bhatti. Bhati/Bhatti are different clans altogether.[1]

Denzil Ibbetson, Panjab Castes, Low Price Publications (2002) ISBN 8175362901

Agree with that. Perhaps you should create another article on Bhatti, that relates to the Punjabi Sikhs and the Jats. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 05:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even this page [2] suggests that Bhattis were Punjabi Rajputs who conquered territories in Pakistan. Bhati Rajputs are originally from Jaiselmer and they are a Chandravanshi clan. Bhattis have their origin from the Bhati clan. Bhattis are generally those who have embraced islam.

Please read [3] also, on Jatland Wiki. (All participating members on this page have been notified) --Andy123(talk) 19:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I am going to redirect the article to Bhati, in case there are no objections)

Jawwad Ahmad Bhatti: I think we should not create controversy on spelling of Bhatti or Bhati, the main thing is our main caste that is Rajputs. As we know Rajputs are spread all over Indian, Pakistan and Afghanistan, so it is quite obvious that we have different languages and different ways to articulate the words. I am surprised to read the comments from Mr. Khurram that Lahore was never captured by Rajputs. Our Maharaja Ranjit Singh Bhatti had made Lahore its capital in his reign and he was Rajput and Shivraj Singh is quite right that Lahore was ruled by Prithavi Raj Chuahan. I am also living in Lahore (Mozang). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.156.122 (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page history merge

I have merged the page histories of Bhatti and Bhati (leaving out revisions of Bhati that are superfluous). The reason for this page history merge is to ensure attribution continues for the user who made the 3 edits to Bhati which were manually merged into Bhatti. The edits in question are:

08:00 5 Nov 05 (UTC)
07:11 27 Oct 05 (UTC)
09:58 26 Oct 05 (UTC)

Although at first glance the page history seems to suggest these were reversions, they were simply edits to a separate article which existed side-by-side with the main one. - Mark 09:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Pakistan stub

The Bhati Rajputs are not originally from Pakistan. They originated in an Indian region called Jaisalmer. So, this article does not qualify to solely be a Pakistan stub. The Bhati clan is spread through India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. These are the evidences which I have collected over the internet in support of my contentions. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Of these, this link seems to suggest that Bhatti Rajputs have their origin from Bhati Rajputs of Jaisalmer. If that is the case, then we can have another article for them. --Andy123(talk) 16:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship between Bhatti & Bhati

Bhati (Hindi: भाटी, is a Rajput caste and is one of the largest tribes among Rajputs. In the Punjabi language Bhatis came to be known as Bhatti Rajputs, it was simply the Punjabi way of pronouncing Bhati, just like Punjabis pronounced "Gadi"(Hindi word for "Cart", now also used for "Car" or even "Train") as "Gaddi".

Atulsnischal 11:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some cleanup and have not distinguished between Bhati and Bhatti in my edits, because I don't know which is correct. I may have changed some spellings inappropriately, out of my lack of knowledge. All corrections and clarifications are welcome. Zariane (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User 82.19.79.227, please dont Vandalise Bhati Page

Please dont Vandalise Bhati Page

Atulsnischal 19:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Correct spelling is (((BHATTI)) there should not be any aurgument about that {BILAL BHATTI} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.145.196 (talk) 06:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs to be improved

There is no references for the majority of this work (which I dont understand because it's so easily available). Also the legend needs to be clarified as legend and the facts as the facts.

The article is rife with opinions and almost offensive generalisations. Sikhs are Sikhs, they are not security guards of the Hindus or anything silly like that.

Sikhs converted because of their Love of the Guru Granth Sahib ji, their loyalty and devotion to the respective Guru's. It is highly offensive to me and any other Sikh, to be told by someone (who obviously has no idea) that we became Sikh because the Hindus needed security. Why do you say that? Were they incapable of fighting these so called muslim marauders while they were still Hindu? Dont be ridiculous. And dont put up your nationalist propoganda on here.

Bhati from Bhatakna - this is a ridiculous point. You state that they are called Bhati because it is derived from the Sanskrit word Bhatakna (wanderer). Where the hell did you get this from? Please show me the details of the book and it's full details. If you dont, then this is clearly lies, and you are bad naming the Bhatti nation and I will take this up with the wikipedia authorities. No proof, no claim please.

Have done some clear up work. Please feel free to add more. I will get some more info and add as I get some time.

Why has soooo much information been removed from the article, why has Shal Bahan been removed from the article? Was it deemed to be made up? Also there has seemed to be a lot of anti-Islamic input by some of the editors in previous revisions. Another problem seems that very little content in the article seems to be verified. ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 18:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Overlap?

Is the group described in this article the same as the topic of Bhatia (caste)? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Bhatias claim descent from Bhatis but they are a class of merchants allied with Khatris and Aroras and intermarry with them. It is primarily a business coummunity though their claim of Bhati ancestry may be true. Some descendants of Bhatis are also found among Jats, Rajput Malis, Arains, etc.--History Sleuth (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gujjars?

Could someone please explain what exactly is going on with the people who keep edit warring over the inclusion of "Gujjars" in this article? AtticusX (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ans. Bhati is one cast of Gujjars also and historically Gujjars are from Rajasthan and a clan of Rajputs so Gujjar-Bhati are also indirectly same as Rajput-Bhati.

OK, thanks for explaining your side.

On a separate note, please learn how wikilinks work so I don't have to keep cleaning up the same mistake on this page every time this edit war goes through another cycle. Instead of writing:

[[Rajputs or Gujjars]]

you should write:

[[Rajputs]] or [[Gujjars]]

The former produces an unnecessary redlink - "Rajputs or Gujjars" - while the latter creates two working links - "Rajputs or Gujjars". Obviously there is not an article titled "Rajputs or Gujjars". They are two separate articles and so should be linked separately. You can find more information about proper linking technique at Help:Link.

Additionally, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages like this using four tildes: ~~~~ More info is at WP:SIGN. Thanks. AtticusX (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, another relevant guideline regarding when to link is at WP:REPEATLINK: "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item." AtticusX (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified content

Sorry, but unverified content must be removed (after a reasonable time) in terms of what is required by Wikipedia. If it has not been published by a reliable source, it does NOT belong here. For instance, Answers.com is NOT a reliable source. It gets its purported info from Wikipedia and thus is a circular (inadmissible) source. Please stop using this article as a repository for unsupported original research, images of unverified relevance, self-promotion and other inappropriate content. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Havelis of Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Havelis of Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yadav Confusion?

Yadav is a clan of Yadava (descendants of Yadu). These clans are also descendants of Yadava like Saini, Bhati, Jadeja etc. --¢ℓαяк (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This is what i got an answer on Yadava talk page when i asked if ahirs are not yadavs then why indian govt recognises them as yadavs and if saini , bhati and Jadeja are yadavs then why not in present and in history they used used yadav to represent themselves or used as last name .

If yadavs are shudras then Bhati, jadeja and saini should be shudras too?Raosaab7 (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claim descent form lord Krishna?

If Bhatis claim descent from krishna then why world and India says then Ahirs and yadavs are descendants of Krishna.?Raosaab7 (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]