Talk:Gill clan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This redirect 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

What now?[edit]

I am a Gill Jatt, based on my father and paternal grandfather's ancestry. The surname has been passed down for hundreds if not thousands of years. I just had a DNA test done and surprise, my paternal lineage Y haplogroup happens to be J2b2*, the only one I've seen among Jatts (who more commonly get haplogroup L), and the only one with a link to Greece and the Balkans. It's possible Bhim Singh Dahiya based his speculation on the Greek origin of Gills from these genetic tests, but I've heard the Greek origin story repeated as more of a cultural tale among Jatts as well. Either way, it's fact established in empirical science now so I just find it telling that it's the sort of thing being deleted/stubbed/censored on Wikipedia. But do go on, folks. Tell me more about how your meandering rationalizations and musings are more accurate than my actual DNA analyzed in a laboratory. Sitush, you especially, please come here and explain to me how your Wikipedia editor instincts override this: http://i.imgur.com/51bHdjF.png Face it. Bhim Singh Dahiya is more accurate than you in this case. As if we should have been doubting the published author over the nameless no-life Wikipedia editor with nothing better to do with his time.

Arbitrary heading[edit]

Associating people all over the world as originating from the Gill clan just because they share an old Indo-European word for a surname is nonsense.Why not say all fish originate from the Gill clan,because they have gills. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.203.66.59 (talkcontribs) .

I've just removed possibly the most ridiculous claims I've ever read on Wikipedia: one saying that people named "Gill" in Britain and Scandinavia were probably decended from the same Indo-European tribe as the Indian Gills, and another giving Middle English and Old Norse "variants" for Gill. I mean, wow. --Saforrest 15:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you use Yhrd to study the Y dna distribution in Euro-Asia.

---

^ to add: hm. both groups migrated out of central asia at roughly the same time and the meaning of the world gill is also the same throughout the indo-european language tree.


Yeah, some people prefer prejudices and misconceptions to science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R1a

There is a HUGE genetic link between almost all Eurasians, Scandinavians, and much of South Asia, and bits of Britain (from Scandinavian invasions) because of the R1a haplotype.

But still this is not the same as the Indo-European language connection. The genetic similarities are likely a result of repeated migration, mixing, and the like. The languages all spread out from the home of the original Indo-European peoples which ranges from roughly Greece at the outer Western fringe to around the Caspian Sea and throughout Central Asia. The domestication of the horse and the invention of the chariot and the spread of these phenomena closely correlate to the spread of Indo-European language, which also explains the etymological link between the similar meanings for 'Gil' throughout the many languages (relating to some form of stream, river, or water... )... this is the same origin for the scientific usage of 'Gills' to refer to the organs in fish. Check any dictionary.


The Vikings and Baron Dupuytren’s disease[edit]

Are you a Gill and have the following genetic disease,I do.It may be associated with R1a1 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1305903&blobtype=pdf

Bactrian letters[edit]

http://www.gengo.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~hkum/bactrian.html

from the above link

'One of the less well-preserved letters is particularly interesting because it mentions a Kushan-shah [Slide 12 12KB]. This letter can hardly be later than the latter half of the fourth century, when the rule of the Kushan-shahs came to an end. The Kushan-shah here seems to be named as Warahran, though the reading of the name is not quite clear [Slide 13 10KB]. Since Warahran (or Bahram) was the name of the last Kushan-shah --- or the last two Kushan-shahs --- known from the coins, the letter probably belongs to the very end of the Kushano-Sasanian period. '

Could the name Warahran be connected to A Jat king, Vinaypal, who was a descendant of Waryah.

'I suspect that the title khar is an Iranian --- but not necessarily Bactrian --- dialect form derived from Old Iranian *xshathriya- "ruler" [Slide 23 11KB]. The true Bactrian form may be sher, which is mentioned by Muslim writers as the title of the rulers of Bamiyan, Gharchistan, and other places in the area around ancient Bactria'

Could above be related to sher as in Shergill

Gill bullar lineage[edit]

The story goes that a Rajput King(a Gill?) having 3 wives could not produce a son.So he took as wife a woman of the Bhullar clan.The new wife produced a son;the other wives being jealous kidnapped the boy and left him to die in a marsh.The king found the boy in the Marsh and hence called him shergill,meaning Lion of the Marsh or Moist lands.Of course this could be the origin of shergill clan not Gill.

Erm... no they don't.[edit]

"The Scots and Irish for instance, also claim lineage from the same original Scythians that simultaneously settled in Northern India."

There is a legend about one tribe arriving in Pict land from Scythia. However, this is one tribe in the Pits and dates to pre Roman times. Can you reference the dates and times for the word "simultaneously". Also the Picts are not the Scots and Irish. It is well known that the Scots and Irish can be traced to Spain - both in ledgend and in modern genetics.


Many other claims in this article are without referance. Rincewind42 16:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Although the Macdonald clan is partly decended from somerled whose marker is R1a1,a marker which is spread throughout Euroasia.Also J2 is also present in Scotish Borders and be Sarmatian



Response. Correct, they did not simultaneously settle in Northern India. The Indo-Scythian kingdom existed at roughly turn of the millenium (not long after Alexander). The Scots, Irish, and many other Northern/Western European groups tracing ancestry from Germanic tribes and other "caucasian" or Central Asian steppe nomad tribes didn't get into Europe proper (they had a presence in Eastern Europe) until some centuries later (around the collapse of the Roman Empire). They all came from the same place (Central Asia, around the Caspian Sea), just migrated at different times. The ORIGINAL migration from several thousand years back (whether the Indo-Europeans came OUT of Central Asia or INTO Central Asia from South Asia) is still up for debate.

The R1a haplotype might not be a good way to link these groups because later Scandinavian invasions (much later, the Vikings) also brought the R1a haplotype into Britain, and the incidence of this haplotype in Scandinavian populations is something like 25-35%.

In ADDITION to that, the Magog tribe of the Bible (named after Magog, son of Japeth, son of Noah) is identified as the Scythians. There is some cultural link with the Scots/Brits here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gog_and_Magog#Gog_and_Magog_in_Britain

They have statues of them around London from the Middle Ages.

Interestingly enough, the Quranic (Islamic) tradition of Gog/Magog relates account of an old King (Dhul-Qarnayn) who fought the Gog/Magog tribes and sealed them behind a wall. People often correlate this to the Alexander Romance saga where Alexander fought Scythian (identified as Magog) tribes and sealed them behind the Caspian Gates. This led the early Muslims and Arabs to identify Alexander as their Dhul-Qarnayn. Just a completely unrelated side note.

bio of ?[edit]

Sher-Gil returned to India at the end of 1934, not yet twenty-two, but already a technically accomplished painter, equipped with some of the most essential ingredients that make an artist great – an unquenchable thirst to know, a virile tenacity of purpose and a single-mindednesss about her role in life. Sher-Gil sought to come to terms with her Indian heritge – being only half Indian, she must have known that she would never have an insider’s view of India or be able to claim a full share of its psyche.

While still a student in Paris, she wrote in a letter how she ‘began to be haunted by an intense longing to return to India, feeling in some strange way that there lay my destiny as a painter’. This was a remarkable statement for a twenty-year-old half-Indian woman, however westernized, to make in 1933. In those days, women of her background did not have vocations or careers; only lower-working-class women had jobs, and they were menial. Few Indian girls had an advanced education of any nature and those who did never took up a profession or employment, let alone declared their independence in such an unusual way as by becoming an artist. By her age, most women had been relegated to wedlock through the normal channel of an arranged marriage, and many had borne a couple of children. A casual remark by one of her Beaux-Arts tutors about her palette being more suitable for the colours and light of the East – as has been suggested by her nephew, the artist Vivan Sundaram – was all that it took to impel the impressionable girl, barely out of her teens, to long to hasten ‘home’. Sher-Gil’s statement was a powerful indication of her intent, revealing the passion and the fire behind it. And, upon her return to India late the following year, she lost no time in getting to grips with her ambition. In Paris she may have been thirty years behind the European art movements and current trends, as hinted at by Sundaram, but she was certainly as many years ahead of her time in India in the mid-1930s – only in the 1960s did Indian artists begin to display her kind of self-assurance and purpose. She went to live in Simla, the fashionable summer capital of the Raj in the Himalayan foothills, where her liberated lifestyle caused a stir. She began painting poor hill people who, to her romantic and naïve mind, embodies the spirit of India. She gave them large doleful eyes and vacant stares, exuding an expression of utter hopelessness. Her lanky and angular figures shrouded in homespun materials look fragile and melancholic, reflecting, perhaps, an inner melancholy of her own. The freshness and originality of Ajanta and Ellora, the sensuous murals of the Mattancheri Palace in Cochin and the strength of the Kushan sculpture which she saw at Mathura, began to characterize her work. She became acquainted with Indian miniatures and fell in love with the intense Basohli school. She even attempted to include certain elements of Rajput painting in her later work, doing so with feeling and flair and avoiding Abanindranath’s sentimentality. Sher-Gil has been accused of neither having any political awareness, nor identifying with the national struggle for independence which was entering its final phase during her last years. What, perhaps, she did not know was that she would not live long enough to see how soon these strengths would rejuvenate Indian art.

My reversal[edit]

I partially reverted an anon's drastic undiscussed reorganisation [1] here [2] (added back most of what had been added but reverted to the original structure and kept what had been removed). I feel the drastic change was unjustified as it made the situation worse. The article is a mess to be sure, but the anons change remove a substanial amount of content which although unsourced seems at least partially true (there are a number of Singh Gills which would suggest these are Sikh Gills) and added some rather confusing language and hyped up claims as well as some repetition (it stated Gill came from William or Giles twice). What do I mean by confusing and hyped up claims? For starters, it's rather silly to say the name has several possible origins, then to go on to say 'the ultimate origin' particularly when your claim is unsourced. It appears on Indian historian may agree with this view but it seems there are also other plausible origins so the situation is far from clear cut. It is of course not uncommon that surnames have multiple origins, e.g. Lee has multiple origins in both English and East Asian languages so it's IMHO a rather extraordinary claim and therefore needs correspondingly strong evidence of which none was provided. Secondly, I see no reason to single out 'firstly the name may be' when there's no reason this should be first (and you even go on to say the ultimate origin is something else). This brings me to another point, I see no reason for the Europe section to be first. The article has from the beginning [3] until the anon's change (I presume) been primarily about the Gills in South Asia. This is perhaps not surprising since as evidenced by the list, most people with the surname Gill are of South Asian origin. It seems therefore incredibly European centric to suddenly put the European Gills at the top, who may or may not have the same (name?) origins but are seemingly far fewer in number or prominence (probably since most of them are still Giles or William or whatever). Therefore, I feel the original order is best. It may seem somewhat odd to have the different discussions then put the list, but IMHO the list is best seperated from this anyway (and probably drasticly cut down) and it should be expanded with any notable Gills who don't have South Asian ancestory. The article still needs a lot of work, but it's in better shape then after the anon's changes IMHO P.S. We do have a Giles which would be best for anything about the surname Giles surely? Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I just found out the section added by the anon, the only thing that seemed of any use was a copyvio [4]. I don't know why it didn't occur to me sooner, 'large chunk of text added by anon' is sadly so often a copyvio. Sigh... And I just found out we actually have a Gill (name) so I've moved the list there. A right mess alright Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

content[edit]

Any cases for additional religious persuasions for this clan are required. There are sources to back up the overwhelming Sikh and Muslim faiths among this Punjabi Jatt clan; putative name-dropping without proof doesn't cut it. At any rate I added the word "predominantly" in the infobox to make room for any other followings of other minority faiths in Punjab, while acknowledging the overwhelming leanings toward Sikhism and Islam in East and West Punjab respectively. Many Jaat clans (mostly Haryanvi) are Hindu but this isn't one of them and no credible sources contradict this to my knowledge, so back up contrary assertions.3swordz (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

based on this comment, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:3swordz&oldid=363877373 I have removed two statements from the disputed section.
Shishram GILL, Vir-chakra winner in 1999 indo-pak war was a hindu GILL jat from ( Jhunjhunu,Rajasthan).[citation needed]
Shivnath singh GILL was MP from (Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan), he belonged to famous GILL KI DHANI village and was a hindu GILL jat.[citation needed]
Is this acceptable to both of you? The rest of the section is still unsourced, but so is most of the sections in the article. I do not know anything about this subject so I am can not help the sourcing problems. Maybe the two of you can work together to make this a better article since you both seem to be very interested in the subject. I will stick around and watch for a while if you need an outside party to look at things.
I hope this shows how cooperative editing is better than revert warring. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 12:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a good start. I've already shared my thought that the article is troubled enough and in need of sources without more OR on top of it, but at the same time I myself never made this article a priority. It will have to be remedied. I'm thinking about just deleting everything there that is uncited or sounds irrelevant, there is a lot on there that built up from previous maltreatment from the looks of it. And Sikhgill001, maybe you can stop adding OR to articles instead of now calling me "brainwashed;" you've owned up to one instance of spamming so that's a start as well, I suppose. 3swordz (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

To add, I've looked for even one verifiable Gill of such a persuasion; to start, I got many Sikh and Muslim Gill results for a quick Google check (admittedly not the most scholarly,) but not even a single verifiable one otherwise on the entire search, which is still telling; the only such result was one for the putative one on this very page. As I had proposed earlier, I added the word "predominantly" to make room for any possible exceptions, while keeping things in perspective for the majorities. While so, I think that if we are patient with everyone's OR, this article won't go anywhere. PS, a result I got for this was on an Indian naming site (as good as it got, lol) that explicitly stated that the name Gill was a Punjabi Sikh name. That was the one relevant hit for the search "hindu+gill". Now I want to hear the other side's case, in place of charges of being "brainwashed." 3swordz (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

mr 3swords go to ( jatland.com ) , it is a major networking site of the hindu jat community. Go to the jat gotra section there and u will find GILL in the list. u will find the names of even the major prominent HINDU GILL jat villages in those areas and famous persons.
on the point that why didnt u found out about hindu gill jats on the net
two points:- 1> the HINDU GILL jat community is very smaal compared to the sikh gill jats from punjab where they are one of the biggest jat gotras.
2> the HINDU GILL jat community is not settled abroad like the sikh gills of punjab , who have settled in huge numbers in abroad.
So the HINDU GILL jats dont have that great access to the internet and nor do the have that great interest in the internet . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikhgill001 (talkcontribs) 16:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The "Jatland" seems to be nothing more than a low-rent Wikipedia setup deal/ forum where anyone could add anything. And even on top of that, most of the discussion still centers on Punjabi (Sikh) Gills, with only a nominal mention of Haryanvis and others, and no unequivocal mention of Hindu Gills. Keep in mind that many Sikhs live in Haryana too, they make up something like 6% percent of the population according to our Wiki page, though I've heard estimates of about 8% as well, and they make up a good few percent in northern Rajasthan as well along the Punjab border.

As for your assertion that the Hindu "branch" of the community is backward technologically and have no interest in settling in the West, that's just ridiculous OR generalization. What are you, some kind of spokesman for their motivations? There are plenty of Haryanvis, Rajasthanis, and other in the West just like any other South Asian communities, I know several. Much of North India is on par with each other economically, Punjab is only set apart by its agricultural prowess, as opposed to urbanization of the other areas.

Lastly, you've just admitted the extremely low number of such Gills compared to Sikh and Muslim Gills, both of whom are are readliy attested to in terms of notable people. Coupled with the dearth of verifiable Hindus on even a preliminary Google Search (that's the whole internet, i don't think that's accidental so don't chalk it up to Hindu Gills "having no interest in the Internet'). And here you are trying to give them an equal footing and mention next to Sikh and Muslim Gills. This only supports my view that the article should focus on and read as "predominantly" Sikh and Muslim to allow for room for other faiths, while not giving undue weight if this community even significantly exists. I'm going to change it back soon given a long enough discussion, if rationales like "low emigration" and "no interest in the Internet" are being given. Gills not having access to the Internet based on religion...ridiculous! 3swordz (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Improve referencing[edit]

Has any contributor to this article really considered WP:V? I have tagged it as needing references. I will do some digging around myself but if nothing turns up within, say, a fortnight then I am likely to prune this right back. As it stands, it is hopelessly unencyclopedic, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Pruned to a single sentence. This was hopeless. - Sitush (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

@Sitush: I put back the basics of the original article with its proper references. You can find these excerpts even via Google (one of them on Google Books no less). No offense but you've done a bad job of editing, stubbing an entire article because you were essentially too lazy to use Google (it took me all of about 10 minutes to find the original sources). This is the kind of behavior Wikipedia does not need. If you are not up to the job, don't be an editor. Don't half-ass it. I'm not trying to be offensive, just calling it how I see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.38.203.59 (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Bhim Singh Dahiya is not a reliable source and, indeed, the article about him was deleted some months ago. Mohanty's book is published by Gyan, which makes it as useful as a chocolate teapot. Laziness was not the issue: I checked this stuff out before doing what I did. - Sitush (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing you just said is a valid reason for stubbing the article. The talk page on his deletion also makes no sense, the evidence for keeping the article was overwhelming but Wikipedia is apparently run by irrational children where such evidence is outweighed by "I don't like what he said and I'm an editor so nyah nyah". Secondly, you're some random dude on Wikipeda with the user named 'Sitush', by whose authority should we trust you over published authors? Exactly. You're another nobody using Wikipedia to make yourself feel better by picking on people who have done actual work. In your haste to stub, you also knocked out the mention of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Arthur_Rose without any established reason (though it is apparent reason isn't one of your motivations). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.83.197 (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, you reverted my addition of content to the article referenced to H.A. Rose with a summary that stated that Rose's anthropology book, A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province, is not a reliable source. Let us check the source against Wikipedia's guideline for identifying reliable sources.
From the cited guideline, we have that:
The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
  • the piece of work itself (the article, book);
  • the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
  • and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).
Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.
For the book in question, these meanings correspond to the following:
We can scrutinise the reliability of each of these:
  • the book itself is a secondary source based on primary sources such as census reports. Such sources are encouraged by WP:SCHOLARSHIP. A Google Scholar search suggests that the book has over 220 citations in various other academic journals and publications, such as the Cambridge's Journal of Biosocial Science and Modern Asian Studies. Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, this also supports the assertion of reliability of this source;
  • H.A. Rose was good enough an ethnographer to become the Superintendent of Ethnography in Punjab, then one of the most populous provinces of British India;
  • and The Civil and Military Gazette Press of Lahore was a publisher of several widely cited academic works relating to the demographics, culture and customary laws of the societies in British India's northern and north-western provinces.
All of these factors support the reliability of the source. If you still think that the source is unreliable per Wikipedia's guidelines, please state why. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Since no objections have been raised for a week, I am restoring the source and the content. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The edit was reverted again with the summary:

Widespread consensus is that Rose is not reliable, just as with other Raj "ethnographers".

I have not found any discussions in the reliable source noticeboard archives that conclude that Raj ethnographers are unreliable, nor any that discuss Rose. Would the editor kindly link to the discussion where this consensus was reached? --Joshua Issac (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Since the editor appears to be semi-active and is not replying, I have started a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are British Raj ethnographers unreliable?, and have notified the editor. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Dahiya[edit]

This author is not reliable and is not be used, as noted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bhim_Singh_Dahiya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sainiboyy (talkcontribs) 05:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --152.131.8.131 (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

What good will this page bring to Wikipedia. It is just one sentence without any information. It's like I can create a page and call my family name as descendents of Jesus Christ. Why you people just inhibit the quality of free information.Libragagan (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No references[edit]

This article has a lot of talk page discussion, even concerning DNA, yet the article has been tagged since 2012 that there are no references. Otr500 (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)