Talk:Mazhabi Sikh

Bir Singh

I am sure bir singh was a mazhabi sikh not a jaat. The story i am familiar with is that a group of jaats presented the tenth Guru with a gun and told him to leave the mazhabis. The Guru then asked the jaat men to volunteer for target practice but they refused so he sent a message to his fort and two Mazhabi brothers named Bir Singh and Dhir singh answered his call. Am i not right? Bir singh is also mentioned to be a man of a scavenger background in persian sources. This makes him a chura rather than a jaat. Smith012 (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sangat Singh

If you read Authority and meaning in Indian religions and the case of valmiki by the author J Leslie you will find that Sangat Singh is declared to be a Mazhabi Sikh. The rules of Wikipedia state that all articles are written in a neutral form and that all information should be referenced. You cannot delete referenced sources.There is no legitimate evidence that suggests Sangat Singh came from any other caste and no personal research is allowed, again as per Wikipedia standards. Smith012 (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mazhabi Sikh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090415043655/http://sikhli.info:80/index.php/history to http://sikhli.info/index.php/history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Crap article

Hey @Smith012: this is one of the crappest articles I have seen for a while, and I am very used to seeing crap articles. You simply cannot restore to that version because, among other things, it contains copyright violations. You are going to have to unpick my edits one at a time.

In addition, are you aware of WP:OVERCITE, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:DUE etc? - Sitush (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I see that pretty much half of your total contributions to Wikipedia have been made to this article. Perhaps that blinds you to what goes on elsewhere. For example, you reverted in May last year with a comment that I have reverted the edit back to 3rd may 2015, The deletions dont justify any merit. Sikh sources will cover Sikh topics and there is no wikipedia policy stating that British Raj era references are invalid. Talk to me. For starters, WP:V asks for independent sources and anyone who edits caste etc related articles knows that affiliated sources in that topic area are notoriously biassed. Secondly, there is indeed a widespread consensus that we do not use Raj sources for such articles - it has been dealt with time and again at venues such as WP:RSN, WP:DRN, and WT:INB. You may even find something of use at User:Sitush/Common and/or User:Sitush/CasteSources.

And some of the errors are in the "bleeding obvious" category, eg: look at citation 5 in your version and compare to the source. Or how many times Mazhabi has been spelled in alternate ways.

In addition, I realise that you specialise in military history but you really do need to be aware that there is far more to articles about "castes" than mere soldiering. - Sitush (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

are members of an before upper caste caste ??

I do not understand this sentence: are members of an before upper caste caste. Did they use to be higher or lower caste? Creuzbourg (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Disruption by an SPA

This is regarding the disruption done in this article between the 21st and 23rd of this month by a WP:SPA (Gurdas Singh atwal). They not only added a huge amount of original research that Mazhabi Sikhs (Dalit Sikhs from Chuhra caste) were Brahmins, Rajputs, Jats, etc. but also appropriated most of the historical Sikh personalities!

The majority of content added by them is either unsourced or based on fake refs, i.e. the sources added by them that don't support their claims. The only new sources added by them are unreliable self-published sources and a non-scholarly source authored by a British Raj officer. They also introduced a large amount of copyright violations.

Anyway, here are the details of their edits:

• In this edit, they dumped a huge amount of WP:OR/unsourced content.

The entire Ancient origin and History subsection added by them is unsourced. One of the sentences of that subsection does cite a source, namely page no. 171 of this source. But it is used as a fake ref.

For an existing term of a sentence that can be easily sourced by a reliable source, they added a locally published nonscholarly/non-HISTRS Punjabi source, namely Rangretian daa itihas which is authored by Naranjan Arifi, a retired employee of the Punjab government's Revenue Department. He is not even a scholar, let alone a historian.

• In the next two edits, they cited two sources. One of them is again a fake ref. The second one is Naranjan Arifi's unreliable source as I already explained.

• In this edit, these edits, and this edit, they dumped a huge amount of original research, unsourced content, fake ref, and unreliable sources.

The two reliable sources cited in these edits are used as fake refs around a dozen times!

This source cited by them is a reprint of a century-plus-old, unreliable source that was authored by a British Raj officer – see WP:RAJ for relevant links and discussion about such sources. It is available online (see here) and is used as a fake ref here.

Self-published or locally published non-HISTRS/nonscholarly Punjabi sources cited in this edit are:

a) Rangretian daa itihas (by Naranjan Arfi) is already explained by me.

b) Mazhabi sikkha daa itihaas is authored by Shamsher Singh Ashok (1904–1987), a Punjabi author employed by the Sikh religious body Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee. He wasn't a scholar. and this particular book was commissioned by a Dalit Sikh named Kartar Singh Nayyar, who self-published it in 1987.

c) Itihaas vich mazhabi sikha di jadoh jehad is a self-published book (via BlueRoseONE) by a non-historian named Bhupinder Singh Mattu, who is a retired Punjab government employee and a Mahabi Sikh himself – see WP:SPS for such sources.

• In this edit, they cited this nonscholarly Punjabi source which is authored by Punjabi poet/writer Hira Singh Dard and is published by a Sikh religious body (SGPC). So it is unreliable for history – see WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:HISTRS.

So I will revert these highly unconstructive edits.

Finally, they have copy-pasted content from copyrighted user-generated sites. For example, this edit is copy-pasted from here (see here for details). Similarly, various parts of this edit are copy-pasted from multiple articles of sikhiwiki.org (for details, see here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.). So revision deletion may also be required here.

References
References

- NitinMlk (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Page needs indefinite protection

RegentsPark, the extended-confirmed protection is long due here, as this article has been disrupted for a long time. Pinging Sitush, as a deeper revert may be needed here. - NitinMlk (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)