Talk:Ramgarhia

message: This article has rough sections now, but it needs to be rewritten to be less confusing and unencyclopedic.  Explaining the importance of this group would be a good idea too. --Danaman5 00:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Please explain why  is unreliable, and why people keep removing it. The source appears to be of impeccable academic pedigree and all the arguments in the (mostly old, terribly fractured) preceding section are trying to compare it with British Raj era sources which long-standing consensus says are not reliable. You may not like it but Wikipedia is not here to glorify any particular group and is not censored. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't even warrant any discussion.Clear POV pushing.I often wander whether all caste-based articles shall be mass-semi'd!Winged BladesGodric 15:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Try telling the admin who fully protected the thing. I can't believe what has just happened, WP:WRONGVERSION or not. I can only assume that they're out of touch with the discretionary sanctions and the topic area etc because I asked for semi at WP:RFPP. Anons are do not usually respond when they have got their way and, as you say, this is blatant. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I could have invoked Spiffy or Bish but that would be adminshopping.Winged BladesGodric 15:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: --This's going to be interesting.Winged BladesGodric 15:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: All I can see is it being a waste of time due to an ignorant admin. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah..See Dloh's last t/p thread.By their motives, this's going to be a time-sink, before T-bans strike.Winged BladesGodric 16:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm better staying away from their talk page - I'm likely to come out with a stream of invective and get a topic ban myself. Their decision can be overturned at any time before protection expires if an admin is satisfied consensus exists. Basically, it looks like we'll have to wait for one other person to state the obvious and then it can be dropped to a semi-protection, which might just encourage the anons to discuss their ludicrous notions that the sources are unreliable. The pattern is familiar to any admin with even a small amount of common sense and topic area knowledge. - Sitush (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: T-banning you!That would be fun!Considering that I, Utcursch and you are all supporting it, I fail to see why we even need to get another man supporting us.Winged BladesGodric 16:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRILL sources 

message: *I proposed 
*Johnsimpson proposed 
*Winged Blades says 
Now let's have no more proposals from any of us three. It has gone on long enough and at least two of the three can't keep the same proposal for more than 30 minutes without changing their mind. Someone else will turn up soon, I'm sure, and they can decide. Failing which, we'll have to go the ridiculous route of an RfC, which will be even more of a timesink and which, I know 100&, will reject two of the above simply because they are not remotely decent English sentences. The only good outcome so far is that the reason for protecting the article (ie: an alleged lack of consensus regarding reliability of the sources) has proven to be misguided. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi all, I got here having been pinged by Godric. I think Sitush's version is simple and clear. I would recommend omitting "previously low", because they were basically artisan/working class, which is not particularly low in the order of things. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  the sources quoted way, way above say otherwise. Yes, artisan (kamin) but considered low. I think for that reason, all three of the proposals have accepted it goes in, although Johnsimpson has quibbled about it on occasion. FWIW, I think utcursch agreed also. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that the source said "comparatively lower". I took it to mean: compared to the land-owning Jats. We don't know how they compare to other landless classes. I think the point that is being made in the sources is really that, they were able to claim the top rank among Sikhs, because of migration. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in that case we should add that the Jat Sikh landlords were superior. Pending further reading (because I am fairly sure I've seen them described as plain "low") take your pick. - Sitush (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

text: Ah, it's on the same page of the same source, if you can see it? - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I am satisfied. :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: I am suggesting you please merge Ramgarhia article's, Tarkhan article's, Tarkhan Punjab  into one all are same castes Empire HP (talk) 05:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: 106.205.182.187 (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2024