Talk:Sardarji joke

message: The criticisms section doesn't actually seem to contain much criticism, especially in the first part where the gist is that Sikhs and Punjabis can poke fun at themselves. Am I missing something? Ben 01:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I just couldn't find a better name for the section. Perhaps, "Reaction from Sikh community"? utcursch | talk 09:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms?

message: KnowledgeHegemony 10:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, most of the sources that I consulted, used "Sardarji joke". Anyway, I've created a redirect at Sardar jokes. utcursch | talk 11:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sardar jokes I guess not Sardarji 

message: It may be just be me, but there's something seriously wrong with the 5 blondes joke: It's originally a joke about a blind man going into a bar. In that form it makes sense - the guy doesn't know he's surrounded by blondes (The detail about the bartender's deep, husky voice maintains his illusion). In the context of a sighted Sardarji going into a bar it makes no sense. It's also not very clear in what sense he's being smart (clever smart, not 'smartass smart') - making that final crack sounds pretty dumb, or at least foolhardy, to me! I don't want to overanalyse the joke, but a) are you sure it's not misquoted, and b) are you sure it makes the point you intend? Cheers. 4u1e 11:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smart Sardarji joke 

message: This shows the real racist,inferior minded character of the creator or author of this page.It screams of prejudice, racist hatred and low self esteem of the Author.Way to goAjjay (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of the article do you find prejudiced and racist? The article is not a collection of Sardarji jokes -- it is an encyclopedic write-up on a controversial topic. Half of this article is about the protests by Sikhs over the jokes. By your logic, the person who started the article Stereotypes of blacks must be a racist, and the person who started the article Aryan race must be a Nazi. Google for "Sardarji jokes" and you'll find thousands of stupid jokes. This article is probably the only decent write-up on Sardarji jokes on the entire internet; it just tries to provide an objective overview of the topic. utcursch | talk 10:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I am one of the major contributors to this page, and I disagree with Ajjay. This page is THE ONLY sane page to appear, if you Google 'Sardarji Joke". Ajjay's response is pathetic, lacks empathy, and reeks of self inflated pomposity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulveer (talk • contribs) 06:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complex 

message: This article was originally intended to be an encyclopedic article about the origin and characteristics of Sardarji jokes and the Sikh community's reaction to these jokes. Googling "Sardarji jokes" throws up hundreds of frivolous sites with recycled jokes, so this article would serve as a page that gives the reader a neutral perspective on the topic. But, as with many other sensitive topics, this article has gradually degraded into a scene for edit warring.
Many of the edits are now being made just to prove a point, or to give the article an unnecessary "Hindu/Muslim vs. Sikh" angle. This is completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Why is a heading like "12 O'clock and rescue of Hindu women by Sikhs from Nadir Shah" necessary? Similarly, the text based on Preetinder Singh's article already includes the word "Hindu" 4 times as it appears in the original article. Why do we need an edit war to insert the word "Hindu" between "captive" and "women"? I doubt the Sikhs who fought against Nadir Shah would ask the religion of a woman and rescue her only if she were a Hindu. The referenes cited () don't back up the assertion. And even if they did, this would be an example of WP:SYNTHESIS/ WP:UNDUE.
Please remember that a reader will take this article seriously, only if has a neutral and unbiased look. If you make it look like a propaganda, the reader will tend to dismiss it as just another trash page.
If there is any disagreement, please participate in the discussion here on the talk page, and choose a constructive dispute resolution process instead of indulging in a revert war. utcursch | talk 05:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contentious editing 

message: I stepped into a minor fracas earlier today in which one contributor wanted the page to stay as it had done for the last month (at least, and probably longer) & another wanted to change a particular phrase in the lead.
The phrase is the end of the last sentence where it says that "a section of Sikhs" dislike the jokes. The other contributor wanted to removed the words "a section of". Just now, my step-in of earlier to revert to the status quo has itself been reverted. I said that it was impossible to prove that all Sikhs objected/disliked/whatever and the reverter has said "but that's what the reference says" in the edit summary. I'm paraphrasing what we both said here, but you'll get the gist.
Now, I can see nothing in the reference that says "all Sikhs". It merely refers to community leaders and, sorry, community leaders never speak for the entire community, regardless of whether they are Sikhs, Jews, Catholics or the chairman of the Manchester United Supporters Club. I flat refuse to believe that anyone can honestly prove that all Sikhs have a problem with it. An analogy is Irish jokes, where a similar situation prevails: there are some, vocal people who make objections and a lot of others who simply either live with it or actually do not mind unduly.
Unless someone can prove 100% support then it has to say "a section" or, perhaps better, "some". I would accept "most" if this could be proven, but nothing greater than this.
Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is actually a good reference in the article which can be used to support that statement. "Folk Narrative and Ethnic Identity: The 'Sardarji' Joke Cycle" is a scholarly article where the author found that sikhs generally do not enjoy sardarji jokes. It's cited in other works in the field of ethnic jokes like in "Khasi-Jaintia folklore: context, discourse, and history" by Soumen Sen and seems to have pretty neutral phrasing. I'll change it to that if no one has an objection.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to use that cite (which is better) and you amend the wording to include "generally" then I have no problem. I flat-out refuse to see the statement in the article without some sort of qualifying adjective, which was the reason why I reverted your earlier edit. The phrase needs re-working anyway because "a section of" is vague & implies some sort of formal "group inside a group". - Sitush (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: IT's "not a section". There is no mention of a section. The article just mentions Sikhs.Thanks--SH 12:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it does not say all Sikhs. See my original comment in this thread above. It would appear that in any event you have a possible conflict of interest, so it might be best if you do not edit the article (although your comments are welcome here). Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This type of comment is inappropriate when you are trying to reach a consensus on a talk page. It doesn't Assume good faith and makes you seem as if you are trying to own the article.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I've quoted the article, so stop edit warring "members of the Sikh community". Thanks--SH 12:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sorry. It came about via messages on both my talk page and t'other contributor's. I was attempting to keep a discussion going with the aim of achieving some sort of consensus but, at the time, edits were happening. Anyway, I think Sikh-history and myself have buried that hatchet now. - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

text: But you do not have consensus. - Sitush (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think by quoting the article directly we don't really need it, otherwise it maybe construed as WP:LAWYER. Use your judgement. Is this a compromise or not? Thanks --SH 12:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. However, the attempt you made to do this did not read very well (at least, not in "English English", I'm unsure about "Indian English"). It also relies on one source & that is a newspaper. The source suggested above by ProfitofTruth is to my mind more reliable. - Sitush (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

text: 'Sardarji jokes are generally considered tasteless and inappropriate by Sikhs' is better because the community leaders clause is relevant to the article but I'm not sure it's fit for the lead. The page number is given in the existing citation on the page. 155-161--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "by members of the Sikh community" sounds fine in English English as well. Thanks--SH 16:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Prefer ProfitofTruth's version. I'm concerned about possible undue weight in simply saying members of the Sikh community. Not everyone read the citations. Sikh-history's version, actually edited on the page, had the phrase in quotes - this was correct but made it read oddly and necessitated that the citation be examined. Citations in leads are best avoided where possible (I include my own proposal in this, but I was trying to seek consensus). - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, because we have removed "a section of Sikhs" and replaced it with "generally considered...Sikhs" the real contentious point has been removed because there is not a difference between "Sardarji jokes are generally considered tasteless and inappropriate by Sikhs" and "Sardarji jokes are generally considered tasteless and inappropriate by members of the Sikh community". Like basically I don't think we need a citation for writing "members of the Sikh community" because it means the same thing as "Sikhs" but sounds better.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with that, ProfitofTruth. I understood Sikh-history to be referring to an earlier comment by me (hence the "English English"). If that was the comment he was referring to then the citation etc comes into play and "generally" etc gets the boot - if you look at the edit history you'll see where this was done earlier today. Perhaps we're all talking at cross-purposes now - for the purpose of clarification, I am happy to compromise. with your version timestamped 20:51, viz: "Sardarji jokes are generally considered tasteless and inappropriate by members of the Sikh community" - but not with a version excluding the word "generally" etc. Sorry if you think I'm being pedantic about this. - Sitush (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we've reached a consensus then. Don't worry about being pedantic we've clarified the issue now. Do you want to make the change?--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Ok, let's go with the Profitof Truth version. Thanks--SH 08:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Section of Sikhs" or all Sikhs 

message: I do not have sources but I do remember reading a Sardarji joke that I had previously heard as an irish joke. This lack of Indian creativity in humour may be the real joke !! Jonathansammy (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish and Sardarji jokes 

message: We know characters Santa Bnata were created by Khushwant Singh in 1985-86. Is there any connction between Santa-Banta and Satwant Singh and Beant Singh who assassinated Indira Gandhi in 1984. Does anyone knows a link for this claim ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.32.209 (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santa Banta derived from [[Satwant Singh]] and [[Beant Singh]] 

message: User Sikh-history tried to move the article to tghe title Racism in India and the Sardarji joke. This is inappropriate. The subject of the article is "Sardarji joke" regardless racism. Nearly all types ofethnic jokes are considered racist and offensive. This is the character of these jokes and it is unnecessty to make a more complicated title. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article however covers more than just the joke, it seems to delve deper into racism and racist attitudes in India. Tahnks SH 10:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with User:Sikh-history, its title should be Racism in India and the Sardarji joke. 144.160.130.16 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Staszek Lem I don't think it should be called "Racism in India ........" , I think your point on this is valid, but it needs to be renamed something else. The Polish comparison is not quite the same, because in is not Polish people making jokes about Polish but other Europeans, but in this case it is Indian people making fun of other Indian people. There is a massive section on the legal case etc. The title does not do justice to the article. Thanks SH 18:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Colleague, I am sorry to repeat it again, but "Sardarji joke" is the general subject, which is a well-recognized term, and the title is well according to wikipedia traditions. You have yet to provide a valid reason why this title is invalid. Please read the guideline, Wikipedia:Article title. If you will still be thinking that a better title is possible, please make your suggestion for a wider community to discuss its merits using template ""; see Wikipedia:Requested moves for more explanations. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: About comparison to Polish Jokes: racism is not related to national bouldaries, so your suggested distinction is immaterial to the problem of this kind of joke. Not to say that in the United States Polish jokes are told by American people about other American people (of different ethnic origin, just like in the case of INdia). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the title Sardaji Joke is alright. What is the point of having a title that looks like a thesis?Kulveer (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: You need to understand that although now in India, Sardar/Sardarji titles are used mostly by Sikhs, the actual historical usage of the title has been far widespread. Many Muslims in Pakistan still carry the title, and how come you don't remember your very own Sardar Vallabhbhai patel, the Iron-man of India. Sirdar literally just means "the head/leader".   
Pointing out that these jokes are directed at Sikhs is fallacious.
Further, pointing out that these jokes are the most popular and circulated in India Pakistan is demeaning. This must change.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.49.242.34  (talk • contribs) 
:(1) The issue of the title ind its usage belongs to article "Sardar". This article is about a joke series. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: (2)In wikipedia, any change of content must be based on references to reliable sources. You are adding content without references. Please provide references.Staszek Lem (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

text: You're adding irrelevant commentary on the usage of the word "Sardar" to the article. There is a separate article on that topic. Also, you're adding your POV, when the article already presents similar point-of-view in a non-biased way, attributed to a reliable source. That's why your edits have been reverted by multiple editors. utcursch | talk 02:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Several of the references cited in the article (e.g. Jawaharlal Handoo) clearly state that these jokes are about Sikhs. On the other hand, you've failed to provide any sources for your claim. And it's not "one" of the editors who has argued against your changes: it's four editors. It's you who's wasting others' time. utcursch | talk 02:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fallacious understanding 

message: The article currently states that the 12 O'clock references in Sardarji jokes "imply that Sikhs are in their senses only at night". As far as I know that is not correct; the stereotype is supposed to be that they "loose their senses" at midnight. The current claim is supported by an Indian Express article, which is a deadlink. Online copies of what could be that article, don't engender much confidence in its reliability. Does anyone have access to the original IE article so the text can be checked, and the qualifications of the author determined? Any other (reliable) source on the subject would also be helpful, since it is possible that both views are valid. Abecedare (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  12 O'clock 

message: Why is this article blaming Hindus for these Jokes? And using terms like "Hindu ego" for whole Hindu community. 
This is not good. Jai Aryavart (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The article cites the sources. The phrase "Hindu ego" comes from a direct quote. Also the article does say that Sikhs also create these jokes about themselves.  If you have sources about popularity of Sardarji jokes in other communities, you are welcome to expand the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blaming a particular Religion?