Talk:Ramdasia

message: Look, the pair of you, it is entirely feasible that different sources hold different opinions regarding the origins of this community. In that event, we should show all reliably sourced opinions and not make a decision as to which is "right" and which is "wrong". The standard of editing here over the last few days has been atrocious, given that neither of you are exactly new to Wikipedia. Can we please try to bring some order to proceedings? - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've noticed thats why I have been getting research papers from Leeds University and others to get some decent references. Thanks SH 20:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking more in terms of correct use of the authorlink parameter, WP:REFPUNC, MOS:ITALIC vs MOS:QUOTE etc. It is a long time since I bothered to use tools such as ProveIt but I cannot recall them screwing the basics up in this way without some human instruction. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would also like to point out that the editor Sikh History is only using one line of a source selectively to match his agenda. If you read the entire paragraph, it actually supports what I am stating. For example: This is what he wrote from his own source:
In an interview with a Ravidasia community leader Khalsi notes the claim that some Chamar's claim to be Julaha's but have reverted back to be Chamar
''
But if you go to his own source and read the entire paragraph, it does not even match what he is stating. This is the entire paragraph.
but Julaha Sikhs prefer to be called Sikhs only. In Punjabi villages their houses are located next to the chamardlis (colonies of Chamars). Commenting on the contribution of the Julaha Sikhs to the British armed forces, Satish Saberwal says that The Ramdasia Sikhs - traditionally weavers or leather workers, another low caste - have also been drawn into the army, especially in times of active fighting, as in 1857 and during World War Two, and were discharged afterwards (Saberwal 1976:12). A leading member of the Ravi Das Sabha explained the distinction between the terms julaha and Chamar. He said that We are all Chamars (landless labourers and leather workers) - some families chose to take up weaving, they were known as Julahas 
He is clearly hell bent on showing some-how the Ramdasia are not Chamars but his own sources such as the above as well as the old one he used (HA Rose) say that Ramdasia are Sikh Chamars who took to weaving. --TimesGerman (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

text: My gut feeling is that both of you are selectively using the sources that you cite and ignoring those that say otherwise. This is at the heart of my opening comment in this section. Alas, I am far too tied up in other stuff right now to take on the task of untangling this particular web. I'll do what I can but it will not be a lot. - Sitush (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your gut feeling is wrong Sitush. Read Kalsi's research. It's an interview with a RAVIDASIA community leader, not a RAMDASIA community leader. That is the point!! Ravidasia's or Chamars see themselves as Ramdasia's or Julaha's, but Kalsi could get no Ramdasia's to say they were Chamars. See the point Khalsi is making? My own feeling is, some Chamars have been adopted into the Julaha birardri. Thanks SH 16:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

text:  Can you have this article as well as the Chamar locked for some time TimesGerman (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone could ask an admin to do that but I think the solution here and at Chamar is probably for everyone to exercise a little more restraint. It is not as if there are a dozen people messing around with the things. Perhaps try not to edit the articles at all for now - there is no deadline - and concentrate on discussing the points on the talk pages instead. If nothing else, displaying a collegial approach will likely win you some kudos if things were to get tricky later on. If all else fails then this goes to dispute resolution because there are more than two people involved. However, I do think it likely that the issues can be fixes without that, although the outcome will probably not be 100% to the satisfaction of any particular party.Instead of editing the article and (hopefully) providing a source to support that, why not ask the question here first? Start a new section for a source, say in that section what it is you want to use the source for and see what comes out of it. I am quite concerned that people are becoming entrenched here and, of course, battleground mentalities are not a good thing. There is also the issue of our sanctions for articles such as this, which could well result in someone being topic-banned unless they can demonstrate a willingness to collaborate. - Sitush (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am quite willing to discuss on the talk page, but the other editor just goes about deleting sections without discussion and you can see his statements above that he is not interested in discussion. TimesGerman (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, let's see if they are willing to change their approach as you have said you will. If not then you will in fact likely have the upper hand in whatever happens somewhere down the line. This might sound bad but there is an element of politics to contributing on Wikipedia, precisely because there are policies: anywhere in life, where you find one then you find the other. I'm not talking Machiavellian stuff but rather fairly basic common sense, influenced by a respect for the wider community's consensus on how we should all collaborate. And "collaborate" is the vital point: we may disagree but there is a framework in place within which those disagreements can be dealt with. I am off to bed soon: I hope that you do not feel patronised by what I just written here because that is not my intention. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chamar, Julaha, or whatever 

message: Another source showing that Ramdasia are Sikh Chamars Perspectives on Sikh Studies by Jagjit Singh (1985, published by Guru Nanak Foundation, Near J.N.U and Qutab Hotal New Delhi 110 067) 
http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/per-sikh-studies.pdf
on Page 75 the author writes that "The Ramdasia's or the Sikh Chamars occupt a much higher position than the Hindu Chamars". On page 77 the author writes that "By changing their name to Ramdasias, the Chamar Sikhs could alter positon in the Sikh case hierarchy, becoming Sikhs and refusing to marry or interdine with Chamar Hindus. TimesGerman (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just moved TimesGerman's post above into a new section, for convenience. Hope you do not mind.Who or what is the Guru Nanak Foundation? (I've heard of it but have no idea what its purpose may be etc) Do we know anything about the author? - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  the author Jagjit Singh biography can be found here: http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/abtauthor/Abt_Authors.htm and the main page http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/index.htm. The Guru Nanak Foundation is a thinktank related to Sikhism. They publish Sikh publications and run Sikh schools. As well I think run the globalsikhstudies website.  More information about them here:http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/sikhism-faqs/sikhism-faqs-what-do-you-know-of-guru-nanak-foundation-new-delhi TimesGerman (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  These are quotes from  Ibbetson -Punjab Castes. Ithought we were dismissing 100 year old texts? Jagjit Singh is an excellent writer and his books the Sikh Revolution" and "The Dynamics of the Sikh Revolution" are excellent reading, but, even he admits in his footnotes that these are texts from 100 year old sources. Thanks SH 16:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The quote on page 75 is not attributed to Ibbetson but to I.P Singh. The quote on page 77 is attibuted to Ibbetson, We are dismissing 100 year old texts as a single source but author performs a critical analysis on Ibbetson's book and finds it valid enough to quote in his own book. Also, I am not able to find where the author discusses the '100 year old' sources in his footnotes. As you mentioned above, Jagjit Singh is an excellent author and writer, and he is intelligent enough to believe what he wrote on page 75 and 77 of his book. TimesGerman (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will not make further edits to the Ramdasia since I am ok with the edits that Sikh-History has made so far.   TimesGerman (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Thank Bhaghat Ravidas and Guru Ram das for that :). Thanks SH 16:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Source published by Guru Nanak Foundation

message: Caste in Punjab: Political Marginalization and Cultural Assertion of Scheduled Castes in Punjab
Author: Neeru Sharma
Publisher: Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
http://www.global.ucsb.edu/punjab/journal/v19_1/2-NeeruSharma19_1.pdf
Please review this source and discuss if it can be used as a valid source/
TimesGerman (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Source on Ramdasia Chamars