Talk:Singh

message: Singh (IPA: /ˈsɪŋ/) is a title, middle name or surname that means "lion" in various South Asian and Southeast Asian communities. Traditionally used by the Hindu Kshatriya community, it was later mandated in the late 17th century by Guru Gobind Singh (born Gobind Das) for all male Sikhs as well, in part as a rejection of caste-based prejudice and to emulate Rajput naming conventions. As a surname or a middle name, it is now found throughout the world across communities and religious groups, becoming more of a generic, caste neutral, decorative name than a surname.
* I propose removing  from the lede, as it is redundant as these communities are already listed in the body of the article. Further, this has the potential to overwhelm the lede with different community names. There are hundreds upon hundreds of castes and communities that use "Singh", what's stopping people from adding their community name to the lede, when there are already 8 communities in the lede that were arbitrarily added.
* I also proposed removing redundancies such as  and  and . That's 3 times in one small paragraph.
Pinging  to see if he'd be okay with these proposed changes. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Suthasianhistorian8 Support - reasons seems sound to me. ThethPunjabi (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Thanks, ; I support the suggested changes. In fact, it would be great if we can validate the part "Traditionally used by the Hindu Kshatriya community"! I couldn't check the source, but this hardly makes sense, I mean which Kshatriya communities used the same! We may remove this part as well if it is not supported by any reliable source. Ekdalian (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks- it is mentioned in this source . Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reliable source by historian with expertise in the area, that mentions "Traditionally used by the Hindu Kshatriya community". Patrick Hanks is a Professor in Lexicography at the Research Institute of Information and Language Processing (RIILP) in the University of Wolverhampton, working on projects in Corpus Pattern Analysis. So he is not reliable in this area.  thoughts? 2601:547:B05:64B4:D52:8B0F:499C:39FC (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't get to decide that, Oxford University found him suitable enough to include in their publication. Also Hanks is the edtior of the work, it doesn't mean he wrote every single entry on there. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You also neglected to mention that Hanks is a linguist and onomastician-someone who specializes in the study of the etymology, history, and use of proper names. . Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

text: It is decided per WP:RS and Patrick Hanks is not reliable if we go according to the Wikipedia reliability policy. Patrick Hanks has no expertise in Indian History or in the area, nor he is a historian. I would recommend taking it to WP:RS noticeboard or use a 3rd opinion platform to get a consensus. 2601:547:B05:64B4:B4A2:B308:7382:D8C0 (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy to take it to RS or 3O, but let's see what Ekdalian says first. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: According to his own book "Patrick Hanks is a consultant in corpus-based lexicography and phraseology at the Berlin Academy of Sciences. He was formerly Chief Editor of Current English Dictionaries at Oxford University Press, and a research fellow in lexical computing at Brimingham University. He has been researching the geographical distribution, meaning, and origin of surnames for over 30 years." 2601:547:B05:64B4:B4A2:B308:7382:D8C0 (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  This makes him sound even more reliable, not sure if that was what you were going for. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There are authors with MA or PHD in English or philosophy and even Army commanders who have also done years of research on certain subjects but are not expert in the area and that is why it doesn't make them reliable. Similarly, Hanks is simply a lexicographer and is professor in that area. Also you mentioned that Patrick Hanks is just an editor of the book. Coming directly from a historian would put credibility to the line that needs to be added. Yes, please take it to RS or 3O. I am sure there are other sources from reliable historian that you can find that mentions that certain line. 2601:547:B05:64B4:B4A2:B308:7382:D8C0 (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know the entry wasn't written by someone who is an expert in Indian history? It very well may have, considering this project was undertaken and coordinated by Oxford University. Numerous of their scholars, researchers, and faculty took part in this project. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: May have could have doesn't help. If it clearly mentions that the definition in question actually came from a known reliable historian, then why not. Or where was it was taken from, was it from primary source, or was it secondary source, there should be some information that could help. 2601:547:B05:64B4:B4A2:B308:7382:D8C0 (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe, Patrick Hanks fails WP:HISTRS after going through the discussion! Such stuff may not be considered as reliable for caste or related articles like this one! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Patrick Hanks is the editor of the publication, not necessarily the author. However, I'm open to replacing the line  with . In the meantime, I will post this source on the Noticeboard for India related topics as well the RSN. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

text: @Ekdalian Lexicographers, by the very definition of their work, research word origins. That obviously involves historical research. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  for the explanation! , please proceed with your proposed version. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

text: @2601:547:B05:64B4:B4A2:B308:7382:D8C0 They're odd things, are dictionaries. They can be considered both primary and tertiary sources. If people really have an issue with this then the best argument to use might be WP:PRIMARY, not HISTRS. - Sitush (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot  and . Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Oh no, ; no community will be mentioned (not even Rajput) as per the proposed version! Otherwise it would be UNDUE! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, because different sources were present there which have mentioned that which particular communities use that surname.Now, generalising that they all wanted to emulate Rajput naming convention, is not supported by any source. There may be different reasons for using that surname. The sentence that it is used to emulate Rajput naming convention should be removed. Additionally, in latest edit, the sources verifying use of that surname by various communities was removed. The editor should include those references in body , where  various communities are mentioned.-Admantine123 (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The current lede merely states that Guru Gobind Singh adopted Singh to emulate Rajput naming conventions, not any other community, and this is well supported by 4 scholarly citations. I will go ahead and add the community names that were in the lede. into the body. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit has removed the sources that were used for different communities who use this surname. Please, consider retaining them at the place where they are required in body.-Admantine123 (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thank you for pointing it out. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New lede proposal 

message: Yadavs are the vedic kshatriyas,proved by many sources and holy books like Rajputs. The are already have a kshatriya identity they were not citing a kshatriya status 103.170.159.144 (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection On Citing Kshatriya Status By Yadavas 

message: I think it's WP:UNDUE to have 12 different examples of Nepalis with the Singh surname. In my opinion, we should limit it to 3 max and everything needs to be appended with a reliable source. There is one OUP source in the article which states:, I couldn't find any other RS about the adoption/usage of the Singh name in Nepal, so as of now we should limit the section to something along the lines of "Singh is a common name in Nepal as a result of many people adopting the appellation. Some notable Nepalis who have the surname Singh are: X, Y, Z."
Pinging editors involved in the previous discussion: @Ekdalian, @Admantine123, @MaplesyrupSushi + . Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , I completely agree with you. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singhs of Nepal 

message: surronding = surrounding 2603:8000:D300:3650:AD45:E6EE:7A8:8B7C (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: M.Bitton (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2024 

message: Ahir kings of Nepal used singh surname long before anyone, Mahispala (Ahir) Dynasty ruled from 1000-800 B.C. 2409:4085:9C1C:971:0:0:8109:E014 (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahir Kings