Talk:Ramgarhia

Cleanup

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)

Yes you are right Danaman5. Someone has wrote the introductory para with no grammar, zero reference to the history and lot of vague information. The author wrote what was in his/her mind rather than what is the history with a reference to some good book or any article. RajwantSinghRamgarhia (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The standard of this article is really poor. There seems to be zero referencing and really poor grammar. I am deleting all empty sections. Manmeets 09:26, 10 November 2009

. There is also NO evidence/proof that Guru Nanak Dev Ji was Khatri, it is widely accepted that he was born into a Parsi family. 12:12, 11 November 2009

This article is full of inaccurate statements that are not backed up with any evidence. Again, the information about the Sikh Guru's is totally irrelevant! It is absolutely accepted that Guru Nanak Dev Ji was born into a Khatri Hindu Bedi family. The information about Satguru Ram Singh is not needed, as there is already a separate article for him. Manmeets 08:53, 12 November 2009

I've started the clean-up of this document (particularly regarding non-reliable information). Manmeets (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the anonymous editer gets the concept of sources!!Manmeets (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted - Arjun Rampal- Bollywood film star (Rampal - Punjabi saraswat brahmin) (Rajpal- Ramgarhia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramgarhia Munda (talk • contribs) 17:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

How can they or who are they (Paramjit S Judge and Gurpreet Bal) to decide what H. A. Rose,Denzil Ibbetson and William Crooke supposed? This is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramgarhia Munda (talk • contribs) 20:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This article presents severely controversial, and unprofessionally biased information glorifying a certain group over the one discussed. Singhjischolar (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

BRILL sources

Please explain why Banerjee, Himadri (2013). "The Other Sikhs: Bridging Their Diaspora". In Hawley, Michael (ed.). Sikh Diaspora: Theory, Agency, and Experience. BRILL. pp. 175–176. ISBN 978-9-00425-723-8. 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)

@Sitush:This doesn't even warrant any discussion.Clear POV pushing.I often wander whether all caste-based articles shall be mass-semi'd!Winged Blades^Godric 15:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Some miscellaneous discussion(s).We are having a content-dispute.Winged BladesGodric 16:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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) I could have invoked Spiffy or Bish but that would be adminshopping.Winged BladesGodric 15:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC) @Sitush:--This's going to be interesting.Winged BladesGodric 15:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC) All I can see is it being a waste of time due to an ignorant admin. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC) 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)

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)

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 Blades^Godric 16:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

appalled

Please try to seek a consensus for your version. If the anon's fail to opine, then that is up to them. Once consensus is reached, we can unprotect the page. Thanks -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a bloody consensus. You just can't see it for some daft reason. I'll not bother with RfPP in future if you're going to be patrolling it - plenty of admins who actually have some clue and willing to act elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, Dloh is a damn good sysop but wading into areas where one clearly know(s) next to nothing and stubbornness aren't desirable.Winged Blades^Godric 15:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

They are? Never come across them before so will have to take your word for it. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There is not a consensus. The page is poorly written, and clearly has not been written from a neutral viewpoint. Sentences such as: "Free from their socially superior Jat landlords of the Punjab, the once-lowly Ramgarhia" are highly offensive to the Ramgharia and do not add anything to the page. It only promotes prejudice and is un-neccessary, and should be removed pernamently. Johnsimpson321 (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's analyse your phrases one by one:--

• There is not a consensus--There is concensus. I, Sitush, Utcursch Bish, can you be counted? vs you.
• clearly has not been written from a neutral viewpoint-That's unfortunate.Please provide the reliably sourced alternative viewpoints.
• are highly offensive...only promotes prejudice...un-neccessary--Read WP:NOTCENSORED
• and do not add anything to the page--Subjective opinion.Adds much to the page by awaring the readers about the-then social hiearchy. Winged Blades^Godric 16:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• No, don't count me, thanks. I may take over here as an uninvolved admin, if Dlohcierekim agrees to a suggestion I've made on his page. I'm not part of any consensus (if I was, I would no longer be uninvolved). Bishonen | talk 16:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC).

<<ec>>@Bishonen: I'd prefer to allow the discussion to run a bit longer, but I leave it un your capable hands. Thanks for the 2nd opinion. Cheers, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The sentence: "Free from their socially superior Jat landlords of the Punjab, the once-lowly Ramgarhia" does not accurately reflect the words of the cited content. No where in the cited document does it state that any Ramgharia were dependent on ‘Jat Landlords’. It reads as if the Ramgharia were prisoners of the Jat landlords. The words of the cited document have been distorted, to promote prejudice and division. -John Simpson

So you are not now claiming that the source is unreliable but rather that it is misrepresented? I can't see the specific pages of the thing so it might help if (a) you could provide some sort of relevant quotation from it (in context, not just a cherry-picked sentence) and (b) you explain why the sentence that you quote, and which was recently removed from the article, implies that they were prisoners. For what it is worth, I see no mention of jails, imprisonment etc but rather a nicely worded, succinct statement that the once-lowly Ramgarhias were able to progress after they were distanced from the Jat landlords. There may be an English language comprehension issue here, rather than a fault with what was said. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I definitely disagree with the anon's assertion that the source is unreliable. That is simply not true -- the author, the editor, and the publisher have strong credentials.

@Johnsimpson321: / anon: I hope you are not claiming that the Ramgarhias were never considered low in social status compared to the Jats (a statement supported by several reliable sources). Achieving a higher social status despite having a disadvantaged background is something to be proud of, not something that should be considered as offensive.

If your contention is simply about the words "free of", "socially superior Jat landlords" / "the once-lowly Ramgarhia", that can be discussed here. For example, "lowly" can be changed to something like "who previously held a low social status" or "who were earlier considered low in social status". utcursch | talk 18:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes my problem is with the words: "free of", "socially superior Jat landlords" / "the once-lowly Ramgarhia". They do not best reflect the cited material, and can be easily interpreted as being offensive. Please reword this phrase, or remove it.

I am open to suggestions. I find Utcursch’s suggestions helpful.

“free of” should be changed to “distanced from”

“lowly” should be changed to “who were earlier considered low in social status”

Did all Ramgharia have Jat Landlords? Every single one? Not one owned their land at the time? Please provide me with more information regarding this.

The actual book which is being cited cannot be read when following the links in the bibliography. I had to read the material elsewhere.

Perhaps you could show me some more sources regarding what was said? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsimpson321 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Why does it need multiple sources? Are we really quibbling about whether literally every single Ramgarhia was this or that? Do you still have access to the source, wherever you read it? I really would like to see what it says. And I would also appreciate an explanation for the other removal of a mention of the Jats, further down in the article. It does all rather smack of trying to eliminate referring to them. - Sitush (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, how weird. I can now see it, having visited exactly the same GBooks link again. "The Ramgarhias of the Brahmaputra Valley ... migrated from Amritsar and Gurdaspur in the first quarter of the twentieth century ... In Punjab, they stood comparatively at a lower wrung (sic) of the rural order and were called kamins (artisans) by their landlords who were mostly Jats. In the plains of Assam, however, taking advantage of Jats' absence, they managed to slip into their shoes. Their emigration to the plains of Assam offered them an opportunity for caste mobilisation which was otherwise impossible in Punjab." I still can't see p. 176 but the aforementioned in from p 175. All I have omitted via ellipses is detail about exactly where they settled etc. - Sitush (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

And now I can see p 176 after revisiting the link yet again. "The new habitat also enabled them to claim a higher social status by putting their inferior rural social position to the background". There is more of the same on p 177, eg: "owing to their low artisanal status in villages". - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

If the information was so reliable, then you should easily be able to provide multiple sources? The more sources the more realiable the information.

Have you even read the sourced content, find it on the internet yourself. If you read it you will realise the sentence:

"Free from their socially superior Jat landlords of the Punjab, the once-lowly Ramgarhia"

Is poorly worded and has misrepresented the sourced material? So we should remove it or reword it as per Utcursch’s helpful suggestions.

I restate my question:

Did all Ramgharia have Jat Landlords? Every single one? Not one owned their land at the time? Please provide me with more information regarding this.

If we don’t discuss such things then we promote prejudice and stereotypes.

For these reasons. Either keep the sentence deleted and end this, or work with me to find better wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsimpson321 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I see you have found the material, reading it, it is very clear that sentence is lacking and has been poorly worded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsimpson321 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

So propose new wording. It wasn't that far off the mark and you do have to read it in the context of the sentences that preceded and followed it in the article - you cannot take it in isolation. And I would still like to know why you removed the other mention of Jats further down the article. - Sitush (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Others have shown discontent towards the wording on this page as well. To quote:

This article presents severely controversial, and unprofessionally biased information glorifying a certain group over the one discussed. Singhjischolar (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Best Regards, John Simpson

I was proposing new wording. Please pay attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsimpson321 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I dont know what you are talking about, this is the only thing I have a problem with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsimpson321 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you said you were open to suggestions and mentioned a couple of words. You are the person objecting, so you should propose a full sentence etc. I really couldn't care less what caste warriors from ages ago may or may not have said here - it's a perennial issue that such comments are made at many caste-like articles but unless they are specific etc it is useless time-wasting. - Sitush (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Try looking at the diff I gave above. It clearly shows a mention of Jat being remove elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

See here - "only to Jat Sikhs" was removed. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thats wasn’t me.

I feel we should remove the sentence entirely, for reasons outlined above. If you want it so badly, you reword it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsimpson321 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

In that case, it will probably stay in pretty much the form that it was removed. It certainly will not be removed because it is sourced and relevant. That's how consensus works on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

You said yourself according to the cited content they were “mostly jat landlords” and they were “Ramgharia of the Bhramaputavalley” not all Ramgharia. The sentence reads as if all Ramgharia were slaves to their Jat landlords.

So the sentence is misleading, and not reflective of the sourced content. And has been written to glorify one group over the other. This promotes prejudice and is disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsimpson321 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

That is all I have to say, I have outlined my reasoning and I will let the orginal admin who locked the page make the final decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsimpson321 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED, as you have been told before. If you really want to quibble about "mostly" then craft a sentence to reflect that. The paragraph is already speaking of the diaspora etc, so it does not refer to all Ramgarhia everywhere. Like I said earlier, I think there is a problem with comprehension and a problem with understanding our policies. You do not have to read Wikipedia if you do not like it, and you can always write whatever you want at some other website.

Please note that no admin will make a decision about content while wearing their admin "hat" because that would make them WP:INVOLVED. And that sentence, in some form or another, is going back in for the reasons already given, ie WP:CONSENSUS. I think you need to spend a little time reading some of these capitalised blue links that I and others have mentioned. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps start with Now distant from their landlords in Punjab, who were mostly Jat Sikhs, the Ramhgarhia diaspora in Assam were able to enhance their previously low social status. as the basis for your proposal? - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion Sitush. How about:

The sentence: "Free from their socially superior Jat landlords of the Punjab, the once-lowly Ramgarhia"

Changes to: “Distanced from their landlords of the Punjab, who were mostly Jat Sikhs, the Ramgarhia of the Brahmaputra valley were able to improve their own socio-economic standing through these mutually advantageous relationships with the British”

Or: “Distanced from their landlords in the Punjab, the Ramgarhia were able to improve their own socio-economic standing through these mutually advantageous relationships with the British” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsimpson321 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You could limit it to the Brahmaputra Valley, rather than Assam, if you want. As for another source, this covers some of it. I really do think your bone of contention is the mention of the Jats, not the efforts of the diaspora etc but the role of the Jat majority among Sikhs is very significant and we should not downplay it. - Sitush (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no bone of contention with the mention of Jat Sikhs, I have the utmost respect for them. They fought for the religion and it would not be what it is today without them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsimpson321 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you think of my proposals. Feel free to edit them and restate. —— — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsimpson321 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Also the following based off of your suggestion is acceptable:

“Now distant from their landlords in Punjab, who were mainly Jat Sikhs, the Ramgarhia of the Brahmaputrin valley were able to enhance their previously low social status through mutually advantageous relationships with the British”

Johnsimpson321 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we could mention the fact they opened Gurdwara in the region? As per the source you just linked

Johnsimpson321 (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Just has a final clarification I find the following acceptable, and true to the cited text.

The sentence:

"Free from their socially superior Jat landlords of the Punjab, the once-lowly Ramgarhia"

Should change to:

“Now distant from the Jat Sikhs in the Punjab, the Ramgarhia of the Brahmaputrin valley were able to enhance their own socio-economic standing through these mutually advantageous relationships with the British”

Or:

“Distanced from the Jat Sikhs in the Punjab, the Ramgarhia of the Brahmaputra valley were able to improve their own socio-economic standing through these mutually advantageous relationships with the British”

After edits, now pretty much the same thing. Please read the cited content, this is a better reflection of the cited content, and I hope we can please everyone and reach a good end.

Perhaps a mention as to how they mobilised Gurdwara in the region?

I.e. “.... mutually advantageous relationships with the British and the mobilisation of Gurdwara bearing their name in the region”

Sourced text: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8I0NAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA538#v=onepage&q&f=false pg. 538

Johnsimpson321 (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• The source states:--The Ramgahrias of the Brahmaputra Valley maintained their link with Punjab, but it was differently designed. They migrated from the districts of Amritsar and Gurdaspur in the first quarter of twentieth century and settled in numerous places from Guwahati to Digboi, a distance of more than five hundred kilometers. Their numbers increased as the century rolled on. In Punjab, they stood comparatively at a lower wrung of the rural order and were called kamins (artisans) by their landlords who were mostly Jats. In the plains of Assam, however, taking advantage of Jats' absence, they managed to slip into their shoes. Their emigration to the plains of Assam offered them an opportunity for caste mobilization which was otherwise impossible in Punjab.........The new habitat also enabled them to claim a higher social Status by putting their inferior rural social position to the background.OCR Grab.My emphasisWinged Blades^Godric 04:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• Another source states:--The early twentieth-century Ramgarhia caste mobilization in Assam provides an interesting illustration. Like Jats, they also migrated, but their destinations as well as the nature of the jobs which they were willing to do were not always identical. As they were linked With technical jobs, Ramgarhias not only reached industrial cities like Jamshedpur and Kolkata, but also went to Assam for laying railway lines-an area missed by lat migrants owing to the lack of surface traffic. In the absence of Jats, Ramgarhias slipped into the Jat position and claimed the highest social ranking among local Sikhs which was inconceivable in contemporary Punjab.OCR Grab.My emphasisWinged Blades^Godric 04:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• In lines with that, my version is

  Distant/free from their socially-superior Jat landlords in the Punjab, the diaspora, that migrated to the Brahmaputra valley were able to shun their low social status and enhance their socio-economic standing through these mutually advantageous relationships with the British.

in place of the current version which reads

Free from their socially superior Jat landlords of the Punjab, the once-lowly Ramgarhia of the diaspora were able to improve their own socio-economic standing through these mutually advantageous relationships with the British

.Winged Blades^Godric 04:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thus in all effectiveness, I am in favor of adding a phrase that migrated to the Brahmaputra valley.Winged Blades^Godric 04:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the suggestion. However I still find the words “distanced from” or “in the absence of” to be a better reflection of the sourced material than “free of”, it also ensures the sentence will not be mis-interpreted.

For example, one may read it as the Ramgharia of the Brahmaputrin valley being slaves of their Jat landlords. I.e. A slave become ‘free of’ his master, A prisoner becomes ‘free of’ prison

I do not believe the source makes any reference to all of the Ramgharia of the Brahmanputrin Valley having all Jat landlords, they were mostly Jat according to the above source.

One source, the linked in my previous post, makes no reference to ‘landlords’ at all, it states in the absence of Jat Sikhs they were able to claim the highest social status in the local area.

I acknowledge, they were previously of low social status and were able to claim the “highest social ranking” in the absence of the Jat Sikhs as per the above source.

Hence,

The sentence:

"Free from their socially superior Jat landlords of the Punjab, the once-lowly Ramgarhia"

Should change to:

“In the absence of the Jat Sikhs in the Punjab, the Ramgarhia of the Brahmaputrin valley who were previously considered of low social status were able to enhance their own socio-economic standing and claim the highest social ranking amongst local Sikhs through these mutually advantageous relationships with the British”

Some Sourced Material Reflected in the above sentence:

“The new habitat also enabled them to claim a higher social Status by putting their inferior rural social position to the background”

“In the absence of Jats, Ramgarhias slipped into the Jat position and claimed the highest social ranking among local Sikhs which was inconceivable in contemporary Punjab.

Thanks,

Johnsimpson321 (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• • How'bout

    Distant/Free from their landlords in Punjab, who mostly comprised of the socially superior Jats, the diaspora, that migrated to the Brahmaputra valley were able to utilise these mutually advantageous relationships with the British to enhance their socio-economic standing to the extent of claiming the highest social-tier amongst local Sikhs, thus shunning their once-lowly social status.

    Winged Blades^Godric 14:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • One source is sufficient enough.We combine data from sources, without delving into synthesis.Winged Blades^Godric 14:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Begin with the word ‘distanced’ instead or ‘free of’, ‘humble’ instead of ‘lowly’, as quoted below and I find this acceptable.

“Distanced from their landlords in the Punjab, who mostly comprised of socially superior Jats, the diaspora, that migrated to the Brahmaputra valley were able to utilise these mutually advantageous relationships with the British to enhance their socio-economic standing to the extent of claiming the highest social-tier amongst local Sikhs, thus shunning their once-humble social status.”

Thanks, Johnsimpson321 (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Humbled--We ain't writing hagiographic style! Low is Low. Winged Blades^Godric 15:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, So I take it we agree on the following?

“Distanced from their landlords in the Punjab, who mostly comprised of socially superior Jats, the diaspora, that migrated to the Brahmaputra valley were able to utilise these mutually advantageous relationships with the British to enhance their socio-economic standing to the extent of claiming the highest social-tier amongst local Sikhs, thus shunning their once-lowly social status.”

Johnsimpson321 (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I am a bit hazy over distant/free and could not choose.Rest is OK to me.@Sitush and Utcursch:--Any comments?Winged Blades^Godric 15:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These proposals are becoming far too complex. The last one above (now last but one due to edit conflict) is a very complex statement of something very simple. We're not lawyers and we can cover the bases without so much fine print and convolution. They were low status in Punjab by any Sikh community's standards, not just the Jats; in Assam, without the Jat Sikhs being in the same localities, they were able to reinvent themselves. That last proposal is moving so far away from the basics that it is making a mockery of the situation. I think the pair of you need to rewind to somewhere around 6 or 7 hours ago above. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm...In fairness, mostly makes little sense.So, my new proposal stands:--

Free from their socially-superior Jat landlords in Punjab, the diaspora, that migrated to the Brahmaputra valley were able to utilize these mutually advantageous relationships with the British to enhance their socio-economic standing to the extent of claiming the highest social-tier amongst local Sikhs, thus shunning their once-lowly social status.

--How do you think?Winged Blades^Godric 16:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, however I still think the following is truer to the sourced text:

“Distanced from their landlords in the Punjab, who mostly comprised of socially superior Jats, the diaspora, that migrated to the Brahmaputra valley were able to utilise these mutually advantageous relationships with the British to enhance their socio-economic standing to the extent of claiming the highest social-tier amongst local Sikhs, thus shunning their once-lowly social status.”

As, If I remember correctly, the source stated that the Jat Sikhs migrated out of the region, as the British influence grew. (I will add the passage below shortly), hence ‘Distanced from’ or ‘In the absence of’ is more appropriate.

I also believe the passage should state they ‘mostly comprised of socially superior Jats’ as this is truer to the sourced text. Perhaps ‘a large portion of whom consisted of Jat Sikhs’. (I will again add the sourced text below shortly)

Johnsimpson321 (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I choose to take simplicity over your nitpicking about trivial details.No reader is going to be ever too bothered about whether our phrase means that Jats were the landlords of 100% of the Ramgarhia population or not.As Sitush said, we aren't lawyers.Winged Blades^Godric 16:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand, but consider this the source states that they “mostly consisted of Jat landlords’, by simplifying we risk mis-representing the original source.

Johnsimpson321 (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

However after considering the above statement, if you are still not convinced, I don’t mind a compromise. To the following: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsimpson321 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Now distant from their landlords in Punjab, who were mostly Jat Sikhs, the Ramhgarhia diaspora in the Brahmaputra Valley of Assam were able to enhance their previously low social status That's all we need. The next sentence is already in the article. Let's get back to basics. There is nothing Johnsimpson321 can say that will persuade me that we need anything more, and I think Winged Blades is being sucked into a discussion of semantics that is unnecessary. I'm getting bored of this increasingly bizarre and tangled thread that, frankly, hasn't produced a single grammatically correct proposal today and seems to be a series of never-ending edit conflicts. So unless you two come to some arrangement soon you'll find yourselves in a stalemate. (You can't keep pinging people to join in etc, btw.) - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I am quite surprised to find the last sentence remaining in the current version.I seem to have been under the impression that the entire line has been removed! Bad eyes:)But, your proposed sentence without being coupled with the latter fails to look any cohesive.So, my last proposal would be:--....the tea plantations in Assam.Now distant from their landlords in Punjab, who were mostly Jat Sikhs, the diaspora, that migrated to the Brahmaputra valley were able to utilize these mutually advantageous relationships with the British to enhance their previously low social status and improve upon their socio-economic standing to the extent of claiming the highest social-tier amongst local Sikhs.The lessons learned.... as the entire paragraph. Winged Blades^Godric 17:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Sitush, we should end this

Godrics orginal sentence below, is okay with me. So this is the one which will stand

Free from their socially-superior Jat landlords in Punjab, the diaspora, that migrated to the Brahmaputra valley were able to utilize these mutually advantageous relationships with the British to enhance their socio-economic standing to the extent of claiming the highest social-tier amongst local Sikhs, thus shunning their once-lowly social status.

Johnsimpson321 (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

So you agree with me and then immediately propose something else? Make your mind up, please. FWIW, I will not accept your last effort: it is convoluted almost to the point of gibberish. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Godrics last one, the one I restated above.

Johnsimpson321 (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, you did agree with me and then changed your post massively. I am fed up of this. Whatever you two decide, it will end up being as near as dammit my version within a few weeks because neither of you are writing decent English and both of you are drifting from the sources. I am out of here: fed up of you both and in particular of the extent to which you are both rapid-fire commenting here, which is effectively making it impossible for anyone else to get a word in edgeways. It's like I'm dealing with two people with ADD or something. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Listen, me and Godric are in agreement. This should be the final edit:

Free from their socially-superior Jat landlords in Punjab, the diaspora, that migrated to the Brahmaputra valley were able to utilize these mutually advantageous relationships with the British to enhance their socio-economic standing to the extent of claiming the highest social-tier amongst local Sikhs, thus shunning their once-lowly social status.

This is the last time you will hear from me.

Johnsimpson321 (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

We aint anymore.

Summary

• I proposed Now distant from their landlords in Punjab, who were mostly Jat Sikhs, the Ramgarhia diaspora in the Brahmaputra Valley of Assam were able to enhance their previously low social status.
• Johnsimpson proposed Distanced from their landlords in the Punjab, the Ramgarhia of the Brahmaputra valley were able to utilize these mutually advantageous relationships with the British to enhance their socio-economic standing to the extent of claiming the highest social-tier amongst local Sikhs, thus shunning their once-lowly social status.
• Winged Blades says ....plantations in Assam.Now distant from their landlords in Punjab, who were mostly Jat Sikhs, the diaspora, that migrated to the Brahmaputra valley were able to utilize these mutually advantageous relationships with the British to enhance their previously low social status and improve upon their socio-economic standing to the extent of claiming the highest social-tier amongst local Sikhs.The lessons learned....

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)

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)

@Kautilya3: 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)

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)

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)

Ah, it's on the same page of the same source, if you can see it? - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I am satisfied. :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramgarhia#:~:text=The%20Ramgarhia%20are%20a%20community,the%20Lohar%20and%20Tarkhan%20subgroups. Empire HP (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarkhan_(Punjab)#:~:text=The%20Tarkhan%20is%20a%20group,the%20Vishwakarma%20community%20of%20India. Empire HP (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarkhan Empire HP (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

All articles merge into one Empire HP (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

June 2023

@Ranveer89jng: The content you are removing here, here and here are sourced. See [1]. And this is the stable version of the article. If you want it changed you would need a WP:CONSENSUS here. Do not edit war. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• fixed year above - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Send me your number why are u givin wrong information to all Ranveer89jng (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ranveer89jng: Information is sourced, and I'm keeping it that way. And if you are trying to threaten me, I'd say refrain from such activity, otherwise you'll get blocked. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh bulshit if don’t know the proper information then why are u post and edit again again

Ramgharia is synonymous of tarkhaan

and tarkhaans are mistri singhs (engineer singhs) Ranveer89jng (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ranveer89jng: Wikipedia articles rely on WP:RS sources. The current content writes exactly what the accompanying source says. Wikipedia doesn't work on personal whims, mine or yours or anybody else's. See WP:V. And maintain WP:CIVIL while we are discussing. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The source page 84 specifically mentions → "...Arora, Ramgarhia (Lohar and Tarkhan), Parjapat.... Source and content matches, WP:VERIFIABILITY checked. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't be editing [2] in the middle of a discussion. See WP:EW, you might get blocked. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)