Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhat

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. It looks like there is a content dispute about how the Bhat and Bhatt and/or similar topics relate to each other, and this can be resolved by merging and redirecting as may be needed following talk page discussion. Sandstein 20:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhat[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm completing this request for an IP, which created the AFD at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bhat. Nyttend (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is the point of having this article when Bhatt and Bhatra articles are already in place. This article is connecting totally different communities which are geographically, linguistically and socially totally distinct from each other and on top of that there are separate pages available on some of the communities in wikipedia put under this article. What is the purpose of having a page on "Bhat" when the article itself claims that it is connected to "Bhatt" which already has its separate page on wikipedia. The article is also totally unable to provide reasons for putting pakistani community that uses "Butt" surname with indian communities which use "bhatt", bhatra or batra surnames. Such informatively false articles bring the credibility and repute of wikipedia down. I immediatley request the deletion of this non-sense page.--77.8.92.109 (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to/with Bhatt. Note that Bhat only is used in Pakistan and J&K, and this article contains additional Pakistan-related info not found in Bhatt. I'd dare to say, Bhat is better written that Bhatt! So, not sure which one should actually be deleted. A merge and redirect, possibly. kashmiri ^TALK 03:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide one example of a Pakistani who has "Bhat" as part of his official name, I searched on google for "Bhat pakistan" and I don't find even a single person with Bhat caste or surname on google images, "Bhat" is unheard in Pakistan and the claim made in this article about Butt being same as Bhat is quite offensive as a little google books research shows that Bhat or bhaat stood for menial minstrels and genealogy keepers.--77.8.65.241 (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Madras Journal of Literature and Science, Volume 4 states that "Bhatt (vulgarly Butt) is the distinctive name of a class of Bramins in the north". Similarly, the The Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society (Bangalore), Volume 96 states that "Even today most common family name in Kashmir is Butt, a distortion of Bhatt, a Hindu surname common amongst the Brahmins in India." Parvéz Dewân's Jammû, Kashmîr, and Ladâkh: Kashmîr in reference to Bhat/Butt, states that "This is a surname shared by Hindus and Muslims." Based on your comments, I sense that you are attempting to create an artificial divide between an ethnic group on the basis of religion and that is simply not acceptable on Wikipedia, especially when the article is loaded with scholarly references that delineate the exact opposite of what you posit. Moreover, Wikipedia does not accept original research either. You write that "no person in pakistan with surname Butt has any idea that what 'Butt' stands for, as for them it stands for 'Kashmiri', blame the simpilcity [sic] and ignorance of the folks of pakistan in these matters". I'm sure many people in Pakistan do know the origin of the surname and that is totally irrelevant on Wikipedia--in fact, our goal is to actually allow people to learn about topics such as this one! Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir you have failed to answer the concern raised by the above commentator that Bhat are actually menials minstrel bards and genealogy keepers Dictionary, Hindustani and English and there is no person in pakistan which has Bhat as his surname and the menial people such as Bhat simply share a common profession of other menials such as mirasi people. The inclusion of pakistani Butt kashmiri confederacy or super tribe in an article which actually stands for indian bards, mirasi or genealogists etc. which are simply called Bhat or Bhaat etc in india does not stand to any merit. What is the basis of discussing a distinct race of people of pakistani origin in this article is totally unjustified. --77.8.95.157 (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not failed to answer your question--I have provided multiple sources to buttress the origin of Bhat/Butt. On the other hand, you are confusing two different words with one another, Bhaat بھات (with a long "a" and voiceless dental stop), which your dictionary reference mentions, and the surname Bhat/Butt بھٹ or بٹ, which ends in a voiceless retroflex stop. These are two completely separate and unrelated words. Once again, your agenda here seems to be to divide an ethnic group on the basis of religion, which is simply unacceptable here on Wikipedia. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 06:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that you are unable to answer the concerns raised by the above commentator, perhaps you are a south indian person who does not have any clue about urdu pronunciation of the words , even the transliteration that you provided for Bhat and Butt forcibly combining them as Bhat/Butt shows that Bhat is in urdu written as بھٹ whereas Butt is urdu is written totally different as بٹ, these are totally different words when transliterated into urdu. You are also making an unfounded claim here that Bhat is some kind of ethnicity which is totaly baseless , I believe you don't have any clue what the word Ethnic group means before making such claims about a profession designation which Bhat is which is a bard or genealogist Observation of I.C.S. Officers and Others Since 1881, also have a look at Memoir of Central India, Including Malwa and Adjoining Provinces, another source stating the same is Rajputs of Saurashtra and there are other countless sources available on google books. Now provide me one reference which states that Butt tribe of Pakistan has ever been engaged in the profession of Bard or genealogist carried out by "Bhat", such profession in pakistan were taken by people who are called Mirasi in Pakistan and are a distinct menial group. And you are also unable to provide any example of a person from Pakistan who has Bhat as a surname, you are just beating around the bush instead of giving proof that there is a so-called "Bhat" ethnic group in pakistan when "Bhat Pakistan" google research brings nothing because no such group exists in pakistan. You are bringing religion in almost every post of yours, I did not know wikipedia was a place where people should be discussing religions and emotional rhetoric instead of maintaining a non-emotional neutral posture.Pakistani548 (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As suggested by User:Kashmiri above, the article titled Bhatt should me merged with this one, Bhat. The nomination, by the anonymous IP address, is ridiculous, as the article is heavily sourced, explaining the history and origin behind the caste. The article about Bhatra, which was referenced by the nominator, is a separate topic, which deals with Sikh descendants. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 09:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit google books research shows that "Bhat" were genealogy keepers or minstrel mirasi or bhands, same is the case with bhatra who are musician minstrels affiliated with sikh religion, these were professional designations.--77.8.65.241 (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bhat is equivalent to Bhaat , these were geneology keepers and also engaged in menial minstrel position, these are totally unrelated people in different states of india and there is no genetic connection between them. There has been a tendency on wikipedia to connect different communities that don't share language, culture or geography to put under the same banner merely based on a term describing their profession. As for as Brahmin priests/scholars are concerned Bhatt is a more proper term to describe them as it does not sound similar to "Bhat" or "Bhaat" minstrels. As for as Pakistani people using surname Butt are concerned they are simply kashmiri tribe/race and Butt merely is used by the kashmiris in pakistan the same way as Khan is used for all pashtuns. Pakistanis don't have a caste conscious society and no person in pakistan with surname Butt has any idea that what "Butt" stands for, as for them it stands for "Kashmiri", blame the simpilcity and ignorance of the folks of pakistan in these matters. Butt in pakistan is not a caste but rather a collection of tribes (every kind of kashmiri muslims migrant to pakistani punjab) of kashmiri origin who are all called Butt for convenience reasons. This stems from the highly tribal society of pakistan on the same pattern as the pashtun society of afghanistan where tribal confederations such as Durrani or Ghilzai are all encompassing collection of large collection of tribes with similar cultural and geographical origin. Butt in pakistan should also be understood in the same context as it is merely considered a convenient way of describing a large collection of kashmiri peoples settled in pakistani punjab. It is a complex issue and perhaps out of context for an article on "Bhat" or "Bhaat" who are nothing but merely menial minstrels and seem to be equivalent to "Mirasi" or "Bhand" people in pakistan.--77.8.65.241 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Bhat are indeed genealogy keepers akin to minstrel mirasi, a little google search brings a plethora of references and sources that state that Bhat is equivalent to genealogy keepers in india, the article in its current form is thus totally fallacious. --77.8.95.157 (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WATCH OUT - the only three "delete" votes are from the same IP address range and, doubtless, the same editor. kashmiri ^TALK 17:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Agree with the recommendation, any reference to pakistan must be removed from this article or better completely delete this fallacious page. From the responses aboove it seems like the user Anupam does not subscribe to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies. --Pakistani548 (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC) — User:Pakistani548 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Welcome, IP editor, now editing through a WP:SPA!

It is highly unfortunate that the user Anupam or kashmiri has resorted to WP:SPA tagging to my account because they have no arguments to counter my questions.--Pakistani548 (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, you say it was you who asked those questions? Well, thank you for clear admission - but we anyway knew that you and the above IPs are the same person.

As to the content, in my opinion you have failed to provide any justification why this article should deleted - and should not be, say, merged with Bhatt. Repeating that Bhats were minstrels and different from Kashmiri Bhats ("Butts") is not really an argument for deletion, even though, if properly referenced, this information could certainly be incorporated into the article. Instead, you keep making personal attacks based on ethnic background or country/state of origin. Would you mind taking a look at WP:CIVILITY before posting another reply? kashmiri ^TALK 22:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, procedural. The nomination lacks any tangible policy-based argument for deletion. This is a content dispute and I must say that I find the nominators position to be laden with WP:AGENDA and supported by nothing more than blather and hand waving. In the event that he or she finds some evidence to support their position then edit the article accordingly. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 00:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the subject is declared in both articles to be a variant transliteration of the same family name; even if it has multiple origins, these should still be covered within one article. The "delete" opinions above can be ignored, as they are plainly the work of the same editor. – Fayenatic London 13:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear User:Bellerophon, User:Kashmiri and User:Fayenatic london: User:Pakistani548, the editor who has nominated the article for deletion (the same individual with the only delete vote here), has started to remove information from the article against consensus. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.