Talk:Sardarji joke

Criticisms?

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)

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)

This is abunch of trash write up by Hindus to demoralize Sikh youths. Sikhs are not even 2% of the total Indian population. But they are the most propserous, wealthy and successful. The ways sikhs are potrayed in jokes is shameful. Its the cheap Hindu mentality, who are not able to match the success of a minority community. Please deleted the Sardarji Jokes article from wikipedia. Its racial and hurts the religious identity of Sikhs, who are peace loving people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.189.195 (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Trash put up by bunch of Sikh-haters (Hindu/Brahmin perhaps). Shameful article which should be deleted. What is Wikipedia policy on such matters ? Especially since it pertains to a minority community, that constitutes only 2 % of India, and .033% of world population. Clearly, such minorities would be outnumbered when dealing with such issues (i.e., running their own campaigns on Wikipedia). How is Wikipedia supposed to ensure that minority sentiments are fully respected ??

Sardar jokes I guess not Sardarji

KnowledgeHegemony 10:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Smart Sardarji joke

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)

Complex

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)

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)

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)

Bihari Jokes reference

Dear Sikh History; I have appreciated your edits on this page; except for this addition on Bihari jokes on the second line of the article. I think, if it all it was to be added, it could have been added in the ending paras of the page.

And if you go through the history of this page, you would note that I have added my bit in making it more relevant and exhaustive.

I dont think you should have marked my deletions as "Censorship". Go through my blog at http://o3.indiatimes.com/sardarji/ to see that I have been objectively trying to take up this issue for a long time; including taking up the issue with the press.

I dont know why a stray remark by some Bihari gentleman that Bihari jokes have become more prevalant than Sikh jokes becomes a definitive statement on the issue; and you insist on making it a statement portraying a FINAL judgement on it; that Bihari Jokes "Greater than" Sardarji Jokes. Tell that to a Sikh child whose hairs were pulled today in school, you'll get your answer.

Anyway, I am not a religious fanatic, and I would insist that you go through my blog; understand the issue; and then withdraw the warning.

Issuing Warnings without understanding the issue is such a pathetic way of debate; something that our Indian society really misses.

Still you may add a Paragraph on Bihari jokes on this page if it satisfies you. Kulveer (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's still censorship. It mentions Sardarji jokes and is relevant. --Sikh-History 07:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It mentions "sardarji jokes", but it is not a definitive answer'. Your line is "the recent years, the jokes on the stereotypes of Biharis HAVE become more common than the Sardarji jokes." Does one line by an unknown gentleman become a definitive line with a "HAVE". You could have written "In recent years, the jokes on the stereotypes of Biharis ARE CLAIMED BY SOME TO BE more common than the Sardarji jokes." And this line should have been at the end of the article. Not in the introducing para; belittling the main premise of the article. I will crarify this once again. A REMARK BY ONE GENTLEMAN DOES NOT BECOME A FACT FOR ALL INDIA.

Again, this saddens me that you issued a warning without discussing the issue with me, while I had clearly outlined my premise in all deletions. Moreover, you removed me from the watchlist. I have been staying away from Wikipedia, except for a couple of issues I really feel passionately about. It is sad that you being a good editor on various other issues are using your familiarity with Wikipedia as a tool to beat other people into submission. More saddening is the point that I appreciate your work on Sikh History and yet fail to understand your insistence on this MINOR issue. I have NOT employed any censorship without valid reasons; and I refuse to acknowledge my guilt on this part. I might differ with you, but I respect your right to present your views.

I am re-positioning your line as a last try with the hope that you FINALLY try to understand a point of view that does not agree with yours. Kulveer (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please focus on the content and NOT the editor. Ok here is the situation. You remove X refrences from the article (that has been added not by me, but someone else in good faith). Someone else finds Y article offensive (for example a Hindu who finds the comments on Hindus here objectionable and detracting from the subject). Where does it end? Yes you got it, an edit war. Your job and mine is to balance articles with the references that we have here at hand, not to censor them. The Sikh Extremism and Bhaghat Singh articles are great examples of people trying to censor stuff, and others trying to create mischief. My experience of wikipedia is that people who try and cause mischief eventually get caught up in their own mischied (eg Sikh Extremism). So my advice to you is not focus attacks on editors. Do not censor references, but look to way to enhance articles. My own take on Sardarji Jokes has been confirmed by people like "Handoo", in that it is borne out of jealousy. Sikhs have a self confidence (Chardian Kalan), which transcends even the most darkest of periods, something which many communities cannot either get their heads around or are jealous of. Rather than trying to use it as an example to help their own communities, they denigrate it. Sikh's however, will always remain self confident and optomistic, and will not be dragged down to their level. If Bihari's jokes are taking over, then I am not really bothered, and if someone wants to make fun of my hair or appearance, then they better be ready for my rancor, wrath and have good medical insurance. Best Wishes.--Sikh-History 08:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I am in complete agreement with you on this. Finally we have a meeting point. I dont think it is about Hindus and Sikhs; but about being subjective and true to the subject, even if the fact is unpleasant to one's own belief. And the fact that one Bihari feels that his community is being targeted more than Sikhs; does not change facts. Anyway, nobody has done a census on these jokes to say with conviction as to which is more popular. It is in this sense that I had tried to remove a subjective statement by somebody, which was being projected as a FACT by the sentence which stated that Bihari jokes HAVE become more popular than Sardar joke. Also,with respect to Handoo et.al; some of these references have been added by me. An extensive work on Ethnic jokes have been done by me on the Ethnic Joke Page.

Now, I have relocated the citation so as to keep the line intact but to emphasise it as an 'related' topic. Also, in my deletions I had tried to be subjective to the content and NOT to the editor, and I had never made a personal attack on anybody; however I was forced into a personal arguement by your 'Warning' to me for Censorship; a charge that I disagree with still. If your Wikipedia allows you to withdraw that warning, I would axpect a withdrawal; because I respect all that Wikipedia stands for.Kulveer (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I know this is a touchy topic, but all of us (Kulveer, Sikh-history and me) here are/respect Sikhs and want this article to serve as an educational piece. There's no use turning this article into a propaganda piece, because that would reduce its credibility and make people feel that it's just plain biased. So let's avoid POV, weasel words and undue weight. Also, have a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. utcursch | talk 15:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Utcursch for your timely insight into the matter. Thanks Sikh-History for withdrawing the warnings. Really appreciate. Wikipedia is a great boon to objective presentation; and with people like you both, the world can hopefully be a better place. It is however a matter of no litte importance that on Google a search on "Sardarji Jokes" lists this Wiki Page at no.1, well before the list of some pathetic joke sites. Kulveer (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

12 O' clock joke

User:Sikh-history is consistently adding Hindu women in the 12 O'clock section, whereas the source doesn't say that all.Winston786 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually it clearly staes here:""..When Hindus crack this joke, they are oblivious to the fact that had the Sikhs not intervened, their womenfolk would have been dishonoured and taken into exile", said Singh from here. Their women folk are not Hindu? Thanks --SH 13:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Its an opinion by Preetinder Singh,what he writes about the event is, "His troops reached Delhi, where they killed 1.5 lakh people, both Hindus and Muslims. He headed homewards almost immediately, taking back incredible loot gold, jewelry, elephants, horses, camels, skilled labourers and, as is usual in war, women."...I can't see any categoric mention of HINDUS there. Winston786 (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a WP:Verifiable source, so you cannot just get rid of it because you don't like it. Thanks --SH 13:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

There is not even a question of liking it. It just doesn't say that. Winston786 (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You are trying to WP:Lawyer. Here are more links:

1. here
2. here
3. here
4. here

I can go on. Thanks --SH 13:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Also see page 91 here. Thanks--SH 14:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop adding poor sources. Sources must adhere to Wikipedia's reliability policy. Winston786 (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Err no, this is pure WP:Pettyfogging of the issue. Thanks --SH 14:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This one doesn't say this at all. Winston786 (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually it does, read page 91. Thanks --SH 14:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Page 91 is not available on the given source. Winston786 (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ofcourse it is here, scroll down.--SH 15:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it doesn't go below page 33. Winston786 (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the Sikhs rescued a lot of Hindu women, but seriously, why do we need a childish edit war for this? The section already states the word "Hindu" five times, and there is no need for a WP:SYNTHESIS to prove a point. utcursch | talk 05:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Up until this particular editor started removing the wording it never was an issue.When I was a child, growing up in Haryana ( ny family is Hindu btw although I am Sikh), I woul hear stories of the Sardars snatching captive Brahmin women ( who were particularly fair and see as a prize) being snatched away by the Sardars to be repatriated with families. So I though notthing of this edit. I guess I shouldn't have changed the title. Thanks--SH 08:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Contentious editing

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 ([1][2]) 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)

"Section of Sikhs" or all Sikhs

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've quoted the article, so stop edit warring "members of the Sikh community". Thanks--SH 12:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

But you do not have consensus. - Sitush (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Proposal. Change Sardarji jokes are considered tasteless and inappropriate by a section of Sikhs. to Sardarji jokes are generally considered tasteless and inappropriate by Sikhs and community leaders have been reported as complaining about them. - cite both the newspaper article already in place and the source mentioned by ProfitofTruth (with page number, please). - Sitush (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

'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)

"by members of the Sikh community" sounds fine in English English as well. Thanks--SH 16:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think that we should wait for Sikh-history, given the circumstances. I'm unlikely to be around much over the next couple of days unless I can get mobile broadband to work in the wilderness, so if Sikh-history is ok with it then feel free to make the change. Thanks for your patience (both of you) regarding this issue which, I am sure, must seem trivial to some. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's go with the Profitof Truth version. Thanks--SH 08:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Irish and Sardarji jokes

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)

Santa Banta derived from Satwant Singh and Beant Singh

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)

Page move

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)

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)

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)

In wikipedia we have a certain style. It does not matter what aspects of the subject are covered in an article about a certain subject, we cannot make its title arbitrarily long. By following your logic, a still better title would be Racism in India and Sardarji joke and censorship in India, which is clearly an overkill. The article is about Sardarji joke, and under this title it may cover everything related to Sardarji jokes. (You might want to compare it with the article "Polish joke", which is nearly complete about racism associated with such jokes.) There is an article, Racism in India. You are more than welcome to expand it basing on the Sardarji joke issues. Your suggested title is actually a subtopic of the general topic, "Sardarji joke". To handle subtopics, in wikipedia there is a guideline called "Wikipedia:Summary style". However it is applicable when a subtopic is large enough to make a separate article. In our case, the article is rather small and does not need to be split in two. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 "{{rename}}"; see Wikipedia:Requested moves for more explanations. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Please don't move page without proving your point. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Fallacious understanding

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)

(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)

So the explanation of the word "Sardar", and providing a link to the article Sardar is not central to an article that deals with Sardar joke series ? What would be your IQ, I wonder ?

Any what reference you want ? I did not add any unsourced material anyway. All I said in my edits was that Sardarji jokes refer to jokes made on Sardars (which is an infinitely more accurate description than saying that Sardarji jokes are jokes on Sikhs. Why? Because only Sikhs do not use the title Sardar, and I already pointed to your own Wikipedia article on Sardars for that. Is that very hard for you and your fellows to understand ? Who made you the editors of Wiki ? Damn, there needs to be an IQ level check before appointing folks here.)

Since you have not responded to my message, I am going to go ahead and edit the page. The other "editor" who was reverting my edit earlier "appears" to agree with me now.

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)

It is not my POV. It is a factually correct description. Rather, the description as of now, which you keep reverting to, is YOUR OWN POV. I will keep it very short for you: You are not following your own "rules" in the article being discussed here, which has actually been written as a blog, rather than what you proclaim ("based on reliable source"). Give me a reliable source for the very first sentence of this article "Sardarji jokes or Sardar jokes, are a class of ethnic jokes based on stereotypes of Sikhs"

Can you prove this ? Who gave you the authority to proclaim that the Sardarji jokes began as jokes made on Sikhs, and not on Sardars. Which one is more accurate description ? THINK before responding.

One of your editors wasted all my time trying to argue with my proposed changes, and then he just ran away without providing any closure. No wonder Wikipedia has zero credibility. Js82 (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

How Wikipedia protects minority rights & sentiments ?

Some of the material in this article (especially the introduction) seems like trash put up by bunch of Sikh-haters. What is Wikipedia policy on such matters ? Especially since it pertains to a minority community, that constitutes only 2 % of India, and .033% of world population. Clearly, such minorities would be outnumbered when dealing with such issues (i.e., running their own campaigns on Wikipedia). How is Wikipedia supposed to ensure that minority sentiments are fully respected ??

Some of the statements, that too placed in the very introduction, such as "Sardarji jokes are one of the most popular and widely circulated ethnic jokes in India and Pakistan" are outright demeaning. On the other hand, there is no mention in the introduction of the reasons behind propagation of these jokes (jealousy of Hindu and Brahmin majority of India). There is a very thin line between being open and propagating free speech (even when based on "reliable sources"), and being outright condescending to minorities and further propagating false myths and stereotypes. Wikipedia seems to be failing on this count. If anything, Wikipedia should be serving to denounce these stereotypes upfront, at the very beginning of the article. Rather, it is assumed that the reader would scroll down all they way and read the entire article.

Either the article should go, or edited. Otherwise, Wikipedia joins the chorus of other entities and organizations that only serve the purpose of the majority populations to subdue and suppress the minorities! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.49.242.34 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@IP: Its not about majority or minority, its all about sources. If you think Hindus are majority then still there are pages like Saffron terror. We write only those things which are relevant and sourced. There are also many pages which can "defame" particular "majority" religion, for example, Criticism of Mohammad, Criticism of Jesus, Islamic terrorism, Christian terrorism, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Hinduism. So you don't take it personally. You are asking for "minority rights", now should people ask for "rights of majority"? And as far as ethnic jokes are concerned there are many such pages on ehthnic jokes. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  18:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there any other editor that can respond ? No offense, but I do not wish to discuss further with you, given my previous experience. You again went off on a tangent, rather than addressing the issue I raised about the way this article has been written (Specifically, the unfair/biased/incomplete introduction, which should be edited.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.49.242.34 (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It is just my good faith that at least I'm responding to you, otherwise no one will reply your racist comment where you abused some community. I just respected your sentiments and replied you to just satisfy you in some extent. No one take seriously racist comments, ideally your comment should have been removed from this talk page, but instead of removing it I responded you in rather sensible manner. And you will not get any different reply from any other editor. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  21:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

{edit conflict} Wikipedia's goal is to write encyclopedia. It does not have any political goals. We don't protect anybody's rights. We do protect sentiments, within the reason, by our policy WP:NPOV, which, in part, disallows offensive or in any other way biased language. That said, please explain which exactly statements you find incorrect. Please explain why the first sentence you find demeaning and who is offended by it. Please specify which sources discuss the reason behind propagation of these jokes. Of course all offensive jokes are based on some negative feeling. Neutral, encyclopedic description of jokes does not mean propagation of these negative stereotypes, just like the article Racism does not propagate racism. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I have been watching this debate from the sidelines and I am happy to echo what Staszek Lem said. We did not create this subject. It exists out in the society and is described in scholarly sources. We are not trying to make fun of anybody or impinge on anybody's "rights." We attempt to describe the phenomena as they exist from a neutral point of view. The requests that are being made to delete this article will certainly not be honoured because they are against Wikipedia policies. (You can try. There is an WP:AfD procedure for it.) However, if you believe the article deviates from the neutral point of view, you can raise the issue, we will try to fix it as best as we can. You should also take seriously Human3015's point about racist remarks. Assuming good faith is a fundamental tenet of participating in Wikipedia. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Human3015, you can keep your good faith and respect to yourself. I don't want any of that from you.

Kautilya, your tone is quite condescending. It seems you have your pre-conceived notions and therefore engaging in a debate with you seems pointless to me. Further, you speak as if you are the owner of Wikipedia. I suggest you be more understanding and respectful if you wish to do a good job being an editor here.

Staszek Lem: I will come to this particular topic in a while. First, let me argue on a more "philosophical basis" regarding how Wikipedia could be hurting minority sentiments and rights. You say that Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia (which aims to present information as available through reliable sources, I presume). Now, in an open world, taking for example the case of Sikhs, who comprise only 0.03 % of the world population (or 2% of India), it is very likely that an encyclopedic forum such as Wikipedia is going to represent the view points of the majority community (taking e.g., Hindus in India who are more than 80%, so there are 40 Hindus for each Sikh). Simply because there are 40 of the majority for every 1 of the minority, the open world by default is bound to promote a majority point of view. As a consequence (an unintended consequence, perhaps), Wikipedia, which portrays itself to be nothing but a reflection of the open world, would do nothing more that furthering the majority view, in effect suppressing and subduing the minority voice further. It is in this spirit that I raise the question of "what policies does Wikipedia have in place to monitor that minority sentiments are respected". Without any such stringent practice in place, Wikipedia would be doing nothing but abetting the vicious cycle of the majority voice drowning the minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.156.91.176 (talk • contribs)

Utcrush tried to divert the discussion, posting irrelevant material here which I have deleted to keep this discussion on track. I have responded to him on his talk page.

Continuing my post above, and coming now to this particular topic, I as a minority member, feel offended by statements such as "Sardarji jokes are one of the most popular and widely circulated ethnic jokes in India and Pakistan". As I said, this is outright demeaning, and I don't think it serves any purpose to include material like this, that too at the very introduction of the article. I would like this statement to be removed.

Further, as I said in the very first post on this topic, the introduction to the article contains no mention of the actual reasons behind the propagation of these jokes (At a latter stage, there is detailed mention of some potential reasons being jealousy of Hindu and Brahmin majority of India, which is appreciated). However, I propose including some mention of this in the introduction, since as I said before, the reader may not scroll down all the way. The way the article is written right now, a reader that just reads the introduction and does not bother going further (which I suspect a vast majority of Wiki readers may do), would derive the following gist from this article "these jokes are made on Sikhs, these are most popular in India, Sikhs don't like it (no wonder !)". Nothing, absolutely nothing, about the reasons why these jokes are/were propagated.

If one of the editors wants to take my concerns into account and modify the article's introduction, I would welcome that. Alternately, I can also propose some text for the introduction (But only if that is an acceptable way to proceed here, since I don't want to waste my time drafting an introduction if it is anyway going to be deleted.)

Thank you.

Sardarji jokes being among the most popular in India, however unfortunate, is a fact, supported by a reference. The line establishes why the article is notable. The intro also mentions that these jokes are considered tasteless and inappropriate by Sikhs. It doesn't say that cracking Sardarji jokes is a good thing. I don't see how it is "demeaning". That's like saying "facts on widespread discrimination against Dalits will offend low-caste Hindus", or that "content on widespread persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany will offends the Jews".

As for your "Brahmin majority" bogie, no reference even mentions Brahmins. Before accusing others of having "pre-conceived notions", please read your own comments. (On a side note, Brahmins form ~5% of India's population: they are a minority, and by your own logic, your version of the intro would offend them).

Jawaharlal Handoo talks about jokes originating due to anxiety among non-Sikhs, but there are multiple references which say that many of the self-deprecatory jokes had been made up by the Sikhs themselves. If you want to expand the intro, please include that as well. Handoo also mentions in detail the offensive traits of Sardarji jokes -- a larger summary should include that as well.

Nobody would mind an expansion of the intro, but please don't cherry pick the portions you like and don't add your own anti-Brahmmin propaganda. Same with talk pages comments - don't delete or dismiss what you don't like. And no, I'm neither a Brahmin (not even any other "high caste"), nor a Hindu; so, please don't play the "minority oppression" card. utcursch | talk 05:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no interest in knowing who you are. So don't bother personalizing the issue and taking it off topic. Also, you continuously keep harping on me playing the "minority card" (whatever that means). All I did was ask how Wikipedia protects minority rights (based on "sound" logic that I have explained above, which, if you bother to read rather than spouting diatribes at me continuously, would make it evident to you that without having some stringent practice in place, it is highly likely that Wikipedia would be nothing but a reflection of the majority view.) Your personal attacks on me only go to show your own insecurities. Keep attacking me further, but I will not respond or address this issue again hereafter.

The very fact that you want other aspects to be covered as well (i.e., "many of the self-deprecatory jokes had been made up by the Sikhs themselves") in an expanded intro, in addition to the anti-Sikh feelings/insecurities of the majority population as being the reason for propagation of these jokes, reveals your true intentions. Why should I bother to include that ? All I know about Sikhs making up these jokes themselves is Khushwant Singh's Santa-Banta jokes (correct me if I am wrong, but I don't even know if he called them Sardarji jokes; Santa Banta can be any two characters, not necessarily Sardarjis.) And even these came out only in the last few decades. Why should this be given prominence in the introduction? In any case, I would go ahead and edit the introduction as I deem just. You can further edit it the way you want.

As to your remarking on the "most popular aspect" being "unfortunate", kindly refrain from showing unwarranted and unneeded empathy. Absolutely not needed.

In any case, it is insulting, and I do not see any point in having it included. Whether it makes the page "notable" or not is highly dubious; check the Pathan joke page, for example, I do not see similar attempts being made there to justify the notability of the page, so by your own logic, that page fails to pass the notability check.

Oh, and FYI, I have no anti-Brahmin propaganda here. Truth is my only agenda, and truth I shall seek and propagate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.156.91.176 (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

So, what do you think my "true intentions" are?

Since you mention Khushwant Singh, here is a direct quote: "At one time (before 'Operation Blue Star') Sikhs rightly boasted of manufacturing the best of Sardarji jokes." Maybe you would also want to explain Khushwant Singh's "true intentions".

utcursch | talk 06:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Lol..conveniently you ignore to respond to the remaining issues (amongst others, one of them being - "most popular" as being reason enough for "notability", regardless of it hurting minority sentiments, and regardless of my showing you very similar ethnic jokes page examples that should not be therefore passing your own specified notability metric;)

And since you asked for it, your true intentions seem to be focused on exploiting the editorial privileges that have been granted to you in order to propagate your own personal biased agenda, which seems to be based on nothing else but some quotes taken from the writings of a certain "Sikh" author who himself openly claimed to be a non-believer in majority of Sikh principles, and not surprisingly one who did not command much, if any respect amongst a vast majority of the Sikh population. There you go, now please do not come back to thank me for this, I am just doing my duty trying to reveal some hidden truths here :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.156.91.176 (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't detract into discussion of wikipedian's intentions. Please discuss the article. Please provide arguments based on cited reference. We know that controversial topics are usually described differently by different sides. Wikipedia policy is neutrality, i.e., important points of views must be covered in a reasonably balanced way. If you have quotes that represent the point you want to make, please provide it here, and we shall discuss. In wikipedia the importance of "minority" vs. "majority" is not determined by headcount of total population. Please realize the basic wikipedia policy: Wikipedian's personal opinions cannot be basis of article content. While the discussion above may be interesting to understand each other, in terms of creating article they are of tl;dr type. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand your points. Some of the discussion here has been related to this article (e.g., incomplete introduction), while some of the other points I make are more general in nature, and intended to trigger some debate on why Wikipedia should have some rules in place to protect minority rights and sentiments. As long as it makes some of the people here think along those lines, I think my purpose on posing these arguments would be served to some extent.

Coming back to this article, as discussed above in detail, I would prefer to widen the introduction of this article. I'm not going to add any new material, just add content to the intro based off on whatever has already been mentioned in the following sections, so this should not raise any alarms (I hope !). If indeed someone has any issues, I would appreciate if you do not completely revert back my edits, but rather propose/make your own edits, and we can discuss further if needed.

I do also believe that a reference to the meaning of the word "Sardar" is crucial for this article. I understand some people may not agree with this, but I would try to word it carefully so as to bring out the relevance, while being neutral and based on references where needed.

Thank you. 50.156.91.176 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@IP: I think comment of admin Utcursh that you deleted [3] was most suitable and correct advice for you. You can't delete someone's comment from talk page unless it is clear vandalism. Anyway, meaning of that comment was, you have certain views about sardarjee jokes and you condemn it, thats fine, and it is not only you but one can find many Sikh sardars condemn it. You just have to search statements like you made by another popular sardar, we can mention it in article that "xyz person condemned this jokes by stating this and this". And not necessarily sardar's statements but if you find non-Sardar's oppose to this jokes then that can be added. But person should be popular enough. At least that person should have article on Wikipedia or at least some news about him mentioned in reliable sources. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  07:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Although I do not wish to communicate with you, I would respond here (hopefully one last time). I do not know what you are saying above, and how it relates to all the discussion that this topic is about. But I am responding here to you since I just want to make sure you do understand what this discussion is about (simply about expanding the intro). I just made some edits to the intro, and I honestly hope YOU do not come in and revert things blindly. Just to save everyone's time and energy. 50.156.91.176 (talk)

Again you inserted original research and unsourced matter to article. Just to give tribute to your sentiments, I will not revert you for 10 minutes, I will revert your contribution after ten minutes. Thank you. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  08:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you mention in more detail. Which aspects of the revised intro are unacceptable ? Then I can discuss further with you. Stop being demeaning and sarcastic. It does not help you any way. Here is my revised intro:

Sardarji jokes or Sardar jokes, are a class of ethnic jokes in India. Although jokes about several ethnic stereotypes are common in India (e.g., Mallu Jokes, Bihari Jokes, Marwari Jokes, Sardarji jokes), the Sardarji jokes are the only category of jokes targeted towards a religious group (Sikhs; who use the title Sardar / Sardarji / Sirdar in India). Scholars assert that the widespread propagation of these jokes can be attributed to the "success-story" of the Sikhs (a prosperous people despite being a small minority), which took the form of a deep-rooted anxiety in the collective minds of the non-Sikh majorities especially the Hindus of India, leading to various stereotypes and the resultant joke cycle. [1] Sardarji jokes are generally considered tasteless and inappropriate by members of the Sikh community[1][2] and have recently begun to elicit strong protests, including court cases and arrests.

You should state from which book or newspaper you read this? Why we should believe that all you written is truth? --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  08:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I think there is some serious misunderstanding. Why don't we let some other people also come in and read this, and put forth their opinion. I am okay with any of the other folks who have been involved in this thread coming in and providing their input.

The only thing which needed a source ("Scholars assert that the ...... joke cycle") has been provided (reference 1; we can also add the Soumik Sen reference along with it.) The last sentence (on protests, court cases, etc) can also have some of the references which are alluded to later in the article. Besides that, what do you want ? PLEASE BE VERY EXPLICIT, rather than vague. IT WASTES MY TIME.

I don't want to say anything further to you at all, before others come in. You can do whatever you want in the meantime. 50.156.91.176 (talk)

Section break

• I will not revert his contribution as of now, I don't want his more curse, other editors please if you think that his edits are not good then please revert it. Thank you. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  08:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Annnnnndddd...my worst fears come true AGAIN. A NEW random dude jumps in and reverts the edits blindly, no justification provided. BOOM. Is there any order to this place ? It seems to me that reverting edits is a fashion here, everyone wants to exercise their power and keep reverting. I highly doubt this new person User:Onel5969 read any of the painful and lengthy debate that has taken place here prior to my edits.

I would urge any of the "Wikipedia must remain sane"-believing editors here to come forward and knock some sense in to this place. How on earth is one supposed to get anything accomplished here ??

Also, is there a way to lodge a complaint against any of the editors ? Or to downvote their actions somewhere? I would seriously like to question Onel5969 as to the effort he put in to understand what is going on here before deciding to exercise his powers and click "UNDO". Js82 (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

First, the only "blind editing" being done is by Js82, who apparently might also be editing under one or more IP sockpuppets (of which I have begun an investigation, it's not something that should be done). And no, I did not read any of your lengthy edits above prior to reverting. They were (and are) irrelevant to my revert. The current text is cited. Your edits are not. It's that simple. Other editors have patiently attempted to explain this to you. And yes, there are several different forums in which you can lodge a complaint. In this instance, I think the one which is most appropriate would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The instructions are pretty clear on how to do it on that page. Personally, I don't think you have much of a case. The editors here have been pretty clear in their explanations, and you appear to be engaged in attempting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. But feel free to make the attempt. Take it easy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, rather than your mumbo-jumbo, PLEASE EXPLICITLY STATE WHAT PORTIONS OF MY EDITS NEED CITATIONS. No vague "your edits are not cited" please.

And you yourself agreed that you are another one of trigger happy editors who don't bother to read any discussion, just jump in and "UNDO". It is possibly people like you who make Wikipedia editing a hellish experience. I suggest you learn to read more (than write and UNDO), as with another fellow editor here Human3015.

HERE is the text again. AGAIN, PLEASE BE EXPLICIT TO WHAT CITATIONS YOU WANT.

Sardarji jokes or Sardar jokes, are a class of ethnic jokes in India. Although jokes about several ethnic stereotypes are common in India (e.g., Mallu Jokes, Bihari Jokes, Marwari Jokes, Sardarji jokes), the Sardarji jokes are the only category of jokes targeted towards a religious group (Sikhs; who use the title Sardar / Sardarji / Sirdar in India). Scholars assert [1,7] that the widespread propagation of these jokes can be attributed to the "success-story" of the Sikhs (a prosperous people despite being a small minority), which took the form of a deep-rooted anxiety in the collective minds of the non-Sikh majorities especially the Hindus of India, leading to various stereotypes and the resultant joke cycle. Sardarji jokes are generally considered tasteless and inappropriate by members of the Sikh community[1][2] and have recently begun to elicit strong protests, including court cases and arrests ([2, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27]). Js82 (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

How on earth is one supposed to accomplish anything here? By first reading the links that I gave you in my welcome message, which you apparently deleted without bothering to read anything.

Please explicitly state what portions of my edits need citations. Every portion of every edit needs citations. See WP:RS.

You may be well-intentioned, and you may have a valid point. But, the way you are proceeding, you are heading for a block. So, please slow down and understand how Wikipedia works before attempting to change it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Mr. One5969 again did his UNDO job to the below text, which has all the citations in place. He should respond here openly and explicitly point out the issues he has with the below text.

Sardarji jokes or Sardar jokes, are a class of ethnic jokes in India. Although jokes about several ethnic stereotypes are common in India [1] (e.g., Bihari Jokes, Baniya jokes, Sardarji jokes, Mallu Jokes, Bengali Jokes), the Sardarji jokes are the only category of such jokes based on the stereotypes of a religious group (Sikhs; who use the title Sardar / Sardarji / Sirdar in India) [1]. Scholars [1] [2] assert that the widespread propagation of these jokes can be attributed to the "success-story" of the Sikhs (a prosperous people despite being a small minority), which took the form of a deep-rooted anxiety in the collective minds of the non-Sikh majorities especially the Hindus of India, leading to various stereotypes and the resultant joke cycle [1] [2]. Sardarji jokes are generally considered tasteless and inappropriate by members of the Sikh community [1] and have recently begun to elicit strong protests, including court cases and arrests.[3][4][5]

It is amazing how everyone here keeps pointing out issues that suit their arguments and keeps issuing me threats about blocking. However, no one ever comments on the suspicious and dubious behavior of their fellow editors. Not even the one to whom it is directed. The modus operandi here seems to be: UNDO --> EVADE ALL QUESTIONS --> UNDO ---> Leave the stage and let someone else come in and REPEAT. Way to go.

I do however acknowledge that some of the editors are more honest and forthcoming in their approach, such as Kautilya and Utcursh. They are doing a commendable job by actually responding to the issues being raised, rather than following the above mode of operation.

Js82 (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

If Mr. One5969 does not respond to the above post, I believe it is only but fair that I can revert his UNDO. I urge other editors to put forth their opinion on this. Js82 (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Js82, you don't really need citations in the intro if the lead section is a summary of content referenced elsewhere in the article. So, lack of citations is not much of a problem here. The issues are:

• Your text includes content that is not really supported by the citations. E.g. the claim that Sardarji jokes are the only ones based on stereotypes of a religious group is not supported by the reference. In fact, Handoo's article (which you used as a citation) explicitly states that there are jokes on Christians, Buddhists and Muslims as well (p. 160). We also have Parsi Bawa jokes and Hindu jokes -- they were just never as popular.
• In Handoo's 7-page article article, there is only one para where he mentions the bit about anxiety among non-Sikhs, starting his sentences with "I suspect...". Soumen Sen's article just cites Handoo (p. 11). Mentioning contentious opinions in intro is not a great idea. For the same reason, the lead doesn't include other opinions (e.g. that of Vir Sanghvi, who claims that Sardarji jokes are part of "good-natured Indian tradition").
• For the record, I agree with Handoo's interpretation to some extent (in fact I was the one who added Handoo as a reference to the article few years back). But even if we all agree on including this "deep-rooted anxiety" bit in the intro, you're cherry picking the content you want to see, and ignoring the rest (as I've mentioned earlier). Handoo states that the jokes are most popular in India, but you've removed that line. A major part of Handoo's article discusses 'traits' of Sardarji jokes in detail, but you don't want that in summary. There are multiple references (not just Khushwant Singh) that say that good-humored Sikhs have also contributed to Sardarji jokes, but you don't want that in intro either. For example, when Khushwant Singh says that Sikhs also cracked Sardarji jokes before Operation Bluestar, you dismiss him as someone who is not respected by Sikhs, and therefore, whose opinion doesn't count.

In short, other editors see your intro as POV pushing that aims to characterize this entire issue as a "successful Sikhs vs jealous non-Sikhs" thing, which is a very simplistic interpretation. Your caustic comments above have only added to that perception. utcursch | talk 04:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Utcursh, I respect your taking the time. I myself never really saw the point of citing content in the intro that has been cited subsequently in the article. However, if you read the preceding discussions, you would see that multiple "editors" here pointed out the lack of citations. Hence, I ended up wasting so much of my time just to respond to these people and then to add citations to the content. Now, you see, you have come back with another set of issues, which I fully understand. Before I respond to them, the preceding happenings certainly beg the question as to what is the mode of operation for getting something done here ? As you can see, two editors wasted so much of my time and energy taking the discussion in one (unnecessary) direction (that of the intro not containing citations). Now you come in, then who knows someone else would jump in ? Who all do I need to keep responding to ? Can somebody answer this question ? Basically, who decides when a consensus has been reached ? On a related note, are the people who are participating here (Kautilya, you, Human, 5659, etc) just editors like me ? Or do you people have any special privileges ? Js82 (talk) 05:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, when you first added the content, it didn't really include the citations (I believe, due to formatting issues), and the content was not present in the article body. So, lack of citations was a valid issue. After you added citations, Onel5969 was pretty clear in his/her edit summary: "can't simply add cites which already exist, but do not include this information".

As for privileges, no one has any special privileges when it comes to consensus-building. Some people are administrators (including me), and they have the ability to delete pages, block users etc. But they cannot block you simply because you've a different opinion. Nor do their opinions hold any extra weight. So, for example if I insist on adding the line "Scholars say Sardarji jokes are part of good-natured Indian tradition" to the intro, and Human3015 opposes me calling it POV, I can't have my way just because I'm an administrator.

Consensus is reached when there is generic acceptance. If a dispute persists even after discussions, you can resort to formal dispute resolution methods. utcursch | talk 05:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I do understand that consensus would be reached on generic acceptance. What I was asking was : What if based on this consensus, we agree to certain modifications, and then someone new jumps in and does "UNDO". He may not have been party to the process of consensus building. Would you/other editors/admins who would be involved in this consensus building come in on your own at that stage, and advise this new person ? Or would the onus be on me again to start another round of arguments with him/her ? So far, from my experience, the latter scenario appears more likely (although I hope it would be the former one; can you confirm ?), in which case it just beats the whole purpose of consensus building in the first place, since anyone can jump in again to UNDO.

And how some of you got to be Admins ? Who vested this power ? Is it based on the time you have put in here ? Js82 (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

If the person undoes the changes with an unreasonable rationale (e.g. "I don't like this"), his/her edits will be reverted. However, if someone has a valid objection, we've to repeat the consensus building exercise. Like I said, in case of a deadlock, we resort to dispute resolution process. In the worst case, contentious cases (e.g. those related to India-Pakistan, Israeli-Palestine etc.) end up at ArbCom.

Administrators are elected by the community: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. utcursch | talk 06:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. If we reach a consensus here, I hope you/others who are party to this, would keep an eye and revert subsequent unreasonable UNDOs.

Coming to the points you have raised:

-I am okay with removing the "only jokes based on stereotypes of religious group". I agree with you that Handoo mentions about others as well.

-I do not agree with your assertion of there being only one-para, and the implied conclusion you draw from it. First, half of page 160 and the entire page 161 focusses on these aspects (including going into "green revolution", "the simple and egalitarian character of Sikh religion", "no caste system" etc.) I am unable to see page 162 onwards, so not sure if those pages also contain relevant material. Even beyond all this, if you read the chapter from the very beginning (which I'm certain you probably already did), it would be apparent that this entire chapter has been written to uncover the reasons behind the propagation of these jokes (as opposed to others). Hence, in my opinion, the notion that Handoo only passingly makes these remarks is grossly incorrect. I would therefore continue to press for inclusion of these aspects in the introduction.

- Vir Sanghvi's take, to be very honest, is rather ridiculous. There is no way you can claim that making jokes on a minority community is part of a "good natured Indian tradition". If anything, this goes to cast a shameful character of the Indian tradition, and I am surprised that you seem to delve so much on this issue.

Js82 (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm mentioning Vir Sanghvi only to point out why contentious opinions are best avoided in lead. My main point here is: it's not appropriate to cherry pick the parts of Handoo's research you like and ignore the rest, or to ignore other content/references while preparing a lead summary (e.g. the bit about Sikhs also participating in this joke cycle before things went bad post-Bluestar). I'll let other editors chip in. utcursch | talk 14:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concern about cherry picking. But my whole intention of expanding the intro is to delve into the potential reasons behind the widespread propagation of this joke cycle (as compared to others). I don't understand how Vir Sanghvi's (ridiculous, not contentious) opinion comes into the picture. As far as Sikh/non-Sikh authors claiming/boasting of having made some of the best jokes, etc., I understand what you say, but again, I do not see any of them explicitly claiming that "this lead to the widespread pan-India propagation of these jokes". On the other hand, Handoo's claims are explicitly addressed towards this.

Note also that some of such ethnic jokes are almost always contributed to by people of the same ethnicity. I have come across many Mallus, Tamils, Bengalis, Baniyas, Marwaris, etc, who like to crack jokes on themselves. So, I don't believe some Sikh/non-Sikh authors pointing out similar instances with respect to Sardarji jokes is very peculiar. On the other hand, the widespread propagation of one category of jokes, as opposed to others, is peculiar, and deserves mention in the intro. This indeed appears to be the whole point of Handoo's study, if you read the chapter it in its entirety.

In any case, it is nothing but a DAMN joke. I don't see much value in spending so much time arguing all this. I would leave it to you to modify the intro, based on some of my edits, and based on what you argue. If you don't have the energy to do this, I would probably come back to make some edits, and hopefully those would have some consensus.

Js82 (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Since we are at it, I decided to put some more effort and have this proposed introduction. Let me know if this has consensus; your views on Sikhs contributing to these jokes as well have been included. (I did not put in any citations, but all of this can be cited, if needed.)

Sardarji jokes or Sardar jokes, are a class of ethnic jokes in India. Although there are several popular joke categories in India based on linguistic and regional stereotypes [1] (e.g., Bihari Jokes, Baniya jokes, Mallu Jokes, Bengali Jokes, Tamil jokes, Marwari jokes, etc), the Sardarji jokes are based off on stereotypes built around a religious group (Sikhs; who use the title Sardar / Sardarji / Sirdar in India) [1]. (Jokes based on stereotypes of other religions, such as Parsi jokes, Hindu jokes also exist, but are relatively uncommon.). Scholarly publications (from Hindu authors) assert that the widespread (pan-India) propagation of these jokes in India reflects on the success-story and the religious traits of the Sikhs (a prosperous people despite being a small religious minority; the simple and egalitarian nature of Sikh faith that rejects the Hindu caste system, Sikh dominance of the armed forces, etc.), which took the form of a deep-rooted anxiety in the collective minds of the non-Sikh majorities especially the Hindus of India, leading to various stereotypes and jokes. While some authors (including some Sikhs) point out the contributions of Sikhs to these jokes (alluding to their large-hearetd and self-confident nature, giving them the ability to poke fun at themselves), in general, Sardarji jokes are considered tasteless and inappropriate by members of the Sikh faith, and have recently elicited strong protests, including court cases and arrests.

If anyone has any concerns, I would appreciate if you can explicitly suggest what you propose to edit in this text.

Js82 (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Section break2

@Js82: Mentioning other less known jokes like "mallu jokes", "baniya jokes", "tamil jokes" etc in comparison with widely popular "Sardar jokes" is unfair. Moreover, "jokes are made due to success-story of sikhs" is just can be point of view. Why "Hindu jokes" are not famous among Sikhs? Why "Hindu jokes" are not famous in Pakistan? --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  22:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is it unfair ?? It shows that jokes are made on several ethnic stereotypes in India ? And "success-story" is not my POV. It is appropriately referenced from a book. Hindu jokes not being popular, is just a fact, also referenced from the book. In short, none of what is mentioned is my POV, just facts based on references. Thank you.

Js82 (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Js82 - First, please wait for consensus to be built before making any changes. You asked earlier who decides when consensus is reached - it is reached when the involved editors reach an agreement, based on policies and guidelines, not by an up and down vote. And please be patient - Consensus can take a week or two to be reached. Second, I have a pretty big objection to your proposed changes: It is ay too detailed for the lead, and gives undue weight for this subject. The current lead has the fact that Sikhs find this offensive, and that is appropriate for an article about the jokes themselves. The detail which you include should be in the section dealing with that, later in the article. I don't have access to the non-online source referenced, so I cannot speak to the veracity of the content you're inserting, so I'll let other editors discuss that (at least one does have access). If it's included in the existing sources, its okay to add, but opinion is WP:OR and shouldn't be added. Particularly potential contentious issues (such as the arrests) definitely need a citation. Since they are covered (and more importantly, cited), I think that fact definitely belongs in the lead. Please take a look at MOS:LEAD.

I think the majority of your edit would be appropriate in the "Reaction from the Sikh community" section, as a lead-in to the 3 subsections, as long as it is properly cited. I think the lead can be slightly expanded to strengthen the Sikh reaction, but not too much, something along the lines of "Sardarji jokes are generally considered tasteless and inappropriate by members of the Sikh community, and have elicited strong protests, as well as leading to several arrests." The rest, properly cited, should go into the other section. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I find it hillarious that all this while, me and Utcursh have been agreeing on having an expanded introduction, and we even discuss the additions to the Intro, and we do all that openly. Now, having done all that, having waited days, I go ahead and waste my time making some of those edits. Suddenly now, new editors jump in with their contrarian views on what should go in the Intro. (where were you when we were discussing these additions to the intro over the last several days). Utcrush (an ADMIN) has clearly mentioned in one of his posts that "no one would mind an expanded intro" and as I said, we clearly openly discussed the issues to highlight.

I hate to say again and again, but this place is really messed up.

My only hopes are Utcrush and to some extent, Kautilya. I urge you guys to step in and put an end to all this. I only have so much energy and time to spend here. Js82 (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, since I joined the discussion, I can't find where Utcursh agreed "on having an expanded introduction". I'll let them interpret their own words, however. Regardless, as per your recent edits, might I suggest you self-revert as a show of good faith until consensus is reached. You might want to read WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Please be patient, wait for other editors to give their viewpoints. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Who are you ? The all powerful all knowing superman, who can just jump in and not bother to read whatever has been discussed before that point ? Last time, you yourself agreed you just jumped in without reading. Now again, you jump in and yourself agree, ONCE AGAIN, that you have not bothered to read any of the prior discussion. And amidst all this, you have the temerity to initiate edit warring discussion against me. HOW AMAZING !! It is you whose behavior should rather be investigated. Alas, I have no interest wasting my time doing that.

While you are at it, Search for these words above : "Nobody would mind an expansion of the intro, but please don't " ... For your own sake, I would suggest you do some homework from now on. Thank you for your time.

And lol..I see that in your complaint against me, you also rile up edits from 7/22, the day I first entered in here, when I did not even know how things work here, had no clue about edit-warring, was already banned for that. You are using those edits to support your complaint ?? Again, you have enhanced your reputation one notch up : "Have no damn clue about what happened in the past. No worries, just jump in and start creating a mess".

Js82 (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead section - again.

Js82 - Your edit is the minority opinion on this talk page. Last time you were asked to self-revert until consensus could be reached, and in a spirit of complete lack of cooperation, you refused to do so. Per WP:BRD, I've reverted to almost the original version, although I have added a sentence regarding arrests (which you had wanted), since I fell it's highly appropriate to include. Please do not edit war until consensus can be reached. You've been asked to be patient. Please be so, let's wait until we can get several more editors involved. If we don't get some responses in the next day or so, I'll list it on some project's talk page so as to get un-involved editors to comment. I also ask you to keep a civil tone. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Rather than participating in the above debate and answering the questions posed to you (after you randomly jumped in and engaged in an edit war without even bothering to read what has been discussed so far, as you yourself have agreed on several instance), you have been waiting all this while to see if someone else comes in to support you. Nobody else seems bothered by what is happening here (including all those who were at one time actively engaged), so you come back again secretly after a few days to satisfy your hurt ego, engage in another edit war, and now plead to have a discussion with God knows whom. Please keep doing whatever you want. I do not have any time to waste discussing this further with you. Js82 (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: I see that you have come back now after a break, lending support to Mr. Onel. welcome back :) Given that this topic has already been discussed so much, I do not have any more energy and time to waste here for the moment. Also, given that the edits I made were based on several weeks of the discussion above, I would appreciate if : Rather than reverting those edits, you first leave them as it is, and then suggest what your problems are with my text. In other words, please make edits to the text I have written, rather than completely taking them off. If you do not agree, please do as you wish. Sardarjis and Sikhs would be better off actually doing things that would matter in the world (meditating, sewa, fighting for justice) while you guys can keep spending your time writing and reverting wikipedia articles about Sardarji jokes. All the best and take it easy. Js82 (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Js82 - First, please wait for consensus to be built before making any changes. They have been reverted per a long-standing guideline of Wikipedia, that any contested change be withheld until consensus is reached. Consensus is reached when the involved editors reach an agreement, based on policies and guidelines, not by an up and down vote. And please be patient - Consensus can take a week or two to be reached. Second, I have a pretty big objection to your proposed changes: It is ay too detailed for the lead, and gives undue weight for this subject. The current lead has the fact that Sikhs find this offensive, and that is appropriate for an article about the jokes themselves. The detail which you include should be in the section dealing with that, later in the article. I don't have access to the non-online source referenced, so I cannot speak to the veracity of the content you're inserting, so I'll let other editors discuss that (at least one does have access). If it's included in the existing sources, its okay to add, but opinion is WP:OR and shouldn't be added. Particularly potential contentious issues (such as the arrests) definitely need a citation. Since they are covered (and more importantly, cited), I think that fact definitely belongs in the lead. Please take a look at MOS:LEAD.

I think the majority of your edit would be appropriate in the "Reaction from the Sikh community" section, as a lead-in to the 3 subsections, as long as it is properly cited. I think the lead can be slightly expanded to strengthen the Sikh reaction, but not too much, something along the lines of "Sardarji jokes are generally considered tasteless and inappropriate by members of the Sikh community, and have elicited strong protests, as well as leading to several arrests." The rest, properly cited, should go into the other section. That is what I've put in the lead for the time being, until consensus can be reached.

Please, when responding, do not address feelings and reactions, but rather Wikipedia guidelines as to why you feel that this needs to be added to the lead, rather than in the body of the article, in the appropriate section. I think your views are valid, and should be included (as long as they have proper citations). Remember that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. Currently it stands as a summary, weighted as the article is weighted: the article talks about the jokes, about the reaction of the Sikh community, the National Commission (NC) complaint, and legal battles. Right now, the only thing not covered in the lead is the backlash against the Sikh complaints. Do I think the lead can be expanded? Yes. But not too much, this is not a lengthy article, another sentence or two on the origins of the jokes, another sentence or two about Sikh backlash, a sentence or two about the NC complaint, and another sentence about the legal issues. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes

I recently edited the article lede with most of the changes being copyedits and technical fixes, and some minor tweaks to reflect what the cited sources actually say. However the changes are being (partially) reverted by User:‎Js82 for reasons that are not clear to me. Can the issue be discussed here, instead of through edit-summaries, and can others chime in? Abecedare (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

All I am adding is some examples of other classes of ethnic jokes in India (to the already existing sentence "other classes of ethnic jokes are common in India (such as ........)"), which is important information to be provided, so the reader gets a complete view of the topic. That's it.

And the cited source does actually mention some of these other classes. Many more citations can be added, although unwarranted.

Js82 (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The changes made by Abecedare follow the article better. Please leave until consensus can be reached, since you made your changes without waiting for consensus, even though a discussion was pending. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is not all what your edit did though. It:

• Changed the sentence Although jokes about other ethnic and linguistic communities are found in various regions of India, Sardarji jokes are the most widely circulated ethnic jokes and found across the country., which is the point the source makes, to Jokes about several ethnic and linguistic groups are common in India (such as Hindu Jokes, Mallu Jokes, Parsi Jokes, Baniya Jokes), which is trivia when preseneted without the context that you deleted.
• Changed ...and have elicited protests as well as leading to arrests for "hurting religious sentiments". to ..and have elicited strong protests, including leading to several arrests. adding back the unnecessary adjectives and removing the basis for the arrests (needed since it is not at all obvious how jokes can be deemed criminal).
• Changed referred to as "Sardars" to who use the title "Sardars", which I am not sure of, but can be persuaded about.

PS: Can you start indending your talk-page posts (see WP:TPG for details). Abecedare (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Onel, this source (and many other sources) also clearly talk about other classes of ethnic jokes. So what I added is not unsourced. Please let me know if you still have any issues. And I would like for the quotes to be removed from "hurting religious sentiments", as it is unclear why they have been used. Thanks. Js82 (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Js82 - First, thanks for indenting, and for discussing this. The issue with having the comments about other jokes, is that this page is not about Indian jokes, where the mention of those others would be appropriate, but about a specific type of joke, so discussing that in the lead is undue weight; these other jokes are also not discussed in the body of the article (nor should they be, in my opinion, based on the rationale I just stated), so including them in the lead is contrary to MOS:LEAD. The quotes around "hurting religious sentiments" are because that is a direct quote from the source, and there must be in quotes. I think that the changes Abecedare have made, along with the addition of mentioning the arrests in the lead, strengthen the viewpoint you wish to give weight to, without it being WP:UNDUE. Right now, the only thing the lead misses is a mention of the backlash to complaints against these jokes by National Commission for Minorities. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Add: I put the "hurting religious sentiments" in quotes because it is a term of art in Indian law, and should not be used in wikipedia's voice. If there are any suggestions on how to avoid the quotes being misread as as scare quotes, I am opening to hearing them. `Abecedare (talk)

Onel, in your preceding post, it seemed to me that you were only concerned about there "not being a source" for the examples of the other classes of jokes, to which I responded. Now, not sure what you imply, but this article is about ethnic jokes in India. The 2nd sentence of the lead (not written by me) itself mentions that. And then as I previously said, simply adding some examples (only examples, not any comments, as you say) of the other classes of jokes would provide the reader (who may not be from India) a more holistic treatment of the topic. I believe this should not be an issue in any regards. Let me know. And I doubt the quotes are there in the original piece. It makes no sense. Have you checked it ? Js82 (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I would also like "referred to as Sardars", to be replaced with "who use the title Sardar", which is more reflective of the reality. For the quotes part, not sure how it can be made less scary while still being there, I can only suggest removing the "for hurting religious sentiments" part. Js82 (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

- Hi. First, the article is not about ethnic jokes, but about a particular ethnic jokes. Bringing up other jokes may or may not be appropriate, in my opinion, they are not. If other editors have a different opinion, I would obviously cede to consensus. Let's leave it for now and see what others have to say. I have no issue with changing the verbiage regarding Sardar, so I'll go ahead and make that change. If other editors object we can re-open that discussion. Regarding the quotes. I had no idea of Abecedare's intent in doing that, so I did check the actual source, and in the actual source, towards the very end of the article where it is mentioned, those terms are in quotes. Due to that, I cannot see a way to remove them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Onel, you have been bringing up the cited source (Jawahar Handoo) all this while to justify the 2nd sentence as of now ("although there are several jokes....these are most popular/circulated"). This is indeed one of the main claims made by the author. But, if you read the whole chapter, which you can find on google books, the entire reason the author wrote this chapter, and makes this popularity claim, is to actually delve into the reasons behind this. While you want to keep retaining the "popular/circulated aspect" in the lead, when I added material to actually point out some of those reasons in the lead, you opposed it. (Please read the entire preceding discussion as well, if you have still not done that :-)). This is clearly not providing a neutral point of view then. Therefore, I would like for the popular/circulated aspect to be taken away. Regarding the mention of other (sourced) examples, again, as I said, it provides a more holistic treatment of ethnic jokes in India. Without those examples, a non-Indian reader would never know what those actual other examples are. I would therefore insist on having those examples included upfront. Js82 (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I have not read this new discussion in detail, I will read it later and will comment. But just to give quick comment regarding current version in lead, I think it is better version. Js82 wanted to mention that other kind of "ethnic jokes" also exists in India and current version states that. It also states that Sikhs don't like these jokes and arrests have been made. So it is neutral and better version. Js82 indirectly wanted to mention that "Haters of Sardars created 'sardarji jokes' out of jellousy over Sikhs". I don't think this kind of line should be included in lead despite source exists or do not exists for this claim. It can be just POV. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  17:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I have explained above the rationale to remove the "popular/circulated" aspect (unless the reasons behind it are also included, to make it neutral), and include the "specific examples" of the other ethnic jokes (the "other ethnic jokes" part by the way was already in the lead even before I came in, so it was never brought in as some sort of acceeding to me, to remove any misconceptions.) If anyone has any issues with this, let me know. Js82 (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

12 O'clock

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)

References

Blaming a particular Religion?

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)

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)