Talk:Sial (tribe)

Sources to use

Here are some sources that can be used on this page: Google books. ←Spidern→ 14:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cyferx
Your edit of 10th May deleting Meera Sayal
Sial or Sayal are spellings for the same Punjabi family name .
For example Ref to Sant Singh Sekhon: selected writings By Tejwant Singh Gill
published by Sahitya Academy spells the word as Syal .See Page 411 of this book available on google books .
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Question from 221.120.250.82

User 221.120.250.82 edited the article to ask a question (he appears to be a novice user). I've moved his question here as the Talk page is naturally the better place for discussion. —RP88 08:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is his question:

Please Tell some one tell me the sial is Baloch are punjabi according to record Rind sial is baloch reply is requested please -- 221.120.250.82 19:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Totally disagree Sial are Agni Vanshi Rajputs while Rind Baloches are from some medic Aryan race kins of Kurds. Almost all sial sub clans name end with "Ana" like Bharwana, Chuchkana, Tarhana etc.

The Sial tribe (also written as Siyal, Syal, Sayal) is a social group found predominantly in North India. They are Rajputs, kshatriya and jats. Their origin is kshatriye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.14 (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The Sial tribe (also written as Siyal, Syal, Sayal) is a social group found predominantly in North India. They are Rajputs, kshatriya and jats. Their origin is kshatriye.

If you'd like to rephrase that politely then I'll respond properly. I think you'd benefit from reading WP:NPOV and WP:RS before replying but I also think that there is room for compromise here if you do not go around throwing insults at people. I'll certainly look into it, although Atlantic Publishers do produce quite a lot of rubbish for every diamond. .- Sitush (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Above is the real description.

Man, Dont go with opinion based references, go with the real peer references.

If you'd like to rephrase that politely then I'll respond properly. I think you'd benefit from reading WP:NPOV and WP:RS before replying but I also think that there is room for compromise here if you do not go around throwing insults at people. I'll certainly look into it, although Atlantic Publishers do produce quite a lot of rubbish for every diamond. .- Sitush (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

In reply to this:

I am a Syal, and a Rajput. We dont need any evidence to prove that. Your references are all opinion based which are nothing but personal thoughts. My ancestors used to tell me about our history and origin. So its not me, who is insulting, its you who is insulting me(us,"Syals") by writing wrong things about us.

Your ethnic classification is 'blablabla' sorry to say like this.

But it dont say any thing about us (Syals).

And please stop looking at pages which have been written by someone and try to look for the truth by directly interacting with people.

And you better stop editing things about which you dont have significant knowledge.

Thanks and God bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.14 (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Last but not least, I request you not to alter our history in this disgusting way. And dont edit this page again.

I am afraid that your personal knowledge and that of your grandmother etc count for nothing here. Our articles need to be verifiable using reliable sources and neither you, her or me are considered to be reliable. There is a common agreement that we cannot use most books based around ethnography that were published during the British Raj era because they got it wrong far too often, mainly because they used discredited methods such as scientific racism and because they completely misunderstood how the caste system works. You'll note that the article does mention Denzil Ibbetson but it does so by using a much more modern source that discusses him - that's ok. - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, That's the thing, your references says that he observed, he said, he thought. Who is bothered what your Denzil Ibbetson has said.

• I have also given references which says coins were discovered with labels [1]
• our ancestral stories which are well documented in books [2], [3], [4], should one believe that or what you and your Britishers said should be believed.

Now tell me who is saying it in illogical and who is saying it in illogical way.

But your way of proving it, is , "he said he classified thats why it is true" my goodness, Come on man, come. I am Syal, We have all things to prove.

And you are defaming my caste. If some one do this with you. What you will do??

And if you want to go on with this deletion and editing business, then you may go on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.14 (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I can only see a snippet view of your first recently mentioned source (Archaeological Survey of India). It was written in 1875 and even the snippet view is using words such as "claimed" for the Rajput stuff and is clearly in a section that is discussing origins of some artefact. Our article already says that such claims to titles went on and were connected with status, and it already says that the Syals were in control of Jhang etc. Beyond that, we'd need a better source than the ASI. I'll look at your other three links in due course. - Sitush ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]) 14:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Your second source is Steedman from 1882 - it is available at archive.org and I'd already looked at it. As with your third source - Subash Chander Sharma, from the early 20C - it adds nothing of certainty and has been superseded by more modern work. Sharma, btw, seems to be relying on the Raj census reports and both he and Steedman are relying on the usual uncritical acceptance of caste stories. I really do not see where they are adding anything of real substance and, in any event, we simply do not like to use such old stuff unless it is supported by more modern sources. - Sitush (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Your last source is a book about Sufi poets. Again, I can only see it in snippet view and, again, it is referring to the Syals in Jhang and their claim to be Rajputs. Already dealt with. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes Sitush,

Now lets concentrate on your references and wikipedia.

Reference 1 ( ^ Bayly, Susan (2001). Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age. Cambridge University Press. pp. 139–141. ISBN 9780521798426.) writes Sials with Chauhans and Punwars (both Rajputs clans).

Reference 2: (^ Mazumder, Rajit K. (2003). The Indian Army and the Making of Punjab. Orient Blackswan. pp. 104–105. ISBN 9788178240596.) Page 105 describe Syals as Rajputs. Please go through your reference.

Reference 3: Payment of tribute support Rajput origin.

Reference 4: your wikipedia (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Rajput) go to the last, where classification has been given (Agnivanshi).

Now, give your references to prove otherwise.

Also, Wikipedia tells "Ibbetson had seen the imperfections of the 1872 census. These informed the decision by the administration in Punjab Province to adopt categorisation by occupation in 1881". (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Denzil_Ibbetson) That is his classification is occupation based not ethnographic one.

Look into it and reply back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.14 (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

And also, for your information.

There are no Syals left in Pakistan. Most of us chose India after partition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.14 (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I will indeed check the sources but I'm not going to rely on other articles on Wikipedia - we never do. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Bayly does not say that Syals were Rajputs - our article currently summarises what she does say. Mazumder's footnote on p. 105 is referring to the 1925 classification list and is ambiguous - is he really saying that the Syals are Rajputs or is he saying that they were seen as such at the time? I don't have a problem with saying something along the lines of "the admninistrators of the British Raj classified the Syals as Rajputs from time to time" if we can find unambiguous sources. - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

So here is your unambiguous reference (Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province, Volume 1 by IBBETSON, Maclagan Page no 298 (http://books.google.co.in/books?id=UQUtQzPtC6wC&pg=PA298&lpg=PA298&dq=sials+are+rajputs&source=bl&ots=LkTZe68CU4&sig=zg6JObNgB0BrZxd-wUjCxlQz7lo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KeuaUseCBMnprAf67IHACA&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=sials%20are%20rajputs&f=false). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.14 (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

So, where are you Sitush??? Waiting for your comment.

Also, I am thinking that Denzil Ibbetson classified us as tribe based on his observation. And his claims that we are tribe and we dont have a caste is ridiculous. And after giving 10s of references, and explanations from your references, you people are still not correcting the mistakes. This is monopoly, where what you think you writes without any discussion and is against the rules of wikipedia. Also my references are deleted just by telling that they are not correct, and when i am coming to discussion, I cant see any body. Where is [Jpgordon], [Yunshui] and [Sitush]??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.14 (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for the delay. As a general rule, we do not consider British Raj ethnographies to be reliable sources. There are various reasons for this, not least of which is their tendency to invoke the theories of scientific racism that are now completely discredited. We prefer to use modern sources such as - surprise, surprise - Susan Bayly. That's just the way it is here, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the link to the book in archives of California Digital Library, which gives very detailed information of Sial and their origin. It is written by Ibbetson, published by then government authorities. You can read it online, and search for sial. https://archive.org/details/panjabcastes00ibbe written by Denzil Ibbetson (whose views are the major chunk of your article). And it is more than a snippet view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.14 (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Part of your article Denzil Ibbetson, an administrator of the British Raj, classified the Sials as a tribe rather than as a caste. He believed, like Nesfield, that the society of the Northwest Frontier Provinces and Punjab in British India did not permit the rigid imposition of an administratively-defined caste construct as his colleague, H. H. Risley preferred. According to Ibbetson, society in Punjab was less governed by Brahmanical ideas of caste, based on varna, and instead was more open and fluid. Tribes, which he considered to be kin-based groups that dominated small areas, were the dominant feature of rural life. Caste designators, such as Jat and Rajput, were status-based titles to which any tribe that rose to social prominence could lay a claim, and which could be dismissed by their peers if they declined. Susan Bayly, a modern anthropologist, considers him to have had "a high degree of accuracy in his observations of Punjab society ... [I]n his writings we really do see the beginnings of modern, regionally based Indian anthroplogy."[1]

This Denzil Ibbetson was also a Britisher who has contributed majorly to your article and I am telling you to read his book as referred in a link, so it is the way you actually do. Look into the reference properly before writing any thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.14 (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

And if you allow, i will take excerpts (as it is) from the book (written by one (Denzil Ibbetson) whose views are actually the major part of your article)

And you should understand, that it is history not maths, where you can change things with time and modernization and in this subject we classify old as gold, and that is the way it actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.14 (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

And please provide me with the scientific archaeological references which support your view.

As I can see your text as merely a snippet view, based on opinions of some people who have written few lines about us that too without references and evidences. Please give evidence not reference. Actually not even one of your references has contradicted with our Rajput origin, so there is no reference against it.

Also you have to understand we believe in theory of relativity not because it was said by Albert Einstein, because it was proved by him.

References

Syal caste is found in Jats, Khatris and Rajputs.

Syal caste is found among Khatris, Jats and Rajputs.

As per biography of Meera Syal (known writer), She is a khatri (multiple links are available at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Meera_Syal).

If you see page no 51 of following book, you may find Sialkot name (name of place) was derived from Sial Jat tribe. Rose HA (1997) A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province. Atlantic Publishers & Distributors (P) Limited, (http://books.google.co.in/books?id=-aw3hRAX_DgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=syal+caste+rajput&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wXaCVPfPN5O4uAStn4DADg&ved=0CCEQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=sial&f=false)

Further, Syal are described as Jats in many recent books. like on page no 411 of this book:- Sekhon SS, Gill TS (2005) Sant Singh Sekhon: Selected Writings. (ISBN: 8126019999, 9788126019991) Sahitya Akademi http://books.google.co.in/books?id=SoNXuXIkfS4C&pg=PA411&dq=syal+khatri&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Rn6CVNGAFMeVuASf2YLABA&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=syal%20khatri&f=false

And then if you see page no 417 of the following book. You may find description of Sial as Rajput caste as well. Rose HA (1997) Glossary Of The Tribes And Castes Of The Punjab And North-west Frontier ProvinceVol. 3 Vol# 3. Atlantic Publishers & Distributors (P) Limited, http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Th3Mu-_RwjQC&pg=PA417&dq=sial+caste+rajput&hl=en&sa=X&ei=H3uCVLboLI2-uASDxoF4&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=sial%20caste%20rajput&f=false

[WP:CONTENTDISPUTE] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.14 (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism- very serious issue

This article ethnic classification has been largely plagiarized (self or otherwise).

http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Chauhan

http://rajniyadav067.blogspot.in/

http://www.theinfolist.com/php/SummaryGet.php?FindGo=paramara

Correct it Sitush

why this verified content has been deleted?

I understand that references that I used to provide few years back were not reliable, but Khushwant Singh and recent Newspaper articles and other post 1950 references are quite reliable.

It is believed that Sial tribe is a Rajput clan which have migrated from Jaunpur region along the bank of the river Gomti to the various regions of Panjab where many of the members of the community embraced Islam . Tales of the Nawab Sial are narrated and discussed in Panjab region.Khushwant Singh mentioned that, “Maharaja Ranjith Singh sent his emissaries to the independent principalities of the province to invite them to declare their allegiance to the government of Panjab”. But, the province ruled by Sials refused which led to a war in which Ranjit Singh won thereby forcing his influence over the Panjab region. — Preceding unsigned

Because, as I said in my edit summary, you are mis-using the sources. Nijjar is not reliable and the dictionary is merely describing what some guy said 700 years ago without comment regarding veracity (and he is not reliable). I suppose, at a push, we could include the Dawn material somewhere but it really does seem fairly trivial. - Sitush (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe Khushwant Singh reference is very reliable. I think you are excessively biased for publishers which at one point becomes difficult especially when there is no other available information. And I wrote "it is believed" so nothing has been claimed.

Also, in my opinion, this article, in its present form has no substance in it. It is better to delete it, if it does not add on significantly. Previously, I indicated that Ethnographic classification is non-specific and largely plagiarized from other articles/sources. The intro paragraph is almost blank. Except for the tale of Heer Ranjha and Sahiban, this article does not give any new information.

I suggest you yourself do some research on Nawab Amanullah Khan Sial, Nawab Ahmed Khan Sial, Sial Nawab and propositions describing settlement of Sial and their conversion. And it is not right to be so reluctant on accepting any thing which goes against one's beliefs.

Firstly, it is not a requirement that I do research on anything relating to this article, although obviously I do. Secondly, if you think it should be deleted then you'll need to take it to WP:AFD. If there is insufficient material from reliable sources then, yes, you would probably succeed in your request. However, I suspect you will fail in this instance. As for Khushwant Singh, well, yes he probably is ok as a source generally but I'm very unsure about how you are using him here - it looks to me as if you are engaging in synthesis, which is not permitted. Also, "it is believed" and similar phrases are generally considered not to be good practice on Wikipedia - they're vague, sweeping statements. - Sitush (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't you think the entire Ethnographical classification is as same as other articles. It has been taken entirely from the book without any change in language, which I believe is unethical. I have not said you must do research rather I politely suggested you can do so on the specific point which is not very unreasonable.

Now speaking on "SYNTHESIS", as a science person, it is little difficult for me to do such a thing. Honestly, it is a new word for me especially in this context.

On account of Khushwant Singh reference, i would say, I picked up a quote from the book which obviously cannot be "SYNTHESIZED" and summarized paragraph in other line which I SUGGEST you may read and let me know, if you draw different conclusion. As per my understanding, Ranjit Singh fought this battle with Sial ruler so as to increase his influence over Punjab region and not for the territorial gain. I mentioned it here as it tells about one of the few principalities which stood against Ranjit Singh at that point of time.

Now, on the use of "it is believed", I think, it is important to see in what context, this phrase has been used. And most of the time, propositions are presented by the usage of this phase. — Preceding unsigned

I can't see the Singh book. It is the way you've used it that makes me think it is synthesis with the other sources that you were using. Did you read the WP:SYNTHESIS page? - it has a specific meaning on Wikipedia that isn't necessarily the same as in scientific circles. - Sitush (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, you quote Singh's comment about Ahmed Khan Sial but there is no evidence that Ahmed Khan Sial was affiliated to the Sial tribe. Last names do not verify anything of that sort, ever. See User:Sitush/Common#Castelists for some links to past discussions about this. - Sitush (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I was little engaged so could not reply before. I got one interesting reference.

Journal of the Panjab University Historical Society, Department of History, University of the Punjab, 1932 Page no 68-69. I requested Library, University of London for this reference and they were gracious enough to send it. Please find it in the attachment. I am in favor of taking some material from it for the article as it comes from the Department of History, University of the Punjab so it is trustworthy. https://www.scribd.com/document/324933249/Sials-and-Kharrals

That's very kind of the university but it is not going to be of use because it comes from the Raj era. We don't use sources from that period. I'll take a look at it because I am curious but that's as far as it will go. - Sitush (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This reference cannot constitute a primary reference. But along with reference 3 and 4 (mentioned above) endorse the popular perspective about Sials. In my opinion, there is no explanation, why reference 3 and 4 should not be included in the article.

Sometime back you raised doubts over whether these references talk about same Sials, I would like to add, read the history section of the article (in current form) and you will realize that they are indeed same. — Preceding unsigned

Here comes more proof. ""The district is among the oldest riverside settlements in the country. It is claimed that Jhang city was developed by Rai Sial, on the advice of Pir Hazrat Shah Jalal Bukhari, in 1288. The first autonomous ruler of Jhang was Mal Khan in 1462. The Sial tribe ruled the city for 360 years.....""

http://tribune.com.pk/story/1000830/jhang-district-biradari-politics-out-independents-set-to-sweep-local-govt-elections/

http://www.dawn.com/news/1018862 Sitush

More proofs: Report by Government of Pakistan on rulers of Jhang: http://www.aserpakistan.org/document/aser/map/Jhang.pdf

References

Revert by good faith, may be not in good faith!!

Most references refer to the old Panjab, not a single reference, describe the post 1965 Panjab (wrt Syals). Old Panjab refers to Haryana, Indian Panjab, Pakistan Panjab, part of Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh.

It is completely unclear from the article that the Panjab here includes all these states and not the current territory of Panjab.

It is unfortunate that wiki is suffering from the monopoly of few Editors and their cohorts who revert as per their wish.

For them, I can say, "stop flying by the seats of your own pants" and act with discussion and present the facts, the way they are, and not contaminate it with your opinion or the way you like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.98.200 (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2017‎

I agree that it might be misleading. But it shouldn't be if the correct link is used - we have articles for the Punjab region, as well as for the modern-day Indian state and Pakistani province. And we can only say what sources say. - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

No reference available for the location of Syal tribe

Since, the caste specific location is ambiguous. It should be presented as it is.

Kalyanchakra (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Photo

To anyone with relevant knowledge: please verify that the following (linked) photo, is relevant:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kshatriya_siyal.jpg 89.8.147.19 (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Corrected spelling in recent edit; reference look incorrect and unreliable

I corrected the spelling of Jat. Though the references here look corrupt. I am concerned.

Ranjha incorrectly mentioned as rajput

Reference 9 in wiki article mentions that Dhido, a Rajput of Takht Hazara in north-western Panjab, known by his caste-name as Ranjha, leaves home on the death of his father. However original source mentions him as Jat, see here The Indian Narrative: Perspectives and Patterns - Google Books,[5]https://books.google.co.in/books?id=wWdiazZQA8cC&pg=PA243&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false page - 243. Hir by Waris Shah also mentions Hir as Jat, [6]https://fid4sa-repository.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/246/1/hir.pdf page =6. Make necessary correction in the article. Essentialist123 (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. I don't want to assume malicious intent, but it seems that certain folks really want to push that the Sials are Rajputs. They are both Jat and Rajput, but initially Jat as described by Punjabi writers like Waris Shah. Since there was a recent edit to include a Bardic myth, I'm sure the reference to Heer-Ranjha can be moved further up and corrected too. I don't know how to do it myself, but you should request an official edit change to get a moderator here. Forticus02 (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)