Talk:Sharma

Clean up
This article was a mess. Therefore: to dos- Personal info in the page. The guy who says "in general a very talented guy" has to removed
 * Divided info into logical sections.
 * Deleted useless info
 * Deleted repetitions
 * Deleted personal data on some notables who had most kindly been mentioned.
 * completely unreferenced
 * article needs a lot more info
 * on demographics
 * notables list incomplete
 * origin section needs bit more expansion gunslotsofguns 21:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hunhjazal is completely unreasonable and is obviously a Muslim Apologist. It's ashame that we have to put up with this type of behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.116.195.24 (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Why is Hunnjazal so angry? I don't understand this. We KNOW now that Hunnjazal has a hidden agenda and it is very sinister. It is to crush free expression.


 * Okay, so that got a laugh from me. Someone censoring material claiming their free expression is being crushed. This is doublethink and can cause brain-damage. Call me whatever you want but I am not going to let you censor referenced stuff. It will always be restored sooner or later. You will find me permanently relentless in this. Cheers! --Hunnjazal (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Muslim Sharmas
Bringing back ALL of deleted discussion.

There is an attempt to remove references to Muslim Sharmas - somehow keep the name exclusively for Hindus or something, which is unsupported by fact. The same contributor (solyd truth) has created a duplicative article, Sharma Family Name, which s/he has declared "more correct." It should be merged in with this one, i.e. basically deleted and replaced with a redirect. --Hunnjazal (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I placed a warning in the user's talk page. - Altenmann >t 22:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Hunnjazal (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * S/He's at it again. And totally silent (no comments, no clarifications, no talk) while s/he does it too. --Hunnjazal (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

 Sharma: A surname common all over India and a designation given to people who do religious ceremonies or are from the Brahmin community.

According to noted Indian sociologist, S. Devadas Pillai, in his book Indian Sociology through Ghurye, A Dictionary, "The suffix Sharma indicates that the chanter is a Brahman...." —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReneeKnows (talk • contribs) 01:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * All that source indicates is that Sharma is used as a title for Brahmans. There is no exclusion of Muslims implied. You should also know that Brahmans are a caste whereas Muslims are a religious group. There are Muslim Brahmins, especially in areas such as Kashmir. For example, Pandit indicates learned person and usually Brahmin, yet Pandit is a common Muslim last name in Kashmir (e.g. http://www.kashmirtimes.com/archive/0811/081128/news6.htm - Mohammad Ashraf Pandit). You are attempting to censor out the existence of such people for some agenda known best to yourself. That violates WP:NPOV. On top of that, it is obvious that you are the same person as SolydTruth and are using this other username (ReneeKnows) as a sock puppet, which violates WP:Sock puppetry. Why are you doing this? Please explain yourself. Do not make any changes in this respect unless you first get consensus on discussion here. --Hunnjazal (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And, now I discover you (SolydTruth aka ReneeKnows) have been modifying my comments here to add stuff that I never said ("The name John is typically Christian name, However, not all Johns are Christian. John Allen Muhammad (b. December 31, 1960) is a Muslim spree killer from the United States.")! This is just unacceptable! --Hunnjazal (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 98.166.204.182 (Hampton area/Virginia/Cox ISP/Fixed IP address) - cease your spammy behavior. You can say whatever you want to here, but you CANNOT remove comments from other people. I am reverting your mass deletion edits because you are censoring stuff that others are saying. This is a discussion area & it's not okay to do that. --Hunnjazal (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a belligerant Muslim contributor called Hunnjazal that keeps claiming to he/she is the "authority" on Brahmanic names. This is patently false and the Hunnjazal is trying to Islamicize a Sanskrit/Brahmanic name with a great Vedic/Aryan heritage. It is SOOOO sad that this person cannot even bring him/herself to realize that they don't control fact and fiction and that they cannont paint non-muslims as muslims. VERY sad!!! Get educated Hunnjazal and leave the legitimate cultural discourse to those that are in the field. Your sophomoric attempts to ruin the quality of this wiki are so dramatic that it literally is beyond the pale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.206.109 (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (a) You can't delete discussion content. It's going to come back. (b) You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works - you don't have to be an expert to add verifiable content. (c) The association of 'Sharma' with Brahmins is pretty plainly stated in the article. (d) Sharma is NOT only a Hindu name - Muslims have it & there are valid and reliable sources provided in the article. --Hunnjazal (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sha/Shah stands in old persian for king as Rma/Rama for Lord Ram. considdering the fact that the ancient indo-aryan origin lies far more than just India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desibhagera (talk • contribs) 23:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing statements
A dynamic IP keeps reinstating this material. I have no idea if it is correct or not because there are no sources provided. Please could this be discussed here. Some contributors may find a read of our policy concerning verifiability to be useful. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * And now one is adding this repeatedly, in various paragraphs and without a source. Please see WP:V. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)