Talk:Kshatriya/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Claims versus reality
I mentioned in the preceding section that I have some concerns regarding listing of communities that claim kshatriya status rather than being recognised as kshatriya by their peers. Kshatriya is a classification in the varna system, it lies right at the heart of the caste concept and it applies to entire communities. Many are the occasions when communities have attempted to bolster their socio-economic standing by making claims to kshatriya rank. Indeed, so often has it happened that it is quite common for the regular contributors to Wikipedia's Indic articles to note that, if all these claims were accepted, everyone must once have been a king and no-one a cook, barber, stonemason etc. And the list here would be huge.Of course, the sanskritisation theory explains away many of the claims, and there are other causes of doubt. For example, there is the problem - particularly evident in south India - where some people within a community obtained a pseudo-kshatriya status but the community as a whole were regarded as shudra or whatever. Since kshatiya status is a communal concept, it is simply irrational that members of a community could be classified in multiple varna.
I propose that we should confine listing specifically to those communities whose claims are generally recognised and to avoid listing those where doubts are expressed. We can provide a section that points out the issues of sanskritisation etc, in which we could perhaps give a couple of practical examples, but the only way we are going to get some sort of stability in this article is to prevent the continual addition and deletion of contested claims. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Sitush for starting this discussion. All I want to say is that if we were to go by what you think, doubts can be raised about each and every community listed in CLAIMED MEMBERS and as you say, everybody will be a cook,barber or whatever. If there are doubts about some community being ranked differently according to different people, how can one ignore the valid claims. Why are we following what we want to see. As per my knowledge, Gurjars,Jats and Ahirs have common origin and Rajputs originated from them. But I'm not getting into any caste based arguments here. All I'm saying is if you can't prove my references to be invalid, you've got no right to claim that they are invalid. All the claimed members seem to enjoy "BENEFIT OF DOUBT" as per your words. Then let us just rename the section that it clears to the readers what it contains rather than seeing things rigidly. If that is not what you're going to do, then lets delete then whole list because according to my knowledge which I attribute to references I've found, nearly all the castes listed there have common origin. -Author 91 (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I copied from Gurjar article and I forgot attributing it as copied,apologies for the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Author 91 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the list should be deleted. We can start over, properly and without synthesis, original research etc. There are some communities whose kshatriya status is uncontested and the remainder can be dealt with in a generalised section concerning the reasons why claims are often made. - Sitush (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- The Gurjar article is a complete mess and should not be relied upon for anything. It, too, needs a complete rewrite and you'll noticed that it has been protected to prevent further deterioration etc. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be very happy to see that list of uncontested members having an "independent" origin here in this discussion along with "proper" references.Only after we've had enough discussion about those members, we can think of editing this article to a new structure. Till then I don't find any valid reason stopping me to revert back to my edit. Lets treat all alike. Do you have any problem with that? And as far as article [Gurjar] is concerned, I don't think have the same opinion about it. I've gone through the references provided by the contributors and have found them legitimate enough. Unfortunately, you see it as a mess inspite of all reasoning and refs. No comments over that. - Author 91 (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I have a problem with you reverting. So do other people. So don't, please. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've cleared your doubts which you've come with in discussion above. Do you have a problem besides those doubts. And I've been assuming good faith here. So I can't think of anybody having a problem without any reason one can't disclose here. -Author 91 (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- You have not cleared the doubts at all. In fact, some of what you say is raising my doubts. Specifically, that includes whether or not you are being open about your past history at Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- As you're not being conclusive, I'm assuming you don't have anything important to say. And as far as my history is concerned I AM NEW TO WIKIPEDIA, although I need not tell that to you. I was actually moved after seeing the condition of wiki articles. So had to register. -Author 91 (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- You have not cleared the doubts at all. In fact, some of what you say is raising my doubts. Specifically, that includes whether or not you are being open about your past history at Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've cleared your doubts which you've come with in discussion above. Do you have a problem besides those doubts. And I've been assuming good faith here. So I can't think of anybody having a problem without any reason one can't disclose here. -Author 91 (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I have a problem with you reverting. So do other people. So don't, please. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be very happy to see that list of uncontested members having an "independent" origin here in this discussion along with "proper" references.Only after we've had enough discussion about those members, we can think of editing this article to a new structure. Till then I don't find any valid reason stopping me to revert back to my edit. Lets treat all alike. Do you have any problem with that? And as far as article [Gurjar] is concerned, I don't think have the same opinion about it. I've gone through the references provided by the contributors and have found them legitimate enough. Unfortunately, you see it as a mess inspite of all reasoning and refs. No comments over that. - Author 91 (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- The Gurjar article is a complete mess and should not be relied upon for anything. It, too, needs a complete rewrite and you'll noticed that it has been protected to prevent further deterioration etc. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sockpuppeting. So that is what you meant when you said you were suspicious about my history on wikipedia. I left that message for that user because I felt that we were having the same point and he had raised it time and again on various pages. And about using same style of words, I think its just a coincidence. I am not trying to push any position about some community. I am writing what is right and true. As you can see I've added quite enough number of references. So what makes you think that we should consider widely accepted opinions only. Some facts get disclosed with time. We should not just keep on repeating widely accepted theories. Please put an end to this thing. You are a lot senior. You know far more rules than me, so why can't you just make this more simpler to go on. I am not edit warring. If I am writing long paragraphs on talk page about why I am updating and someone just comes in and reverts my edit, isn't it unethical. Can't they first prove why I was wrong in stating those facts and then decide what to do. If someone really have a great knowledge about this subject, he/she should come forward and explain to me why can't I edit that page. Discussions are getting us nowhere. - Author 91 (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Mention of Kunbi in Maratha section
I object to this sentence in Maratha section : However, other groups are not. For example, the Maratha-Kunbis, who made up 31.19 percent of the population of the districts which came to constitute the state of Maharastra, were classified as Shudras, in the Census of 1931.
Kunbi and Maratha are two different castes. In Maharashtra, Maratha is considered a high caste, while Kunbi is regarded as a low caste. For that reason, Kunbi were considered Shudra in 1931 census. Even today, Maratha comes under general category while Kunbi comes under OBC. Why should there be a mention of Kunbi in Maratha section?
Take the example of Rajput. There is no mention that Chamars have got shudra status in Rajput section. Then why mention of Kunbi caste? -Jgtagor (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- We tend to have a lot of problems with Maratha content, mainly because of a couple of prolific sockmasters who register new accounts and edit as proxy IPs on an almost-weekly basis. The information is reliably sourced and is relevant if only to counter the POV-pushing that the Maratha contingent seem to love. On the other hand, I am not adverse to removing the entire section and have mentioned this before. - Sitush (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've removed the whole section. Given that the vast majority of entries were "This group claiims membership, but independent sources say it wasn't, or was only partially"...what the heck use is that? We don't have a list somewhere of countries that claim to have been the greatest in the world (although, I suspect it's probably quite similar to List of countries). Since these reports fall under WP:BLPGROUP (in my opinion), I don't see why we would want anything other than the best possible sourcing. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree with this solution, it is an easy one which support the pov of those who claim that there are only two castes: Brahmins & Shudras (which is a position supported & spread by (orthodox) Brahmins and often taken up by the British colonialists). I think the main pb comes from the definition of Kshatriya: Kshatriya = Warrior --> this is wrong ! and allows many communities to claim a Kshatriya status or origin. Kshatriya was just a term used to designate the aristocraty, nobility of the Hindu society, the ones who ruled the different kingdoms (and so, many of them were often involved in military activities as army commanders... And not simple soldiers !) and their descendants. Only lately Brahmins attempted to give a ritual status to that position in order to dominate it...And this is the other main pb: some support the view that only those who are ritually recognised as Kshatriyas by the Brahmins are genuine Kshatriyas. This does not correspond to historical reality and this view gives to Brahmins a position which they have not occupied before the Muslims & British invasions. Here is a ref: [1]: it is an old ref (with its colonnial pov) but regarding history of kshatriyas, it seems giving a neutral vision. I let you check. If we have to follow your action Qwy., we can remove this page entirely, this is the natural next step of such type of actions. I think by taking this action, you don't respect the neutral position of Wikipedia. If I don't make mistake, all the castes you have removed had a tradition of rulers and top military warriors (this is why I have not removed them myself whereas I have removed many others: Ahirs, Gujjars, Jats, Vanniyars, etc.). The fact that (most of tem) were not recognised as Kshatriyas by Brahmins is a fact but only a detail among others. Rajkris (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I, for one, understand the situation and I know that you have long held concerns regarding Brahmin POV pushing. Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims. I also know that you have been among those who have reverted contributions to the now-deleted list on numerous occasions, which you seem to accept were often down to what might arguably be described as pov-pushing from the "other side". And there is the rub: you appear to want to show one aspect but not another. Surely, you can accept that the list was doing more harm than good, if only in the sense of the disruption being caused by it? This is not an area of Wikipedia that gets a tremendous amount of oversight and so it becomes very difficult to deal with. This is not about Brahmin pov or any other pov; rather, it is about removing contentious content and what amounts to a honey-pot for random IP contributor etc.
Your logic fails when you think that the next step will be removal of the article. Why should you think that? The subject is notable even if some of the details (ie: at community level) are best deal with elsewhere. We also have Category:Kshatriya, although my bet is that a lot of the entries there are arguably inappropriate. Perhaps what we really need is Category:Communities claiming Kshatriya status? - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I, for one, understand the situation and I know that you have long held concerns regarding Brahmin POV pushing. Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims. I also know that you have been among those who have reverted contributions to the now-deleted list on numerous occasions, which you seem to accept were often down to what might arguably be described as pov-pushing from the "other side". And there is the rub: you appear to want to show one aspect but not another. Surely, you can accept that the list was doing more harm than good, if only in the sense of the disruption being caused by it? This is not an area of Wikipedia that gets a tremendous amount of oversight and so it becomes very difficult to deal with. This is not about Brahmin pov or any other pov; rather, it is about removing contentious content and what amounts to a honey-pot for random IP contributor etc.
- I don't agree with this solution, it is an easy one which support the pov of those who claim that there are only two castes: Brahmins & Shudras (which is a position supported & spread by (orthodox) Brahmins and often taken up by the British colonialists). I think the main pb comes from the definition of Kshatriya: Kshatriya = Warrior --> this is wrong ! and allows many communities to claim a Kshatriya status or origin. Kshatriya was just a term used to designate the aristocraty, nobility of the Hindu society, the ones who ruled the different kingdoms (and so, many of them were often involved in military activities as army commanders... And not simple soldiers !) and their descendants. Only lately Brahmins attempted to give a ritual status to that position in order to dominate it...And this is the other main pb: some support the view that only those who are ritually recognised as Kshatriyas by the Brahmins are genuine Kshatriyas. This does not correspond to historical reality and this view gives to Brahmins a position which they have not occupied before the Muslims & British invasions. Here is a ref: [1]: it is an old ref (with its colonnial pov) but regarding history of kshatriyas, it seems giving a neutral vision. I let you check. If we have to follow your action Qwy., we can remove this page entirely, this is the natural next step of such type of actions. I think by taking this action, you don't respect the neutral position of Wikipedia. If I don't make mistake, all the castes you have removed had a tradition of rulers and top military warriors (this is why I have not removed them myself whereas I have removed many others: Ahirs, Gujjars, Jats, Vanniyars, etc.). The fact that (most of tem) were not recognised as Kshatriyas by Brahmins is a fact but only a detail among others. Rajkris (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims", please have a look on the ref: "It seems therefore that the ancient Kshatriyas like the more modern Rajput, was a social class to which all rulers in virtue of their sovereignty were recognised as belonging; and both Kshatriya and Rajput groups can, therefore, be described as 'essentially an occupationnal caste, composed of all clans following the Hindu rituals, who actually undertook the work of government'". What better ref can i give, tell me ???. This is the type of definition I use to check whether a caste can be added in this Kshatriya page.Rajkris (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Restructuring
There have been a lot if issues about this particular page. And the most important ones are about inclusion of various clans in the Claimed members list. There have been a lot of arguments about the reliable sources, general opinions, and still we are at the same place where all the issues began. So lets restructure the section in order to give an unbiased projection of history rather than giving our own POVs. I hope we can find a way out of this confusion. Any suggestions?? -14.98.17.203 (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- There is no need to start a new section for this. Please see Talk:Kshatriya#Claims versus reality above. It is a recent thread. Put simply: delete the list. - Sitush (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Mention of Kunbi in Maratha section
I object to this sentence in Maratha section : However, other groups are not. For example, the Maratha-Kunbis, who made up 31.19 percent of the population of the districts which came to constitute the state of Maharastra, were classified as Shudras, in the Census of 1931.
Kunbi and Maratha are two different castes. In Maharashtra, Maratha is considered a high caste, while Kunbi is regarded as a low caste. For that reason, Kunbi were considered Shudra in 1931 census. Even today, Maratha comes under general category while Kunbi comes under OBC. Why should there be a mention of Kunbi in Maratha section?
Take the example of Rajput. There is no mention that Chamars have got shudra status in Rajput section. Then why mention of Kunbi caste? -Jgtagor (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- We tend to have a lot of problems with Maratha content, mainly because of a couple of prolific sockmasters who register new accounts and edit as proxy IPs on an almost-weekly basis. The information is reliably sourced and is relevant if only to counter the POV-pushing that the Maratha contingent seem to love. On the other hand, I am not adverse to removing the entire section and have mentioned this before. - Sitush (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've removed the whole section. Given that the vast majority of entries were "This group claiims membership, but independent sources say it wasn't, or was only partially"...what the heck use is that? We don't have a list somewhere of countries that claim to have been the greatest in the world (although, I suspect it's probably quite similar to List of countries). Since these reports fall under WP:BLPGROUP (in my opinion), I don't see why we would want anything other than the best possible sourcing. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree with this solution, it is an easy one which support the pov of those who claim that there are only two castes: Brahmins & Shudras (which is a position supported & spread by (orthodox) Brahmins and often taken up by the British colonialists). I think the main pb comes from the definition of Kshatriya: Kshatriya = Warrior --> this is wrong ! and allows many communities to claim a Kshatriya status or origin. Kshatriya was just a term used to designate the aristocraty, nobility of the Hindu society, the ones who ruled the different kingdoms (and so, many of them were often involved in military activities as army commanders... And not simple soldiers !) and their descendants. Only lately Brahmins attempted to give a ritual status to that position in order to dominate it...And this is the other main pb: some support the view that only those who are ritually recognised as Kshatriyas by the Brahmins are genuine Kshatriyas. This does not correspond to historical reality and this view gives to Brahmins a position which they have not occupied before the Muslims & British invasions. Here is a ref: [2]: it is an old ref (with its colonnial pov) but regarding history of kshatriyas, it seems giving a neutral vision. I let you check. If we have to follow your action Qwy., we can remove this page entirely, this is the natural next step of such type of actions. I think by taking this action, you don't respect the neutral position of Wikipedia. If I don't make mistake, all the castes you have removed had a tradition of rulers and top military warriors (this is why I have not removed them myself whereas I have removed many others: Ahirs, Gujjars, Jats, Vanniyars, etc.). The fact that (most of tem) were not recognised as Kshatriyas by Brahmins is a fact but only a detail among others. Rajkris (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I, for one, understand the situation and I know that you have long held concerns regarding Brahmin POV pushing. Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims. I also know that you have been among those who have reverted contributions to the now-deleted list on numerous occasions, which you seem to accept were often down to what might arguably be described as pov-pushing from the "other side". And there is the rub: you appear to want to show one aspect but not another. Surely, you can accept that the list was doing more harm than good, if only in the sense of the disruption being caused by it? This is not an area of Wikipedia that gets a tremendous amount of oversight and so it becomes very difficult to deal with. This is not about Brahmin pov or any other pov; rather, it is about removing contentious content and what amounts to a honey-pot for random IP contributor etc.
Your logic fails when you think that the next step will be removal of the article. Why should you think that? The subject is notable even if some of the details (ie: at community level) are best deal with elsewhere. We also have Category:Kshatriya, although my bet is that a lot of the entries there are arguably inappropriate. Perhaps what we really need is Category:Communities claiming Kshatriya status? - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I, for one, understand the situation and I know that you have long held concerns regarding Brahmin POV pushing. Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims. I also know that you have been among those who have reverted contributions to the now-deleted list on numerous occasions, which you seem to accept were often down to what might arguably be described as pov-pushing from the "other side". And there is the rub: you appear to want to show one aspect but not another. Surely, you can accept that the list was doing more harm than good, if only in the sense of the disruption being caused by it? This is not an area of Wikipedia that gets a tremendous amount of oversight and so it becomes very difficult to deal with. This is not about Brahmin pov or any other pov; rather, it is about removing contentious content and what amounts to a honey-pot for random IP contributor etc.
- I don't agree with this solution, it is an easy one which support the pov of those who claim that there are only two castes: Brahmins & Shudras (which is a position supported & spread by (orthodox) Brahmins and often taken up by the British colonialists). I think the main pb comes from the definition of Kshatriya: Kshatriya = Warrior --> this is wrong ! and allows many communities to claim a Kshatriya status or origin. Kshatriya was just a term used to designate the aristocraty, nobility of the Hindu society, the ones who ruled the different kingdoms (and so, many of them were often involved in military activities as army commanders... And not simple soldiers !) and their descendants. Only lately Brahmins attempted to give a ritual status to that position in order to dominate it...And this is the other main pb: some support the view that only those who are ritually recognised as Kshatriyas by the Brahmins are genuine Kshatriyas. This does not correspond to historical reality and this view gives to Brahmins a position which they have not occupied before the Muslims & British invasions. Here is a ref: [2]: it is an old ref (with its colonnial pov) but regarding history of kshatriyas, it seems giving a neutral vision. I let you check. If we have to follow your action Qwy., we can remove this page entirely, this is the natural next step of such type of actions. I think by taking this action, you don't respect the neutral position of Wikipedia. If I don't make mistake, all the castes you have removed had a tradition of rulers and top military warriors (this is why I have not removed them myself whereas I have removed many others: Ahirs, Gujjars, Jats, Vanniyars, etc.). The fact that (most of tem) were not recognised as Kshatriyas by Brahmins is a fact but only a detail among others. Rajkris (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims", please have a look on the ref: "It seems therefore that the ancient Kshatriyas like the more modern Rajput, was a social class to which all rulers in virtue of their sovereignty were recognised as belonging; and both Kshatriya and Rajput groups can, therefore, be described as 'essentially an occupationnal caste, composed of all clans following the Hindu rituals, who actually undertook the work of government'". What better ref can i give, tell me ???. This is the type of definition I use to check whether a caste can be added in this Kshatriya page.Rajkris (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Restructuring
There have been a lot if issues about this particular page. And the most important ones are about inclusion of various clans in the Claimed members list. There have been a lot of arguments about the reliable sources, general opinions, and still we are at the same place where all the issues began. So lets restructure the section in order to give an unbiased projection of history rather than giving our own POVs. I hope we can find a way out of this confusion. Any suggestions?? -14.98.17.203 (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- There is no need to start a new section for this. Please see Talk:Kshatriya#Claims versus reality above. It is a recent thread. Put simply: delete the list. - Sitush (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Mention of Kunbi in Maratha section
I object to this sentence in Maratha section : However, other groups are not. For example, the Maratha-Kunbis, who made up 31.19 percent of the population of the districts which came to constitute the state of Maharastra, were classified as Shudras, in the Census of 1931.
Kunbi and Maratha are two different castes. In Maharashtra, Maratha is considered a high caste, while Kunbi is regarded as a low caste. For that reason, Kunbi were considered Shudra in 1931 census. Even today, Maratha comes under general category while Kunbi comes under OBC. Why should there be a mention of Kunbi in Maratha section?
Take the example of Rajput. There is no mention that Chamars have got shudra status in Rajput section. Then why mention of Kunbi caste? -Jgtagor (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- We tend to have a lot of problems with Maratha content, mainly because of a couple of prolific sockmasters who register new accounts and edit as proxy IPs on an almost-weekly basis. The information is reliably sourced and is relevant if only to counter the POV-pushing that the Maratha contingent seem to love. On the other hand, I am not adverse to removing the entire section and have mentioned this before. - Sitush (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've removed the whole section. Given that the vast majority of entries were "This group claiims membership, but independent sources say it wasn't, or was only partially"...what the heck use is that? We don't have a list somewhere of countries that claim to have been the greatest in the world (although, I suspect it's probably quite similar to List of countries). Since these reports fall under WP:BLPGROUP (in my opinion), I don't see why we would want anything other than the best possible sourcing. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree with this solution, it is an easy one which support the pov of those who claim that there are only two castes: Brahmins & Shudras (which is a position supported & spread by (orthodox) Brahmins and often taken up by the British colonialists). I think the main pb comes from the definition of Kshatriya: Kshatriya = Warrior --> this is wrong ! and allows many communities to claim a Kshatriya status or origin. Kshatriya was just a term used to designate the aristocraty, nobility of the Hindu society, the ones who ruled the different kingdoms (and so, many of them were often involved in military activities as army commanders... And not simple soldiers !) and their descendants. Only lately Brahmins attempted to give a ritual status to that position in order to dominate it...And this is the other main pb: some support the view that only those who are ritually recognised as Kshatriyas by the Brahmins are genuine Kshatriyas. This does not correspond to historical reality and this view gives to Brahmins a position which they have not occupied before the Muslims & British invasions. Here is a ref: [3]: it is an old ref (with its colonnial pov) but regarding history of kshatriyas, it seems giving a neutral vision. I let you check. If we have to follow your action Qwy., we can remove this page entirely, this is the natural next step of such type of actions. I think by taking this action, you don't respect the neutral position of Wikipedia. If I don't make mistake, all the castes you have removed had a tradition of rulers and top military warriors (this is why I have not removed them myself whereas I have removed many others: Ahirs, Gujjars, Jats, Vanniyars, etc.). The fact that (most of tem) were not recognised as Kshatriyas by Brahmins is a fact but only a detail among others. Rajkris (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I, for one, understand the situation and I know that you have long held concerns regarding Brahmin POV pushing. Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims. I also know that you have been among those who have reverted contributions to the now-deleted list on numerous occasions, which you seem to accept were often down to what might arguably be described as pov-pushing from the "other side". And there is the rub: you appear to want to show one aspect but not another. Surely, you can accept that the list was doing more harm than good, if only in the sense of the disruption being caused by it? This is not an area of Wikipedia that gets a tremendous amount of oversight and so it becomes very difficult to deal with. This is not about Brahmin pov or any other pov; rather, it is about removing contentious content and what amounts to a honey-pot for random IP contributor etc.
Your logic fails when you think that the next step will be removal of the article. Why should you think that? The subject is notable even if some of the details (ie: at community level) are best deal with elsewhere. We also have Category:Kshatriya, although my bet is that a lot of the entries there are arguably inappropriate. Perhaps what we really need is Category:Communities claiming Kshatriya status? - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I, for one, understand the situation and I know that you have long held concerns regarding Brahmin POV pushing. Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims. I also know that you have been among those who have reverted contributions to the now-deleted list on numerous occasions, which you seem to accept were often down to what might arguably be described as pov-pushing from the "other side". And there is the rub: you appear to want to show one aspect but not another. Surely, you can accept that the list was doing more harm than good, if only in the sense of the disruption being caused by it? This is not an area of Wikipedia that gets a tremendous amount of oversight and so it becomes very difficult to deal with. This is not about Brahmin pov or any other pov; rather, it is about removing contentious content and what amounts to a honey-pot for random IP contributor etc.
- I don't agree with this solution, it is an easy one which support the pov of those who claim that there are only two castes: Brahmins & Shudras (which is a position supported & spread by (orthodox) Brahmins and often taken up by the British colonialists). I think the main pb comes from the definition of Kshatriya: Kshatriya = Warrior --> this is wrong ! and allows many communities to claim a Kshatriya status or origin. Kshatriya was just a term used to designate the aristocraty, nobility of the Hindu society, the ones who ruled the different kingdoms (and so, many of them were often involved in military activities as army commanders... And not simple soldiers !) and their descendants. Only lately Brahmins attempted to give a ritual status to that position in order to dominate it...And this is the other main pb: some support the view that only those who are ritually recognised as Kshatriyas by the Brahmins are genuine Kshatriyas. This does not correspond to historical reality and this view gives to Brahmins a position which they have not occupied before the Muslims & British invasions. Here is a ref: [3]: it is an old ref (with its colonnial pov) but regarding history of kshatriyas, it seems giving a neutral vision. I let you check. If we have to follow your action Qwy., we can remove this page entirely, this is the natural next step of such type of actions. I think by taking this action, you don't respect the neutral position of Wikipedia. If I don't make mistake, all the castes you have removed had a tradition of rulers and top military warriors (this is why I have not removed them myself whereas I have removed many others: Ahirs, Gujjars, Jats, Vanniyars, etc.). The fact that (most of tem) were not recognised as Kshatriyas by Brahmins is a fact but only a detail among others. Rajkris (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims", please have a look on the ref: "It seems therefore that the ancient Kshatriyas like the more modern Rajput, was a social class to which all rulers in virtue of their sovereignty were recognised as belonging; and both Kshatriya and Rajput groups can, therefore, be described as 'essentially an occupationnal caste, composed of all clans following the Hindu rituals, who actually undertook the work of government'". What better ref can i give, tell me ???. This is the type of definition I use to check whether a caste can be added in this Kshatriya page.Rajkris (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Restructuring
There have been a lot if issues about this particular page. And the most important ones are about inclusion of various clans in the Claimed members list. There have been a lot of arguments about the reliable sources, general opinions, and still we are at the same place where all the issues began. So lets restructure the section in order to give an unbiased projection of history rather than giving our own POVs. I hope we can find a way out of this confusion. Any suggestions?? -14.98.17.203 (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- There is no need to start a new section for this. Please see Talk:Kshatriya#Claims versus reality above. It is a recent thread. Put simply: delete the list. - Sitush (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Use of Caste in biographies- does it require the individual's self-declaration?
Hi, request those who are watching this page to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Caste_identification on whether mentioning a person's caste (Jati) requires that person to explicitly say that he belongs to XX caste (like in the case of religion and sexuality), or whether caste identity is objective and knowable enough (like ethnic background) to be ascertained without producing proof that the person explicitly identified with a particular caste. For example, can we identify Mulayam_Singh_Yadav as a Yadav based on newspaper articles etc., or whether we need proof that Mulayam Singh Yadav has explicitly accepted 'Yadav' as his caste (by saying, for example, something like "I am a Yadav".) Sreejiraj (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Ahirs/Yadavs are real Kshatriyas
Ahirs are doodhwalas, No, they were not thee kshatriyas, Why they are ashamed of saying themselves Ahir. The tribes and castes of Bombay, Volume 1 By Reginald Edward Enthoven
Also according to The Vayu purana the colonies of Kshatriyas are Vahlikas, Vadha- dhanas, Abhiras, Kalatoyakas, Aparitas, Sudras, Pahlavas.
The Vayu purana, Part 1-page-296 There are many references proving ahirs to be the real kshatriya. the question is not whether they are or not? but objectional is the way to say as if they are doing something wrong. cowherding is every hindus religious emtion. in Hinduism cow is equated with mother. Anybody can go for any profession good or bad for earning livelyhood. Who are we to put a question mark on that. Today many brahmins are running Dairies and keeping cows and buffalows. that does not mean that they are degraded just because they are poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahensingha (talk • contribs) 11:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
But KAMMAS ARE KSHATRIYAS
Kammas were ruled from 3rd century, there some big evidences in tamilnadu. KAMMAS have early origin and history before christ. If u dnt knw about this, plz don't talk. Kshatriya Nayaka (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia requires that information be verified by reliable sources. If you know of such sources, please provide them here for review. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
REMOVING CLAIMED MEMBERS: GOOD IDEA OR NOT ?
I don't agree with this solution, it is an easy one which support the pov of those who claim that there are only two castes: Brahmins & Shudras (which is a position supported & spread by (orthodox) Brahmins and often taken up by the British colonialists). I think the main pb comes from the definition of Kshatriya: Kshatriya = Warrior --> this is wrong ! and allows many communities to claim a Kshatriya status or origin. Kshatriya was just the term used to designate the Aristocraty, Nobility of the Hindu society, the ones who ruled the different kingdoms (and so, many of them were often involved in military activities as army commanders... And not simple soldiers !) and their descendants. Only lately Brahmins attempted to give a ritual status to that position in order to dominate it...And this is the other main pb: some support the view that only those who are ritually recognised as Kshatriyas by the Brahmins are genuine Kshatriyas. This does not correspond to historical reality and this view gives to Brahmins a position which they have not occupied before the Muslims & British invasions. Here is a ref: [4]: it is an old ref (with its colonnial pov) but regarding history of kshatriyas, it seems giving a neutral vision. I let you check. If we have to follow your action Qwy., we can remove this page entirely, this is the natural next step of such type of actions. I think by taking this action you have removed a part of India history (not deliberately I think) & you don't respect the neutral position of Wikipedia. If I don't make mistake, all the castes you have removed had a tradition of rulers and top military warriors (this is why I have not removed them myself whereas I have removed many others: Ahirs, Gujjars, Jats, Vanniyars, etc.). The fact that (most of them) were not recognised as Kshatriyas by Brahmins is a fact but only a detail among others (explained by some scholars). But through your removal, you have made a detail, the main point (not delibaretely I think)...[User:Rajkris|Rajkris]] (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I definitely disagree with both removal of the section as well as Rajkris's definition of Kshatriya. The word Kshatriya is not just about nobility, but also about being a warrior race. Take the example of Rajput kingdoms, who have undoubtedly got Kshatriya status. The rulers of these Rajput states were Rajputs, but most of the armymen were also Rajputs. They definitely don't have that prestigious status, which Rajput princes had, but still they will be regarded as Kshatriya because the chief definition of Kshatriya is warrior. -Sensehuman (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- You are wrong. See the root definition of the Kshatriya [5]: "Kshatriya from Sanskrit Kshatra 'rule' or 'authority' . This is the definition of Kshatriya and this clearly shows that only rulers (kings and nobles) were considered as Kshatriyas. The duty of rulers was to fight (as commanders, officers) during wartime and govern during peacetime. This is the proper definition of Kshatriya. The definition Kshatriya = Warrior is wrong !... And this wrong definition is used by many low castes communities to claim Kshatriyas status !... All Indians (and all people in the world) have warriors among their ancestors, does it mean they are all Kshatriyas ???... NO!
- Regarding Rajput, they are not all considered as Kshatriyas, only the top members of them (kings, princes and other land lords (thakurs) & land owners). See definition of Rajput [6]. "but most of the armymen were also Rajputs" --> wrong, pov, these people lately claimed Rajput status and are looked down by real rajputs.
- Only rulers of a Hindu society can be considered as Kshatriyas and only their descendants can claim Kshatriya origins.
- A soldier, warrior is not a Kshatriya
- There are 2 main reasons why this article is a mess: the fake definition of Kshatriya (kshatriya = warrior) and the fact that some wrongly consider that only those who are recongnised as Kshatriyas by Brahmins are proper Kshatriyas.Rajkris (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- You are wrong. See the root definition of the Kshatriya [5]: "Kshatriya from Sanskrit Kshatra 'rule' or 'authority' . This is the definition of Kshatriya and this clearly shows that only rulers (kings and nobles) were considered as Kshatriyas. The duty of rulers was to fight (as commanders, officers) during wartime and govern during peacetime. This is the proper definition of Kshatriya. The definition Kshatriya = Warrior is wrong !... And this wrong definition is used by many low castes communities to claim Kshatriyas status !... All Indians (and all people in the world) have warriors among their ancestors, does it mean they are all Kshatriyas ???... NO!
I could not see my data
I have added kshatriya communties, gotras, culture and tradtions, and organizations. why could I see that data after logging out?. I think the article Kshatriya is owned by some one else and no one is permitted to edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylaptops (talk • contribs)
- What you have add has been removed because there is no proper refs. Discuss first & show proper refs. Then we can see.Rajkris (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Rajkris here. You must use reliable sources; for more information, please see WP:RS. However, I don't recommend even trying to source a list of Kshatryia clans; such a list would certainly be incomplete, and absolutely lead to people edit warring clans on and off the list. No one source would be sufficient to verify such a list. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Real Kshatriyas
Kshatriyas are orthodox in following vedic (or brahminic) rituals like tonsuring, wearing sacred thread at Upanayana, naming ceremony, kanyadaan, mangalsutra etc. They have gotras with sapta rishi names just like those of Brahmins. Kshatriyas are called by different names in different states of India. Non-Orthodox kshatriyas are considered as degraded kshatriyas who does not believe in vedic rituals.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylaptops (talk • contribs)
- As we mentioned above, you need reliable sources to add such information to the article. However, I am certain that it's much more complicated than you're explaining, and that your explanation does not cover all possible circumstances. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- In fact he's right on the money. If you want a documentary source everything he says is in Manusmrti as a classical source on the obligations of a kshatriya but nobody's going to mention Manusmrti in the article or we'll see no end to the temper tantrums on this page from various modern groups claiming kshatriya status but not qualifying under Manu's rules. But really, there is no way to provide complete documentary sources on Indian religious orthodoxy since it's an oral tradition. India doesn't come with a Qur'an or some other technical manual/instructions leaflet.--Zubedar (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Seeking Info
Hi, Am looking for the earliest usage of the term Kshatriya in any of the dravidian languages. Please help if you can find the oldest usage of kshatriya in Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam literature with dating please. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
Protector
Surely you people can reference relevant sources properly!
Quoting manu or the dharamsastra is not sufficient !
Stop relying on your supposed names and prove your character's worth.
Evidence first (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- There are lots of reliable sources in the article, and I don't know what your second and third sentences mean. Are you even talking about this article, or are you somehow writing "to" kshatriya? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Kshatriya List
- I've removed the whole section. Given that the vast majority of entries were "This group claiims membership, but independent sources say it wasn't, or was only partially"...what the heck use is that? We don't have a list somewhere of countries that claim to have been the greatest in the world (although, I suspect it's probably quite similar to List of countries). Since these reports fall under WP:BLPGROUP (in my opinion), I don't see why we would want anything other than the best possible sourcing. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree with this solution, it is an easy one which support the pov of those who claim that there are only two castes: Brahmins & Shudras (which is a position supported & spread by (orthodox) Brahmins and often taken up by the British colonialists). I think the main pb comes from the definition of Kshatriya: Kshatriya = Warrior --> this is wrong ! and allows many communities to claim a Kshatriya status or origin. Kshatriya was just a term used to designate the aristocraty, nobility of the Hindu society, the ones who ruled the different kingdoms (and so, many of them were often involved in military activities as army commanders... And not simple soldiers !) and their descendants. Only lately Brahmins attempted to give a ritual status to that position in order to dominate it...And this is the other main pb: some support the view that only those who are ritually recognised as Kshatriyas by the Brahmins are genuine Kshatriyas. This does not correspond to historical reality and this view gives to Brahmins a position which they have not occupied before the Muslims & British invasions. Here is a ref: [7]: it is an old ref (with its colonnial pov) but regarding history of kshatriyas, it seems giving a neutral vision. I let you check. If we have to follow your action Qwy., we can remove this page entirely, this is the natural next step of such type of actions. I think by taking this action, you don't respect the neutral position of Wikipedia. If I don't make mistake, all the castes you have removed had a tradition of rulers and top military warriors (this is why I have not removed them myself whereas I have removed many others: Ahirs, Gujjars, Jats, Vanniyars, etc.). The fact that (most of tem) were not recognised as Kshatriyas by Brahmins is a fact but only a detail among others. Rajkris (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I, for one, understand the situation and I know that you have long held concerns regarding Brahmin POV pushing. Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims. I also know that you have been among those who have reverted contributions to the now-deleted list on numerous occasions, which you seem to accept were often down to what might arguably be described as pov-pushing from the "other side". And there is the rub: you appear to want to show one aspect but not another. Surely, you can accept that the list was doing more harm than good, if only in the sense of the disruption being caused by it? This is not an area of Wikipedia that gets a tremendous amount of oversight and so it becomes very difficult to deal with. This is not about Brahmin pov or any other pov; rather, it is about removing contentious content and what amounts to a honey-pot for random IP contributor etc.
Your logic fails when you think that the next step will be removal of the article. Why should you think that? The subject is notable even if some of the details (ie: at community level) are best deal with elsewhere. We also have Category:Kshatriya, although my bet is that a lot of the entries there are arguably inappropriate. Perhaps what we really need is Category:Communities claiming Kshatriya status? - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I, for one, understand the situation and I know that you have long held concerns regarding Brahmin POV pushing. Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims. I also know that you have been among those who have reverted contributions to the now-deleted list on numerous occasions, which you seem to accept were often down to what might arguably be described as pov-pushing from the "other side". And there is the rub: you appear to want to show one aspect but not another. Surely, you can accept that the list was doing more harm than good, if only in the sense of the disruption being caused by it? This is not an area of Wikipedia that gets a tremendous amount of oversight and so it becomes very difficult to deal with. This is not about Brahmin pov or any other pov; rather, it is about removing contentious content and what amounts to a honey-pot for random IP contributor etc.
- Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims", please have a look on the ref: "It seems therefore that the ancient Kshatriyas like the more modern Rajput, was a social class to which all rulers in virtue of their sovereignty were recognised as belonging; and both Kshatriya and Rajput groups can, therefore, be described as 'essentially an occupationnal caste, composed of all clans following the Hindu rituals, who actually undertook the work of government'". What better ref can i give, tell me ???. This is the type of definition I use to check whether a caste can be added in this Kshatriya page.Rajkris (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you undid the archiving here. This discussion isn't going on. The quote you have in boldface doesn't say that Rajput were Kshatriya; in fact, it very clearly lines them up as being not the same, because it refers to them as two distinct classes and places them in parallel. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims", please have a look on the ref: "It seems therefore that the ancient Kshatriyas like the more modern Rajput, was a social class to which all rulers in virtue of their sovereignty were recognised as belonging; and both Kshatriya and Rajput groups can, therefore, be described as 'essentially an occupationnal caste, composed of all clans following the Hindu rituals, who actually undertook the work of government'". What better ref can i give, tell me ???. This is the type of definition I use to check whether a caste can be added in this Kshatriya page.Rajkris (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, the discussion is still going on. You misunderstood, I'm not using this quote to equate Rajput with Kshatriya... I am using it for the definition of Kshatriya. My quote and my ref (book) clearly states that the Kshatriya is a social class to which all (Hindu) rulers were recognised as belonging. This is the (historical) definition of Kshatriya. Here is another ref: Kingship and community in early India By Charles Drekmeier page 82 [8]: "The very fact of governing was often enough to qualify the ruler as a kshatriya.".Rajkris (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh gosh, I am involved in too many articles with disputed content at present and my brain hurts. Rajkris, can this be stayed for (say) a week or so? Obviously, if others want to respond then that is perfectly ok but I really need a bit of time right now. You can ping me on my talk page to remind me in a week. Sorry about this but I've got a lot going on both on and off Wikipedia and am not even keeping up with fixing the obvious problematic changes to articles that show up on my watchlist, let alone many of the talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, the discussion is still going on. You misunderstood, I'm not using this quote to equate Rajput with Kshatriya... I am using it for the definition of Kshatriya. My quote and my ref (book) clearly states that the Kshatriya is a social class to which all (Hindu) rulers were recognised as belonging. This is the (historical) definition of Kshatriya. Here is another ref: Kingship and community in early India By Charles Drekmeier page 82 [8]: "The very fact of governing was often enough to qualify the ruler as a kshatriya.".Rajkris (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- This topic is still open. In order to update it & make it more clear, I am listing below the different refs I found. For your reminder, this topic has been opened after the removal of the list of former ruling castes; please see my first reply on this topic above which explain why I'm completely against this removal.
- This topic is still open. In order to update it & make it more clear, I am listing below the different refs I found. For your reminder, this topic has been opened after the removal of the list of former ruling castes; please see my first reply on this topic above which explain why I'm completely against this removal.
- The Caste System of Northern India by Sir Edward Blunt, page 26 [9]: "It seems therefore that the ancient Kshatriyas like the more modern Rajput, was a social class to which all rulers in virtue of their sovereignty were recognised as belonging; and both Kshatriya and Rajput groups can, therefore, be described as 'essentially an occupationnal caste, composed of all clans following the Hindu rituals, who actually undertook the work of government'"
- Kingship and community in early India By Charles Drekmeier page 82 [10]: "The very fact of governing was often enough to qualify the ruler as a kshatriya."
- Structure and Change in Indian Society by Milton B. Singer,Bernard S. Cohn, page 190 [11]: "Opportunities for seizing political power were more likely to be available to the leaders of dominant castes, and even tribes, than to others. This is why in South India dominant peasant castes such as the Marathas, Reddis, Vellalas, Nayars and Coorgs have been able to claim Kshatriyas status... Historically, the Kshatriya varna was recruited from a wide variety of castes all of which has one attribute in common that is, the possession of political power."
- The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Society in India by Christopher John Fuller, page 19 [12]:"... so that many kings historically proclaimed as Kshatriyas irrespective of their birth. In the varna hierarchy (as the Purusha sukta makes plain) and in Brahmanical ideology (as set out in dharmashastra texts), kshatriya kings are inferior to Brahmans... In the countryside, locally dominant castes enjoying prepondarant control over the land fequently identify themselves as Kshatriyas... The members of non-Brahman dominant castes tend to be ambivalent about Brahman claims to preeminence; usually they are not denied openly, but nor is made too much of them. A royal military model of status ranking is instead given prominence, and landholders demand and commonly receive due deference from their subordinates, often clients bound by political and economic ties."
- Medieval Indian Mindscapes: Space, Time, Society, Man by Eugenia Vanina, pages 128 to 140 [13]:"To sum up, the caste system has been a complex, multi-layered institutionn changing through many centuries and, it is important to add, not only temporarly but spatially.(...) And even in the 'classical Hindu' period (...) this hierarchy was far from rigid and eternally fixed structure imagined by the Orientalists. (...) The elite of agricultural and pastoral castes, traditionally identified as shudras, would rise to the level of petty and medium feudal lords, shun physical labour, acquire military skills and warrior mentality and begin to claim kshatriya status."
- India's Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India By Christophe Jaffrelot from page 151 [14]:
- "This process (caste ethnicisation) was partly shaped by Europenan ideas, as propagated by the missionaries and the British schools. While castes have always been perceived in India as a kin groups, the racial dimension that caste tended to acquire in the nineteenth century derived from European interpretations of Indian society."
- "Susan Bayly points out that 'many pre independence ethnogaphers' from Britain 'portrayed India as a composite social landscape in which only certain peoples, those of superior "Aryan" blood, had evolved historically in ways which left them "shackled" by a hierarchical, Brahmanically - defined ideology of "caste". At the same time large numbers of other Indians - those identified in varying racial terms as Dravidians, as members of "servile" classes, aborigines, wild tribes, and those of so-called "mixed" racial origins - were portrayed as being ethnologically distinct from this so-called Aryan population, and were not all thought to belong to a ranked Brahminical caste order.' In addition to the ethnographers, the British administration imbibed these Orientalist categories and propagated them in society. In 1886, the Governor of Madras, Mountstuart Elphinstone, in his address to graduates of the university of Madras emphatically declared: 'You are of pure Dravidian race. I should like to see the pre-Sanskrit element amongst you asserting itself rather more.' Gradually, Non-Brahmins and Dravidianism coincided and the low castes looked at themselves as forming an ethnic category."
- "In other words, colonial ethnography was largely responsible for merging caste and race, and more precisely for equating the 'Aryans' with the upper castes and the Dravidians with lowest orders of the Indian society. This perception prepared the ground for the interpretation of castes"in ethnic terms outside the 'Aryavarta', the northern region where the Brahmanical pattern was supposed to have taken root. Indeed, this ethnicisation process was more prominent in western and southern India than in the North."
- Casting Kings : Bards and Indian Modernity: Bards and Indian Modernity By Jeffrey G. Snodgrass Associate Professor of Anthropology Colorado State University, page 55 [15]: "The varna scheme described by ancient Hindu texts provides for an idealized society. These texts thus help us to understand how Brahmins, or at least Brahmin authors of certain religious texts, thought society should be organized. However these texts provide little evidence of how ancient Indian society actually was organized."
- The Caste System of Northern India by Sir Edward Blunt, page 26 [9]: "It seems therefore that the ancient Kshatriyas like the more modern Rajput, was a social class to which all rulers in virtue of their sovereignty were recognised as belonging; and both Kshatriya and Rajput groups can, therefore, be described as 'essentially an occupationnal caste, composed of all clans following the Hindu rituals, who actually undertook the work of government'"
- Based on the above refs, what one can tell is: understanding of Caste System in general and the notion of Kshatriya in paticular is based on British colonial & Christian missionaries POV, ideology. This POV traces its roots to ancient Hindu texts written by (some) Brahmins but those texts are theorical ones and do not correspond to historical reality. Regarding Khatriya, in reality, the ruling castes of the Hindu society assumed the function of Kshatriyas. This is how we must define & write the Kshatriya wiki article. Making Kshatriya dependent on the definition given by ancien Hindu texts (written by some Brahmins) is highly misleading & breaking wiki neutrality... But (of course) one must mention it. Ex of how we should, could write to core article of Kshatriya: ... In ancient Hindu texts Kshatriya was defined as... Legendary Kshatriyas were:.... In reality, the Kshatriya varna included the various castes which through the control of land (through military conquest, etc.), undertook the function of rulership & military power. These castes are: Rajputs, Kayasthas, Marathas, Rajus, Reddys, Vellalars, Nairs.
Protector
Surely you people can reference relevant sources properly!
Quoting manu or the dharamsastra is not sufficient !
Stop relying on your supposed names and prove your character's worth.
Evidence first (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- There are lots of reliable sources in the article, and I don't know what your second and third sentences mean. Are you even talking about this article, or are you somehow writing "to" kshatriya? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Kshatriya List
- I've removed the whole section. Given that the vast majority of entries were "This group claiims membership, but independent sources say it wasn't, or was only partially"...what the heck use is that? We don't have a list somewhere of countries that claim to have been the greatest in the world (although, I suspect it's probably quite similar to List of countries). Since these reports fall under WP:BLPGROUP (in my opinion), I don't see why we would want anything other than the best possible sourcing. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree with this solution, it is an easy one which support the pov of those who claim that there are only two castes: Brahmins & Shudras (which is a position supported & spread by (orthodox) Brahmins and often taken up by the British colonialists). I think the main pb comes from the definition of Kshatriya: Kshatriya = Warrior --> this is wrong ! and allows many communities to claim a Kshatriya status or origin. Kshatriya was just a term used to designate the aristocraty, nobility of the Hindu society, the ones who ruled the different kingdoms (and so, many of them were often involved in military activities as army commanders... And not simple soldiers !) and their descendants. Only lately Brahmins attempted to give a ritual status to that position in order to dominate it...And this is the other main pb: some support the view that only those who are ritually recognised as Kshatriyas by the Brahmins are genuine Kshatriyas. This does not correspond to historical reality and this view gives to Brahmins a position which they have not occupied before the Muslims & British invasions. Here is a ref: [16]: it is an old ref (with its colonnial pov) but regarding history of kshatriyas, it seems giving a neutral vision. I let you check. If we have to follow your action Qwy., we can remove this page entirely, this is the natural next step of such type of actions. I think by taking this action, you don't respect the neutral position of Wikipedia. If I don't make mistake, all the castes you have removed had a tradition of rulers and top military warriors (this is why I have not removed them myself whereas I have removed many others: Ahirs, Gujjars, Jats, Vanniyars, etc.). The fact that (most of tem) were not recognised as Kshatriyas by Brahmins is a fact but only a detail among others. Rajkris (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I, for one, understand the situation and I know that you have long held concerns regarding Brahmin POV pushing. Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims. I also know that you have been among those who have reverted contributions to the now-deleted list on numerous occasions, which you seem to accept were often down to what might arguably be described as pov-pushing from the "other side". And there is the rub: you appear to want to show one aspect but not another. Surely, you can accept that the list was doing more harm than good, if only in the sense of the disruption being caused by it? This is not an area of Wikipedia that gets a tremendous amount of oversight and so it becomes very difficult to deal with. This is not about Brahmin pov or any other pov; rather, it is about removing contentious content and what amounts to a honey-pot for random IP contributor etc.
Your logic fails when you think that the next step will be removal of the article. Why should you think that? The subject is notable even if some of the details (ie: at community level) are best deal with elsewhere. We also have Category:Kshatriya, although my bet is that a lot of the entries there are arguably inappropriate. Perhaps what we really need is Category:Communities claiming Kshatriya status? - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I, for one, understand the situation and I know that you have long held concerns regarding Brahmin POV pushing. Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims. I also know that you have been among those who have reverted contributions to the now-deleted list on numerous occasions, which you seem to accept were often down to what might arguably be described as pov-pushing from the "other side". And there is the rub: you appear to want to show one aspect but not another. Surely, you can accept that the list was doing more harm than good, if only in the sense of the disruption being caused by it? This is not an area of Wikipedia that gets a tremendous amount of oversight and so it becomes very difficult to deal with. This is not about Brahmin pov or any other pov; rather, it is about removing contentious content and what amounts to a honey-pot for random IP contributor etc.
- Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims", please have a look on the ref: "It seems therefore that the ancient Kshatriyas like the more modern Rajput, was a social class to which all rulers in virtue of their sovereignty were recognised as belonging; and both Kshatriya and Rajput groups can, therefore, be described as 'essentially an occupationnal caste, composed of all clans following the Hindu rituals, who actually undertook the work of government'". What better ref can i give, tell me ???. This is the type of definition I use to check whether a caste can be added in this Kshatriya page.Rajkris (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you undid the archiving here. This discussion isn't going on. The quote you have in boldface doesn't say that Rajput were Kshatriya; in fact, it very clearly lines them up as being not the same, because it refers to them as two distinct classes and places them in parallel. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims", please have a look on the ref: "It seems therefore that the ancient Kshatriyas like the more modern Rajput, was a social class to which all rulers in virtue of their sovereignty were recognised as belonging; and both Kshatriya and Rajput groups can, therefore, be described as 'essentially an occupationnal caste, composed of all clans following the Hindu rituals, who actually undertook the work of government'". What better ref can i give, tell me ???. This is the type of definition I use to check whether a caste can be added in this Kshatriya page.Rajkris (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, the discussion is still going on. You misunderstood, I'm not using this quote to equate Rajput with Kshatriya... I am using it for the definition of Kshatriya. My quote and my ref (book) clearly states that the Kshatriya is a social class to which all (Hindu) rulers were recognised as belonging. This is the (historical) definition of Kshatriya. Here is another ref: Kingship and community in early India By Charles Drekmeier page 82 [17]: "The very fact of governing was often enough to qualify the ruler as a kshatriya.".Rajkris (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh gosh, I am involved in too many articles with disputed content at present and my brain hurts. Rajkris, can this be stayed for (say) a week or so? Obviously, if others want to respond then that is perfectly ok but I really need a bit of time right now. You can ping me on my talk page to remind me in a week. Sorry about this but I've got a lot going on both on and off Wikipedia and am not even keeping up with fixing the obvious problematic changes to articles that show up on my watchlist, let alone many of the talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, the discussion is still going on. You misunderstood, I'm not using this quote to equate Rajput with Kshatriya... I am using it for the definition of Kshatriya. My quote and my ref (book) clearly states that the Kshatriya is a social class to which all (Hindu) rulers were recognised as belonging. This is the (historical) definition of Kshatriya. Here is another ref: Kingship and community in early India By Charles Drekmeier page 82 [17]: "The very fact of governing was often enough to qualify the ruler as a kshatriya.".Rajkris (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- This topic is still open. In order to update it & make it more clear, I am listing below the different refs I found. For your reminder, this topic has been opened after the removal of the list of former ruling castes; please see my first reply on this topic above which explain why I'm completely against this removal.
- This topic is still open. In order to update it & make it more clear, I am listing below the different refs I found. For your reminder, this topic has been opened after the removal of the list of former ruling castes; please see my first reply on this topic above which explain why I'm completely against this removal.
- The Caste System of Northern India by Sir Edward Blunt, page 26 [18]: "It seems therefore that the ancient Kshatriyas like the more modern Rajput, was a social class to which all rulers in virtue of their sovereignty were recognised as belonging; and both Kshatriya and Rajput groups can, therefore, be described as 'essentially an occupationnal caste, composed of all clans following the Hindu rituals, who actually undertook the work of government'"
- Kingship and community in early India By Charles Drekmeier page 82 [19]: "The very fact of governing was often enough to qualify the ruler as a kshatriya."
- Structure and Change in Indian Society by Milton B. Singer,Bernard S. Cohn, page 190 [20]: "Opportunities for seizing political power were more likely to be available to the leaders of dominant castes, and even tribes, than to others. This is why in South India dominant peasant castes such as the Marathas, Reddis, Vellalas, Nayars and Coorgs have been able to claim Kshatriyas status... Historically, the Kshatriya varna was recruited from a wide variety of castes all of which has one attribute in common that is, the possession of political power."
- The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Society in India by Christopher John Fuller, page 19 [21]:"... so that many kings historically proclaimed as Kshatriyas irrespective of their birth. In the varna hierarchy (as the Purusha sukta makes plain) and in Brahmanical ideology (as set out in dharmashastra texts), kshatriya kings are inferior to Brahmans... In the countryside, locally dominant castes enjoying prepondarant control over the land fequently identify themselves as Kshatriyas... The members of non-Brahman dominant castes tend to be ambivalent about Brahman claims to preeminence; usually they are not denied openly, but nor is made too much of them. A royal military model of status ranking is instead given prominence, and landholders demand and commonly receive due deference from their subordinates, often clients bound by political and economic ties."
- Medieval Indian Mindscapes: Space, Time, Society, Man by Eugenia Vanina, pages 128 to 140 [22]:"To sum up, the caste system has been a complex, multi-layered institutionn changing through many centuries and, it is important to add, not only temporarly but spatially.(...) And even in the 'classical Hindu' period (...) this hierarchy was far from rigid and eternally fixed structure imagined by the Orientalists. (...) The elite of agricultural and pastoral castes, traditionally identified as shudras, would rise to the level of petty and medium feudal lords, shun physical labour, acquire military skills and warrior mentality and begin to claim kshatriya status."
- India's Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India By Christophe Jaffrelot from page 151 [23]:
- "This process (caste ethnicisation) was partly shaped by Europenan ideas, as propagated by the missionaries and the British schools. While castes have always been perceived in India as a kin groups, the racial dimension that caste tended to acquire in the nineteenth century derived from European interpretations of Indian society."
- "Susan Bayly points out that 'many pre independence ethnogaphers' from Britain 'portrayed India as a composite social landscape in which only certain peoples, those of superior "Aryan" blood, had evolved historically in ways which left them "shackled" by a hierarchical, Brahmanically - defined ideology of "caste". At the same time large numbers of other Indians - those identified in varying racial terms as Dravidians, as members of "servile" classes, aborigines, wild tribes, and those of so-called "mixed" racial origins - were portrayed as being ethnologically distinct from this so-called Aryan population, and were not all thought to belong to a ranked Brahminical caste order.' In addition to the ethnographers, the British administration imbibed these Orientalist categories and propagated them in society. In 1886, the Governor of Madras, Mountstuart Elphinstone, in his address to graduates of the university of Madras emphatically declared: 'You are of pure Dravidian race. I should like to see the pre-Sanskrit element amongst you asserting itself rather more.' Gradually, Non-Brahmins and Dravidianism coincided and the low castes looked at themselves as forming an ethnic category."
- "In other words, colonial ethnography was largely responsible for merging caste and race, and more precisely for equating the 'Aryans' with the upper castes and the Dravidians with lowest orders of the Indian society. This perception prepared the ground for the interpretation of castes"in ethnic terms outside the 'Aryavarta', the northern region where the Brahmanical pattern was supposed to have taken root. Indeed, this ethnicisation process was more prominent in western and southern India than in the North."
- Casting Kings : Bards and Indian Modernity: Bards and Indian Modernity By Jeffrey G. Snodgrass Associate Professor of Anthropology Colorado State University, page 55 [24]: "The varna scheme described by ancient Hindu texts provides for an idealized society. These texts thus help us to understand how Brahmins, or at least Brahmin authors of certain religious texts, thought society should be organized. However these texts provide little evidence of how ancient Indian society actually was organized."
- The Caste System of Northern India by Sir Edward Blunt, page 26 [18]: "It seems therefore that the ancient Kshatriyas like the more modern Rajput, was a social class to which all rulers in virtue of their sovereignty were recognised as belonging; and both Kshatriya and Rajput groups can, therefore, be described as 'essentially an occupationnal caste, composed of all clans following the Hindu rituals, who actually undertook the work of government'"
- Based on the above refs, what one can tell is: understanding of Caste System in general and the notion of Kshatriya in paticular is based on British colonial & Christian missionaries POV, ideology. This POV traces its roots to ancient Hindu texts written by (some) Brahmins but those texts are theorical ones and do not correspond to historical reality. Regarding Khatriya, in reality, the ruling castes of the Hindu society assumed the function of Kshatriyas. This is how we must define & write the Kshatriya wiki article. Making Kshatriya dependent on the definition given by ancien Hindu texts (written by some Brahmins) is highly misleading & breaking wiki neutrality... But (of course) one must mention it. Ex of how we should, could write to core article of Kshatriya: ... In ancient Hindu texts Kshatriya was defined as... Legendary Kshatriyas were:.... In reality, the Kshatriya varna included the various castes which through the control of land (through military conquest, etc.), undertook the function of rulership & military power. These castes are: Rajputs, Kayasthas, Marathas, Rajus, Reddys, Vellalars, Nairs.
Protector
Surely you people can reference relevant sources properly!
Quoting manu or the dharamsastra is not sufficient !
Stop relying on your supposed names and prove your character's worth.
Evidence first (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- There are lots of reliable sources in the article, and I don't know what your second and third sentences mean. Are you even talking about this article, or are you somehow writing "to" kshatriya? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Rajkris
Varna terms belong chiefly to dharmashastras wherein, the varnavysvastha is a well-organized social construct categorizing people based on birth. There is no evidence Varna system was practiced in regions other than aryavarta back then. There is plenty of evidence for fights between aryas and non-aryas. The scheduled castes and various tribes of India did not follow Varna system, they had (or have) their own tribal religions, and yet they have been classified as hindus. There is no evidence of varnavyavastha among dravidian speakers, austroasiatic languages, or any other linguistic group apart from the indo-aryan society. The term 'Hindu' with its -"ism" (to indicate people of non-christian, non-muslim culture) started being used as recently as the 19th century. You need to discuss before changing content.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
- Sorry, but in the definition of Kshatriya in EOD, Britannica [25], etc. it is first mentioned mentioned Hindu and not your so called Arya(n). So what you are doing is pov pushing & cannot be acceptable.Rajkris (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- The term 'Aryan' is not neutral & does not mean the same thing from one people to another... Currently among scholars, words like 'Indo European', 'Vedic people' are favoured instead of the so called Arya(n). We must keep this neutrality & trend on wikipedia.
- Regarding your statement on Kshatriya def is linked to Dharmashastra(written by Brahmins) is pov (see above discussion which is not over) and so is against wikipedia neutrality... If you don't agree, please provide proper academical sources which clearly state that only Dharmashastra & other like books can used to define Kshatriya. From side I have other sources which tell Kshatriya = Hindu rulers, chieftains...
- In the introduction, we have to be neutral & general... Then in the development, we can speak about all.Rajkris (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Rajkris
Hello Rajkris, Please see the detailed reply to your points on my talk page here. Have sought the help of Sitush. It is better if Sitush writes the intro. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
- I saw your comments & replied in your talk page. Here is the summary:
- regarding not using the term Hindu: not acceptable at all. This term maybe new but it is used by the academical cercles; in each definition of Kshatriya you can find in various books written by different scholars & encyclopedias, it is always first mentioned '...Kshatriya Hindu caste...'. Why wikipedia should be different ??... By doing so, you are breaking wikipedia neutrality and harming its quality !...
- concerning the usage of the term Aryan, we should not use it because its meaning changes throughout space & time and therefore it is confusing. Again, in order to maintain wiki neutrality, quality and not confuse readers who come here to have a clear overview of what is Kshatriya and not get confused with another word. We must remove the word Aryan from this page, keep a neutral position and make this article easy to read & understand. Introduction must be as clear & simple as other encyclopedias ([26]).
- Your will to make the definition of Kshatriya depending (only) on religious texts written by (some) Brahmins is not at all acceptable because it is highly misleading readers and therefore harming wiki neutrality & quality. See above all the refs I provided in Kshatriya List topic.