Talk:Lodhi (caste)

Rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Lodhi Rajputs → Lodhi — The article refers to them as "Lodhi", the "Rajput" seeming an unneccesary qualifier. Though there is a Batani Pashtun tribe called "Lodi", I don't see any other "Lodhi" to distinguish these Rajputs from. So propose moving to Lodhi in the interests of having the most concise title. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removing uncited legendary origin; can anyone source this?

I have searched but been unable to find any cites for the following. Can anyone source this?

“ According to the Lodhis' legend about their origin, when Parashuram (the sixth avatar of Vishnu) was clearing the earth of the Kshatriya warrior class, the surviving Kshatriyas leaders sought protection from Mahesh (Shiva). Mahesh saved the Kshatriya from Parashuram, and ordered all of them (including Lodham) to choose farming instead of kshatra (weapons). As Mahesh saved the Lodhams from the atrocities of Parashuram he is worshiped as the Lodheswar Mahadev. ”

MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Mathew have you ever read rigveda, Manusmriti or Shiv pura if not than go it and see . You can have English translation of these oldest literature of HINDU/ Sanatan Religion. There u can find what lodhies are. I have already given few links. No where in Hindu scripture Lodhis are titled as Shudra, they are titled as warriors. U have read Jains book which has been written just 5 or 10 years back, you are give it as resource? Jains also have one gotra of Lodha,go and search it.It shows that these lodhas are converted to Jainism.

I can ready to give many sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunwaryogendrasinghlodhikheriyarafatpur (talk • contribs) 19:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have read some parts of Rig Veda in translation but that is not really the point. We have a policy regarding primary sources here on Wikipedia and I am afraid that you are falling foul of it. We simply do not have the expertise to interpret what a primary source might say, to put it into context and to evaluate its accuracy etc. For this reason, we do not use them. We rely instead on reliable secondary sources and it is necessary that all statements added to articles are verifiable to such sources.

Your recent edits, and those of 5 September, relied either on primary sources or were completely unsourced & otherwise somewhat problematic. For this reason they have been reverted. I am pleased that you are now talking after the numerous warnings and attempts to engage you in conversation, but it does not alter the fact that the information which you have contributed is unsuitable in its current form. Given that you are now clearly edit warrinf and have broken the three revert rule despite being forewarned about it, I would strongly suggest that you revert the article to its state prior to your most recent edits (the "undo" link should do it) & continue the discussion here. You are likely to be blocked from editing if you do not. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sitush/ Mathew Date – 17/9/2011

I don’t know who u r? if u r Indian u must read Ved, Purans, Sahmitas. I will give direct links. If some body running such a site/ or editing, In Indian context he must have knowledge of Ved, Purans, Sahmitas etc, or if u do not have, hire such peoples. I have created this page way back in 2008; resume it to its earliest condition, from then only we start discussion on Topic LODHI

Regards

Yogendra Singh Lodhi

User:Kunwaryogendrasinghlodhikheriyarafatpur (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2011

As explained above, we cannot use primary sources. You need to find some secondary sources that support your view and even then this does not necessarily mean that your view alone is shown in the article. If there is more than one opinion among reliable sources then we must reflect the various opinions, not whitewash the article with one or another of them. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If there is more than one opinion among reliable sources then we must reflect the various opinions,... I don't agree. All the caste articles are stinking because of attitude like this. It makes no sense to say X says A, Y says B, Z says C.... What can the reader make of it?MW ^ℳ 07:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong, you may not agree but Sitush is correct here. If there is disagreement among the reliable sources then all we can do is reflect this disagreement. It's not up to us to decide the "truth" of the matter, even if we believe we know what it is. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kim Dent-Brown. I happen to have familiarized myself with WP:NPOV. I have no difficulty with NPOV and I like it. However, is it OK to cook up a sentence of the type "X says A, Y says B, Z says C..." by doing misrepresentations on passing comments from unreliable sources which we did not/could not read ?MW ^ℳ 23:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC) When I read WP:V and WP:NOR, besides other points, I gather that:

• Misrepresentations is not allowed.
• Whatever is adduced from passing comments is OR.
• Unreliable sources should not be used.
• We must be having an EXPLICIT sources for whatever we say. Unclear statements will not do.
• Coufusing statements cannot be used as sources.

Is it right to ditch all these points?MW ^ℳ 00:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please can you explain where in the article your above points apply? We have, of course, gone through this general issue on several other articles but feel free to start over on this one. At least we will then be moving forward. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You guys never seem to see any value in any of these points, even when the misrepresentation/ passing comment/ unreliable source concerns are plainly clear. So, it is important to first establish the value of these points. Let us first see what Kim Dent-Brown has to say on this.MW ^ℳ 01:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

To avoid duplication, please refer to my 03:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC) comment below. Will post it here too if needed.MW ^ℳ 03:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have no objection to saying "X says A, Y says B, Z says C". (I know very well that this is normal and is done all over WP.) But it is not OK to do so when X, Y, Z are all making passing comments only. That is what I was trying to say and would have gone on to explain in any case, as I am doing now.MW ^ℳ 11:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Just because we have WP:NPOV does not mean we can neglect WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:DUE requirements. Does it?MW ^ℳ 11:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Will you please give some examples instead of continuously inserting vague references to policy. We need something specific to work with. - Sitush (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Policy? MW just removed my Jaffrelot cite with only the explanation this source was put in to question the lodhis ties with rajputs. it was put in by an ed with a record of inserting misrepresentations. will need more proof to be sure who is questioning these ties. "I don't like this editor" is not a valid motive to remove a quote. MW hasn't said a single word about doubting Jaffrelot; how does this ridiculous use of a personal grudge to remove cites mesh with your claims of championing WP:V? The quote by Jaffrelot explains how the Lodhi cite an origin legend to justify their claims of being Kshatriya and Rajput. Given that the cited legend presents the Lodhi as the only surviving Kshatriya, how is this not worth mentioning? There are a considerable number of articles about "Rajput" castes which present themselves as simply Rajput, but where even a cursory look at sources indicates that a given caste simply claims Rajput status and is not recognised as such by other Rajputs. This is why we're looking into the Lodhi's position with the Rajput system, and several points of evidence indicate an adoption of the name "Rajput" in an attempt at caste mobility, not unlike the Ahirs' taking of the name "Yadav". MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The quote by Jaffrelot explains how the Lodhi cite an origin legend to justify their claims of being Kshatriya and Rajput. What quote? Where was it?MW ^ℳ 09:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Shudra

I have reinserted the content relating to the shudra term that was recently removed by MangoWong, and amended the statement slightly by specifying that this is a former classification and detailing that it was per the varna system. It is a statement of fact supported by a reliable source and therefore has its place in this article. And, before you ask, one sentence supported such as in this context is never undue weight. - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I have further reverted recent removals of the information noted above, which was replaced by a long list and by a statement which seemed to rely on a primary source (Rig Veda). Please can we discuss such changes here before applying them to the article. They may be correct, but the manner in which they are being displayed is awkward. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Content should reflect what reliable sources say. To imply certainty when reliable sources disagree, or to pick one message out of many contradictory ones, is deeply unencylopædic. However, undue weight can be a concern... it may be appropriate to put that text in a less prominent part of the article, and different wording could be helpful. bobrayner (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The article currently reflects the input of someone who is at WP:AN3 for edit warring on this issue. It is dreadful as a consequence. A general solution that has emerged in recent weeks where the varna status is disputed involves having a single sentence in the lead that says just that, with elucidation in the body. This does, of course, depend on there being reliable sources for the several opinions: if there is only one opinion per WP:RS then the issue can be noted as a direct statement in the lead, as usually happens when a caste is kshatriya (and as is usually wanted when a caste claims that status despite the alternate RS opinion of shudra, or whatever). - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Now it doesn't - the unreliably sourced version has been removed again. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bobrayner. I do have a "due weight" concern here. But it is not about which caste should be noted as which varna. My concern is that this whole varna status debate is an artificial construct and exists only on WP. No such debate exists among secondary sources. We should not be be creating a debate (and give it artificial importance) where no such debate exists in reality? The caste articles give the impression that there is a debate/ dispute of this sort. There is no such debate or dispute in reality. The impression which these articles give is in contradiction with reality.MW ^ℳ 01:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This debate/dispute is sourced from passing comments (besides having other problems) almost 100% of the time. Anything sourced from passing comments is OR. This alone shows that this whole debate/dispute is an artificial construct, does not exist in reality, and is completely OR.MW ^ℳ 02:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No original research#Reliable sources

...In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source...(emphasis mine)

. Almost all of the varna debate in caste articles is OR. I regard OR, misrepresentation, off topic sources, cherry picked material, passing comments, confusing material, etc. as encyclopedic poison.MW ^ℳ 03:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it proper to harbor half baked information even when it is clearly against the core policies to do so?MW ^ℳ 04:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong, the reason that I and others are finding you grating is that you perpetually make identical arguments such as the above, and don't actually provide any constructive debate. You have been explicitly told multiple times that if A says 1 and B says 2 and C says three, we can say "sources disagree" and that's not OR, but you keep insisting it is. Take it to DR or hold your peace, as this is simply repetitive. Further, both Sitush and I when debunking bad refs will list them, quote them, and explain why they are improper, whereas you drop by a dozen pages and say "all these refs are terrible... no I don't need to explain why, they're just bad". You go on and on about "cherry picking", "endemic bias" etc. and then refuse to actually follow through. How about you pick an article, list out the references you don't like, and we can have an actual conversation vice just hearing you make identical complaints over and over again without actually debunking a ref, providing a better ref, or DRing "terrible editors" like myself, who has apparently ruined what was a wonderful Lodhi article prior to my arrival. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't try to create the impression that I have been making empty complaints. I have been taking down pieces of OR lies, misrepresentations and undue material etc. etc. from Yadav, Kurmi articles. Don't deny it. I will come down to specifics here too. But I am waiting for uninvolved users to say something on the piece of policy on passing comments etc. which I have quoted here. I have an uncompromising attitude towards half baked knowledge from passing comments etc. These caste articles are having most of the material from passing comments only. There can be no compromise on policy requirements. To compromise there would be to compromise the WP goals of building a reliable knowledge bank i.e. a high quality encyclopedia. We don't want to build a poor quality encyclopedia, do we? It is important to establish the working principles before we get down to the specifics.MW ^ℳ 09:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The principles you refer to are the WP policies. That is a known. What is not known are your policy-based objections to specific points made in this article. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The working principles are not clear. MatthewVanitas seems to be saying that if we have a situation where A says 1, B says 2, C says 3, it is OK to say that there is a dispute about what they say. What I am saying is that doing this is not OK when all A, B, C do is to make passing comments about something. A disagreement among passing comments is not a disagreement and we need not note such a disagreement. Whatever is sourced from passing comments is OR, as I have explained through my policy based comment above.03:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC) If all three comments from A, B, C are passing comments, and we say "X thing is disputed" from them, it is a second level OR. This is like doing OR-- on OR, and this too is against policy. There is no source for any "dispute" statement. This dispute exists on WP only. It is WP's creation and does not exist in reality. This may be a difficult nettle to grasp, but is not so complicated either. We are not only sourcing things from passing comments, we are also going beyond what the sources say. My main concern is whether it is proper to source material from passing comments. This is what I want the uninvolved eds to opine on. Then we will get down to the specifics. What's the hurry? Please wait for them to comment.MW ^ℳ 11:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC) All the "disputed status" material on caste articles seems to be sourced from passing comments only. This is the root of most problems on caste articles. We need not even look at passing comments as "sources".MW ^ℳ 11:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please provide some examples. It is easier to work in a framework of examples than in a theoretical situation. Just assume for once that we're all pulling in the same direction regarding policy, since we can always refer any dispute about policy interpretation to WP:DRN etc if it remains a sticking point. If you want a meta-conversation about the merits of policy etc then the various forums available for that have been explained to you on several occasions in the past. This talk page is for discussion of this article, not some generic policy arguments. - Sitush (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

i would like to add some thing here. u guys talk about primary source the history of lodhi is very old and all over the world the mostly history is in primary source so what right do you have call some one a shudra it is right of a people of community to decide about them selves and there must have been some reason for that but if you keep on calling some cast a shudra, you guys are asking for trouble, when a community is known as Rajputs and you call them 'Shudra' you guys will be in trouble when this news gets out in the word!!

you have no right to decide about who will be called a shudra and who will be called a Rajput you are simply disregarding a whole community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankurlodhi (talk • contribs) 15:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ankurlodhi: we are not labeling anyone anything, we are citing actual academics who have studied the issue. If the Lodhi claim to be Kshatriya/Rajpup, and other people don't believe it, we put in both sides of the story. If the Foo caste claims to be able to breathe fire, and nobody else believes them, should the "Foo caste" article say "they can breathe fire"? The Lodhi ties to Rajput appear disputed, so we include the dispute. If you have reputable, secondary, scholarly sources backing the Rajput assertion, by all means provide them. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Lodhi ties to Rajput appear disputed,...Except for WP, nobody on this planet is disputing the Rajput ties of Lodhis.MW ^ℳ 15:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Your clear hyperbole aside, please note that this is WP, not the planet. If you do not like it then you are free to contribute elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I know very well that this is WP, and not planet. If you cannot even understand what I was saying, perhaps it is time for you to refurbish your reading skills.MW ^ℳ 16:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, this is Wikipedia. There are policies and guidelines. It is an imperfect place, as indeed is everywhere else and everything else in life. But it operates as a community and you are either "in" or "out" of that community. It is entirely up to you: there is no obligation placed upon you to be here. Now, getting back to the article, I note that you have been involved in several spats this last few hours and presume that these have distracted you from coming up with some examples to support your claims of OR, UNDUE etc. Do you have any sort of time frame for providing these or should we assume, as at other articles recently, that it is probably hot air and you do not intend to provide them? While your examples are unknown it is somewhat awkward further to expand the article because it creates a moving target. - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You can now look through my edits and edit summaries to know what I object to and how specifically it is objectionable. One ref was from half a sentence,[1] another did not even have a half sentence to support the material, it is a completely fake source, [2] yet another was an encyclopedia,[3] i.e. a tertiary source. It is uncivil of you to keep asking people to leave WP. You don't own WP. Do you?MW ^ℳ 08:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have never asked anyone to leave Wikipedia, ever. Regarding your edits, well, it was a peculiar way to do something when a discussion was ongoing and the reasoning does not entirely substantiate your earlier points here, but so be it. I'll start reading in more depth (aside from restoring cited content precisely because it was cited & its removal poorly explained, I cannot recall doing much on this article). - Sitush (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll start reading in more depth (aside from restoring cited content... I don't quite see how you could restore what is already there. To restore something, it will have to be absent from there. Currently, those cites are in the article. Clear?

...reasoning does not entirely substantiate your earlier points here... The reasoning for removing those cites has been explained in my edit summaries and all over this page and in my 08:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC) comment in particular. If something is still not clear to you, please explain what. As far as I am concerned, the reasons for deleting those refs has been explained clearly. You want me to use larger alphabets, or what?

...aside from restoring cited content precisely because it was cited... Just because something was cited previously is not a logical reason for restoring that thing even after it has been identified as unsuitable for use. Please show some logical looking reason, for "restoring" it. (I use quotes on "restoring" because it seems difficult to "restore" it while it is already there). In any case, there is no policy which says that something should be restored simply because it was cited there on an earlier occasion. If the citation is improper, it can be taken down, and it should stay down too. OK ?MW ^ℳ 15:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. See the comment that started this thread and which relates to this. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Le sigh. Its there. It is there as ref #3. You can't see it? It is the one which has half a sentence being used as a source. I will surely bin it again.MW ^ℳ 16:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You have misread what I said, again. Why not take the shudra issue to WP:DRN ? I didn't source the thing, merely reinstated it when it was removed because it was sourced & your edit summary was not a good reason to remove. Since I know that your biases mean that you will never change your mind regarding this, the best venue if you wish to challenge it would seem to be WP:DRN. You have consistently claimed that the word should not be used in WP articles, is "a lie" etc, and this is a meta-argument which needs testing because it is the foundation of pretty much everything you do in the caste-related sphere. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Referring to the R. K. Jain quote? The one where it lists the Lodhi among groups considered "Shudra but not untouchable". I can't see the prior page (anyone else?) so I grant it's not a strong cite. I'll agree with MW on technical grounds, though I don't have much doubts that the ref touches on truth, though we just don't have enough detail to positively verify it on that page. Agree with Sitush that MW's over-arching drive to prevent the word Shudra from being in articles does need to be addressed, but on this particular cite I will agree that we can't see enough data to feel comfy.

I did find another clear listing of "Lodi" as Shudra (and by context the agricultural caste and not the Pathan tribe), but it's an 1819 source so I'm not thrilled with it[4]. MW, is it your overall contention that Lodhi should reflect the Lodhi as they see themselves, and not involve outside critique? If the Lodhi say they are Rajput, and others disagree, should we not mention it? I would submit, as I note in the current lowest section, that a lot of writers cast doubt on their Rajput claims, and many refer to them solely as "Lodhi" vice "Lodhi Rajput" (not that such is completely incompatible with being Rajput), and those few who do say "Lodhi-Rajput" either don't explain how they are Rajput, and/or are referring to a political "Lodhi-Rajput" identity, which I would submit does not "make" anyone Rajput any more than adding "Kshatriya" to a caste name (as is so popular) makes on Kshatriya. If anything, it's a bit of a "methinks thou dost protest too much" if one needs to add a caveat to a group name... MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's what. I had deleted four sources in my recent edits. Among them, one is Jaffrelot. Jaffrelot is being discussed below. What happens to Jaffrelot is going to be discussed and decided there. I am going to delete the remaining three for the reasons which I have already explained. They are all rubbish sources. Now, that your sources have been exposed as rubbish sources, you guys are coming up with rubbish arguments and more rubbish sources (1819 source!!!) and rubbish questions. MW, is it your overall contention that Lodhi should reflect the Lodhi as they see themselves, and not involve outside critique? I have never said anything like that. If you can come up with a proper encyclopedic source to say that the Lodhis as Martians, I might not object to that even. But come up with proper sources. Not thrash sources of the sort you have at present. If you guys think there is some issue with my behavior, you take it to DRN/ANI/ARB or wherever. I am not going to go to DRN when the case is so clear. I am declaring here already, of the four sources which I had deleted, except for Jaffrelot, I am going to delete the remaining three. And it is not necessary that I might accept Jaffrelot even. But that is in another thread and best discussed there. If you guys want to put in some new sources, just put it into the article. If they too happen to be rubbish sources, I will delete them too. Then we will discuss why I deleted them. OK?MW ^ℳ 17:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not ok. That is not how the article editing and discussion process is supposed to work, especially not when the article has been protected precisely to enable the points to be sorted out. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not concentrating particularly well at the moment but one thing that seems clear is that some of the items that have been mentioned either here or in the article itself may indeed be suspect, at least in so far as I would not have introduced them (my standards tend to be pretty high, however). Just to clarify the Jain thing, since MV has used it but seems not to be able to read the entire paragraph, what it says is:

So far I have dealt mainly with the social conditions of brahmins and Rajputs in eastern Bundelkhand, although I have mentioned the so-called lower castes, and their relations with the upper castes, briefly, in the context of economic and religious traditions. After the Census of 1931, the Indian government passed a legislation according to which questions regarding caste were banned for census operations. But in the 1911 census of the Central India Agency, which included the princely states of Bundelkhand, the majority population belonged to the brahmin caste, followed immediately by the Charnars. In the decade of the 1950s where, in accordance with the directives of the Constitution, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were included in the decennial Census, the population of these categories was exactly one quarter of the total population. The castes included in this category were the Basor, Charnar, Dumar, Kumhar, Bhangi and Beria. Besides these, there were the Ahir, Kachi, Kori, Dhima, Lodhi, Kurmi etc who were also considered shudras but not untouchables. In fact, it is very difficult to give a general account of untouchability among the castes of this second category.

- Sitush (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

How many instance of "Lodhi" in that whole book?. (This is not to say that more than one instance of X would automatically make a book a "non passing comment" source for everythig that the book may say on X subject.) Thanks.MW ^ℳ 07:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You seriously want me to read the book in order to count every mention of the word, its plural and its other variants? The bone surrounding one of the screws that is holding my hip together has been wearing away over the last 2 - 3 years & I am awaiting an operation to fix that, leading friends to sometimes joke that I now literally have "a screw loose". Please do not think that there really is a similar situation in my head. - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• The bone surrounding one of the screws that is holding my hip together has been wearing away over the last 2 - 3 years & I am awaiting an operation to fix that, leading friends to sometimes joke that I now literally have "a screw loose". Please do not think that there really is a similar situation in my head. Its your friends who say/joke that you have "a screw loose" As you say, the "screws ...has been wearing away over the last 2 - 3 years". I have known you only for a few months now. You were already like this when I located you. I am not responsible for anything that may be "loose". I am not to be blamed, and I did not say anything like that. I also know better than to say things like that about myself. So, it is unreasonable to think that I would say something like that about anyone else too.

• You seriously want me to read the book in order to count every mention of the word, its plural and its other variants? I have already given you a clue as to how many instances of "Lodhi" occur in that book. There are two clues actually. Even if you can't see those clues, if you are citing a book, it is reasonable to expect that you have read it too. If you have read it, you should be in a position to give a guessestimate at least. Do you think that the book contains > 500 instances of "Lodhi"? Do you think that the particular chapter contains > 200 instances of ~"Lodhi"?MW ^ℳ 08:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone "has a screw loose" it means that they're a bit daft. Which I would be if I read a book just to count the number of mentions of a name - yours is a ludicrous request, as is your claim that you have given some clues: either say what you mean or say nothing at all. As far as the source is concerned, you know where to take it. You are the one who is challenging the thing and you are doing so on two grounds that have already been rejected on principle at WP:DRN in relation to another article, ie: that the shudra term should not be mentioned per se and that a book must be specifically about a caste/community in order to be reliable for statements on that caste/community. I have not read the book yet, nor did I insert it. The chances of me reading it in the next few days are slim-to-none. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong, do you have any policy links indicating that the mere number of times a given word is mentioned in a book is the deciding factor in "passing comments"? The point of OR is to not read implications into a text that are not explicitly there, not a demand that a large portion of a text be specifically about one individual term/topic. Further, given that you have explicitly said (and been contradicted by consensus multiple times) that the term Shudra should not be used in caste articles, it complicates our attempts to AGF. Similar with your insistence that varna is not an issue of interest in the modern day; though this is not a sociologically rigorous a quick look at caste articles (and the internet in general, Orkut, Facebook) pretty clearly indicates that jamming the word "Kshatriya" everywhere is an awfully popular endeavor. If people don't care about varna, then why the desperation to keep the word "Kshatriya" in articles? The entire reason I became involved in caste articles was noticing the constant "this caste is all rulers and warriors" being applied everywhere, questioning its accuracy, and finding out that RSs often do not support such grandiose claims.

I'm less hung up on the Shudra issue in this Lodhi case, and more concerned about controversial Rajput claims being stated as "fact", particularly since IP and SPAs keep dropping by this article to remove the questionability of their Rajput status. If you want to DRN the Rajput-ness issue, that's cool. We have several decent points of evidence for it, and a huge amount of mentions which, though not themselves sufficient enough for formal cites unless we pull the full book, certainly lend some support to the very simple notion that their claim to Rajput status is often recognised as just that, a claim. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Distribution? Bengal? Lodhi/Lodi/Lodha/Lodh?

I seem to be mostly seeing metion of the Lodhi being in Madhya Pradesh, but one or two refs have alluded to their being in Bengal as well; anyone have any fidelity on that? The problem I keep encountering is that the Afghan/Pushtun "Lodi" dynasty can also be spelled "Lodhi", so we need to ensure we don't conflate the two. I don't recall seeing anything suggesting the Bundela and Afghan Lodhis have anything in common other than similar names, but I'm seeing some debate as to whether Lodhi, Lodha, and Lodh are the same, related, or different. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Argh! Transliteration again. Would this issue be worth raising at WT:IN ? There may be subtleties in the "native" (sorry) spelling that are lost. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Full protection -- 1 week

All of you know better. Talk this out and stop edit warring. Otherwise one or more of you is going to get blocked, and I have no idea which one(s). I've reverted to the "pre-dispute" version from two days ago. I'm completely sure this is the WP:Wrong version.

Talk the issue through here; you all know the relevant noticeboards if you can't figure it out yourselves. Keep the discussion civil, focused on policy, etc. If you come to a consensus prior to the expiration of the week, tell me and I'll unprotect. If you can't, and the edit warring restarts after the week, I'll either reprotect or ask someone else to start knocking heads (since I obviously can't block any of you). Since I can imagine someone complaining that my involvement with you lot makes me too involved to make this protection, I'm going to request a second pair of eyes at WP:AN. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You are involved. You are involved with me on several articles like Kurmi, Yadav and Kayastha. You are involved in editing numerous other Indian caste articles. You also have no right to change the article content per WP:PP. It is bad admin action and bad judgment on your part. It is an abuse of admin privileges and tools. You should step down as an admin.MW ^ℳ 02:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You are a blot on the name of the admins.MW ^ℳ 02:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You have no business continuing as an admin. Step down.MW ^ℳ 02:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm involved with you all as an editor, that's why I didn't block any of you. I'm not involved on this article, and therefore am justified in apply full protection to stop an edit war. I arbitrarily chose what looked like the pre-dispute version--the one before MV added all of that extra info. I'll point out something you may not have even realized: I haven't even read the article yet except for an extremely quick overview. Because I don't care. I do care that this is an article that on which edit warring is occurring, include with some incivility in edit summaries, and it needs stop. Now. I felt the edit warring was so obvious that I was justified in protecting the article temporarily, since, remember, no editor is harmed in that process, and all it means is that everyone needs to discuss the issue here. This action actually helps editors, because it forces you to talk and thus prevents anyone from actually being blocked. You go ahead and pursue my abuse on the AN thread, and if I'm wrong (I've certainly been wrong before), then someone can start a de-adminship action against me. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

IMO You are not only involved with all of us as an editor, you are also involved in the area of India related articles. More specifically, you are heavily involved (as an ed) in the area of Indian caste articles. Besides specific articles, the heavy involvement in an area can also make one "involved". If one has been editing in this area, it does not matter whether this specific article has been edited by one or not. So, there is twofold involvement here. With the eds, and with the area.MW ^ℳ 11:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC) If this is still "uninvolved", so be it.MW ^ℳ 11:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This is being discussed at WP:AN, where you have already contributed. That is the correct forum since the discussion centres on the action of an admin. I note your earlier message in that discussion which stated that you would not "push it" if your interpretation of what constitutes involvement was contrary to consensus. That was posted five or six hours ago and there did indeed seem to be a consensus that Qwryxian was not involved, so I am not sure why you posted your last message above here. I think that you should take any further points to AN, otherwise it might be seen a forum shopping, tendentiousness or something like that. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources on Lodhis and Rajput status

In addition to the Jaffrelot cite mentioned above, here's a cite from that, though Snippet so not something we want to use for the article, again demonstrates questioning of Lodhi Rajput claims, grouping them together with other groups who've attempted caste mobility via renaming: Several castes which had hitherto classified as lower castes or untouchables claimed Rajput origin. Lodhi, Katia and Chippa claimed to be classified as Lodhi Rajput, Renhia Rajput and Rajput Chippa respectively[5] Unfortunately it appears to be a Gyan printing (though gBooks is awfully bad about listing non-Gyan books as Gyan), and Kashyap has a lot of books published by Lancers, so I find it an interesting point but I'm not thrilled with the sourcing.

• Here's a better quote: The Lodhi Rajput Itihas, written in 1936, claimed the Lodhis, an agricultural community, to be Rajputs. from Fascinating Hindutva: saffron politics and Dalit mobilisation, by Badri Narayan.[6]

• Note that Russell discusses the Lodhi, and though he doesn't specifically say "not Rajput", the way he phrases the paragraph does not at all imply they are Rajput. So not necessarily evidence for the articlespace, but a useful clue.[7] Note here he also describes their clan marriages as "in imitation of Rajputs" which would be an odd phrasing if he thought they were Rajputs.[8] Similarly, here[9] he says Rajputs will take water from Lodhis if they are ill, again a phrasing casting doubt on any synonymy.

• Here's mention that the Lodhi "ranked below Brahmins and Rajputs"[10] from Dimensions of human cultures in central India.

• Snippet, lamentably, but appears to be an old work and might be PD elsewhere: Lodha. The claim to be a Lodhi Rajput (a central India caste) is an old one. -It seems to be confined to Bundelkhand.[11]

• Nothing conclusive, just a Brit definition from a glossary: Lodha A caste of cultivators and labourers in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, probably identical with Lodhi, a caste of landowners, probably of Rajput affinities in central India [12]

• Minor point: Shri Krishna Sharma (1977) concentrated his attention on a caste that was to become politically important within two decades of the study: the Lodhi Rajput [u]as they called themselves[/u] in Bulandshahr district. - underlining mine.[13]

• Another implied, describing Rajputs being unable to obtain supremacy in Gond and Lodhi areas.[14]

• Snippet: There are other tribal communities too, Meo, Mer, and Merat for instance, and many castes of cultivators and others often claiming quasi-Rajput status, like the Lodhi. Caste in India: its nature, function and origins, John Henry Hutton (1963)

• Snippet but intriguing: through emulation of the dominant Rajput castes and through the claims of such aspirant castes for Rajput status. Thus, the Lodhas prefer to be called Lodhi Rajputs and the Gadarias prefer the name Baghel Rajputs[15]

• Ul-Hassan is always interesting (Preview view): The Lodhes regard themselves as Rajputs, but can give no account of their origin, nor are there any traditions current among them which will throw light on the subject.[16]

In any case, Jaffrelot is still the best cite for noting "they aren't positively Rajput, but identify as such"; the other pieces are just interesting supporting bits, though generally not as strong as we'd like for definitive proof, but they do help counter any arguments that "nobody doubts the Lodhis' Rajput status." MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please just don't talk about what a source might/might not be saying when seen through the googlebooks snippet view. For example, your source-[17]. They are out of the question as sources. I am going to reject them out of court. Since you think Jaffrelot is the best cite here, let us discuss it first.

1. Could you please provide about half a page of what he says and clarify as to what is the title of the chapter in which he says what he says?
2. Does Jaffrelot discuss the issue of Lodhi-Rajput ties extensively and establish what he says, or, is he just making a passing comment?
3. Does he actually identify anyone else as disputing these ties, or, is he doing it himself?MW ^ℳ 08:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

MW, yet again, "I am going to reject them out of court" is not an argument. I would be totally fine if you said "we can't trust Gyan publications" or "I don't see enough GoogleScholars hits for the authors". Those would be actual arguments. "Out of the question as sources" is not an argument; why do you even say such things with no clarification whatsoever? So far as Jaffrelot, I'll look into him in the next few days to assess his argument.

So far as the ties being disputed, are you denying that any of the above cast doubt on the universal acceptance of Lodhi's Rajput status, such as you've claimed earlier on Talk? Or is this another wikilawyering point where you insist that nothing short of "I, John H. Smith, do hereby announce my doubt of Lodhis' Rajput status" can contradict the statement "Lodhis are definitely Rajputs"? I find this hypocritical, as we certainly don't have any evidence in the article to indicate that Lodhis are Rajputs other than the name, and several refs above explicity refer to them "claiming" the name, so I don't think the term "claim" or "prefer" is out of place. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

At some point we're going to need to nail down this "passing mention" issue. I'm under the vague impression you began to be interested in that term (and many others like it) after I used it on some POV-pushers, though maybe that's coincidence. In any case, my interpretation of "passing mention" is when folks like Bill try to use some 1836 British travelogue saying "And then I had lunch with the raja, who is a Yadav Kshatriya" to verify the claim "Yadavs are Kshatriya". That's taking a highly anecdotal brief mention and spinning it out to support a huge statement. In contrast, here's a cite[18] where Russel says "castes that claim Rajput status, such as the Lodhis". Now, I wouldn't base an entire "Lodhis claim Rajput status" paragraph on this, but neither would I say that it can't be a contributory piece of evidence. I agree with MW that several of the points I list higher in this section aren't worth putting into the article, but my goal in listing them was to indicate how widespread mention of "Lodhis claim to be Rajput" is, to contest MW's point that "nobody on the planet" doubts Lodhis' Rajput status. I would argue that we've certainly identified other doubters thus far, the question is which doubters are best to cite, and whether there are "on the planet" any reputable, third-party non-doubters to cite. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to cite something which you can only look at through googlebooks snippet view only, it is not for you to cite it. Let us now concentrate on Jaffrelot only.

1. How come you need a few days to assess Jaffrelot's argument? You don't have the book at present?
2. to contest MW's point that "nobody on the planet" doubts Lodhis' Rajput status. Please be clear about this. I was not saying doubts. I had said nobody on this planet is disputing. Now, "disputing" is significantly different from "doubts". They are two separate concepts. Please do not confound them.
3. ...we certainly don't have any evidence in the article to indicate that Lodhis are Rajputs other than the name... If you want to remove any of the Rajput claim cites, it would be a different issue. If you want to remove them, it is not very necessary that I would object. If removing them is enough to stop trying to refute them, I will probably give it some thought...
4. "passing mention". I am not saying "passing mention". I am saying "passing comments". It does not come from whatever you may have said to anyone in the past. It is coming from a WP core policy called WP:NOR. I have quoted it in an above thread. You can see it there. You may find it easy to locate because I have bolded the "passing comments" part. It is coming from Wikipedia:No original research#Reliable sources, and nowhere else. OK?
5. Since the "passing comments" objection is core policy based, there can be no compromise there. Passing comments cannot be accepted as sources. We must have sources which discuss the point extensively, and which establish the point which we use here. If we have a source which does not discuss the point extensively, and which does not establish the point through thorough discussion, we do not use it as a source for that point. Like it or not, that's WP policy.MW ^ℳ 15:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You need time to assess Jaffrelot because you do not have the book and were quoting him through googlebooks snippet view etc. ?MW ^ℳ 17:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have this contempt for using Google to find citations (using "googlers" as an invective), even if they are Preview or Full. Do you personally use some alternate method? I fail to see how googling "Lodhi Rajput" and seeing what one finds is a bad way to go about learning about the Lodhis and their Rajput claims. Oh, and so far as doubt/dispute, you still state that nobody "disputes" the Lodhi claim to Rajput status?

The Jaffrelot is Preview, not snippet, so I can see the entire page and more content around it. Regarding WP:NOR, as you note, it states: In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic.

Now that we have the surrounding info for R.K. Jain which Sitush has provided: with that now-full paragraph, do you claim any inclarity, inconsistency, or passing-ness? The para does very clearly lay out several caste-based categories, and explicitly ranks the Lodhi in Bundelkhand (that being their home turf) in with the Shudra. What's your take now that we have the whole para? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Shudra in lead

As soon as the article protection comes off (or even before, if it is possible), the following line needs to be removed from the lead:

The caste was formerly classified as Shudra in the Hindu varna system,[3]

Reasons for doing so:

1. Page 136 of the cited source (^ Ravindra K. Jain (1 January 2002). Between history and legend: status and power in Bundelkhand. Orient Blackswan. pp. 136–. ISBN 9788125021940. Retrieved 10 May 2011) does not state that the Lodhi were formerly classified as Shudra at all. Thus this is a fake claim and could have been taken to ANI per WP:FAKE.
2. There is no need to emphasize the varna status of this or any other caste in the lead per Jimmy Wales' direction as documented in WP:WEIGHT
3. The amount of coverage of varna status in the entire article should again be determined per WP:WEIGHT
4. We need to treat articles on caste system with even more care than WP:BLP because these are living communities we are talking about
5. Given that the caste system was made illegal immediately after India achieved independence and given that a lot of things have changed in the last quarter century or more, we need to use sources that are current, maybe from the last 20-30 years.

Zuggernaut (talk) 06:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak to the details, but I'm in sympathy with the general spirit of Zuggernaut's post, especially as fleshed out in points 2 and 3. My other complaint against the sentence is that it begs the question: classified when, by whom, by which authority, for how long, and agreed to by how many (especially within the caste)? Those bits of detail are not provided. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)