Talk:Kshatriya

Markandeya Purana says Purshuram killed all Kshatriyas except Abhiras.

Markandeya Purana says Purshuram killed all Kshatriyas except Abhiras. Then what are all these castes mentioned here?

I think you did not understand that 22 Times Purshuram "Try" to Kill Kshatriyas but he did not get success in killing all Kshatriya(He failed to kill all Kshatriya from a whole earth) (Source: I was read this in History book and Its a true because of Also I see this on TV, History books, etc..) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunnusingh (talk • contribs) 06:48, 7 July 2011 (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

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=FoT6gPrbTp8C&pg=PA134&dq=yadavs+are+chandravanshi+kshatriyas&hl=en&ei=JA-sTaeLLofIrQfuzYSoCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=6wJ_TbmGMMyxrAeUudmtBw&ct=result&id=zxtuAAAAMAAJ&dq=gujjars+are+ahirs&q=ahirs

Also according to The Vayu purana the colonies of Kshatriyas are Vahlikas, Vadha- dhanas, Abhiras, Kalatoyakas, Aparitas, Sudras, Pahlavas.

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=4yOUTcUPibSsB7Pm9P8L&ct=result&id=XFUIAQAAIAAJ&dq=abhira+afghanistan&q=The+colonies+of+Ksattriyas3+

The Vayu purana, Part 1-page-296

kshatriyas

hi there are so many castes in india who claim to be kshatriyas but there are very few castes who still today write kshatriya in with their caste or sub caste.can i know if these people are the origional kshatriyas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.80.92 (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• A/C to indian history[Ancient indian history by kc shrivastava]Aryas devided them into 4 varnas[brahmin,kshatriyas,vaish,sudras].there are so many theories about it.kshatriys were a farmer and keep pet animals........................] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.56.49.86 (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

New section about castes which claim Ksatriya?

References such as this one[1] and many others have some extremely interesting discussion about various castes (Kurmi, Kayastha, etc) which have claimed Kshatriya status in the late 19th and early 20th century, despite being generally classified as Shudra. Anyone also think this would be some great material to add? MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a better source. Can be downloaded and read here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.178.103 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Rajput, Jat, Gujar, and Ahir from Encyclopedia Britannica

"The Rajputs’ origins seem to date from a great breakup of Indian society in northern and northwestern India under the impact of the Hephthalites (White Huns) and associated tribes from the mid-5th century ce onward. Following the breakup of the Gupta empire (late 6th century), invading groups were probably integrated within the existing society, with the present pattern of northwestern Indian society being the result. Tribal leaders and nobles were accepted as Kshatriyas, the second order of the Hindus, while their followers entered the fourth (Sudra, or cultivating) order to form the basis of tribal castes, such as the Jats, the Gujars, and the Ahirs." [2] Rajkris (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Rajkris, the cite you give seems to indicate the exact opposite: that Jats, Gujars, and Ahirs are Shudra. The text says that the nobles became labeled "Kshatriya", while their followers went on to become Shudras, and then it lists Jats, Gujars, and Ahirs as those Shudras. I'm not saying it's a definitive decision, just noting that I think the quote gives the opposite of what you're reading it as. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if Rajkris is saying that the cite proves that they were Shudra or proves that they were not. In either event, Britannica is not a suitable source and he has been told this before by umpteen people and in the talk pages of umpteen articles. Honestly, Rajkris, just delete the thing from your Favourites/Bookmarks list if you cannot otherwise stop yourself from quoting it on Wikipedia. It might be the best printed encyclopedia in the world but it will still never fit with Wikipedia policies and unless you can get those policies changed then you are wasting your time and, more importantly, everyone else's as well. The only thing it is good for is if it cites a source itself, you can find that original source & it that original sources complies with WP policies/guidelines. This is why the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is ok to use here. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Never told that Ahirs, Gujars & Jat are Kshatriyas... On the contrary...Rajkris (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Britannica may not fit Wikipedia criterion but it remains a good indicator.Rajkris (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but no, it is not a good indicator. This is one of those weird Wikipedia things & I do understand that it is weird. Basically, if it doesn't fit the policies etc here then it is good for nothing. That may be daft, but it is also true. This is not a perfect project & it is issues such as this that create so many discussions. If you think it is wrong then the options are (a) try to get the policies etc changed; (b) live with them; (c) go somewhere else. But citing it over and over again, even in talk pages, is not going to achieve anything other than more wasted keystrokes. It is a bit like being a journalist on a significant newspaper: all such newspapers have style guides, and the journalists have to use those style guides regardless of whether they like them or not. The only difference is that the journalist gets paid and we do not. - Sitush (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

situish,matthew vantis@ on one hand u r sayin ahir,jat,gujjars are shudra and yet you have included them in kshatriya clan in this very wikipedia...aint this funny???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitkumar900 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC) 

Merger proposal

I am proposing to merge Tamil Kshatriya into this article. The issue is fairly complex, and has been addressed in quite a bit of detail already at Talk: Tamil Kshatriya. The quick summary is that a number of us are of the opinion that no reliable sources demonstrate that while there may have been some Kshatriya living in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, their numbers were small, and they were not originally Kshatriya (since Southern India originally used a non-Brahmanic organizational system). Most importantly, though, even if there was a group of Kshatriya who spoke Tamil, there is no evidence at all (that has been presented so far and withstood scrutiny) that shows that this group either thought of itself or is thought of by scholars as a distinct group from other Kshatriya. By analogy, while Wikipedia certainly can and does have an article on automobile salespeople, and an article on German people, there neither is nor can there be an article titled German automobile salesperson, because the intersection of those two groups holds no particular unique identity. Unless people can demonstrate that there is a distinct group called "Tamil Kshatriya" that has some sort of characteristics that distinguish it from other Kshtriya, there should be no article titled "Tamil Kshatriya". As such, we should merge any useful information from that article into this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Support merge - as one who has been heavily involved in the discussions at Talk: Tamil Kshatriya (& has probably read more of the sources for both sides of the debate than anyone else!) - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Do not support merge. A number of us do not share your POV!... I need some time. I will tell my reason on Tamil Kshatriya talk. We gave you time, so i ask you to gave us time.Rajkris (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Rajkris, please provide your reasons here. Merge discussions need to be centralized into a single place so that discussion continuity is maintained. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

My conclusion concerns Tamil Kshatriya wiki article, so I will post it there.Rajkris (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Merge - Agree with RajKris. I have a feeling that Sitush is not having sufficient knowledge in this subject to give a fair insight in to the issue. Axxn (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So tell everyone what I am missing. Be constructive, as Rajkris intends to be. Your comment is ridiculous without some sort of substance and, as such, would usually be ignored by a closing admin if this were, say, an AfD. I know exactly why you are picking on me here, but perhaps you would care to tell everyone else. Or wander off to Metapedia along with Shannon1488. - Sitush (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You really seems to have a problem with me. It is not that I am picking on you, it is just vice-versa. I don't personally know Shannon (I don't even know what his real name is). I have made my points clear. I am not being rude. To me the points noted by RajKris seemed valid, and your replies were unhelpful. Also, whenever I post something, I have noticed you getting really upset. Is it because you think you cannot intimidate me like you intimidate some of the inexperienced users? Axxn (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Axxn, your comments above do nothing to answer whether or not a merge is appropriate. We have examined dozens of sources, and not a single one of them is "both"inserted later to correct error 1) reliable and 2) supports the existence of a distinct group of people called "Tamil Kshatriya". Do you have some sources that were not raised before? Or were sources previously misinterpreted? If this were a formal discussion (which I will make it, if we can't get consensus from this informal approach) a closing admin would discount your rationale because you can't just say "This is the right decision because Editor X doesn't know what they are talking about"--that's called an ad hominem attack, and has no value in judging what should actually be done. I fully admit that I may well be missing something, that maybe somehow sources have been missed or mis-read; if so, you or Rajkris or anyone is more than free to point out where that is the case, provide alternate evidence, etc. In other words, I don't care whether the result of this merge discussion is the merging of that article to this one, or if it is to improve that article to the point where it meets Wikipedia standards for verification and reliable sources, but one of the two must happen. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"None of them is reliable" --> This is pure POV!!!...Rajkris (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Rajkris, that's my typo. I forgot to put "but" in front of #1. That is, we have reliable sources, and we have unreliable sources that state that there is a Tamil Kshatriya group, but we don't have any sources that are both reliable and state that TK is a distinct group. Or, actually, even more precisely, we don't have reliable secondary sources that state that TK is a distinct group (the primary sources or quotes of primary sources of ancient texts generally don't meet our sourcing requirements in this regard). My apologies--I did not mean to say that none of the sources are reliable. But, interestingly, several of the reliable sources are exactly the ones that state that TK is not a distinct group--particularly the Indian university text that Manorathan brought up near the end. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support merge - in the absence of reliable scholarly secondary sources that unambiguously state that there were "Tamil Kshatriya", what we have left are the claims of various groups of people in Tamil Nadu that they are "Kshatriya". And such claims could be covered in this article--Sodabottle (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge -Sources put forward by RajKris and other users clearly shows that Tamil Kshatriyas existed. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Rajkris has yet to put forward his sources - he's had a few issues and things are a little delayed. The sources put forward by CarTick and Manorathan demonstrate the merge argument, as do some others. Have you actually read the discussion or just piled on here? - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In case if you are not blind, you will be able to see the sources here. Shannon1488 (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I know about them. I referred to the things. Rajkris accepted that he needed to come up with some more but they have not yet appeared. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Shannon1488, could you please point out which sources in that list meet both meet our guidelines as reliable secondary sources and also verify that there is a distinct group of people called "Tamil Kshatriya"? Because when I look at the detailed analysis of the contents of those sources, it doesn't look like any of them do. Merely stating "This list proves they're a separate group" isn't enough, when a detailed analysis shows that that is not, in fact, what the sources verify to our standards. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

To Sitush, I just told that I would provide my conclusion on the debate we are having in the Tamil Kshatriya talk page. I may provide 1 or 2 refs but it will not change your position. I also asked you some time because as I work, I'm very busy. You told no pb, to take my time because you took your time to analyse all the refs given. But what I can see now is an unilateral move to merge the Tamil Kshatriya article with Kshatriya... Many of us do not agree at all with your conclusion and your opinion to merge. I still have to provide my conclusion.Rajkris (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Rajkris, I think you're misunderstanding what this is. This isn't a "unilateral move to merge". Rather, this is a discussion started to see if there is a consensus to merge. This is like an RfC-lite, as it only specifically asks people already involved in editing one of the two pages. Unless there is a very clear consensus (which I freely admit that there is not right now), the merge will not proceed based on this discussion alone. After no less than a week, but probably more like 2, if it still looks like there's no consensus, then I (or any editor) can proceed with bigger steps--either an RfC (that invites other editors who aren't currently involved to discuss the issue) or an AfD (that proposes the other article for deletion). RfC's run for up to a month; if they're really contentious, they'll be closed by an admin, who will attempt to weigh the various opinions and related policies. AfDs with any amount of contention are always closed by admins. Note that I'm not saying that I would necessarily do either (it will depend on the results of this discussion and ultimately how much effort I want to put into to this), although I can't speak for what other editors would do.

So, in short, don't stress out. All I did here, literally, is propose a merge: in other words, I added tags saying "one or more editors think a merge is a good idea, so what do other people think"? You've got plenty of time to add your analysis, provide more sources, whatever. I just felt that it would be nice to get more opinions from editors here (on Kshatriya, who might not be watching Tamil Kshatriya). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - since Shannon1488 is clearly operating a sock/meat farm the validity of the comment above must be in question. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shannon1488. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I asked Rajkris what sort of time-line he's looking at to provide input, and he said he will try to get his comments posted by the end of July. I indicated that that's fine by me, but, either way, some time in August I would likely move on to the next step (RfC, probably). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad Idea; keep them separate. --81.149.240.168 (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? You need to provide some sort of reason otherwise your comment carries no weight. - Sitush (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sikh are Sikh or Kshatriya?

Hello,

Sikh are Sikh or Kshatriya? There is any proof that Sikh are Kshatriya? How?(How they can hold 2 different cast?)

Note: I am Student of History(12th - Arts with History) so I just want to clear this because of I never read about Sikh Kshatriya and Tamil Kshatriya but After I read Wikipedia I am totally confused.. :(

Please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.102.49.66 (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't the place to ask--talk pages only exist to help editors improve pages. You can try WP:Reference Desk, and they may be able to help if there is information in Wikipedia somewhere. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

lol, I am not asking for a information... there is any proof that Sikh are Kshatriyas??(Any reliable source to prove this? If not then why someone add this on Kshatriya page?) Kunnusingh (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you think you can change history by providing a fake information in Wikipedia?

According to Sikhism we are are not accept Caste System so how we are Kshatriya?

Where in the article does it say that Sikh are Kshatriya? As far as I can tell, the word "Sikh" doesn't appear anywhere in this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Kshatriya lineage - Edit Request

As I know in a "Chandravanshi" 'Baghel' are Higher class in Kshatriya Cast.

Here is valid list.

1. Baghel 2. Katoch 3. Rathore

This Wikipedia is a really provide a crap information.. you must be need to fix this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.102.49.66 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

JATS as Chandravanshi?

jats never refered as kshtriya in varna system.the 2 sources among three mentioned are not reliable because they have no relevance in indian history.they are written by jats historian themselves without any historical bases.moreover jats have been classified as shudra.this should be removed.Bill clinton history (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

1. A social history of India By S. N. Sadasivan,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Be3PCvzf-BYC&pg=PA254&dq=jats+sudra&hl=en&ei=6LArToOOBYXsrQef05GyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEEQ6AEwB))

2.Caste System in India: A Historical Perspective By Ekta Singh,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=3fsEbl9k0yMC&pg=PA37&dq=jats+sudra&hl=en&ei=6LArToOOBYXsrQef05GyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=jats))

3.State, nation and ethnicity in contemporary South Asia By Ishtiaq Ahmed,URL((http://books.google.co.in/books?id=czSm7cmhgA0C&pg=PA115&dq=jats+sudra&hl=en&ei=XbMrTsHmM8SmrAfMvpWyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBTgU#v=onepage))

There are so many sources on jats as sudra on gbooks i find it strange nobody objected it.kshtriya is ancient concept and when chandravansh evolved in indian society jats even dont have presence in india.Bill clinton history (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue of reliability is currently being pursued elsewhere. Bhim Singh Dahiya has all the appearances of being a fringe theorist. In the event that some sort of decision emerges then anything connected to him will likely be either removed or dramatically watered down. I must say, however, that your targeting of these issues across multiple articles is a little unusual and I am struggling to keep up with you! Things may take some time to resolve as I suspect that the same applies to others. - Sitush (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sir,I am not targeting any one.as ragistered contributor on wikipedia it is my duty to make articles as clean as possible. while i was just going through various caste article i found this historical blunder there.so i have mentioned a few sources.now a days i am reading about all castes related to indian suncontinent.I am 100% clear on this topic that jats never called kshtriya in indian history forget about chandravansh.they themselves claim this which has no relevance on wikipedia.Bhim Singh Dahiya is himself a jat historian,not at all relaible on such issues.I can provide hundreads of sourcs which clearly mention their varna status.

I think we have very less space for debate on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill clinton history (talk • contribs) 13:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, "targeting" was not intended in the way that I think you have taken it. Your comments are welcome; your sources even more so! It is just that some of the "regulars" are perhaps struggling a bit for time right now due to issues elsewhere. I certainly am, but I will happily look at sources etc. You may want to take a look at Tamil Kshatriya, which is subject to a merge discussion above. - Sitush (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

marathi rajputs

adding names of marathi rajput is theoretically wrong for example bhonsle of satara and thnajur are sisodia rajputs and not separate rajput similarly chavan and rane of maharastra are rajputs and they are same rajput just the spellings of chauhan and chavan or rana and rane or mori rajput and more but they are same..

In maharastra many castes are rajputs and they are not separate. Just like shivaji was rajput but that dont means bhonsale are different kshatriya bhonsale of satara(shivaji house) and thanjore are sisodia rajputs then why add their names similarly why add RANE marathi they are rana rajputs and not different tomorrow someone will add CHAVAN rajput but they are chauhan and not different.115.241.252.135 (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)