Talk:Saini

Why can't I edit the page?

Don't see the edit button... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sainiboyy (talk • contribs) 17:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The article has been protected from edits by non-registered users for the following reasons given by the admin:

15:52, 1 abr 2012 User:EdJohnston ha protegit «Saini»‎ ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 15:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)) ‎[move=autoconfirmed] (expires 15:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)) (Edit warring / Content dispute: Constant article changes by IPs who don't wait for consensus on Talk. This is an Indian social group article under WP:GS}}

MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you're a registered user; I believe it's because your account is too new to allow you to edit protected pages, as this one is until 1 July. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 June 2012

Please include the varna of saini and also if sainis are under suryavanshi or chandravanshi rajput

59.164.4.229 (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The best way to do that is to propose the exact wording you want added, removed or changed. You should also provide a reliable source to support any added material. Rivertorch (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

H.A. Trevaskis : Adventurers

Please note that the following reference also affirms Sainis as Rajputs. The sentence referring to them as "adventurers" is affirmatory . The author is confirming the accuracy of the claim given in next sentence with his own opinion. The preceding and succeeding sentences clearly mentions "Rajput" word. The author is positive that the claim is true.

"The Muhammadan invasions drove a wedge through the Rajput principalities of the eastern Punjab. Some of the Rajput clans fled to the deserts of Rajputana in the south, others overcame the petty chiefs of Himalayan districts and established themselves there. A few adventurers came to terms with the invaders and obtained from them grants of land. The Sainis trace their origin to a Rajput clan who came from their original home near Muttra [sic] on Jumna, south of Delhi, in defence of the Hindus against the first Muhammadan invasions"

Hugh Kennedy Trevaskis, Rajput clan movements- The land of the five rivers..., pp 99-100

Note: The Rajput clan named above is Saini or Shoorsaini (Shoorsen is the ancient name of a Yadava kingdom with capital in Mathura. This also explains the origin of the word 'Saini' from a Yadava tribe.

--108.17.0.34 (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Trevaskis is an old source and things have moved on since his time. Despite its many faults, the article reflects this. - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Gahlot and Banshidhar (1989) say the same thing. But you would find a way to disqualify them on some flimsy pretext again. You are very good at gaming the rules. --74.198.9.141 (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.165.181 (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You would lose your audience if you make it an issue of caste honor , although Wikipedia has rules against libel and weasel editing . Focus on discussing his editorial practices which do provide some basis for making a case of arbitrariness and lack of neutrality . --99.233.29.22 (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"The Sainis trace their origin to a Rajput clan" means this author is citing a claim by the Saini community itself. A quick search through Google books yields dozens of results with authors, census results and other reports enumerating the Sainis as a separate, distinct community. Bulk (actually all) of the material I came across does not treat them the same as Rajputs.

It is actually straightforward if you approach the whole situation with this simple question: does any other well-known Rajput community intermarry with the Sainis? There are Rajputs in north of the Punjab, chiefly in the hills, there are Rajputs in the south in Rajasthan, and then there are more communities towards west of the Punjab, in U.P. and as far as Bihar. As far as I can tell, none of these Rajput communities intermarry with the Sainis of the Punjabi area, while they do intermarry among each other. That tells me that Sainis are not ascribed the Rajput status by other Rajputs. --Ucb amateur (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be  not only an attempt at flawed original research but also wilful disinformation in the comment above. Rajputs of no part of the country uniformly intetmarry.  Rajputs are both hypergamous and endogamous. In Punjab Mahton Rajputs do not intermarry with those on hills. In Rajasthan, Mewar Rajputs do not intermarry with those of Shekhavati. Jadauns of UP do not intermarry with those of Rajasthan. Rajput is not a monolithic group as is being projected in the comment above. There are tonnes of examples where the Rajputs of even the same region do not intermarry. The argument above is both logically and factually flawed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.204.149 (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

hindu rajputs do not intermarry with sikh rajputs. what do you have to say about that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.165.181 (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Rajput is the term or caste introduced much later in the Indian caste system. Everyone knows about that and their origin created by Brahmins from Agni, chandra and what not because in medieval India they were the rulers and it was the hour of need for Brahmins to bring them into varna system for protection and other reason where as Saini or Shoor sainis are ancient tribe and are Yaduvanshi kshatryas. So remove the part that sainis claim to be Rajputs. Sainis are Yaduvanshis. When Yadu vansh started there was no such caste as Rajput. Read the puranas and other history sources. So there is no such thing as sainis claiming to be Rajputs. Sainis are Yaduvanshis and there is no such thing that sainis claim to be Yaduvanshi, it is a fact that sainis are Yaduvanshis. Sainis were warriors. Also in sikhism, sainis played a very important role in the areas of Anandpur sahib and Chamkaur sahib, fought for Guru Gobind Singh ji. In holy text, Guru Garanth sahib ji, Saini caste is mentioned as the true friends or sajjan or mitar. So Sitush stop creating your own stories. Whosoever has problem with sainis as Rajputs, please do me a favor and remove the "claim to be Rajput" part becuase saini is an ancient caste and are Yaduvanshi kshatrya long before Rajputs were taken into Kshatriya fold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.80.61 (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

They are not my own stories. The sooner the multitude of (mostly US/Canada-based IPs) contributing to this talk page come to understand our requirements regarding verifiability and reliable sources, the better. This issue has been rumbling on since at least the time of the now-blocked socks, Garry Singh Girn and SalariaRajput. It has been to WP:DRN etc also and is becoming highly repetitive simply because of a basic failure to accept policy for what it is. As much as I do not care for requesting semi-protection of article talk pages, if this continues then I'll either have to do that or simply ignore everything that these IPs post here. Either way, the "claim" will stay. - Sitush (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean claim will stay You donot even accept some of the sources saying that it is old or what not. So if sources are old it does not mean that those are not authentic If so, then people should stop reading shakespear, Albert Einstein's work or even the holy books of all the religions. So donot hide the fact. Moreover you did not address the issue of messing up the part of article "Mali identifying themselves as Sainis". I had given you the date when you changed it and I would like to know based upon what source that says that "Some people in that area identified themselves as Saini apparently due to their intermarriage with Malis". So stop playing your dirty game. So explain it to me why did you change that part, may be to create more confusion. So matter of the fact is sainis are yduvanshis Shoorsaini lineage and have no relation with Malis who had adopted the name later on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.80.61 (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.165.181 (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, please do not be discouraged in face of all this harassment. You are doing a great job! Editors such as yourself bring some order to the otherwise chaotic world of Wikipedia. --Ucb amateur (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.80.61 (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.9.64 (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It is ridiculous than an editor above has given the argument that "Trevaskis is an old source and things have moved on since his time". Which crackpot theory of knowledge supports this kind of scholarship? Is this some kinde of a new "Wikipedia Episteme"? So you won't cite Irfan Habib and Romila Thapar after 70 years from now? I am surprised this editor has been able to get away with this (probably because of overly friendly admins). Trevaskis is regarded as significant economic historian for the state of Punjab. His work contiunes to be cited with respect in academic journals. Please see below how many scholarly articles cite him:

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cites=10177277472132082914&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en

The quote mentioned above comes in middle of a passage devoted to Rajputs. Only to somebody extremely prejudiced would it appear that Trevaskis is referring to Sainis to have descended from any group other than Rajputs. What he is saying is that due to Muslim invasions, a lot of Rajputs either fled to deserts and mountains or they took up different professions and Sainis being one such Rajput group. He does not merely state that as a "claim" but he actually holds this claim to be accurate. No other reading of this reference is possible. --99.232.204.149 (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Saini of Punjab as Descendants of Krishna as per The Krishna Key

Please note that a new bestseller has been published which treats Sainis of Punjab as descendants of Maharaja Shurasena and Krishna. In the very begining of chapter 47 of the book The Krishna Key the origin of Sainis of Punjab has been explained as follows:

"How so?' asked Priya. 'Krishna's grandfather was Shurasena, and some of his tribe came to be known as the Shainyas. Over several generations, the Shainyas eventually settled in the Punjab and came to be known as Sainis."

I want to add the following text under a new section heading "Origin of Sainis in The Krishna Key" :

"The origin of Sainis of Punjab has also become the topic of a popular bestseller. In the anthropological thriller The Krishna Key, the lead character of the novel, history professor Ravi Saini, belongs to Saini community of Punjab. The novel traces the origin of Sainis of Punjab from Krishna and his grandfather Shurasena, the ancient Yadava kings. The novel treats Sainis as an offshoot of royal Yadava tribe and it explains the origin of the term "Saini" from "Shainya", a term which itself is derived from Krishna's grandfather king Shurasena"

The reference is : The Krishna Key, Chapters 46-47 ,The Krishna Key , Sanghi, Ashwin, Westland Publishers 2012

The cited text above can also be verified on Google books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-UiwMRwcT-kC&pg=PT133&dq=Saini+mentally+struggled+with+the+similarities+as+he+made+noteswitha+trembling&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dGQMUZ_0BunJyQGF54DICg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

I have the entire text in paperback . The book has been widely reviewed and passes notability criterion of Wikipedia. Please comply with this editing request--Varshney2013 (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note that this reference cannot be ignored as The Krishna Key is a very popular and widely reviewed book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varshney2013 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You're joking, right? The Krishna Key is a work of fiction. It's not ever going to be a reliable source for anything other than it's own plot, characters, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Varshney is not suggesting in any way for this to be presented as an academic fact . He is asking it to be presented as the treatment of a popular folklore in a particular genre of  work which is highly notable. If this folklore were not popular, it would not become the subject matter of an international bestseller. I see no reason why this tidbid  can't be presented under a suitable heading in the context of influence of this native account on popular art. This detail is notable enough and is directly  relevant to this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.79.88 (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that he's not treating at as a source; my apologies for not reading carefully enough. Nonetheless, I don't believe it belongs in the article, especially not in its own section, and especially not the way phrased. The way the suggestion is phrased, it sounds like the novel is in some way authoritative, or accurate. If I was going to include it, I'd say something more like "The lead character in the novel The Krishna Key discusses a possible origin theory of the Saini's"--the details are inappropriate. But even that much is probably too much. Once we started doing that, than any time an movie, book, etc. mentioned a caste/tribal group in Indian, we'd end up adding that to the article. We generally avoid trivia (see WP:TRIVIA), and that's exactly what this is. The only way I could see justifying inclusion would be if reliable secondary sources discussed the connection. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Expounding on folklore can sometimes be useful for supporting content that is specifically about that folklore, but I think that needs to be constrained to academic sources only. I don't think there is any place whatsoever for fictional works to be used to support content in Wikipedia articles, especially not in articles where there is controversy over even the factual sources. The pronouncements of fictional characters in novels is of no value whatsoever to an encyclopedia - any author can put whatever words they like into the mouths of their characters. From a "popular culture" perspective it's WP:TRIVIA at best, and the last thing we need in caste articles right now is "pop culture" trivia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen , I am not able to agree with both of you. This is no longer WP:TRIVIA when a native tradition penetrates into popular culture. The tradition has to be attributed some power and notability in such cases. I request you to familiarize yourselves fully with Historical fiction as a class of writing before giving loaded pronouncements. Historical novel is fiction about plausible historical theories and events. The fiction part only lies in the plot of the stories. The characters and facts of the work are adapted on the basis of solid research. In any case it is not being recommened that this source be primarily quoted in support of any academic fact. What is being suggested is that the popular culture treatment of a folk history be noted in the article which directly deals with the folk history in question. This will not be the first example on Wikipedia where this has been done. I invite you to browse relevant sections on the articles on Barka Dutt in Popular Culture or more relevantly with Merovingians in pseudo-history and popular culture in the article on Merovingian Dynasty. In both of the articles similar references have been made, i.e. popular literature and cinema based on actual contemporary persons and groups. So this is no longer WP:TRIVIA but content very relevant to this article. Ashwin Sanghi does not belong to this community and is a well-known author. So conflict of interest or lack of neutrality are not the arguments that can be used here to deny inclusion of this content in the article either. --Varshney2013 (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think Wikipedia would be better off if 90% of the "in popular culture" sections were removed...but I accept that others disagree. I've removed all of the details of the theory from the section you added, but kept the issue intact. It's critical that we do not present the actual theory, though, as doing so gives undue prominence to what is nothing more than a work of fiction. It doesn't matter how well researched it is; there are, for example, plenty of science fiction writers who do good scientific research...but we don't discuss the details of the theories in the articles, instead just noting the connection between the scientific concept and the fictional work. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If you artbitrarily suppress material directly quoted in a popular work , it also looks like a conspiracy of silence. This why I reverted your edit because there was nothing in it which was materially false, out of context, or of undue weight. I suggest you seek third party opinion on this which involves people more than yourself , Boeing or usual group of editors which have contributed to this article. You cannot change wikipedia policies just because you do not like certain content. There is nothing in that edit which unprecedented for wikipedia as already pointed out.--Varshney2013 (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, by deleting the following part from the edit you may have done great disservice to Wikipedia's credibility.

"The novel traces the origin of Sainis of Punjab from Krishna and his grandfather Shurasena, the ancient Yadava kings. The novel treats Sainis as an offshoot of royal Yadava tribe and it explains the origin of the term "Saini" from "Shainya", a term which itself is derived from Krishna's grandfather king Shurasena"

You are suppressing a material fact given in a popular work within its due context. I ask you you to reconsider your position. This is not about about personal "compromise" but about the policies of wikiepedia (which may have been flouted by your revert). Please re-evaluate your position.--Varshney2013 (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

How can it be a "material fact" when it's a work of *fiction*? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This page--this article--is about a group of people. Real people, in the real world. Our "service" as an encyclopedia, is to provide reliable, neutral information about that group of people. The details of a fictional theory made by a fictional person in a work of fiction (am I emphasizing this enough) are neither reliable information, nor are they neutral, nor, in the end, are they particularly relevant to the encyclopedic story of the Saini people. I am willing to accept that some people believe that the fact that work of fiction talked extensively about this theory is relevant (even if I personally disagree), but no disservice is done by not repeating what is said in a work of fiction. If people want to know more, they can read the book. Heck, it might if be acceptable to describe the theory in a little detail on the The Krishna Key article, because it might be relevant there. But here. Really? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Just remove the entire "Popular culture" section. For a rationale regarding their existence elsewhere, see WP:OSE. It has no merit here, being pure fiction. We have enough problems with dubious folklore/fiction in "academic" sources (eg: the Raj stuff found in many caste articles) without including outright fiction masquerading as fact. I'm not even convinced that The Krishna Key is a notable book, for which purpose mere book reviews count as little since the books are usually sent around for review by the publishers and are therefore arguably "promotional" in the scope of WP:BK - although, of course, this is really a discussion relating to the article about the book, not this one.

The Surasena/Saini/Yadav/Yadava etc origins and connections to royalty etc are moot in academic sources. We do not need fictional stuff further muddying the waters, especially when it amounts to puffery by the back door. I remember reading a book review last year where a central character was a Yadav peasant who had gone on a murderous rampage (in Bihar, I think, and probably drawing parallels with Lalu Prasad Yadav) - would we really benefit from including such stuff? It just fans the flames in the opposite direction to the one currently being discussed here ... and it adds precisely nothing to our understanding of the community. Put it another way: Varshney2013, if this section stays then do not be surprised if someone else turns up and adds a really nasty paragraph that connects the Sainis to something unspeakable. Then what will you want to happen?--2.219.218.79 (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've just noticed that Sanghi refers to "out-of-the-ordinary" content being a pillar of his fictional writings, and this in an interview connected to the release of The Krishna Key. Perhaps I have misread it but WP:FRINGE, anyone?--2.219.218.79 (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

On your point about notability, actually, having a fair number of book reviews in reliable newspapers (etc.) is considered sufficient to pass WP:NBOOK. And I agree that the theory would be WP:FRINGE if it were presented as a theory, which is why I cut it (and continue to argue it must remain cut). But as a pop culture note...Varshney does have a point that we do regularly cover "pop culture" references to things in our "scholarly" articles, from Heroin#Popular culture to Hell, Michigan#Hell in popular culture to Seven deadly sins#cultural references (just 3 random disparate articles on my watchlist that I know have pop culture sections). So I don't think a mention, without the details, is unreasonable. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Boing, I never meant it a material fact in the sense you are projecting. The material fact is that the Saini tribe, along with four others, has a folk legend of origin from Krishna and Shurasena and this folk legend has become the central part of a very popular work of historical fiction. WP:FRINGE argument is totally irrelevant here because this citation is not about the folk legend actually being true in first place. The citation is about the treatment of the folk legend in a very notable work of historical fiction. It is not about the veracity of folk legend itself. This also answers Qwyrxian's comment above. WP:OSE is also not applicable because that regulation is about content which is patently false and uncitable. It cannot be applied to the content which is backed up with citations and is added after due consideration of weight and context. If Barkha Dutt has been chracterized in a popular movie, then there is suitable basis for mentioning this fact in the article about her because both the real life character and the work of art are notable in public domain. Same applies to the cases of Merovingian dynasty of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and The Da Vinci Code. --Varshney2013 (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:OSE always applies. That page simply explains that you can never say, "Well, they did this on this other page, so we should do it here." Also, please stop confusing the folk legend and The Krishna Key. We have no evidence that they are identical; we know, as you pointed out below, that the author did research, but we do not know how much he altered it from that research. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Shurasena

Shurasena has numerous transliterations, of which our article notes "also written as Surasena, Shoorsen, Shursen, Shoorsaini, Shoorseni". Aside from books that mirror Wikipedia and the unreliable Encyclopedia Indica, which plagiarises all sorts of stuff from all sorts of sources, what do we have in the way of reliable sources that support the Saini - Shurasena myth of origin? We have the pretty useless People of India, which relies on (often unattributed) verbatim lifts from Raj sources but I am struggling to find anything else at Google Books or at JSTOR, using any of the transliterated terms. In fact, there is nothing at all at JSTOR and the two or three potentially viable results at GBooks do not in fact pan out.

I've been concerned about this for some time and have conducted English language searches on several occasions. Our related articles - Surasena, Shoorsaini (redirects to Surasena Kingdom) and Shurasena - are pretty bad and, if nothing else, probably need to be merged. They do not appear reliably to support the claim made in this article and there are elements of the old Yadav/Yadava controversy among them, long discussions regarding which can be found at Talk:Yadav.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

There is an attempt to falsely manufacture a controversy here by drawing an erroneous comparison with Yadav article. Yadav is the adoptive name of Gwal community which they took in 1924 only. This group has always known as Saini and its origin has always been linjed with Mathura which was also called Surasena after Krishna's grandfather. They have never changed their name ever in known history. So your comparison of this article with Yadav article is based on false premises. Sanghi picked up this tribe for his creative work with some basis it appears. Unlike your selective quote Sanghi has comnented in rediff interview that he consulted historical research before writing his book. <span style="font-size: smaller;" Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.204.149 (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

class="autosigned">—

Here is what Ashwin Sanghi commented if you read his rediff interview.

"Before writing the book, I referred to three volumes of research material on the city of Dwarka by Prof Rao. That led me to find out the exact time and events of the Mahabharata which were important whether co-related to Krishna's city. Since most of the ancient books were in Sanskrit, I picked up Rajagopalachari's Mahabharata which gave me a fair understanding of the events and its significance. I also ended up reading a translated version of the Harivansh, which talks about the life and times of Krishna. Then I wanted to know more about Krishna as a historic person. So I read some non-fiction works including that of N Rajaram. In about eight to nine months, I must have devoured about an excess of 50 odd books"

http://www.rediff.com/getahead/slide-show/slide-show-1-specials-interview-with-ashwin-sanghi/20121204.htm#4

This should answer some who doubt with any rational basis at all. Out of thousands of the tribes in India why does Sanghi pick only five (Saini, Varshney, Chedi, Satwat, Kurkude) for choosing his characters and folk histories? Why only these five out of tens of thousands tribes in India? Notice that he does not pick the modern "Yadav" caste which is referred above. If this had been unresearched work , Ashwin Sanghi would have fallen in the trap of believing gawala/ahir caste as Yadava. He does not fall in this popular trap and chose his source material and characters discreetly based on proper research as noted in the above quote. All of the five clans he has chosen for literary treatment had powerful and well known folk legends about origin from Yadavas predating the colonial era.--Varshney2013 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't care if he spent 20 years studying and read every book in print on the subject. This is a work of fiction. The only thing that possibly merits commentary is that a notable book talked about the origin theory of the group. Should Sanghi decide to write a work of non-fiction, and should that work be published by a reputable academic/nonfiction publisher with a reputation for fact checking, and should the work be treated as reputable scholarly analysis by other experts in the field, in that case we could include Sanghi's theories. We have absolutely no way of knowing how much of what is in the fictional work is directly based on Sanghi's research, and how much was embellished, invented, or otherwise altered to meet the needs of the fictional story. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

btw, Bhagwan S. Gidwani's historical fiction work is freely quoted in scholarly articles on Tipu Sultan including wikipedia. Historical fiction has scholarly uses outside the realm of entertainment. When the theory becomes the central plot of a popular work , its no longer fringe . Its notabity is considered established beyond doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.204.149 (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

On Tipu Sultan, it's used exactly like we do here: we mention it in the article. Briefly. So we're consistent. That article is, of course, not referring to the work as somehow giving reliable information. And your comments about fringe and notability...now you're just being silly. Historical fiction is entertainment. No scholar will cite a work of historical fiction to provide info about historical events. A literary scholar might analyze the literary quality of the work, or a sociologist might exam how various works of fiction treat historical events...but a historian isn't going to cite it to say "such and such happened like this". Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

please do not resort to personal attacks. Here is JSTOR link proving you wrong:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/23001501?uid=3739448&uid=2460338415&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3737720&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21101656193033 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.204.149 (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean for that to be a personal attack; I meant to say that the idea of a historian citing historical fiction for historical research is simply ridiculous, because it isn't done. Ever. And if it were, it's pretty much prima facie evidence that the person doing the citing is not a reputable historian. And the citation you've given helps prove my point: that's a book review. In a journal about culture. And only some of the authors are academics. That's not a historian saying "We know X,Y, and Z (cite Gidwani)." Qwyrxian (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I am glad you have now edited that offensive comment. Coming to your point, even though that JSTOR article is a book review, it says that Gidwani's work tells a lot about Tipu Sultan. So the author believes that it is not devoid of factual content and that it is worth a look by scholars. This "reputable historian" argument has been used too often by motivated editors on this article as a cat's paw to suppress or misrepresent academic grade sources like Gahlot, Tod, Trevaskis etc which are accepted by reputable publications like Encylopedia Britannica but are somehow not now kosher for Wikipedia, a source whose reputation for accuracy and editorial control is actually much inferior to that of Britannica. What now even JSTOR is not "reputable source" ? Here is another history academic journal which cites Gidwani on Tipu Sultan:

Warfare and state finance in Wodeyar Mysore, 1724-25: A missionary perspective Indian Economic & Social History Review June 1989 26: 203-233

Arrian's work on Alexander is a piece of hagiography or historical fiction as well, written to emulate the heroic odes of Pindar. Yet every single historical theory on Alexander is based on this work which actually belongs to a realm outside history. Please do not assume that lay people outside the group of self-appointed Wikipedia "historians" are all ignoramuses and are incapable of detecting arbitrary application of wikipedia policies. Thank you. --99.232.204.149 (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)