Talk:Tamil Kshatriya

Google books

User:Uncle_G/On_common_Google_Books_mistakes is worth everyone taking time to read if you haven't before. Google Books does not render the same content to everyone. Ergo, if you have submitted a Google books reference (a) you need to cite it fully and (b) you need to be prepared to have other folks query what you can see (see [1] for an example of folks getting caught out by Google books.) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen that article before but as it happens have always been aware of everything mentioned in it. I am something of a sourcing "nut" and therefore really appreciate people who take the time to cite in full. I guess it comes from doing various history degrees etc, although as a Cambridge graduate it is a matter of honour that I find the Harvard citation system somewhat awkward! <g>

I would add to the comment by saying that what ever you find on GBooks, or indeed elsewhere, should be read in context. Merely grabbing a quote will often result in a misleading citation, and this is particularly the case if you are trying to find support for something you believe rather than approaching from a neutral perspective. There are several examples of this happening on this talk page, mostly notably one source that actually says the exact opposite of what the provider thought it did (and which at present is still misrepresented in the article due to the protection situation). I would also caution that people read the chapter/article footnotes and introductory sections to academic sources: they often reveal much additional information and set out the methodology being used, which may affect the judgements made.

In my review above you will note that frequently I have been unable to reach conclusions due to snippet view etc. This is a direct consequence of my approach to sourcing. It is also correct, in my opinion: if there is no context then there is no source.

Resource exchange can be a useful source of information. I use it quite a lot, along with personal contacts which have developed from my requests there. If you ask nicely, thank nicely and generally work in a collaborative manner, you may be surprised just how much help is available in this community. It really is not the case that most people are "out to get you" (or what ever your particular subject interest may be). - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

update

I just wanted to add a note saying that Rajkris said on my talk page that xe is planning on leaving a detailed response, but just hasn't got to it yet. I have no problem waiting for that response (not forever, of course, but I know how other things, both real life and on wiki, can push projects like this to the back burner). I don't think even those people who think the article should be merged feel any need to do it in a hurry; I know I certainly don't think this is such a critical issue that it needs to be decided upon today. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's been over 2 weeks since Rajkris's last response. I'm going to go ahead and formally propose the merger; the discussion will take place on Kshatriya. The merger will still have to run for at least a week, possibly longer if there is serious discussion, so there's still time for input from many people. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I still have to add my conclusion. Sitush took weeks to analyse this. I do not agree with merge solution and several people do not agree too.Rajkris (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And that's fine; adding the template simply allows people at both this article and the target to comment specifically on the point. Like I said, merges of this nature should not be closed for at least a week, and if there is a clear significant objection, we'll have to go to a more complex DR process (like an RfC). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, Rajkris, as I mentioned there, please put your reasons on Talk:Kshatriya#Merger proposal. Merger discussions should be centralized into one place, on the target of the proposed merge. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Following moved from top; it seems to be part of this same discussion, so adding here. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC) You've no any reliable source then why you try to add this on Kshatriya page? I am afraid If everyone start adding their own page like "Delhi Kshatriya" "Gujarat Kshatriya", "State Name Kshatriya", "Village Name Kshatriya"  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunnusingh (talk • contribs) 13:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

CONCLUSION FROM RAJKRIS

The Tamil Kshatriya wiki page belongs to this template [2] which was created to list all the castes and ruling lineages from all Indian states, regions. These castes and family lineage were Kshatriya (by occupation) in the traditionnal Hindu Varna. As a part of this template, this article as a real sense: it deals with the ancient rulers of tamil speaking areas...My conclusion is exactly the same as I already wrote here [[3]], the refs I (and some others) have provided tell clearly that:
1) Ancient litterature, Hindu texts asserted that Tamil kings were Kshatriyas
2) Tamil rulers claimed descend from the mythical Hindu dynasties, like all historicall Indian/Hindu kings, rulers; actually 'genuine' kshatriyas (the ones from the Surya Vamshi, Chandravamshi, etc. lineages) are myths, we do not have any proof of their existence... And it became a tradition among Hindu rulers to claim descend from one of these dynasties and therefore being authentic Kshatriyas
3) Religious authority (Brahmins) equated Tamil rulers to the rank of (proper) Hindu Kshatriyas
Now concerning the arguments of those who wish to delete this page:
1) There is no evidence of the use of the term Kshatriya in Tamilnadu --> there are archelogical sources which show the contrary (see refs we have provided)
2) even if we find some mentions, it seems there were very few kshatriyas in Tamilnadu --> feodal rulers were never numerous
3) Tamil/South Indian class system was very different from the Brahmin caste system --> some scholars assert the exact opposite --> see the last ref i added [4]: "... Dumont eloquently describes how south indian society is hierarchically structured according to the caste system; this four-tiered system places brahmins as the highest-ranking members of society, followed by kshatriya..." page 25... Tamil speaking areas belonged to the Hindu culture from time immemorial and therefore the traditionnal Hindu Varna applies to it.
As a conclusion, I would tell that if we should remove Tamil Kshatriya article, then we should remove also all the other state Kshatriyas articles and the Kshatriay template itself... Merging the Tamil Kshatriya article will only make the kshatriya article heavier and more cabbalistic. My position is that this article must not be neither deleted nor merged.Rajkris (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

To me, none of this except for your second to last sentence actually addresses the issues at hand in considering a merge. The question, all along, is whether or not 1) Tamil Kshatriya were a clearly defined group, different from other Kshatriya groups, and 2) Even if they are distinct, if the information belongs better in its own article or in the main article. Regarding the first point, not a single one of the sources you provided establishes this point. All of them seem to establish that there may have been a group of people (rulers), who were previously not Kshatriya, but who were at some later time "merged into" or "reclassified" as Kshatriya in the south of India. In other words, you have established that some people believe that there were Kshatriya in Tamil Nadu. That doesn't seem to me to meet the necessary bar for them to have an independent article. Since the basic message of the sum of the citations we have (especially when we consider their reliability), is that scholars disagree whether or not there were Kshatriya in Tamilnadu; so why can't we just write a nice paragraph in Kshatriya that says that? We briefly present the two sides, giving a set of citations. Giving them their own article seems to give undue weight to only one side (the side that believes they did certainly exist).

My understanding is also that some of the sources that you point to in the Archive have had their reliability questioned; I'll point to just one of them where it appears that you didn't read enough of the book. On Dumont, if you read just one page after the line you sited, it says, "The hierarchical ranking of south Indian Hindu society presented by Dumont is today viewed as problematic because it perceives Indian Hindu society as controlled by an all-encompassing religious essence. Over the last two decades, Hocart's work has received increased attention as a substitute for Dumont's view of Indian social hierarchy". Above that, it says that "Hocart saw the four-tiered caste system as 'the invention of priests for their own glorification'". As such, if modern scholars generally reject Dumont, we can't use his work as a the basis of a claim on Wikipedia. I'd have to check the rest of the sources, but this mistake is highly concerning--it shows that you simply didn't carefully read the work you're quoting from (or you did, and you cherry-picked the quote hoping others wouldn't read the source). If you have time, it might help if you explained whether this is a mistake or a deliberate choice on your part to ignore the clear rejection by that author of the Dumont analysis. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, this article belongs to a template which list Kshatriya communities (Hindu ruling). Therefore, this template must contain an article about Kshatriya from Tamil speaking areas. Kshatriya page is just a general article... This is a more detailed article about the Tamil Kshatriyas... I have never told that Tamil Kshatriyas were different from other Kshatriyas, they were just the rulers from Tamil world. Concerning the quality of the sources we have given, your opinion about them is just POV!... Concerning the last ref I have given, the author thinks that the south indian society was dominated by the Kshatriyas & not Brahmins whereas Dumont asserts the contrary... Concerning your sentence: "That doesn't seem to me to meet the necessary bar for them to have an independent article" --> This is your opinion... If you want, you can add a sentence (with a proper ref) in this article telling that some scholars think that were no Kshatriyas in Tamil... I do not share at all your position to remove an entire article and add just 2 littles sentences or so in the Kshatriya page --> This is undue wait!... The refs we have given are clear... Concerning authors who assert that there was no Tamil Kshatriya, this is pov &invention, scientific, archeological sources tell the contrary... Tamil society was a Hindu society and in a Hindu society the rulers are called Kshatriyas!... If you don't know that, you just don't have the right to get involved in such articles... See autor and scholars in the last ref i have given [5], mention clearly the word Kshatriya to talk about South Indian rulers: page 24 "The more detailed grading of the Kshatriya indicates that the king's position was more clearly...". Here is another ref,

Slaves of the Lord: the path of the Tamil saints [6]:

"Ko-Chenga Chola, Caste: kshatriya" page 160, "Nedumaran, Caste: kshatriya..." page 165, "Charaman, Caste: kshatriya..." page 178. Rajkris (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There is little, if any, evidence from reliable sources that there was such a group as the Tamil Kshatriyas. There is evidence that there were rulers in the region. You cannot synthesise the two points. This article has practically no content what so ever, and this was the case even before my edits of yesterday. If you really believe that the sources you refer to are reliable then take it to WP:RSN, but be aware that I will refer people there back to my huge review above.

Dumont is a known oddball. You suggest that a sentence could be added saying that some scholars think there were no kshatriyas in the region. In fact, if such a thing were done it would have to be the other way round, since Dumont practically stands alone with his theory. All of your bluster about what science, archaelogy etc say is not supported by any of the sources which you have introduced, although you have presumably been researching the issue these last few weeks.

Regarding the additional source that you now bring into the debate, I cannot see it in other than snippet view. I would like to see at least the pages + the ones immediately before and after them before passing any sort of judgement, given the weight of evidence to the contrary. I would be happy to review. The author does appear to have 20-odd hits at GScholar for this work but I do not yet know in what context. In any event, it would still be one or two people against an awful lot on the "other side" who are absolutely explicit that kshatriya did not exist in the area.

You have the cart before the horse if you think that because something exists in a template then it must have an article. We just remove it from the template if the article does not exist. This happens frequently. - Sitush (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion concerning our refs is POV!... A Hindu ruler is by definition a Kshatriya!!!... If you can't understand this, do not adit such kind of pages!!!... Concerning my last ref, just type kshatriya in the 2nd field.Rajkris (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On the contrary, it is balanced opinion by someone disconnected from the community and the area, based on examination of all the sources that people who are connected have provided in order to substantiate their position. That they have failed to do so within the bounds of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is unfortunate but not my problem. The use of "our" and "we" in your message above and at my talk page is indicative of the COI, I suspect.

There is no second field here and in any event that would not be acceptable because if such a field existed then it would be snippet view. It is unfortunate that after all this time you still have not got to grips with how to reliably source information but, again, that is not my problem. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The last ref is clear, it meets wiki policy you cannot reject it... Another ref: [7]Rajkris (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, there are numers of editors who think that your edits are not correct or pov... I appreciate your work pages such as Yadav, Kurmis, etc... But concerning your edits on Nair & Tamil kshatriya, your edits are biaised, at least non correct.Rajkris (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have not rejected it; I have offered to review it. If you cannot arrange that, and bearing in mind the sheer preponderance of bad sourcing above by yourself and others, then I will probably reject it because the onus is on you to provide verification when something is queried and runs contrary to the dominant opinion of reliable sources. The reference you have just added (by Behere) is only snippet view - can you see more of it? If you can then let me have a copy; if you cannot then it is not acceptable. My work here is uniform: I adopt the same approach to sources etc across all articles, so you cannot cherry-pick in that regard. - Sitush (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not able to provide more details. But rejecting it for this simple reason is not correct.Rajkris (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

[8], this view is clear enough... Rajkris (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No. This had been said time and again: snippet views are not acceptable. Not here, not anywhere on Wikipedia. There is no context available and it causes problems for that reason. Indeed, there have been identified problems caused by it in relation to one source introduced by the user formerly known as Manorathan. - Sitush (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you tell me where it is told that it is forbidden ?... There are many wiki articles where refs are not even accessible through web.Rajkris (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush's point is that the editor adding the information must have access to the full source; otherwise, there is no way for them to determine the full context for the info. Furthermore, in this specific case, Sitush is pointing out that since we know editors on caste pages often work only for snippet view and miss really critical information (like on their snippet it says "X was said to be true" and on the next page it says, "However, in the last 20 years X has been shown to be completely wrong"). By the way, this is, in fact, an exact problem with one of your examples. In the source that covers Dumont, about 1 page after your quote, the text explicitly says something like "However, in the past 20 years, people don't believe Dumont, and now believe this other person's theory instead". I'm paraphrasing from memory, of course, but I was shocked this morning when I saw how absolutely out of context that quote you provided was. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

See above concerning my answer to Dumont.Rajkris (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I could equally now say "And see above for my response also". What is the point of your last ^ message? It advances nothing. Dumont is a quirk who has been dismissed by numerous modern authorities, not just in relation to his theories about Kshatriya but in more general terms. If you have 49 sources saying one thing and 1 source saying something else, then you cannot ascribe 50% of the article to that one source. I have had to read his stuff for other articles, some of which you even praise my work on above. - Sitush (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush we have provided number of refs from different scholars which talk about Kshatriya in south india and tamil land. We do not share the conclusion of someone who is even able to give a definition of Kshatriya.Rajkris (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, there is not one which was a reliable source and said what you and yours claimed it to say. They do not count, by definition. This has been explained to you before, several times. If you disagree then take it to WP:RSN as I suggested above. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to you, I can't spend my time on wikipedia. Rajkris (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

And your point is? - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

To S & Q, it is not because some scholars argue that the south indian society did not correspond to the vedic model (that is: priests at top...), that the workd Kshatriya cannot be used to designate south indian rulers!... There are historical sources showing that tamil rulers knew & used this term ([9], [10]), and scholars also use this term when they work on south indian rulers ([11]). So telling that the word Kshatriya cannot be applied to designated south indian rulers is totally wrong.Rajkris (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your first two are snippet view here. If you can provide the surrounding info then please do. The third does not say that even the Cholas were Kshatriya but rather that one person thinks they operated on the kshatriya model. It is not the same thing. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to be a little more generous on the second source; but this is partly because it still doesn't make your case. On your second source (Historical perspectives of warfare in India), that snippet passage that I can read says that exactly one (1) Manija fought on behalf of the Chola and that, as a result one (1) Chola prince bestowed the title "kshatriya-sikhamani-kongalava" on Manija and his village. First, I'd want evidence that "kshatriya-sikhamani-kongalava" means the same thing as "Kshatriya" and doesn't translate into something like "Friend of Kshatriya" or "Person who is as brave and reliable and wonderful as a Kshatriya". But, even if I make the great leap of faith to believe if means Kshatriya, all it means is that there was exactly 1 person + village to receive that title. That is absolutely not enough to have an article that talks about Kshatryia in Tamil Nadu--in fact, it's far closer to the exception that proves the rule.

On the first source, though, I'm with Sitush--on page 2, I can't understand the sentence containing "kshatriya" unless I can understand the sentence before it, which is cut in half; on p. 14, even the sentence in question is cut in half. How can we possibly understand what those sentence mean if we can't read at least the paragraph around it? It looks like there may be useful information there, but unless we know what the sentence means, which we cannot know in isolation, it's pretty hard to know. Note, of course, that even if that source is good, it's not enough to keep this article by itself; instead, it would make an excellent citation for whatever is left in Kshatriya. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If I have provided only snippet view is because I'm not able to give you a more detailed view... Q, I'm not able to give you a right translation (just don't know the meaning of "k-s-k"). To S, concerning my 3rd ref, just read what i wrote, never wrote that the ref told that Cholas were Kshatriyas!... For the moment, I just want to show you that contrary to what S claim (one cannot use the word Kshatriya to talk about South Indian rulers, notably Tamil ones), the word 'Kshatriya' was clearly known & used by Tamil rulers. Here is another ref, it tells that some consider that the varna status was important in the Chola country [12].Rajkris (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for the misunderstanding. My point was that operating a kshatriya model is not the same as proving that kshatriya existed. If the content of the snippets cannot usefully be extended to the text that surrounds them then those sources are useless as proofs for or against. So that seems to be, unfortunately, the end of that particular line of enquiry. You could, however, try WP:RX for a copy of some of the surrounding pages if you wanted to.

Your latest source means nothing. I think it was CarTick who argued that the varna system did not apply. As far as I am concerned, all I want to see is something reliable that says there were Tamil Kshatriyas. I am not remotely concerned about the wider issue of whether varna applied because it is irrelevant to this article. Keep the focus where the focus should be, otherwise we'll all end up indulging in synthesis.

My claim, by the way, is slightly different from what you say. It is that no-one who believes that Tamil Kshatriya existed (which is fundamental to this article existing) has so far been able to provide reliable verification. This is after several months of investigation involving quite a few people. Initially, you agreed that you would accept what the outcome of the review was but clearly you are still unwilling to do so. I can't do anything about that, sorry.

I think that we have come to the end of the road on this. We are not progressing, are we? You could ask for the pages around the snippets, as I suggest above, but it strikes me that it would be a fishing expedition given the weight of contrary evidence. - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Read well my last ref: it tells that the Kshatriya varna was important for a ruler in the Chola region.Rajkris (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Another ref: [13].Rajkris (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. I am not reading any more of these refs unless you find one that explicitly says that there were Tamil Kshatriya. Let me know if you do. Others may be prepared to continue looking at them but to my mind, and for reasons that I cannot understand, you seem to have a bit of a block about the policies etc on this particular subject. You have been told time and again that we need a direct reference. All of the things you are coming up with are at best tangential, requiring synthesis or original research to make the connection. It has gone on long enough for me, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the cite which you give at 21:17 is unacceptable even without reading it. It is published by Gyan, a notoriously poor publisher whose output I and many others reject on sight. I did raise this issue in the original discussion on this page, it has been raised at WP:RSN, it is listed on the page for mirrors and forks etc. Only last week someone found three books published by them, all by different authors but all with exactly the same paragraph in them. How the company gets away with not being sued for copyvio, plagiarism etc is beyond me. - Sitush (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry this is your opinion, not mine. I will list all the refs which i found interesting & reliable and submit for reliable sources and other neutral POV.Rajkris (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

:No, it is not just my opinion. Gyan has been through RSN etc. They are unreliable, period. There is no point in blaming me when the likes of Moonriddengirl (who has absolutely no interest in India-related content but is a copyright specialist here) agree that their output should not be used. At some point you are going to have to either accept that this is a fruitless task or come up with a specific reference as requested on numerous occasions by numerous people. - Sitush (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You always find a reason not to consider my refs. In the last one, the author tells very clearly that Hindu texts considered Tamil kings as Kshatriya and a few lines later that "Tamil kings were elevated to the rank of Kshatriyas "... But for you we cannot consider that because Gyan is not a good publiser!!... Really amazing!!... There is always a reason to reject my refs...Rajkris (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is unfortunate, I agree. But perhaps it says more about the quality of your sourcing than it does about me. In any event, and for the last time, your most recently provided source has been deemed by the community to be from an unreliable publisher and therefore is itself unreliable. FYI, the same applies to ISHA Books, which is another name used by Gyan. - Sitush (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I will submit my sources on my own.Rajkris (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What are reliable publishers ?... Those who publish left or christian/western pov ideas ? Rajkris (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Step back for a moment and consider what has gone on in this thread. Only one publisher has been rejected, and that rejection is based on a series of community discussions that had nothing to do with politics or religion. Other proposed sources have been rejected because even you cannot see them and have no idea of the context. In addition, one of those included a phrase the meaning of which even you do not know (k-s-k). Of the remainder, none of them said that there were Tamil Kshatriya; at best, they required synthesis. The crux of the problem is that you have been unable to find any source that says TK existed and is visible for contextual reasons + reliable. Now, whose problem is that when you bear in mind that there are some valid sources that specifically say TK did not exist? Add into the equation that you did agree to my review & accepted what the consequences might be, which actually makes the present situation look as if you are now abandoning AGF. The review was fair and it was open. I stand by it and deliberately approached it in a neutral manner. Remember, I rejected some sources from the "other side" in this debate also. - Sitush (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Look, since the British colonial era, history, issues about India have always been very controversial... Take for exemple the word 'Aryan', its meaning differs considerably throughout the last 200 years, scholars origins & political opinion (western/indian, right wing, lefft wing, south indian/north indians, etc.)... This is the same thing for Kshatriya: I have noticed that western, indian left & pro dravidian scholars tend to tell that there is no Tamil speaking Kshatriyas whereas Indian right wing scholars tend to consider Tamil rulers as Kshatriya... One of their main argument is that Hindu sources (Harivamsa, etc.) consider tamil rulers as proper kshatriyas!... I will list before the end of the week all the refs which i find suitable and will submit them for reliable sources and also neutral editors pov.Rajkris (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Politics is always present in articles related to history (etc.), don't deny it... What you & Cos are trying to do is to favour Western/Christian/Left scholars POV.Rajkris (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not trying to favour anyone, Rajkris. I am still waiting for some reliable sources, which it seems you will now collate by the end of the week. FYI, I am somewhere right on the border between agnostic and atheist, and I am apolitical (I have never voted in any election, anywhere etc); I can't do much about the Western bit but please note that I do use Indian sources myself & they most certainly are not all written by Christians etc. You will have to AGF on those statements of my belief, of course, but I trust you to do that. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

By left, I mean mainly Indian ones. Indian intellengtsia is full of Left/Marxist intellectuals...

I'm sorry but I need some more time (too much busy); I will do my best to add what i want within this weeks.Rajkris (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are struggling for time etc but this has now dragged on for many weeks and you have had several additional bites at this particular cherry, none of which appeared to be particularly convincing. Sure, it is often said that there are no deadlines on Wikipedia but the amount of drift going on here is out of proportion to the significance of the article (which in any event is practically a stub). I propose that we move things forward, firstly by seeing if there is a consensus in favour of a merger and then, if not, by perhaps instigating a WP:RFC. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You are taking an unilateral move. I have not moved forward till now because I'm very busy, lot of work, just can't spend my time on wikipedia... I'm not paid for that. I need more time. This is the only thing i can say for the moment... But I'm workig on my answer.Rajkris (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am proposing something, not doing anything right now. I also am not paid to edit Wikipedia & have a real life - I do not appreciate the insinuation regarding paid editing & feel that you should know better. Let me try things another way: just assume, for the sake of argument, that by one means or another TK ends up being merged with Kshatriya. Such a merger does not prevent the TK content being forked from its new home at some point in the future should sufficient material be introduced to justify that fork. - Sitush (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You are spending all your time on wiki, that's why I'm asking myself how money comes to you... That's it.... I am really busy, give me till end of august. After that you can do anything you want.Rajkris (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Rajkris, if you have evidence that Sitush is being paid to edit Wikipedia, present it in the appropriate forum (heck, tell me the evidence, because I would want Sitush blocked if he were a paid editor). If you have no evidence, your claim is a personal attack and is going to get you blocked. Regarding your request for more time, it's simply no longer needed. You can't claim he's making a unilateral move, since, in fact, the next step is to start either a Requested move or a Request for Comment--both of these processes are all about getting input from other editors. There is no requirement that we wait indefinitely just because you personally want to add more information and are too busy in real life. The request itself will take upwards of a month, so that does give you more time. But asking for wider community input is never wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it was not a personnal attack, i did not see it like that, I apologize... I just asked a few more days (till end of august).Rajkris (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, eventhough I have nearly finished, I'm too much busy in my prof life to add my refs now. Can you wait a few more days ? (till end of coming sunday)... Else you can move forward, i can't blame you for not having patience with me... What I want to do is to list different refs(which i find realiable enough) and submit them to WPN and also other editors POV...Rajkris (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sunday is fine by me. An RfC would cover the "other editors POV". Do you mean WP:RSN rather than WP:N? Or am I completely missing the point? - Sitush (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Ok for Rfc. I meant WP RSN but we can go for both.Rajkris (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that it would be better to RSN before RfC. Obviously, this would only apply if anyone considered your proposed sources to be unreliable for the Tamil Kshatriya statement. If no-one thinks them unreliable then RfC kicks in without the necessity f going through RSN. The general idea is to stay focused, otherwise things rapidly become spread across numerous forums and it is more difficult for an uninvolved person to determine what the heck is going on. That, in fact, is a part of the problem that has resulted from continuing this discussion here rather than in the merger discussion itself. There is no need to make it still more complex. Furthermore, the obvious first step in resolving the merge proposal is to test whether consensus exists. - Sitush (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger discussion restarted

At Talk:Kshatriya#Restart merger discussion, I have re-opened the discussion in light of what Rajkris has supplied so far, and to remove the taint caused by Shanon1488's involvement. Rajkris, I know you want to add more but are too busy, but we shouldn't have to wait indefinitely for your evidence, given that what you've produced so far hasn't changed our opinions. If this article is merged, and, in 6 months or a year from now you finally have time to pull together more evidence, you can always restart discussions at Talk:Kshatriya to recommend a split. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I will add my last commnents tonight or tomorrow (i have finished) and will submit them for rfc, etc. I have finished writing what i wanted.Rajkris (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

SOME REFS WHICH I WANT TO SUBMIT

Here are some sources (which i found reliable enough &) which i want to submit to wikipedia analysis (rfc, etc.) and other editors opinion.


Sources which tell that Hindu texts, sources considered Tamil kings as Kshatriyas:

Political and general history of the District of Tinnevelly in the ...Par Bishop R. Caldwell,Caldwell R. Bishop page 12 [14]
"... in the Hari vamsa and several Puranas in which Pandya, Kerala, Kola and Chola are represented as the four sons of Akrida or of Dashyanta the adopted son of Turvasu, a prince of the Lunar line of Kshatriya"

Hindu culture in ancient India Par Sekharipuram Vaidyanatha Viswanatha page 156 [15]
"The Harivamsa and the Puranas relate that the kings of South India Pandya, Chola and Kerala were the descendants of Yayati, the Aryan king of the North." page 155

These sources may be too old and/or not reliable enough but they all tell exactly the same thing: hindu texts considered Tamil rulers as Kshatriyas... Therefore, a deeper analysis should be taken on this point...

Sources which tell that after 'Aryanisation' of the Tamil society, Tamil rulers started identifying themselves as Kshatriyas, the varna of rulers within the Hindu society and adopted traditions, practices which were related to this varna:

History of mediaeval Hindu India, Volume 1 page 377 [16]
"We similary find the Cholas of the south call themselves solar kshatriyas in inscriptions..."

History of agriculture in India, up to c. 1200 A.D. by Vinod Chandra Srivastava,Project of History of Indian Science, Philosophy, and Culture [17]
"... due to the impact of the Brahmanic order of society, chiefly, groups who were originally tribal and agrarian started changing their descent, relating themselves either with Suryavamsa (Solar line) or Chandravamsa (Lunar line), as the Kshatriya caste of nothern India."

Art and culture of Tamilnadu by Sundeep Prakashan, 1980 [18]
"... tradition of Vedic ancestry is not mentionned in Sangam literature, but it had taken deep roots long before the sith century A.D. It was following this tradition that the rulers added the kshatriya honorific Varman to their names." page 2.

Sources which tell that Hindu religious authority considered Tamil rulers as Kshatriya:

Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Volume 49 page 112 [19]
"The Brahmins who entered the field as adventurous immigrants from the north, soon became the advisors and confidants of the chiefs. They equated the Tamil chiefs to the kshatriyas..."

Other sources mentionning, talking about Tamil Kshatriya, Kshatriya varna, etc.:

The background of Maratha renaissance in the 17th century by Narayan Keshav Behere [20]
"... and the Chols who were purely Tamil Kshatriyas..." page 60
"The Cholas were Tamil Kshatriyas..." page 69

Penumbral visions: making polities in early modern South India Par Sanjay Subrahmanyam [21]
"Further south, in the Chola country, one gathers that the varna status of rulers did continue to be a preoccupation; some of them are known to have performed the hiranyagarbha ceremony, by which they were inserted into a large womb-like gold vessel, and subsequentely emerged 'reborn', and declared to possess kshatriya status." page 229

Slaves of the Lord: the path of the Tamil saints [22]
"Ko-Chenga Chola, Caste: kshatriya" page 160, "Nedumaran, Caste: kshatriya" page 165, "Charaman, Caste: kshatriya" page 178
Eventhough they are snippet view, they are clear and therefore need further research (full access, etc.) before taking any action...

To Sum Up

I have privided different refs which tell:

- Tamil rulers are considered as Kshatriyas in Hindu literatture sources
- Tamil rulers used this word for themselves
- Tamil Brahmins considered Tamil rulers as Kshatriyas
- Different scholars used the term Tamil Kshatriya

As you can see, there are so much refs dealing with Tamil speaking Kshatriyas... How can one tells that the word Kshatriya cannot be applied to designate Tamil nolbles ???...

Sitsush has rejected these refs by appleling to the following arguments:
- Old source
- Non reliable source
- Snippet view

I don't agree with his position because:
- Old book does not mean (always) wrong
- it is not because a book is considered not reliable that everything is wrong in it
- snippet view mention clearly Tamil Kshatriya and thefore need futher enquiry before taking any action

Sitush also argues that there are numbers of book which tell that there is no Tamil Kshatriya. I want to know on which basis these scholars assert that there is no such as Tamil Kshatriya whereas there are historical & archeological sources which assert the contrary ???... My opinion & answer concerning these scholars is: They assert this based on their idiology & political opinion instead of using scientific evidences & therefore they are not reliable scholars and so should not be used...

Can anyone tell me how to submit my refs to rfc & other stuffs ?... Thank you.Rajkris (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Your refs are there just fine. However, as I just said on your talk page, please put this on Talk:Kshatriya#Restart merger discussion. People involved in the merger discussion are unlikely to see it here. I know you tried to refuse before, but the simple fact is that the discussion is occurring over there (instructions say to have the discussion on the target page), so leaving it here means that most people may just ignore it. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)