Talk:Lodhi (caste)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rename

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

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

---

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

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

Full protection -- 1 week

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources on Lodhis and Rajput status

In addition to the Jaffrelot cite mentioned above, here's a cite from that, though Snippet so not something we want to use for the article, again demonstrates questioning of Lodhi Rajput claims, grouping them together with other groups who've attempted caste mobility via renaming: Several castes which had hitherto classified as lower castes or untouchables claimed Rajput origin. Lodhi, Katia and Chippa claimed to be classified as Lodhi Rajput, Renhia Rajput and Rajput Chippa respectively[1] Unfortunately it appears to be a Gyan printing (though gBooks is awfully bad about listing non-Gyan books as Gyan), and Kashyap has a lot of books published by Lancers, so I find it an interesting point but I'm not thrilled with the sourcing.

• Here's a better quote: The Lodhi Rajput Itihas, written in 1936, claimed the Lodhis, an agricultural community, to be Rajputs. from Fascinating Hindutva: saffron politics and Dalit mobilisation, by Badri Narayan.[2]

• Note that Russell discusses the Lodhi, and though he doesn't specifically say "not Rajput", the way he phrases the paragraph does not at all imply they are Rajput. So not necessarily evidence for the articlespace, but a useful clue.[3] Note here he also describes their clan marriages as "in imitation of Rajputs" which would be an odd phrasing if he thought they were Rajputs.[4] Similarly, here[5] he says Rajputs will take water from Lodhis if they are ill, again a phrasing casting doubt on any synonymy.

• Here's mention that the Lodhi "ranked below Brahmins and Rajputs"[6] from Dimensions of human cultures in central India.

• Snippet, lamentably, but appears to be an old work and might be PD elsewhere: Lodha. The claim to be a Lodhi Rajput (a central India caste) is an old one. -It seems to be confined to Bundelkhand.[7]

• Nothing conclusive, just a Brit definition from a glossary: Lodha A caste of cultivators and labourers in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, probably identical with Lodhi, a caste of landowners, probably of Rajput affinities in central India [8]

• Minor point: Shri Krishna Sharma (1977) concentrated his attention on a caste that was to become politically important within two decades of the study: the Lodhi Rajput [u]as they called themselves[/u] in Bulandshahr district. - underlining mine.[9]

• Another implied, describing Rajputs being unable to obtain supremacy in Gond and Lodhi areas.[10]

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

• Snippet but intriguing: through emulation of the dominant Rajput castes and through the claims of such aspirant castes for Rajput status. Thus, the Lodhas prefer to be called Lodhi Rajputs and the Gadarias prefer the name Baghel Rajputs[11]

• Ul-Hassan is always interesting (Preview view): The Lodhes regard themselves as Rajputs, but can give no account of their origin, nor are there any traditions current among them which will throw light on the subject.[12]

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

Please just don't talk about what a source might/might not be saying when seen through the googlebooks snippet view. For example, your source-[13]. They are out of the question as sources. I am going to reject them out of court. Since you think Jaffrelot is the best cite here, let us discuss it first.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shudra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please see Wikipedia:No original research#Reliable sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can now look through my edits and edit summaries to know what I object to and how specifically it is objectionable. One ref was from half a sentence,[15] another did not even have a half sentence to support the material, it is a completely fake source, [16] yet another was an encyclopedia,[17] i.e. a tertiary source. It is uncivil of you to keep asking people to leave WP. You don't own WP. Do you?MW ^ℳ 08:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did find another clear listing of "Lodi" as Shudra (and by context the agricultural caste and not the Pathan tribe), but it's an 1819 source so I'm not thrilled with it[18]. MW, is it your overall contention that Lodhi should reflect the Lodhi as they see themselves, and not involve outside critique? If the Lodhi say they are Rajput, and others disagree, should we not mention it? I would submit, as I note in the current lowest section, that a lot of writers cast doubt on their Rajput claims, and many refer to them solely as "Lodhi" vice "Lodhi Rajput" (not that such is completely incompatible with being Rajput), and those few who do say "Lodhi-Rajput" either don't explain how they are Rajput, and/or are referring to a political "Lodhi-Rajput" identity, which I would submit does not "make" anyone Rajput any more than adding "Kshatriya" to a caste name (as is so popular) makes on Kshatriya. If anything, it's a bit of a "methinks thou dost protest too much" if one needs to add a caveat to a group name... MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MW, are you referring the Encyclopedia Indica cite about Madhya as being an unsatisfactory tertiary source? I of course agree it's tertiary, but I figured as a non-contentious point it would serve. The policy /Wikipedia:Tertiary_source#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources states Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and I submit something as simple as "Foo caste lives here" is a "broad summary" of the issue. I do submit that "found in India and Pakistan" is uncited and unfocused, and should be removed unless someone has substantiation for such a broad swath of coverage. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sidharthbpverma, 21 September 2011

1.The community is OBC Criteria is under states List. 2.The word Lodham first originates in Rigveda (The oldest literature of Sanatan/ Hindu dharma), then the word again shows its presence in Manusmriti and in Parashuram sahitya. In all the slokas depicted, the word Lodham is used for Shoorveer / warrior/ brave. All the slokas shows at that time there were only one type Kshatriya on the earth, which was Lodham.

When Parashuram killed The Chakravarti King Sahastrabahoo (A Lodham) the then left over leaders of Kshatriyas (Lodham) went to The Lord Mahesh. The Lord Mahesh saved them from Parashuram and ordered all the Khastriyas (Lodham) to choose farming instead of Kshatra (weapons). As The Lord Mahesh saved the Lodhams from the atrocities of Parashuram the then he is also worshiped as The Lodheswar Mahadev.

The present day the length and breadth of Lodhies (Lodham) can be seen extended from Pakistan (west) to West-Bengal in east , Nepal in north, Karnataka and Goa in South India. They have 23 Rajgharanas (Thikans) in Indian subcontinent starting from the west

   * Teenkotla, in the Sialkot District of present-day Pakistan
   * Lodra in the Multan District of present-day Pakistan
   * Ludrava, Jaisalmair Rajasthan, India.
   * Amarpatan (National Highway No.7, 50 Km away from Maihar) MP, India.
   * Ramgarh, Mandla MP, India.
   * Gahora, Chitrakut MP, India.
   * Kerbana, Bateagarh, Damoh,MP, India.
   * Hindoriya (Hata, Damoh) MP, India.
   * Madanpur Mahroni, (Lalitpur) UP, India.
   * Mankhedi Seoni MP are just few of them.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_history_of_lodhi_rajput#ixzz1YcRA2JPj

Sidharthbpverma (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, you raise some interesting points, but you've provided no reliable sources to back these assertions. WikiAnswers is a crowdsourced site, which does not mean it is bad or wrong, but it is not an authoritative academic site. I suggest you take a look around GoogleBooks and see if you can find academic publications which back your above assertions.

I agree with you that it would be good to include the Lodhi's origin legend (I think Jaffrelot has a page on it to cite). So far as distribution, do you have any cites to show the Lodhi stretching as far as Bengal, Nepal, Goa, etc? I've only seen info on them being in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, but would be glad to learn more. Again, anything you bring up here, make sure you have a "WP:RS" to back it up. Thanks for coming by! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Shudra in lead

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

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

Reasons for doing so:

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

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

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

I'm fine with it not being in the lede, since it doesn't seem to be heavily prominent in the coverage I've seen, but I do submit that both the Lodhi's claim to be Rajput Kshatriya, and the doubts regarding the claim, do indeed need to be in the lede. For what it's worth, in almost every single article where I've included the word Shudra in the lede, it's because the article previously had "Kshatriya" in the lede with no substantiation, and often in cases where either no RS whatsoever supported Kshatriya claims, or where RSs noted a claim but provided very necessary larger context as to how the claim came about.

I dispute it being a "fake" cite; the text clearly says they were considered among the Shudra. You could certainly (and I'm sure you will) argue that "classified" gives a different connotation than "considered" and I'm fine with a rephrase, but there's no way to read that particular cite (and Sitush has provided the surrounding sentences above) as saying "people did not call the Lodhis as Shudra in Bundelkhand at the time in question."

Regarding Zuggernaut's suggestion that caste articles be treated as BLPs: I completely disagree. There are very specific legal reasons BLPs are treated as they are. So far as "living communities", etc., sure, there are legitimate concerns about communitarian violence in India, however that could be said of massive numbers of articles on Wikipedia. It's not like Kosovo has no potential to upset people, in an area that has seen considerable violence. And it's not like there aren't scores of articles on "living" religions with the potential to upset people no matter how properly cited. We can't go carving out exceptions for India, and we can't get involved in a huge game of "well, X community in Y country seems a bit riot-prone this month, so let's up the standards of WP:V on their articles."

I realise WP:OSE applies, and nobody is obligated to get equally upset about other failings on other articles, but are folks upset at my edits not also upset about the endless caste puffery and glorification on these articles? I'd argue that caste puffery is, in the long term, more dangerous than "harsh" truths about the less-pretty sides of socio-political history. I reject any claims that I'm inserting "defamatory" material, and at some point I suggest we have some larger DR discussion about whether questioning Rajput/Kshatriya claims, noting former Shudra designations, or mentioning varna at all is "defamatory". MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to discuss my personal situation - whether I was sleepy or had a screw loose or something but I read only the most prominent section on that page and missed the first 3 and a half lines at the top of the page. The first 3 lines clearly say what the lead claims. Sorry for the mistake (I've stricken out the first point). The content still needs to be removed because there are many interesting things about the caste that belong in the lead and there's no need to give undue importance to their varna status. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the book does NOT say what the article says. So, it is a fake ref. At least a part of it is. The article says, The caste was formerly classified as Shudra in the Hindu varna system,[3]. Please look at the second half of this sentence ...in the Hindu varna system. This part is nowhere in the book. It is not clear who considered them as **whatever**. This part is complete OR. It should be clear who considered them as what. What the book says is also immensely confusing. Fowler&fowler has already highlighted what should be clear, but remains vague. So, I will not repeat it. But I note that Fowler&fowler's objections have not been overcome. We do not use confusing refs. So, the ref should be deleted. Secondly, the source sentence in the book is a passing comment. There is only 1 instance of "Lodhi" in this whole book. This book is a non RS for this article and it is against policy to use passing comments as sources. Anything sourced from passing comments is OR. This author is not making the point for which he is being used. He is saying something else. He could easily/likely be using this word in a vague sort of way, and may have meant something else. The author makes no effort to establish this point and is thus a non RS for this point. The sentence should be deleted.MW ^ℳ 15:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, the shudra sentence should go. As pointed out above, it is based on a single reference which only says "were also considered shudras" (by whom? when?) and that is definitely not strong enough to support the claim "was formerly classified as". I'm also in general agreement with Zuggernaut's points 2 and 3 above, and partly with 4 though not with 5. Unless there is a strong reason to do so (i.e., reliable sources emphasize it), there is no reason to emphasize the 'varna' status of a caste and any emphasis should reflect the weight per reliable sources. I agree that the subject is a sensitive one so it is best to use only impeccable sources and clear statements. However, there is no need to over emphasize current sources over historical ones (I could argue that the historical sources may be more accurate both because the sensitivity of the issue is a modern construct as well because there are many political issues that surround caste in India today). I can see that sourcing is not easy on this topic but there is no need to include every attributable statement about a caste in the article itself. Less is often more. --rgpk (comment) 17:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, it may not be a bad idea for the protecting admin to delete that sentence from the article now. There seems to be enough support for that. --rgpk (comment) 17:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

MW, the phrase "in the Hindu varna system" was put there by someone in order to give some context to the word "shudra". Is it your contention that it's a likely possibility that the word "shudra" might mean something else in that context? I will grant that it is one small cite for an arguably controversial claim, though I do not agree that the book needs to have extensive Lodhi-centric coverage to be considered RS for Lodhis. If it were a book about ceramics and off-handedly mentioned "left-handed potters among the Lodhi Shudra clay-gatherers", sure, I'd say that's a definite "passing" mention and no necessarily RS for non-ceramics subjects, but the book in question is a book on social structures. I submit that varna and caste politics at large are vital to address in caste articles (and I still strongly disagree with MangoWong's contention that no caste should mention the word "Shudra"), but do agree that we're not currently seeing a lot of emphasis on varna specifically on Lodhi topics in the RSs. If there's a consensus that at the moment we don't have enough Lodhi Shudra data, I'm cool with that, but the Rajput controversy is far more important to an understanding of the Lodhi. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been taking down pieces of OR lies, misrepresentations and undue material etc. etc. from Yadav, Kurmi articles. Don't deny it. I categorically deny it; Yadav is a massively better article than it was before, and you have failed to make a proper WP-based case for any "lies" therein. In clarification to my above, I agree with removing "Shudra" since it is a single-source cite for a contentious issue, and consensus states the argument is not strong enough to stand alone. I reject that it is "passing", I reject that the source is "not RS", and I reject MW's contention that "Shudra" should not be in articles. I submit I am not violating AGF in noting that MangoWong has specifically stated his belief that the term "Shudra" should not appear in WP articles, so any policy-based arguments he makes bear a close look due to his explicitly stated stance on this issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is the OR lie [19], here is the misrepresentation [20] , and here is the undue material [21], which I did take down from the Yadav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). None of it is in the article presently. Anyone can check. Here is a permalink to the present version [22]. The source for the S***** claim in the present article is a "passing comment". There is only one instance of Lodhi in that entire book. No way it could be a "not passing comment". And that book is also a non RS for the same reason. If you again start saying that X caste is S*****, I will again say that this word should not be used. It can be used in a historical way, and in a policy compliant way only. But not in a policy non compliant way.MW ^ℳ 17:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm replying to MW on his Talk page to avoid taking the thread on a tangent. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

rgpk, regarding there is no reason to emphasize the 'varna' status of a caste and any emphasis should reflect the weight per reliable sources, I agree that sources should be held to a high standard for varna issues (which is why I agree with current removal based on single-source alone), but I submit that varna status is an issue of great interest on Wikipedia, as evidenced by the vast number of articles stating Kshatriya claims (almost always unreferenced, or improper OR of the Puranas, etc). I am totally fine with having Kshatriya claims in articles (provided proper referencing), but 90%+ of the time these claims are contested, doubted by scholars or Brahmins or the Raj, etc. Lodhi Rajput is just such a case, and the pre-cleanup version has "kshtriya" as the 10th word in the entire article[23]. I've seen the term as early as the 4th or so word in some articles (or second, following the title, if we don't count prepositions and such). Varna is of keen interest to the readership, varna is a subject of enduring controversy, varna is often addressed in RSs but there is often disagreement or variety which (and here again I disagree with MW) needs to be described as "sources vary, and say A, B, and C" as opposed to MW's contention that the controversy means we can't bother getting into it, or the even less-credible argument that "varna no longer matters" simply because the Indian government waved its magic wand and removed these labels. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I didn't mean to say that the Varna status of a caste be excluded completely from an article. Rather, if the status is disputed, then we shouldn't categorically say that such and such was/is a this or that. Rather, we should present the disputed claims (as in the Rajput claims above) as being disputed claims, preferably in the body of the article rather than the lead (unless the dispute itself is notable). While the issue is sensitive, there is no sense in pussy footing around it either when the status, or disputed status, is backed up by reliable sources. --regentspark (comment) 18:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no gripes there. I agree that categorical statements are best avoided on varnas, whether Kshatriya or Shudra, except in the very rare cases where it is not particularly contested (I honestly couldn't raise much objection to the Ror being Kshatriya anywhere, so thus it remains). I grant that with our single-source we don't have enough details to nuance the term, so I'm fine with removing it based on that aspect alone, so I'll drop Q a line and suggest he check out the consensus here and see if it should be removed. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Currently, I see consensus to remove the last sentence of the current lead, "The caste was formerly classified as Shudra in the Hindu varna system,[3] but slightly above other Shudra castes such at the Kurmi.[4]" I do not see a clear consensus on the prior sentence. As such, I am going to remove only that sentence right now. It looks like you may be moving towards more consensus on the prior sentence, but I don't see it yet. Please continue to discuss the issue, and, as always, consider asking for help at a relevant noticeboard. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, I've started a wider discussion on the use of varna in the lead of articles like this one at WT:INDIA, and invite others to join that. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The kshatriya claims will need to go as well. It is best to have instead: They are classified as OBC in the Government of India's *** of 19**. Their varna status is disputed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The Lodhi are apparently also a subcontinental Muslim social group with similar agricultural speciality. Why do we only say "Hindu?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent question f&f. The name 'Lodhi' brings to mind the Delhi based Lodhi dynasty (and tomb) rather than a social group in the Bundelkhand. I would assume that the dynasty is the primary topic rather than the group, or at least there should be some disambiguation here. (I also note that the Lodhi dynasty article is at Lodi rather than Lodhi, isn't the latter spelling more common?) --regentspark (comment) 12:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

F&F, the Kshatriya claims are an important part of the Lodhi's documented self-identification, so though I agree the lede would not be a good place for this complex issue, both any claims to Kshatriya noted by secondary sources, and also any documented designations as Shudra (such as in the 1901 or 1911 censuses) should be noted in a "Caste politics" section.

Regarding the Lodhi dynasty, etc., which we'd brought up in Talk earlier, my understanding is that it's a totally separate group that shares a similar orthography, as the Lodhis who seized Delhi, etc. were a Pashtun/Pathan tribe, currently covered at Lodi (Pashtun). I haven't done a deep search, but I did some looking into this exact topic, and didn't find any claimed linkages by either party or by scholars. Off the top of my head, it'd be rather odd for a bunch of Pashtuns to end up in Uttar and Madhya as farming Hindu converts, and if the Madhya Lodhis had any claim to a dynasty you'd imagine they'd be shouting that from the rooftops. If someone else glances around and finds a connection, I'd be interested to read it, but as best as I can tell this just happens to be an overlap of a four-phoneme name (at least in English or in Latin script). MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure they are different groups since the dynasty Lodhis were from Afghanistan. I'm just wondering which Lodhi is primary and whether this should be a disambiguation page rather than have the article at the social group (I did say it was an extraneous question!). --regentspark (comment) 14:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

MV, I meant from the lede. Both the shudra classification by the British and the Lodhi's own assertions of kshatriya past in response need to be discussed in as much detail as is appropriate in a separate section. I don't really even object to them being in the lead, but only if they appear in the summary of the article that the lead is supposed to be. (As it was, they were appearing only (or primarily) in the lead. I do understand though that "shudra" was put in there as a response to the vacuous claims of Kshatriya origins by various IPs and SPAs.) As I see it, from a reading of the Baylys, primarily Susan, but also Christopher, many of the agricultural and pastoral castes were more or less outside the formal varna system and had remained so for many centuries. They were considered non-patrician (or non-elite or middle-to-low caste) social groups, but more crucially, clean. In other words, the twice-born, primarily the Brahmins, could have non-polluting interaction and dealings with them (buy their wheat or milk, drink water served by them, etc.). When the patrician groups, for economic reasons, began to downgrade these groups, the groups reacted by claiming twice-born (mainly Kshatriya) status. All sorts of "founder myths" began to appear soon thereafter. Unfortunately, from my perspective, these non-partician groups didn't show the courage of the Satnamis or the Kabirpanthis or later of an Ambedkar, who were able to reject the caste system altogether; instead they took the path of claiming dubious upper-class origins. Everyone and their brother was soon claiming direct descent from the Sun or the Moon. In my opinion, this was specially tragic for the Kurmis, who were so much more admirable, in terms of their work ethic, than the shiftless Brahmin and Rajput farmers whose customs they were now endeavoring to adopt. It did, however, give them political and economic power in the century to follow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Other improvements to make

Just wanted to suggest some other less-controversial improvements to make once protection lifts:

• Distribution: do we have any support for the contention "found throughout India and Pakistan"? I'm mostly seeing mention of them in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. Did whoever put "India and Pakistan" just speak too sweepingly? Do you find Lodhis in Andhra, Bengal, Sikkim, etc? Might someone have confused these folks with the Pathan Lodi/Lodhi (who are indeed found in Pakistan, and came through Rajasthan to Delhi with the Lodhi dynasty)?
• Post-Independence politics: I added some cited material, briefly, on caste politics in the early 20th C. Per Zuggernaut and F&F's comments above, I'd be fine having any Shudra mention put into that particular section as that's where it's most germane. However, we don't have anything about post-Independence politics, and I am seeing a lot of RSs about that.
• Culture: anyone have suggestions on ways/sources to concisely sum up any cultural practices significant in this community?

MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Origin legend: I think Jaffrelot summarises it in his book, and it seems pretty standard. I think there might be RSs saying that the origin legend is actually only a couple centuries old, made for caste upliftment vice an ancient tale, so if we do have RSs on that I submit it should be in that same section vice lower down in Caste Politics. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Note

This article has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topicsMW ^ℳ 03:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

This book, which has just been reinstated yet again, is not reliable source. It is commonly accepted that we do not use the trash published by Gyan - see User:Sitush/Common#Gyan. The same edit also restored works by Russell, Ibbetson etc and the Imperial Gazetteers, which are also commonly accepted not to be reliable. We need modern sources, not the pseudo-ethnographers of the Raj era, who really didn't have a clue and are not often cited in the context of accuracy by modern academics. THe edit also reinstated a varna claim - kshatriya - into the lead section and we simply do not do this.

Many of these issues have been discussed previously, some even on this talk page in the threads above. I'm reverting the reinstatement of poor material once more. If you do not like it, please justify your position here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2018

11-12वि शताब्दी के लोधी क्षत्रिय शूरमा हिंडोल (दमोह) नरेश महाराज ईश्वर सिंह लोधी जिन्होंने महोबा के चंदेलों से अपनी मित्रता , और अपने क्षात्र धर्म को निभाने के लिए दिल्ली नरेश की एक लाख की शेना का अपनी 56 हजार की सेना के साथ युद्ध किया और उन्हें पराजित भी किया । इस युद्ध के बाद उन्हें "तलवार के धनि "की उपाधी दी गयी । महाराज ईश्वर सिंह लोधी और महाराज पृथ्वी राज चौहान के इस युद्ध का वर्णन चंदरबाई द्वरा लिखित " प्रथ्विराज रासो " में वर्णित हे।

https://rajputrajithas.blogspot.com/2017/08/blog-post_14.html

https://rajputrajithas.blogspot.com/2017/08/blog-post_14.html

https://rajputrajithas.blogspot.com/2017/08/blog-post_14.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhupendra Raj Sooryavanshi Sahab (talk • contribs) 09:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Blogs are not WP:RS and, since this is an english language encyclopedia, you should propose your changes in English. --regentspark (comment) 13:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2019

Although Lodhi's account is not found with other rajput account because there are many branches of rajput clans and when a clan breaks it spreader into many part and they began to call themselves a different one and the later consider that they are different from former because the legacy of former clan is inherited by those who are powerful and expale other weakers from legacy the same conditions is here in case of Lodhi caste. In the earliest hindu Veda Rig-Veda's mandal 3rd, adhyay 4th, sutra 53 mantra 23, the word "Lodham" the sanskrit formation of present Lodhi word is used to refer kshtriyas who fought a battle against Parshuram, even Swami Dayanand saraswati the founder of arya samaj which give the principle to return to Vedas defined the meaning of Lodham as the fighter kshtriya . Similiarly in ancient hindu literature Manu smriti and Parshuram sahiya also. So I request wikipedia to search by yourself and if you find this true then please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:4099:F404:3FE6:DFDC:4E71:9372 (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Changing the page

The lodhi are chandravanshi Kshatriyas.and this is written in rigveda.one who made this page don't done proper research about Lodhi-Rajput. First reasearch about them and then write whether they are farmer or Thakur. Abhay389 (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Removing uncited legendary origin; can anyone source this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Sitush/ Mathew Date – 17/9/2011

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

Regards

Yogendra Singh Lodhi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brother.. only primary source can reveal that we are Kshatriyas.and only primary sources proposed the system of verna.if someone is denying them or anable to make out of them.we are sorry for that this is only thing you can know about us and you must know vedas and samahitas are the basis of hindu..if you don't understand write here on wikkipedia that we don't know...but you people are showing us dye maker or i dont know..can you justify this...why we are being represented on the basis of someone's hypothesis.if some one ask you .do god exist?...you should say we don't know...here on Wikipedia you must not say according to xyz(an encarnation) he is he do not exist...and if you are quoting him obviously u too don't believe...but here we should not talk about what we believe in becouse we are not encarnation...we may be wrong. Lodhiurdad (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Lodhas are thakur.this is also written in Rigveda. Your reasearch is not good you tell than we are dye maker but this is not true.we are Rajput from orgin but due to 1857 when lodhi fight against the British they become poor,their land snatched by British and because of that some Lodhi-Rajput become poor. That's why we are in OBC. So please research about lodhis and then write correct.. Thank you Abhay389 (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2020

Lodhi Rajput is a Ancient vaidik kshtriya Shankararya45 (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Shankararya45 (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

In addition, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

लोधी राजपूत

लोधा, लोधी, लोध क्षत्रिय 2405:204:A31F:A5A:0:0:853:30B1 (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2022

2405:204:A31F:A5A:0:0:853:30B1 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)लोधा लोधी भारत में रहने वाली एक प्राचीन हिंदू जाति है। प्राचीन वर्ण व्यवस्था में इस जाति को क्षत्रीय वर्ग का माना गया है और इस जाति के लोगों को लोध के नाम से जाना जाता था। कालान्तर में इस जाति को लोध से लोधा कहा जाने लगा|  ब्रिटिशकाल में लोधा जाति के लोग संयुक्त प्रान्तों से मध्य प्रान्तों की ओर फैल गये और वहां जाकर लोधा लोगों ने अपना नाम बदल कर लोधी कर लिया लेकिन इनका वास्तविक व स्थाई नाम लोधा ही है।   वर्तमान में इस जाति को लोध, लोधा व लोधी तीनों नामों से जाना जाता है तथा इन्हें असम, छत्तीसगढ़, दिल्ली, गुजरात, हरयाना, मध्यप्रदेश, राजस्थान, उत्तरप्रदेश, उत्तराखण्ड व तेलंगाना आदि राज्यों में अन्य पिछड़ा वर्ग की जातियों में शामिल किया गया है  जबकि बाकी अन्य राज्य मैं ये स्वर्ण मैं आते है। पश्चिम बंगाल व उड़ीसा में ये अनुसूचित जनजाति की श्रेणी में रखे गये हैं।  

उत्पत्ति लोधा जाति की उत्पत्ती प्राचीनतम पुस्तक ऋग्वेद के मण्डल 3, सुक्त 53 एवं मंत्र 23 में प्रयुक्त शब्द ‘लोधं’ से मानी जाति है। इस मंत्र में लोधं शब्द का प्रयोग एक कुशल योद्धा के गुणों को प्रदर्शित करने हेतु विशेषण के रूप में किया गया था। कहा जाता है कि चन्द्रवंश व सूर्यवंश के संघर्ष के समय चंद्रवंशी महाराज बुध ने ऋषी मुनियों की सलाह से इसी मंत्र की मंत्रणानुसार लोध गुण युक्त वीरों की सैना तैयार कर युद्ध में विजय प्राप्त की थी। बाद में इस सैना के वीरों की पहचान लोध क्षत्रीय के रूप में की जाने लगी जो कालान्तर में लोधा क्षत्रीय कहलाये। ब्रिटिश इतिहासकारों ने लोधा जाति की उत्तपत्ती के बारे में अलग-अलग विचार व्यक्त किये हैं। मैथ्यू एटमोर शैरिंग महोदय ने अपनी पुस्तक ‘हिन्दू ट्राईब्ज एण्ड कास्ट्स एज रिप्रजेन्टेड इन बनारस’ में लिखा है कि ‘‘लोध जाति के लोग मूलतः लोध नामक पेड़ की छाल को बेचा करते थे जो कि रंगाई व औषधी के रूप में काम आती थी इसीलिये ये लोग लोध कहलाये।’’ जे.सी. नेसफील्ड महोदय ने अपनी पुस्तक ‘ब्रीफ व्यू ऑफ कास्ट सिस्टम’ में लिखा है कि ‘‘लोधा शब्द अंग्रेजी के Clod-Breaker शब्द से बना है। यहां Clod का अर्थ ‘लोड’ से और Breaker का अर्थ ‘हा’ से है इन्हें जोड़ कर लोधा (Lod+ha) शब्द बनता है।’’ विलियम क्रुक महोदय ने अपनी पुस्तक ‘द ट्राईब्ज एण्ड कास्ट्स ऑफ नोर्थ वेस्टर्न एण्ड अवध’ में लिखा है कि ‘‘लोधा शब्द संस्कृत के लोधरा शब्द से बना है जिसका अर्थ है ‘एक पेड़ की छाल’ जो कि रंगाई के काम आती है चुंकि ये लोग प्रारम्भ में इस पेड़ की छाल को बेच कर जीवन यापन करते थे इसलिये ये लोधा कहलाये।’’ क्रुक का दूसरा मत था कि ‘‘लोधा शब्द संस्कृत के ‘लुब्धका’ शब्द से बना है जिसका अर्थ है ‘एक निर्भीक’ या ‘एक शिकारी’।’’ जैसा कि इनके लिये कहा जाता है। आर.वी. रस्सेल महोदय ने अपनी पुस्तक ‘‘द ट्राईब्ज एण्ड कास्ट ऑफ द सेन्ट्रल प्रोविन्सेस ऑफ इण्डिया’’ में लिखा है कि ‘‘मध्यप्रान्तों में ये पंजाब के लुधियाना से आये थे इसीलिये इन्हें लोधी कहा जाने लगा। इनका स्थाई नाम लोधा है।’’ इसी पुस्तक में आगे लिखा है कि ‘‘ सागर जिले में कहा जाता है कि पहले लोधी की उत्पत्ती महादेव जी के द्वारा कुर्मी महिला के खेत में स्थित बजूके से उस खेत की सुरक्षा के लिये की गई थी।’’ ई.ए. गैट महोदय ने सन् 1901 बंगाल की जनगणना रिपोर्ट में लिखा है कि ‘‘ इस जाति की उत्पत्ती के बारे में मिदनापुर में कहा जाता है कि इन्हें पाण्डवों ने शिकार के लिये चुना था जबकि मयूरभंज में ये राजा बली के वंशज कहे जाते हैं।

इतिहास लोधा जाति का अस्तित्व पौराणिक काल से है। पुराणों में कई जातियों का उल्लेख है जिन्हें सोध, रोध, लोध, बोध कहा जाता था लोधा इन्हीं के वंशज हैं। लोधा जाति क्षत्रीय वर्ण से है। स्मृतियों व अत्र संहिता से भी इस जाति की क्षत्रियत्वता सिद्ध होती है। मुगलकाल में भी लोधा जाति का उल्लेख लोधा, लोध राजपूत के रूप में मिलता है। मुगल बादशाह अकबर के समय आगरा, कोंण्डा व अहमदाबाद की शाही फौज में लोधा लोध राजपूत घुडसवार व सैनिक काफी संख्या में थे।

उत्तर पश्चिमी प्रान्तों (वर्तमान उत्तरप्रदेश) में ब्रिटिशकालीन पुस्तकों में उत्तर पश्चिमी प्रान्तों (वर्तमान उत्तरप्रदेश) में लोधा जाति को कृषक वर्ग में एक स्वतंत्र जाति माना है और प्रमुख कृषक जातियों में इसका उल्लेख किया है। लोधा जाति के बारे में लिखा गया है कि ये अच्छे फसल उगाने वाले, शांत व मेहनती हैं। अवध क्षेत्र में ये अतिप्राचीन काल से रह रहे हैं। लगभग 9 सौ वर्ष हुए कांथ नामक लोधा ने कांथा नामक नगर बसाया था। जो कि उन्नाव जिले के पुरवा परगने में तहसील से 9 मील व सदर स्टेशन से 18 मील की दूरी पर है। लगभग एक हजार वर्ष हुए मांखी नामक लोधा ने मांखी नगर बसाया जो तहसील हसनगंज जिला उन्नाव में है। सन् 1921 में हुई जनगणना के अनुसार संयुक्त प्रान्तों, ब्रिटिश टेरेटरी, अवध व आगरा डिवीजन में लोधा जाति की जनसंख्या 10,46,816 थी। संयुक्त व उत्तर पश्चिमी प्रान्तों (वर्तमान उत्तरप्रदेश) के लगभग सभी जिलों में विशेषकर आगरा, एटा, इटावा, मैनपुरी, झांसी, ललितपुर, सारंगपुर, अलीगढ़, बुलन्दशहर, मेरठ, बदायूं, बिजनौर, बरेली, कानपुर, गोरखपुर, फरूखबाद व फतेहपुर आदि में लोधा जाति के लोग निवास करते थे और यहां ये सिर्फ मजदूर या कृषक ही नहीं है बल्कि भूस्वामी भी थे इसीलिये इन्हें यहां कई जगह ‘‘मुकादम’’ भी कहा जाता था। मध्य प्रान्तों (वर्तमान मध्यप्रदेश) में संयुक्त प्रान्तों से लोधा जाति के लोग मध्य प्रान्तों (वर्तमान मध्यप्रदेश) की ओर तेजी से बढे़। ये लोग नर्बदा घाटी, बांणगंगा और छत्तीसगढ़ के खैराबाद तक फैल गये। सन् 1911 की जनगणना के समय यहां इनकी जनसंख्या लगभग 3 लाख थी। मध्यप्रान्तों के हौशंगाबाद, जबलपुर, सागर, नरसिंगपुर, भांदरा, मण्डला, छिंदवाडा, रायपुर, व दमोह आदि जिलों में लोधा अधिक संख्या में रहते थे। यहां ये अपने स्वयं की भूमि के मालिक बन गये थे और उच्च कृषक वर्ग की जातियों की तरह अपने को ‘‘ठाकुर’’ करने लगे थे। पन्ना के राजा ने इनमें से कुछ परिवारों को राजा व दीवान की उपाधियां भी प्रदान की थीं। । इतिहासकारों के अनुसार जो लोग यहां पंजाब के लुधियाना से आये थे उन्हें लोधी कहा जाने लगा इनका स्थाई नाम लोधा है।

राजपुताने (वर्तमान राजस्थान) में राजपुताने (वर्तमान राजस्थान) में लोधा जाति प्रमुख कृषक जाति मानी जाती थी। ये लोग पूर्वी राजपुताना जिलों में अधिक भूमि पर खेती करते थे। धौलपुर में ये 45 गांवों के मालिक थे तथा 91 और गांवों की भूमि का उपयोग करते थे इस प्रकार ये सन् 1880 में 17 हजार एकड़ भूमि को जोतते थे। सन् 1697 से पूर्व करौली राज्य के दक्षिण पश्चिम में स्थित उंटगिरी तहसील लोधा लोगों के कब्जे में थी। लोधों के बनवाये बंध व तालाब आज भी यहां मौजूद हैं। देवरावल की दक्षिणी सीमा पर लोद्र राजपुत रहते थे, उनकी राजधानी का नाम लुद्रवा था यह जैसलमेर से 10 मील दूर पश्चिम में है। सन् 1901 की जनगणना में राजपुताना क्षेत्र में लोधा लोगों की जनसंख्या 44,943 बताई गई थी। राजपुताने के जयपुर, भरतपुर, धौलपुर, कोटा, बूंदी, टोंक, झालावाड़, सिरोही, मेवाड़, मारवाड़, प्रतापगढ़, अलवर व शाहपुरा में लोधा अधिक संख्या में रहते थे।

बंगाल व उडीसा में लोध, लोधा व नोध जाति एन्गुल व उड़ीसा के सहायक राज्यों की आदिवासी जाति थी। कहा जाता है कि ये लोध सिंहभूम व मयूरभंज से आये थे और इनका सम्बन्ध मयूरभंज के नोध लोगों से है। जो कि यहां की प्राचीन जातियों में से एक है। मिदनापुर में सहर व साबर जनजाति को इसका पर्याय कहा जाता है। इनका पारम्परिक व्यवसाय जंगली उत्पादों लाख, कोकून, शहद आदि को इकट्ठा करना था। सहायक राज्यों में इन्हें लोधा खेडिया यहा जाता था।

उपजातियां व गोत्र बाटोलिया,दसाया, पथरिया, मथुरिया, संकला जरिया, करहर, बनयान, लाखिया, खारिया, खागी, पनिस, पुरबिया, कथारिया, माहोरिया, जैसवार, सिंगराउर, नरवरिया,तंवर, जुदेव, अन्तरवेदी, महदेले, भदौरिया, जरिया, खाकरहा, जैसारी, ओनतो, बसयान, चांदपुरिया, दौदांसिया, गुडलेया, हरदिया, जांगरा, जंघेल, किरबनियां आदि हैं। पंडित छोटेलाल महोदय ने अपनी पुस्तक ‘जाति अन्वेषण’ में लोधा जाति के 515 उपभेद होना बताया हैं।

जनसंख्या सन् 1891 में की गई जनगणना के अनुसार भारत में लोधा जाति की कूल जनसंख्या 160,74,098 थी। जिसमें सर्वाधिक जनसंख्या उत्तर पश्चिमी प्रान्तों (वर्तमान उत्तर प्रदेश) में 20,29,213, मध्यप्रान्तों (वर्तमान मध्यप्रदेश) में 2,87,241 तथा राजपुताने (वर्तमान राजस्थान) में 45,524 बताई गई है।

 Not done: Foreign Language, you may be looking for the Hindi Wikipedia here: https://hi.wikipedia.org/ Zippybonzo (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2021

"Notables Avanti Bai, a Lodhi queen of Ramgarh, now in Madhya Pradesh, who opposed the British in 1857 and is now a #Dalit political icon[11]" In first para, you said they comes under OBC category(only in 10 states and in rest, they are Unreserved) as your research. and at the same time you also addressing them as a Dalit !!? Please dont defame them.. If you are treating them as Dalit , then give them reservations accordingly. I hope you will rectify this, thank you 2402:3A80:1192:7694:0:0:BA26:4099 (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2021 (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. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Avanti Bai is related to lodhi caste and she is not dalit icon.

So you are requested to change "Dalit Political icon" from this paragraph. Arvindlodhi1990 (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I also support this....Avanti bai is not dalit icon.

She is lodhi caste icon Arvindlodhi1990 (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Lodhi caste is belonging from SC caste. And in past this is slave caste of farmer Rajput Kings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.160.198.54 (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Lodhi Caste is not belonging to SC Caste, it belongs to Other Backward Caste. This is never slae caste Arvindlodhi1990 (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2022

2409:4043:2C81:71D4:2D88:69D5:9987:993F (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Lodhi is Thakur 

Or rajput

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2022 (2)

2409:4053:111:EE94:0:0:1D97:50A4 (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Empty request. —C.Fred (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

wrong information Lodhi Rajput kshatriya

please public kijiye jisse Or bhi jankari dal ske Yogeshkumarrajput (talk) 09:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Yogeshkumarrajput: Since this is the English Wikipedia, please restate your request in English so we can act on it, and please provide reliable sources to back up the request. —C.Fred (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

2405:204:A014:6C9F:0:0:A71:D8AD (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC) They do not claim any rajput ties, they are lodhi rajput that in itself a different caste

 Not done It is unclear what change you want to make in the article. Please state your change clearly (as in "change X to Y") and please provide reliable sources in support of your suggested change. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)wrong INFORMATION Google they don't claim rajpyt ties, they are lodhi rajputs

Lodhis are rajput

Lodh - Lodhi , are belong to Rajput Community 49.15.168.227 (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2022

Add "Not to be confused with Lodhia, a Kshatriya (Parajiya Soni Chandravanshi) surname used by the traditional goldsmiths of Gujarat in India." Premlodhia (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

http://pattniconnection.com/history.html, https://www.morebooks.de/shop-ui/shop/product/978-613-3-51942-8 Premlodhia (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: As far as I can tell, we don't have a page on that surname, and this article does link to a disambiguation at the top. If you think we need to have an article on this surname, go through the Articles for Creation process, and then re-submit your edit request and/or add it to the disambiguation page. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2023

When Lord Parshuram was cleansing the earth of kshatriyas, the surviving lodhis went to the Lodheshwar Mahadev (an incarnation of Lord Shiva) to help them. He then told them to drop their weapons thus their warrior lineage and pick up the agricultural tools. Hence many of them were large landowners and zamindars till to date. XlycanX (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2023 (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. M.Bitton (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I want the above information to be added in history section of Lodhi caste. I have read their literature although I have no proof by now. XlycanX (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

XlycanX - If you can't provide any reliable sources it will not be added, as that would contravene Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability - Arjayay (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

https://www.chandravanshi.org/history-of-chandravanshi-lodhi-rajput/

Hope, this might help. XlycanX (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

History of Lodhi Rajputs

When Lord Parshuram was cleansing the earth of kshatriyas, the surviving lodhis went to their Kuldevta Lodheshwar Mahadev (an incarnation of Lord Shiva) to help them. He then told them to drop their weapons thus their warrior lineage and pick up the agricultural tools. Hence many of them were large landowners and zamindars till to date.

https://www.chandravanshi.org/history-of-chandravanshi-lodhi-rajput/ XlycanX (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2023

lodhi rajput is ruling caste from ancient time as we can see it from lodhi samvat itself. Lodhi samvat an ancient calender just as vikram samvat.https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B2%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%80_%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%A4 Kr$na rajput (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Hindi Wikipedia is not a reliable source Lightoil (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Category of Lodhi Rajputs

Lodhi rajputs are categorised as OBCs only in 10 states, whereas in rest of India they are in General category. http://ncbc.nic.in/User_Panel/CentralListStateView.aspx XlycanX (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2023 (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. M.Bitton (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Please change "The Lodhi are categorised as an Other backward class" to "The Lodhi are categorised as an Other backward class only in 10 states whereas in rest of India they are in General category"

And the official link by Government of India is provided above for Other backward class with respect to all states. XlycanX (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Changes regarding category of Lodhi Rajputs

Please change "The Lodhi are categorised as an Other Backward Class but claim" to "The Lodhi are categorised as an Other Backward Class only in 10 states whereas in rest of India they are in General Category caste and claim"

Official link by Government of India regarding Other backward class in all states for reliability :-

http://ncbc.nic.in/User_Panel/CentralListStateView.aspx XlycanX (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2023

Please change "The Lodhi are categorised as an Other Backward Class but claim" to "The Lodhi are categorised as an Other Backward Class only in 10 states whereas in rest of India they are in General Category caste and claim"

Official link by Government of India regarding Other backward class in all states for reliability :-

http://ncbc.nic.in/User_Panel/CentralListStateView.aspx XlycanX (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: Actualcpscm (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2023

Please add in notables,

• Kalyan Singh
• Uma Bharti

They belong to Lodhi kshatriya caste. XlycanX (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2023

{{edit extended-protected|Lodhi Rajput.Thakur

Ravinmahagwan (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2023 (2)

Please add in history,

When Lord Parashurama was cleansing the earth of kshatriyas, the surviving lodhis went to their Kuldevta Lodheshwar Mahadev to help them. He then asked them to drop their weapons thus their warrior lineage and pick up agricultural tools to survive from Parashurama's wraith. Hence, many of them were the large landowners and zamindars till to date.

For reliability,

• https://www.chandravanshi.org/history-of-chandravanshi-lodhi-rajput/
• https://www.lodhirajput.org/the-lodhi-worldwide-community/ XlycanX (talk) 06:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. M.Bitton (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2023

The Lodhi (or Lodha, Lodh) is a community of agriculturalists, found in India. There are many in Madhya Pradesh, to where they had emigrated from Uttar Pradesh.[1] The Lodhi are sometimes[2] categorised as an Other Backward Class, but claim Rajput ties and prefer to be known as "Lodhi-Rajput",They are rajput . Nitishjariya1 (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The Lodhi (or Lodha, Lodh) is a community of agriculturalists, found in India. There are many in Madhya Pradesh, to where they had emigrated from Uttar Pradesh. The Lodhi are sometimes categorised as an Other Backward Class, and Rajput and prefer to be known as "Lodhi-Rajput", although they are rajput . Nitishjariya1 (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. lizthegrey (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Notables

• T. Raja Singh , Indian politician and a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) who serve as the MLA of the Telangana Legislative Assembly

Nitishjariya1 (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - unsourced in the addition you made to his article - Arjayay (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

T Raja Singh belong to lodhi Rajput community, even his name registered in legislative assembly as t Raja Singh Lodhi Nitishjariya1 (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2023

This page is about the community of agriculturalists. For the ruling dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate, see Lodi dynasty. For other uses, see Lodhi (disambiguation) and Lodi (disambiguation).

The Lodhi (or Lodha, Lodh) is a community of agriculturalists, found in India. There are many in Madhya Pradesh, to where they had emigrated from Uttar Pradesh. The Lodhi are sometimes categorised as an Other Backward Class, Rajput ties and prefer to be known as "Lodhi-Rajput", Rajput

Lodha tribe of Rajputana. (c. 1868)

Source Nitishjariya1 (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Lightoil (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2023

Please change "The Lodhi are categorised as an Other Backward Class but claim" to "The Lodhi are categorised as an Other Backward Class only in 10 states (Uttar Pradesh, madhya pradesh, chhattisgarh, rajasthan, gujarat, haryana, Delhi, Assam, uttarakhand, few districs of telangana) whereas in rest of India they are in General Category caste and claim"

Official link by Government of India regarding Other backward class in all states for reliability :-

http://ncbc.nic.in/User_Panel/CentralListStateView.aspx XlycanX (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've added the information about the states in a footnote, as this information would be a bit out-of-place in the lead. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 September 2023

Please add in

==Notables==

• Gulab Singh Lodhi, a freedom fighter
• Pradyuman Singh Lodhi, Madhya Pradesh politician from Royal family of Hindoria
• Rahul Singh Lodhi, Madhya Pradesh politician
• Ghanshyam Singh Lodhi, Uttar Pradesh politician
• B. L. Verma (Uttar Pradesh politician)
• Dharmpal Singh, Uttar Pradesh politician

They all are Lodhi Rajputs. Thank you. XlycanX (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. lizthegrey (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It's in their name. What more proof can I give. Btw you can check their wiki page too for their castes. XlycanX (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - Stale, contested request. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 November 2023

103.124.173.210 (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)change details of caste because no one can understand the real origin of this caste please provide full information about it and kings

 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. Liu1126 (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

लोधी cast

Hello brother can you help me a edit wikipidiya peg lodhi cast peg are not tru plis help plis riplay Neetesh lodhi chamrai (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Lodhi are not just agriculturist but also landowners

Reference : Page 26 – 27 : Burger, Angela Sutherland (1969). Opposition in a Dominant-Party System. University of California Press. p. 27 https://archive.org/details/oppositionindomi0000burg/page/26/mode/2up?view=theater

Please refer this book: page 8: This is the study done in a particular state of India, Uttar Pradesh. Which is done in 1963-64. Please check the below line in the page number 27 of the reference book.

Lodhi are located in Uttar Pradesh and in the south-central part, many Lodhi were and are large landowners.

this means they are not just agriculturist but also landowners

change

The Lodhi (or Lodha, Lodh) is a community of agriculturalists, found in India.

To

The Lodhi (or Lodha, Lodh) is a community of agriculturalists and Landowners, found in India.

Sourabhverma1994 (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Make introduction more descriptive

Reference 1 : Damoh District Robert Vane Russell · 1906 Page 49

Reference 2 : Burger, Angela Sutherland (1969). Opposition in a Dominant-Party System. University of California Press. Page 26 – 27

Original Text : The Lodhi (or Lodha, Lodh) is a community of agriculturalists, found in India.

Change to : The Lodhi, Lodha or Lodh (The name Lodhi is derived from clod which is exact equivalent of clodhopper, Another derivation is from the lodh tree(Symplocos racemosa)) is a community of agriculturist and landowners, found in India.

---

Reference 3: Russell, Robert Vane; Lal, Rai Bahadur Hira (1993) [1916]. The tribes and castes of the central provinces of India. Vol. 1. Asian Educational Services. p. 114. ISBN 978-8-12060-833-7. Topic : 1. Origin and Traditions

Original Text : The Lodhi are categorised as an Other Backward Class, but claim Rajput ties and prefer to be known as "Lodhi-Rajput", although they have no account of their Rajput origin or prevailing Rajput traditions.

Change To : The Lodhi are categorised as an Other Backward Class, but claim Rajput ties and prefer to be known as "Lodhi-Rajput", although they have no account of their Rajput origin or prevailing Rajput traditions. Lodhi claims Rajput ancestry and relate themself as decedents of Lava, The eldest of two sons of Raja Ramchandra of Ayodhya.

Sourabhverma1994 (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2023

Change: The Lodhi (or Lodha, Lodh) is a community of agriculturalists, found in India.

To: The Lodhi, Lodha or Lodh (The name Lodhi is derived from clod which is exact equivalent of clodhopper, Another derivation is from the lodh tree(Symplocos racemosa)) is a community of agriculturist and landowners, found in India.

Change: The Lodhi are categorised as an Other Backward Class, but claim Rajput ties and prefer to be known as "Lodhi-Rajput", although they have no account of their Rajput origin or prevailing Rajput traditions.

To : The Lodhi are categorised as an Other Backward Class, but claim Rajput ties and prefer to be known as "Lodhi-Rajput", although they have no account of their Rajput origin or prevailing Rajput traditions. Lodhi claims Rajput ancestry and relate themself as decedents of Lava, The eldest of two sons of Raja Ramchandra of Ayodhya. Sourabhverma1994 (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template.  Spintendo  23:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Please add more knowledge with more research

Please add more facts and points 2409:40E3:1F:D847:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2024

Notables

• Avanti Bai, a Lodhi queen of Ramgarh, now in Madhya Pradesh, who opposed the British in 1857 and is now a Dalit political icon.

This has to be corrected as =Notables==

• Avanti Bai, a Lodhi queen of Ramgarh, now in Madhya Pradesh, who opposed the British in 1857 and is now a OBC political icon.

This must have to be OBC cause this casts is obc and dalit are sc caste Markjoelchris (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

see this reference of government site https://www.ncbc.nic.in/User_Panel/GazetteResolution.aspx?Value=mPICjsL1aLvxbegUDuc3MN4eB5E3Ecc1drRPAf1qXQ%2Bl0IqIfhjN1xHrf4i2h5g0

at 48 this caste is listed as obc castes of india. and see the meaning of dalit https://minorityrights.org/minorities/dalits/ dalits means scheduled castes (sc castes) of india it also described in constitution. so these are the references and obc cant be dalit so please correct this wrong info what you provided on the site Markjoelchris (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2024

Notables edit Avanti Bai, a Lodhi queen of Ramgarh, now in Madhya Pradesh, who opposed the British in 1857 and is now a Dalit political icon. This has to be corrected as =Notables==

Avanti Bai, a Lodhi queen of Ramgarh, now in Madhya Pradesh, who opposed the British in 1857 and is now a OBC political icon. This must have to be OBC cause this casts is obc and dalit are sc caste.

https://www.ncbc.nic.in/User_Panel/GazetteResolution.aspx?Value=mPICjsL1aLvxbegUDuc3MN4eB5E3Ecc1drRPAf1qXQ%2Bl0IqIfhjN1xHrf4i2h5g0at Markjoelchris (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs sourcing; changes requested unclear, please use precise X to Y format Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 11:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2024

Lodhi are Rajput. Lodhi cast is in General category in many states and obc in only 9 States of India. Lodhi cast Belongs to Rajput chandravashi clan they are called thakur in Many states like Rajasthan,Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh They are First kshatriya of India Deepak ji rana (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2024 (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. M.Bitton (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

History

The Lodhas(Lodhi) of Ekdala, Khaga, and Khakreru are a separate caste and are known by the distinctive name of Singraur.Those of Ekdala aver that they came from the neighbourhood of Banda in the time of the Tomars, and if this be true, it removes any possibility of the derivation from Singraur in Allahabad. Under their leader, Dariao Singh, they gave much trouble during the mutiny. [24]https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Uttar_Pradesh_District_Gazetteers_Fatehp/iwNDAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover&bsq=singraur

Thakur Dariyav Singh Lodhi(Dariao Singh) was born in Khaga village of Fatehpur district in Singaur branch of Lodhi Rajputs around 1800 AD. His father's name was Thakur Mardan Singh Lodhi Singraur. He was the talukdar of Khaga. Thakur Dariyav Singh Lodhi was about 57 years old at the time of the revolution of 1857. His personality was attractive but big with red threads, vigorous face, huge chest, tall height, matted hair on his head and beard on his face, Rudraksh rosary around his neck, sword hanging on his right side, precious white scarf on his body, He was a witness to being brave and religious. https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0:Thakur_Dariyav_Singh.jpg#filelinks [25]https://chandravanshamitihas.blogspot.com/2021/12/history-of-thakur-dariyav-singh-lodhi.html Lodhinavneetrajput (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2024

103.155.72.88 (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

लोधा भारत में रहने वाली एक प्राचीन हिंदू जाति है। प्राचीन वर्ण व्यवस्था में इस जाति को क्षत्रीय वर्ग का माना गया है और इस जाति के लोगों को लोध के नाम से जाना जाता था।[1] कालान्तर में इस जाति को लोध से लोधा कहा जाने लगा|[2] [3] ब्रिटिशकाल में लोधा जाति के लोग संयुक्त प्रान्तों से मध्य प्रान्तों की ओर फैल गये और वहां जाकर लोधा लोगों ने अपना नाम बदल कर लोधी कर लिया लेकिन इनका वास्तविक व स्थाई नाम लोधा ही है। [4] [5] वर्तमान में इस जाति को लोध, लोधा व लोधी तीनों नामों से जाना जाता है तथा इन्हें असम, छत्तीसगढ़, दिल्ली, गुजरात, हरयाना, मध्यप्रदेश, राजस्थान, उत्तरप्रदेश, उत्तराखण्ड व तेलंगाना आदि राज्यों में अन्य पिछड़ा वर्ग की जातियों में शामिल किया गया है [6] जबकि पश्चिम बंगाल व उड़ीसा में ये अनुसूचित जनजाति की श्रेणी में रखे गये हैं। [7] [8]

 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. Requests should be in English. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)