Talk:Tamil Kshatriya/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Tamil Kshatriya. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Singh

Latest comment: 13 years ago52 comments8 people in discussion

Please can someone email me pages 558-559 of Singh, the book introduced to the article earlier today. They are not available using GBooks and it looks as if they may be quite important. I am not capable of getting to a library at the moment but if they cannot be obtained by one means or another then I would be inclined to bin the entire source. Harsh? Maybe, but these pages are right at the crux of the current unfortunate events. If you are worried about revealing your email address then either use Dropbox etc or set up a temporary email account. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The pages are very much available on GBooks. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 03:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you please provide a link? - SudoGhost™ 03:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Find the link from the article page. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 03:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If you follow that link, and go to page 557, you will see that the preview explicitly states, "Pages 558 and 559 are not shown in this preview". Qwyrxian (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

google preview can be tricky, it may not necessarily show the same pages to everyone. --CarTick (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The content I added is supported by pages 560 and 561. If you should feel there is a counter statement in pages 558 and 559, you better buy it and then cite it. It should not be that expensive. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 03:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You're not understanding WP:RS. We cannot take information based on quotations from individual pages. For example, what if the top of page 30 of a book said "The moon landings were faked by the US government", but page 29, which is hidden said, "The following theory has been completely disproven." You can see how context is extremely important. Since other editors are questioning the accuracy of your edits (given that your other uses of sources misrepresented what they say), the WP:BURDEN is on you to prove that you are accurately pulling information from the source. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is not on me, but the editor who wants to add content counter to that. In any case, if one does find it fit to add them along with the facts, in the article. "your other uses of sources misrepresented what they say"? Where? Cite them here. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 03:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You were using literary/mythic primary texts to support facts. You conducted original research from one book to say that when another book used "Varman", they meant "Kshatriya", even though that was directly contradicted by the second book. You mistakenly used a source from one period and changed it to refer to an entirely different time period. All of these make your use of sources questionable, and thus place the burden on you to clearly show that you have used the source correctly. Just like you misread WP:VANDAL, you're misreading WP:BURDEN. The burden is always on the person adding information to show that the source is reliable, that it says what you claim it says, and that it is placed in proper context. With a typical editor, we just AGF all of that. Given the cited errors, it appears that either you're not reading the sources carefully, you're misunderstanding how to summarize them, or you are deliberately misrepresenting them. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

^ are all the alleged accusations by Sitush. The source that I added stated that Varman is a Kshatriya suffix. I didn't mix sources, nor did I conduct personal research, or even spill personal opinion. The same source that I added talked about tamil inscriptions during Pallava period, which I added. So everything was clear when I added them. So these were all vain allegations by Sitush. I had neither deliberately misrepresented them nor misunderstanding them. Whatever I had added were straight from the source. What I now see is a possible misrepresentation by Sitush in his/her recent edits, which I would look into later when I have time.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 04:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I will have to partially agree with what Manorathan stated above. Edits by Sitush shows a definite lack of knowledge about the Kshatriya-Sudra terms and quite a lot of "misinterpretation". An example of this misinterpretation - CJ Fuller states that "Thus, we can begin by looking at the Kshatriyas and Samantans, the two castes to which the kings and chiefs claimed to belong; however, most unbiased observers (Dumont [1961:27] is an exception) have concluded that the Kshatriya and Samantan subdivisions should be treated merely as supereminent Nayar subdivisions". What Sitush wrote in the article was: "Even the highest ranked of the Nairs, being the kings and chiefs, were no more than "supereminent" subdivisions of the caste, rather than the Kshatriyas and Samantans that they claimed to be". Either this guy doesn't know anything about Indian caste system, or he is deliberately trying to tarnish a particular group of castes. Axxn (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Anandks, your quotes are related to the Nair article. If you want a copy of Fuller to check my content then just ask. You will find that if you read the page prior to the quote which you mention then I am indeed correct. - Sitush (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It was me who downloaded the original JSTOR article and passed it on to Suresh Varma and Chandrakantha Mannadiar. What Fuller intended to say is that the Samanta Kshatriya and Samantan Nair castes were a part of the Nair supergroup, although their own publications like the Travancore Manual states that they are immigrants from Rajastan. You misinterpreted that statement and wrote something totally laughable and meaningless. Axxn (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We are veering off the topic, but well, the competency of the contenders is worth talking about, when one of them CarTick has long been averse to Kshatriyas and the one posted by Axxn, THAT is original research and misunderstanding/misrepresentation of sources, by Sitush.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 06:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't care less what Fuller intended to say because that is original research on your part; what matters is what he did say. - Sitush (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The said statement posted by you on Nair page is original research and nothing else. And regarding Prakrit as Tamil Brahmi is your lack of knowledge. You seem to be confusing scripts and languages. Tamil-Brahmi was the script that was adapted from Brahmi script to write Tamil. So, your claim that the language itself became popular only after that IS personal research. You have made a mess anyway, let me try my best to remove your WP:POVs.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 07:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Tamil Brahmi comes straight from your own source, as noted by a crystal clear citation (not a vague "p 40, 560, 561"). - Sitush (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This is directed at the group: can we please do several things? First, keep the discussion about the Nairs on the Nair page. Second, stop talking about editors' motivations, actions, or opinions, and discuss only the edits? Third, no guessing at all of what sources meant, or what a source implies, or synthesizing multiple sources together--all of that violates WP:OR. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have done neither synthesising / mixing sources, nor added personal opinions, unlike Sitush's recent edits. The source I added says nowhere that 'Tamil-Brahmi combination is considered as Prakrit' and neither 'Tamil language gained importance after 2nd Century BC'. It only says that, Tamil language inscriptions became prominent. This explains who has problems understanding the sources. Going by your personal version, one is bound to be misled that Sanskrit became a popular language only after 5th Century. I am restricting myself from correcting your edits for the time being to preserve them for others to see.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 07:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and there was me thinking that it was because you are already over 3RR and have been warned for it. - Sitush (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As explained already, alleging 3RR would amount to personal attacks. Moreover, Rajkris showed no interest in your reverting my edits. Save yourself by reading about what you are talking. There are good wikipedia articles themselves about Brahmi and Prakrit, which might be of help. Think of the time you wasted in dragging this nonessential discussion.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN —Preceding undated comment added 08:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC).

It was Qwryxian who said you had exceeded 3RR, not me. I just warned you that you were getting close. As for the article, well, I think that you are misreading things, either in the article itself, in the source or indeed in both. I am intending to do some more work on it but am aware that I'm in danger of going beyond 3RR if I do, so things have been left half-cocked. Better than they were, but not right. I'll finish it later because the standard of English is not great. Not your fault, but true nonetheless. - Sitush (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Are these requested pages from Singh going to turn up or not? I presume that you have the book because you really shouldn't quote from one page unless you can see the context of it. If you are flat out refusing to supply & no-one else comes up with them then the content will have to be removed, for the reasons stated by others above. You will note that it is not just me who thinks this. I don't need them immediately but I would like to know if you are refusing my reasonable request because then I can seek alternatives. - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, your knowledge about India & its history is very low. You don't understand what is Kshatriya and what is Shudra, and some people here have also real doubts on your neutrality... Here is one of the many refs you have removed easily in the Nair wiki page:
Social change in modern India by Mysore Narasimhachar Srinivas [1], "Nayars "ripened" into Samanthans and Kshatriyas. The royal matrilineage of Calicut, (...) and Cochin, for instance, although of Nayar origin,... " page 38. Here when the author says some Nayar managed to become kshatriyas, he means they were accepted by Kshatriyas by (some local) Brahmins. The Brahmins accepted to do 'Kshatriya pooja, ceremonies', etc.Rajkris (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As the main contributor claims, your contributions, as well as CarTick's, were totally in bad faith to the subject. I don't see any clause in wikipedia where it says all pages in a source should be made available. My content stands on its own merit with proper citation. It is again YOUR WP:BURDEN to prove that those pages are significant enough, leave aside finding the pages. Any attempt to remove the references that support the current content would only be viewed as vandalism and I would duly report the same in the vandalism notice page. You have to cite them yourself here to claim that they are counter to what is already there on this page. Now, what I just posted here was mostly a repost. I would advise you to leave the page and concentrate on subjects that you are familiar with. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN —Preceding undated comment added 09:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC).

Nope. You misunderstand WP:CITE and other policies. Including WP:CONSENSUS. Provide those pages, please, someone. Otherwise it will likely be removed. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It is you who misunderstood this again. I don't even have to cite the page numbers. I have added the references, it is you have to provide with valid citation of the said page numbers should you find anything that sides with you. See Linking google books. You cannot just remove the references without escaping action against vandalism.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 09:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

{sigh) page 560, which you are citing from, comprises two sections. One of these is a cited analysis of an ancient work of art. The other is a possibly uncited piece of commentary that starts "were reflected in epithets, eg: Rajaraja's title of Kshatriya-shikhamani (crest jewel of the Kshatriyas). Many kings had names ending in 'varman' ..." So, we need to know what was said before the incomplete sentence beginning "were" and why on earth there is an apparent non sequitor with the sentence about the names of kings. If no-one can sort these out then it will be removed without further discussion because there is a clear lack of context. - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was that bad. Manorathan, it is impossible to understand what a sentence means without, at a bare minimum, having the whole sentence available. That's just common sense. But we really need to know the whole surrounding section. This is something I teach students when I teach English reading/writing--because of the way English works, we can't understand individual sentences unless we understand the context. Without having that information, there's really no way to use the text. If you like, though, we can ask at WP:RSN or possibly WP:NORN, too noticeboards where editors can go to get comment from uninvolved editors about issues involving policies/guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Sitush's edits were that bad. He should seriously take lessons from you, if you really are a teacher, or from me. And the whole sentence is indeed available on Google Books! It is : 'Religious and political symbolism in the Tanjavur temple were reflected in epithets, eg, Rajaraja's title of Kshatriya-shikhamani (crest jewel of the Kshatriyas). Many kings had names ending in 'varman', the name suffix that texts such ...", here. Also, more searches on the title provides further scholarly works, which as a good faith editor Sitush should have added her/himself.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 12:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That sentence is not in the preview. Period. Maybe you're looking at some different preview, or some other site. But if you follow the link you provided, currently in the site, and you go to page 560, and then scroll up, you will see that it says "Page 558 to 559 are not shown in this preview." Maybe you're editing from a school or something that provides you full access to the book. I don't know. But those two pages are absolutely not available when I click on the link. Page 560 has a "Further discussion" section, about "Religious and political symbolism in the Tanjavur temple"; that takes up about 2/3 of the page. The main text of the article starts with "were reflected in epithets, e.g. ..." So, whatever you're looking at, it is not the generally available Google Book preview. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that the book is wrong, but rather that the information taken from it is unreliable as things stand. I can't possibly make a judgement based on incomplete information. Manorathan, you keep misrepresenting me & it is becoming tedious. FWIW, we need more than the full sentence. That is why I asked for the missing pages. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am going to ask at resource exchange. It is a long shot but someone may be able to scan the relevant bits & then they can be passed round to who ever may be interested. - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Now done. - Sitush (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

... and the always wonderful GabrielF has said xe s/b able to come up with the scans for us in a couple of days. - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just noticed where Manorathan says above that the full sentence is on the page (p. 560) and it starts, "Religious and political symbolism in the Tanjavur temple ...". The page does indeed have those words on it, as what appears to me to be a section heading right at the top. If those words really are a part of the sentence then the design of the book is atrocious. Frankly, I doubt that. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but i will reserve my judgement until i see the previous page. If anyone is wondering what Sitush is talking about, here is the link. --CarTick (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

GabrielF has now uploaded the scanned pages - visible here. He has offered to leave them on his file space for a short while due to this being a content dispute. I would be grateful if CarTick, Qwyrxian, the artist formerly known as Manorathan, Rajkris etc could indicate either that they have seen it or are not fussed about seeing it. That way, I can let GabrielF know when we're done.

It is rather as I thought, ie: a partial sentence taken out of context. The context is a discussion of myths and the full sentence is "Claims to Kshatriya status were reflected in epithets, eg: Rajaraja's title of Kshatriya-shikhamani (crest jewel of the kshatriyas)." The author does not say that the claims were correct, and of course we already know that there were self-claims to kshatriya status caused by people seeking social advancement for themselves. These are about as reliable as me claiming that I am [put the name of a preferred deity/soccer star/comedy character/bleurgh here]. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have saved a copy for myself. i will be able to read later. --CarTick (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I downloaded them as well; Adobe keeps crashing on me, but as far as I read it, that source verifies very clearly that certain groups created a new identity for themselves; on 559 it explicitly says, "The dynasties of early medeival South India...crafted new origin myths for themselves." The way I read that is not the author saying the claims are correct; in fact, to me, it seems to imply fairly strongly that the origin as Kshatriya is a "myth". This, oddly, doesn't mean it's wrong, but it's not "right" in the sense of us being able to say on Wikipedia "Group X was a Kshatriya". I do believe it supports the claim "Group X, in such and such a period, started making claims to be related to Kshatriya in mythic times." None of this seems to substantiate the idea that a group claimed to specifically be "Tamil Kshatriya"; as such, the information appears to belong in other articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I could not download.Rajkris (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope someone will be able to send it to you by e-mail. this is exactly opposite of what Manorathan wanted to write and consequently reinforces my earlier assertion that this article is about a topic that doesnt exist. i hope he is reading the scanned pages and realizing his mistake. i also hope he will acknowledge it here if not apologise for wasting everyone's time by pushing a POV with 50% of one sentence from some random page in a google snippet view. --CarTick (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The claims to Kshatriya status should be duly documented in this page, supported by this source. There is no necessity for me to apologise, for this is what I have been stressing from the beginning, which is there now in the source. Why should these claims not be documented when there are proper evidences for these? All claims for Kshatriya status are encyclopedic enough to be added here, just like statements stating otherwise. There is a substantial number of groups which belong to this area and make these claims, and hence this deserves a page. morelM W^illiam 06:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I take it from your comment that you have now downloaded the scanned pages? You seem unwilling to accept that you completely misread the content due to taking it out of context, but I am past caring about that. BTW, I am actually a better soccer player than David Beckham. I am, honest. I insist on making that claim. I therefore insist that there is an article about me on Wikipedia. Does this seem reasonable to you? - Sitush (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you were a soccer player, and if there IS a valid published source supporting this claim of yours, then there is no reason why it shouldn't be on wikipedia, citing the source. And in this case, there are many sources which cite the same, unlike your case, where it is an one man propaganda.morelM W^illiam 15:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. You have missed my point. There is no reliable source anywhere for my claim to be better than Beckham. Equally, we'not not yet found a reliable source for the claim that there were Tamil Kshatriyas. All we have found is sources saying that people have claimed this, just like I claim to be better than Beckham. It is worthless. Anyway, let's see what Rajkris comes up with because he has demonstrated an appreciation of the subtleties in this more than most among the "they exist" camp. You never know, he may be able to rescue things. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

please ignore MoreIMWilliam who hasnt yet demonstrated that he has the competence to understand either plain English texts or 'complex" wikipedia policies. --CarTick (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Cartick should better reserve his personal comments to himself, and the same for Sitush. Talk about ignoring editors, this page would do better ignoring your trio. All Kshatriya clans only 'claim' to be kshatriyas, inventing a mythical origin, as is seen in pages like Rajputs. While you don't have a reliable source stating your claim, we have one here supporting The Cholas'. Enough with your fallacies. Stating the source as worthless is your WP:POV. This page hasn't arrived at a consensus yet regarding a merger or anything. 19:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

In case you didn't download it, you can see in the quote that I added above that the book very clearly identifies the claim as an invented mythology. Note that the book doesn't even claim the existence of a separate "Tamil Kshatriya" group. At this point, it's time to move forward with a merge--we can and should include in Kshatriya the claim that a group of previously non-Kshatriya group, at a certain time in history, invented a mythology to imply a Kshatriya connection. Not here. While we're still waiting for Rajkris's comments, the merge discussion has to run at least a week anyway, and will likely run more; if new information comes in that time, we can add it then. I can prolly do it tomorrow, but anyone else is welcome to do it between now and then. Run the discussion at Talk:Kshatriya, as it's the target and likely better watched than this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Before deleting or merging this article, I ask you to wait for my conclusion, i will add it in 1 or 2 days.Rajkris (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

let us move on

we could just add a couple of sentences to the Kshatriya article, something along the line There is no strong evidence of the existence of Kshatriya communities in Tamil speaking regions of India,^{[citation needed]} however there were instances of rulers of this region claiming Kshatriya status^{[citation needed]}. This claim to the twice-born status persists to this day in modern India evidenced by several Tamil castes claiming such a status ^{[citation needed]}. i know this is not the best formulation, but just an idea. --CarTick (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no concensus here. I still have to add my conclusion.Rajkris (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

a crude expalantion of the problem

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

In India exists thousands of castes which are broadly classified into the following categories, Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (rulers), Vaisyas (merchants), Shudras (most others) and outcastes. This classification happened a long time ago nobody knows the exact details. people dont appreciate being classified as Shudra or outcastes and there has been attempts by several indian castes to claim kshatriya status. Tamil Kshatriya would mean Kshatriyas from Tamil Nadu, one of the several states in india.

my argument has been that there is no such thing as Tamil Kshatriya and I have shown some google book and scholar searches in evidence of this which can be seen here. Sitush, who is not even from India with no personal stake in any of these discussions, stepped in and volunteered to sort out the existing sources to determine the notability of the article. i continue to believe Tamil Kshatriya is a bogus article and whatever RELIABLE and RELEVANT sources Sitush can find in his review can be added with appropriate context and balance in the Kshatriya article. if Sitush will decide against my viewpoint, i am going to suck it up and move on. fortunately for me, my wiki- or personal life does not depend on this article. --CarTick (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, like lots of English minor gentry whose ancestors started their careers being given a piece of land for serving as Carrier of the Royal Chamber Pot, claiming descent from William the Conqueror? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There are similarities, yes. The difference is, over in India people still die fighting about these things. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Not so funny :( --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. A while ago I got told off-wiki that there was some group set up somewhere with the intent of hunting me down for offending some caste or another here; and off-wiki canvassing on social networks for POV drives here apparently happens also. I'm English (perhaps even a potty carrier who can trace his roots to Baldrick or someone similar) and live in Manchester ... but that doesn't make me immune, it seems. However, the chances of them finding me are slim, so I sleep perfectly ok :)

The UN has outlawed casteism in India as racist and I believe that it is illegal under the country's own laws, but they're fighting to revert several thousand years of ingrained history here. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That seems distinctly grim (about the hunting down business). Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume this was not a move to prevent casteism, rather an effort to add facts as they appear. The google search link provided by one cartick gives no credit to the fact that Tamilnadu was not one kingdom, but many, in the past., and for that matter, a google search with 'Rajput, Kshatriya' isn't any different. The reference I cited is a key one, which had documented the ancient Tamil kings identifying themselves with Kshatriya lines, and even having titles bearing 'Kshatriya'. This article has no relevance to Indian castes claiming Kshatriya status, but any such claim should be documented. "This classification happened a long time ago nobody knows the exact details" : there are many theories over the classification, many contradicting each other, so this cartick cannot discredit theories that contradict him.

This article is neither about people who ruled a piece of land nor about people fighting for caste status. One has to go on a case by case basis, starting with Cholas, as I did, and not proclaim a bogus status for the same for lack of time as one cartick does. UN, casteism, and all such are irrelevant here. Not 'them', but cartick is the one fighting here to revert history. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 23:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No-one is "fighting" to do anything. We're going through the evidence. - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Manorathan, the two sources which you introduced have been added to the review. One has actually been reviewed, and the other is awaiting the missing pages that you appear not to be able to supply. I have not bothered with CarTick's GSearches, as should be evident if you read the earlier comments. The list of sources currently under review was compilied by CarTick, Rajkris and some IPs, plus yourself. It is a wide-ranging selection, even if not complete, and I have quite literally started at the top and worked through them. None of them were my selections; all of them were provided by both "sides" to the debate. Feel free to suggest more below, and I'll move them up into the sequence. - Sitush (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I saw it added, along with your factual synthesis.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 23:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad you saw it. Not sure why you think that a quotation is synthesis. Is this a translation issue, perhaps? WP:SYNTHESIS explains what, erm, synthesis is in the context of Wikipedia. A quotation is definitely not synthesis. Did you mean something slightly different? - Sitush (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Tamil Kshatriya/Archive 2

Contents

Singh

let us move on

a crude expalantion of the problem

Recent comment on old thread