Talk:Tamil Kshatriya/Archive 1

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

Muthuraja as Kshatriya

I don't understand the use of the word "high ranking" in context of caste, are castes really ranked. It's merely to make the user feel good. And it doesn't comply with Wikipedia standards. Some cleanup necessary. --115.184.86.117 (talk) 09:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Muthurajah - Stop Vandalism

Some people here are trying to make believe that Muthutrajah are kshatriyas which is not at all the case: [1], page 121: "The Muthuraja, who are mainly agricultural workers...", "The Vagri and the Muthuraja (...) both officially classed as MBC". Please stop your vandalism. Rajkris (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Muthurajah - counter view

Please note , as mentioned earlier Kshariya Jats & Rajputs are also agricultural workers. Agriculture has been the primary occupation of Kshatriyas. It will be a misconception & far fetched to believe all Kshatriyas are Zaminadars, actually many of them are agriculural labourers.

Please have a very careful look on definition of Kshatriya & Rajput given by Encylopaedia Britannica (one of the most reliable English source in the world): [2] & [3]. Agriculture (that is tilling land) is the primary occupation of Shudras and NOT Kshatriyas!... Note also that (nowadays) most of Jats are not kshatriyas and all Rajputs are not kshatriyas.Rajkris (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Kongu & Chozhia Vellalar

These casts are traditionnally peasant casts who till the lands with their hands. This way of life has nothing to do Aristocraty.They are BC castes [4]. Rajkris (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In your refs it is not told that Sozia or Kongu are Kshatriya or Aristocratic castes, so you are writing things with fake refs.Rajkris (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Another ref: [5] page 86 "The Chozhia Vellalas (...) are believed to constitute the truly indigenous peasantry of the Chola country"Rajkris (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I got a chance to take a look at the references, and they don't seem to have anything to do with this page at all. It's possible that Konguboy included the wrong page number, but I don't see reference to Kshatriya, or, for that matter, to the Oddiar whom the added info refers to. As such, I concur that the information should not be included. However, please note that this does not justify the edit warring conducted by either side to include or exclude the information. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

traditionally kongu vellalar were forward caste(huge caste with 214 clans )

From a Forward Caste, the Kongu Vellala Gounders and 14 sub-castes became Backward Caste in 1975 following a representation to the Government.[6],we made huge rally in coimbatore in 1970's to demand government to make as educationally backward caste Kongu Vellala Gounders and Sozhia Vellala who had all along been included in the list of 'Forward Classes' were included in the list of "backward classes" [7] Since most of the rural areas didn't have any schools and the missionary schools were slowly becoming the order of the day, the non-converting caste like Gounder were largely let off from modern education from the start of the 20th century. The Gounders were educationally lagging behind other communities who benifited enormously from missionaries who were running their own community banks and schools. It took another couple of decades for the revival of the Gounders in the educational sector after the community was accorded as an educationally backward class. population statics in 1960's Among the inhabitants of this region(Kongu Nadu the Population of Gaunder group Numbered around 80,00,000 (eighty lakhs ) around 1960 and the rest are about 45,00,000.(Kongu Nadu).[8] while in forward caste our caste name was kongu vellala gounder and droped gounder in caste name become kongu vellala as backward caste, recently only kongu vellala gounders in kerala where demoted to backward class from forward caste Porulur Poosan Kaviyarasu Gounder (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"The Vēļāļar of the Tamil country (the descendants of the Vēļir) have retained the honorific till this day in their names (c.f kaņţar, kavuņţan and 'gouņder' (the last two from Ka.gauda<ganda)" in

Mahadevan, Iravatham (1970). "Dravidian Parallels in Proto-Indian Script". Journal of Tamil Studies (International Association of Tamil Research) 2 (1): 157–276. [9] i can give u more and from peer reviewed journals , inscription , archelogy note etc.. Porulur Poosan Kaviyarasu Gounder (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

To Kongu Kaviyarasu Gounder why in this doc [10] it is mentionned in page 3 of pdf: "In the social scale the Kongu Vellala Gounders are placed first among the non Brahmins, eventhough in the ritual hierarchy they are ranked below the Naidus and Vellalas of other regions" ? Rajkris (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to concur with Rajkris again. You're right, Kong Kaviyarasu Gounder, that the first source says that the Vellala Gounders and the Sozhia Vellala are forward castes who were listed in the backwards caste. What I don't understand is what that has to do with this article. This article is about the Tamil Kshatriya group. As a side note, your second source does not meet our guidelines for reliable sources, so it's irrelevant. Kongu, is it possible that you're just trying to add the information to the wrong article? If what you want to add is about a different group (i.e., not the Tamil Kshatriya), then you need to add it somewhere else. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

to Qwyrxian , i am not going to add any content in Tamil Kshatriya article , i am just replying to his(Rajkris) statements in the talk page under his(Rajkris) topic of kongu vellalar . just answering to his question. whether i can reply to his questions , which had posted above by Rajkris Porulur Poosan Kaviyarasu Gounder (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

New thread

Even the NCERT text book refers to Muthuraja as rulers of Kaveri Delta before the Cholas. Few Sub castes of Muthuraja are Forward Caste & few others sub castes are listed as OBC, however both Forward Caste & Backward Muthuraja are both Kshatriyas. In today's context even the Landowning castes in Tamil Nadu are listed as backward due to political reasons, this includes most Mudaliars & Pillais. Rajkris has not bothered to look at NCERT reference attached in one of my edits.

Muthuraja are Kshatriyas,Even Kshatriya Lodh Rajputs in North are designated as OBC(Shivraj Singh Chauhan the MP chief ministers is an OBC Rajput).Most of the Vellars are also designated as OBC except for a very small group of Vellalars. OBC is not a Varna Categorisation. Lord Krishna belonged to OBC Yadav community.Jats are OBC Kshatriyas in some states,in other states they are fighting for OBC status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajananand456 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Look, NCERT is a book made by Indian gov, it is not a scholar written book. I have provided proper refs below telling that this caste is a peasant origin caste, involved land tilling activities and are ranked in the Most Backward Castes (MBC) by the gov so as to help them to rise in the society because they don't have any children education tradition contrary to proper high castes who are ranke by the gov as Forward Castes (FC). Concerning Vellalars, scholars consider that only the high ranking subcastes (that is less than 50% of nowasdays Vellalars) are the scions of the ancient Tamil rulers whereas the others have peasant background origins. That is what I mentionned. It is same case for Rajput. Nowadays many people call themselves Rajput but most of them have nothing to do with the ancient northwest indian rulers. Concerning nowadays Yadvav, they have nothing to do with the historical Yadu Kshatriyas. Same for Jats, etc. These are the positions of scholars. Rajkris (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I don't understand any of this. That's mainly because you're both just making statements without any support. We cannot use this page to argue about the issues in the article--all it can be used is to discuss sources. Please provide exact sources for what you say. However, Rajkris, government books are considered reliable sources per Wikipedia; if sources disagree, then we will provide what both sources say, and explicitly state that there is disagreement. So, both of you, give me your sources and I will help mediate this dispute. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I do have a more specific question: what is your reliable source that "Muthuraja are Kshatriyas"? Without that information, there's no way to add the paragraph. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The source mentionned by this user is this one [11], in this source, the following info is mentionned "A minor chiefly family known as the Muttaraiyar held power in the Kaveri delta" (page 22 or 7 of the pdf)... In any case this doc tells that the actual caste that call themselves Muthuraja comes from this family... The actual Mutharaja is a peasant caste (see above my ref). Here are some others [12] and this [13] ("The dominant caste being the muturajah who were serving originally the Zamindars"). You should know that there is a trend among peasant/labor castes all over India to take the name of some ancient aristocratic clans and/or invent fake noble past (this is the case of vanniyar, nadar, yadav and many many others).Rajkris (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it still matters, but 1) That source still says nothing about the Tamil Kshatriya, and 2) it's not a reliable source anyway, because it appears to be a high school textbook. High school textbooks are never accepted as reliable sources, because they are well-known, in all countries, to be out-of-date, propagandistic, and inaccurate. Even college textbooks are questionable, with only the best quality ones being accepted as RS (and then mostly in the sciences, although it's a case by case basis). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

From CarTick's talk page

If you make another attack on the intellectual abilities of an entire (race? tribe? clan? I don't know the right classification), like you did at in this diff at Talk:Tamil Kshatriya, I will request that you be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What?? I can't believe this. CarTick is referring to the "stupidity" of the "casteists" there. (i agree with his statement completely). No way that can be taken an attack an entire race/tribe/clan. Terming it as "racist" is beyond unfair. Please take a look at the statement again. Does saying "some racists are stupid" mean one is a racist automatically?. CarTick is one of the few people in wiki who attempts to clean up after relentless casteist pov pushers. He has been attacked by members of different castes (through possible offwiki canvassing) before for cleaning up caste articles. Qwryxian, please withdraw this warning. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC

Maybe we're interpreting that remark differently, but I read CarTick claiming that anyone in a certain group (i.e., the alleged group of Tamil Kshatriyans) is stupid, and that they're trying to invent a false history to make themselves look better. Now, I have exactly zero opinions about the underlying matter (of which caste affiliations are legitimate and which are not). I do know that describing a group of people who claim a particular identity, whether or not that identity has a historical basis, as "stupid", is unacceptable. Looking at the rest of CarTick's talk apge, it does look to me like CarTick generally does good work; maybe the frustration of dealing with POV pushers made CarTick respond inappropriately.

Perhaps I was too strong to call this an only warning. I do still believe that CarTick needs to not make any more such attacks, and that CarTick needs to be sure to remain civil even in the face of POV pushing. Furthermore, CarTick needs to explain on Talk:Tamil Kshatriya what verified reason he has for asserting that those people do not exist, given that there are sources on the page (that is, to justify his maintenance templates) in a more civil and full fashion. I'll point out I've also removed highly speculative and seemingly false info from that article; what's there now is much milder than what has been there in the past. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks soda for responding to this. i will respond later tonight. --CarTick (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

you sound like a reasonable guy except for the part you are adamant you dont want to understand what i clearly meant. I am not going to re-explain it to you but just mention was was recently reminded to me by RegentsPark in another talk page. Everything you say and understand and admit you understand and pretend you dont understand is read and evaluated by a bunch of people who are watching that page. wikipedia, unlike the local caste association, is populated by mostly intelligent people and my page is watched by over 40 of such men. so, it is your call.

so, why dont we start with a a couple of questions 1) what in your opinion makes a claim of Kshatriya status by a certain caste legitimate and who has the authoity to grant that legitimacy? 2)as you dont seem to find any problem with the article, i assume you have access to all the sources mentioned and verified the claims yourself. so, could you please explain how the first sentence "Tamil Kshatriyas are a group of Hindus belonging to the Kshatriya caste who spoke the Tamil language and ruled much of the present day Tamil Nadu and Kerala during the first millenum. Large parts of the present day Sri Lanka were also ruled by Tamil Kshatriyas" fits with the article title Tamil Kshatriya? in other words, i am requesting you to provide me the exact quote in the reference to which the sentence is referenced to. 3) if the kings who ruled present day TN and KE were called Kshatriyas, there should be preponderance of reliable sources that verify that claim. why only one? --CarTick (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't understand what you meant. In fact, as a post-modernist, I don't even believe it's possible to know what someone "meant"--all I can know about any given piece of text is how I interpret it, based upon the multiple discourse communities of which I am a part. For me, that sentence read as an obvious, bad faith attack on a group of people. My apologies if it was not; maybe in the future, you may be able to avoid misunderstand by not assigned the label of "stupidity" to an entire group of people (even if you believe those people don't even really have the right to call themselves a group).

As for all of the issue, I actually have no opinion at all. Literally, none. I'm not Indian, never been to India, and have no academic knowledge of it. I have no access to any sources that are not online (I don't have access to an English language library). My whole involvement with that page, actually, has been to remove even more extreme claims, what I assume are what you call "casteist" claims. I have gathered, in the last several months, that there is a desire among a very large number of tribes/castes/sects (I don't even know what the distinction is) to claim a high status, either by current achievements, or, more often, by tracing their lineage to some event or other group of people several hundred to thousand years ago. Am I correct in that this is the problem you were referring to? This had happened before on Tamil Kshatriya; take a look, for instance, at this version. In that case, I dealt with an edit war (ending up with 2 people temporarily blocked), and, since the sources didn't seem to have any connection at all with the Tamil Kshatriya, kept what appeared to be false information out.

Sorry, I know I'm wandering far afield here, but I'm trying to provide context for my involvement there, and what I do or don't know. Maybe we can continue this on the article talk page, but are you asserting that the Tamil Kshatriya is not actually a real group, or that the group isn't as prominent as it claims, or that the claims are wrong? If that's the case--if the sources don't actually support the existence of this group--then it's an NPOV problem, but rather that the article needs to be deleted. I'll probably have time to look at that article more closely tomorrow or the day after. If you can more specifically express your concerns on the talk page (that is, explain why you think those templates belong), then I will do my best to try to help. Maybe I'll User: Sitush to take a look: I've worked with him before, and he does extraordinary work in bringing articles like this into line--he's especially good at sorting out which sources are reliable and which are just puffed up exaggerations based on one line of a thousand year old mythic poem.

At the risk of just going on to long, I'd like to apologize again if I came on two strong. In part, I was reacting to past problems at that and similar pages, with people trading insults regularly. I hope you can understand why others might view your comments as extreme, and I hope we can work together on this issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

i called "casteists" stupid. it is a term used to refer to the extremists in any caste group, not all its members. i believe your reaction was in good faith and so i will let it slide. will explain the problem of the article in its talk page. --CarTick (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

see Varna (Hinduism). while caste system is prevalent across the entire India, the classification of all the castes into these broad categories doesnt exist in southern india especially in the state of Tamil Nadu except Brahmins. majority of Tamils dont even know what these words Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras mean. it is only these casteists that strive to call themselves as Kshatriyas with a contrived belief that calling themselves different will somehow make them one, while the rest of the folks dont really care. in short, the biggest problem with this article is it is about something that doesnt exist. claims to Kshatriya status can be covered in the main article. --CarTick (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

here is a case where Nadars claiming Kshatriya status long time ago

Shanars (another name for Nadars) ....many have put forward the claim to be considered Kshatriyas, and at least 24,000 of them appear [i.e., gave their caste to the census enumerator] as Kshatriyas in the caste table. To the learned commissioner, this was "of course, absurd as there is no such thing as a Dravidian Kshatriya"...

--CarTick (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This has been going on for many months, probably many years now. Nadar-Dalit lobby of Cartick, Mayan and Sodabottle is hell bent to push POV in order to hide their own inferiority complex. This is getting more and more ridiculous. In Hinduism, each and every caste is divided in to the five varnas (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra and Dalit (Outcaste)). Every basic tenet of Hinduism mentions about this. Nadar caste is classified as Outcaste, i.e the 5th varna. Cartick claims that the 2nd to 4th varnas are absent in TN and only the 1st and 5th exist. This is wrong. Varna is based on occupation. 1st, i.e Brahmins comprises of Iyer, Iyengar.etc in TN. 2nd is comprised of ruling and soldier castes. In TN, that will correspond to the few Maratha and Rajput families which immigrated from the North as well as the top sections of Vellalar and Thevar who ruled the land and provided men to the armies. 3rd is the merchant castes. In TN that covers most of the Chettiars, Saurashtris, Vellalars.etc. 4th is the peasant and artisan caste. This consists of castes like Vanniyars. 5th, the untouchable castes, as can be seen from the reference Cartick put above, is comprised of castes which others treated as untouchable till the mid-20th century. It comprises of castes like Nadar, Pallar and Paraiyar.

I'd like to once again point out that, at the same time CarTick is lashing out at the "Casteists", 90% of his serious edits are caste-related and aimed at whitewashing the Nadar caste history and pushing POV on the related articles. Ajatshatru1 (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the article

Okay, based on CarTick's concerns, I took a look at the article. After looking into the references, I'm quite concerned. First, neither of the first two references seem to contain the word "Kshatriya"; that makes me worry about the accuracy of the claim that this group exists (what I think CarTick was saying). However, sometimes the searches on Google Books don't turn up everything; Rajkris, since I think you're the one defending those references and/or the article itself, could you please provide quotations from the book (here on talk, not in the article) that show that the people the book is talking about are Kshatriya? For now, I marked the refs as failing verification.

Second, I marked the Ancient Period reference as dubious. That one I can actually, see, but it's 1) clearly a footnote, and 2) a 1951 copy of something that appears to be much older, and most importantly, 3) Just the word of one Dutch (Tamil by birth) Captain. That's hardly a reliable enough source to support the claim in the article. If I had more context for the article, we might be able to say something, but I think maybe it should go.

CarTick, can I get clarification from you what you think should be done with this article? If I am guessing correctly, you think any relevant information here should be merged into Kshatriya, right? At the moment, I'm tempted to agree. Heck, even if we clean up those references, I'm still tempted to agree, unless we can find clear, reliable sources that state that there was a distinct group of people from Tamil that were Kshatriya and who considered their "local" group to be a distinct group from other Kshatriya. If not, then this article sounds to me like saying something like "Californian African-Americans" or "Berlin Doctors", which, while it is an acceptable descriptor, and maybe even a category, is not a stand-alone article. So, I guess my question to Rajkris is: what evidence do you have that this group has a clear, distinct identity within the wider Kshatriya caste? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

you clearly understood my concerns. Kshatriyas in north india have been historically the ones involved in fighting wars and ruling the country. what the editors here are trying to do is the following. 1) they extend that knowledge and apply it in south india to call all the old tamil kings as Kshatriyas. 2) they use unreliable oral knowledge, dubious casteist publications and websites and all sorts of original research to arrive to the conclusion that some of the castes in south india are descendants of these ruling families, thus kshatriyas as well. in summary, the article can not survive without serious original academic research. it is actually less legitimate than Californian African-Americans and Berlin-doctors, rather more in line with European Kshatriyas and American Kshatriyas. i wouldnt mind getting more opinions from more reasonable editors like Sitush and i recommend redirecting it to Kshatriyas. --CarTick (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I just left a message on Sitush's talk page. I'd also like to hear from Rajkris, given that he's the main editor of this article (not saying that gives xyr opinion more weight, just that I expect xe has some useful insight into the sources and intention). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Message received. I'll do some digging but will not change anything in the article without commenting on this talk page first (except perhaps formatting the existing cites to be more meaningful). Give me a day or so. Hope this is ok. - Sitush (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, i suggest all of you to read very carefully the definition of kshatriya given by Encyclopaedia Britannica: [14]; in this definition (and contrary to CarTick claim), kshatriya is not restricted to north India but cover the whole India!... Then concerning the Tamil rulers, kings, they claimed to be Kshatriysa and were recognised as such; here are some references:
1) [15] Encyclopaedia of Dalits in India: "The ruling (Tamil) kings were admitted into the Kshatriya varna" page 203
2)[16] The Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago: "The Harivamsa (...) places the Pandyas and Cholas among the Kshatriya" page 50
3)[17] Jewish communities in exotic places: "The monarchs of the region, a Kshatriya dynasty known as the Cheras..." page 233
4)[18] The History and culture of the Indian people volume 1: "Pandya, Chola and Kerala dynasties in the south claimed descent from the Lunar Turvasus" (that is Kshatriya) page 318
As a conclusion: the explanations and refs I have given show very clearly that the word Kshatriya is not at all restricted to north India but can also be (and has been) applied properly to South Indian rulers and so Tamil kings, rulers. Therefore, the Tamil Kshatriya is not at all exaggerated and consequently, there is no reason to remove this article (just a little rewriting is needed). To finish, I would like to precise one more thing: I think that CarTick belongs to the group of people who separate India in 2 parts: north India (the so called Aryan) & south India (the so called Dravidan). This vision, separation is not supported by historical evidence (except the language). User CarTick should know that since at least 3000 years (and the migration of Velirs tribes into south India), South India is clearly connected to north India and belongs without any doubt to the Hindu culture. He should also know that one of the most ancient God worshipped by the Tamils was Indra, the Aryan & Kshatriya God by excellence ([19] page 148). Rajkris (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Straight off the hoof, I can tell you that the Britannica article is insufficient. Brtannica regularly appears on the Reliable Source Noticeboard, for a variety of reasons. In this instance, not only is it a tertiary source but the specific article referred to has neither references nor an attributed author. This is usually deemed to be not acceptable at RSN, even though the work as a whole is respected.

I am not passing judgment on the WP article here right now. I am merely pointing out that there will need to be much more support than the Britannica article provides. I'll go through your other sources later. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that only Britannica is not enough but one cannot remove it. What has been written is a summary of scholars opinion and before being published, this Britannica article has been approved by the comity.Rajkris (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, to a point. Ultimately what counts are Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not Britannica's. WP generally does not lend much weight to tertiary sources, particularly if they are not attributed etc. Secondary sources are the goal, perhaps supported by tertiary. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Secondary sources are the goal" --> Yes. But if most proper scholars would have asserted that the notion of Kshatriya is restricted to north India, no doubt that Britannica would have mentionned it... This is not the case...Rajkris (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, your thought processes there are WP:SYNTHESIS, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"First, neither of the first two references seem to contain the word "Kshatriya" - Entirely wrong. See Ref1 and Ref 2. 203.75.23.20 (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether they do or do not contain the word, the version you have supplied is not suitable. Snippet views of sources simply are not acceptable because there is no context. I'll see if I can find a full version of them, either online or in a library. For the sake of clarity, I do understand the concept of assuming good faith on Wikipedia but I am afraid these Indian caste articles are subject to so much antagonism (often of a nature that seems entirely bemusing to a non-involved reader) that I prefer more or less to discard the idea in these instances and work right back to the documentation. While consensus is A Good Thing, it has to be consensus based on reliable sources that are verifiable, and not on little nuggets of information which could possibly have been misconstrued. No offence intended, obviously. - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I think you are not fair with what this IP has found; eventhough it is a partial view, it is very clearly written: "the Chieftains who founded the Pandya, Chola and Chera were called Kshatriyas" & "The Cholas were Tamil kshatriyas". Of course a more careful, a full check is needed for validation.Rajkris (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

... and a full check is what I said I would do. If it turns out that it cannot be done then that is just tough, in my opinion. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

i dont have access to the first, third and fourth reference. here is the full context from the 2nd reference by Rajkris, The Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago Par V. Kanakasabhai.

The three tamil tribes Maranmar, Thirayar and Vanavar founded respectively the Tamil kingdoms subsequently known as the Pandya, Chola and Chera kingdoms

The above sentence in the book is quoted to a text from Prof. H. H. Wilson's Historical sketch of the pandyan kingdom. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Vol III, Art IX. p.199. here is the text.

The puranic authors have however tried to conceal this fact by asserting that the Pandya, Chola and Chera were descendents of the Aryan King. "The Harivamsa and Agni purana make Pandya, Chola, Kerala and Kola great gradnsons of Dushyanta of the line of Puru, and founders of the regal dynasties named after them. The descendents of Dushyanta however as specified in the Vishnu purana do not include these personages, and their insertion seems to have been the work of the more recent authorities. The Harivamsa with no little inconsitency places the Pandyas and Cholas among the Kshatriya tribes degraded by Sagara. The Padma Purana has a similar addition to those similar tribes in the Ramayana."

--CarTick (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"tribes degraded by Sagara" : as this could mean either of the two, The King Sagara (son of Bahu) and Sagara (sea), and as the king is unlikely, this as per the context as there is no citation of a conquest, means that association with sea, which was forbidden for Kshatriyas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorathan (talk • contribs)

Thanks, I've actually reviewed "The Tamils 1800 Years Ago" for other articles and my opinion then was that it was generally not a great source for anything other than pulp paper. However, I will revisit it & read the relevant chapter. The bit you quote appears to be discussing the ancient texts - Sangam etc - and as such would not rank very highly in my estimation. Modern scholars consider them to be hopelessly unreliable in their detail, however attractive they may be as literature. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

agree with you. pls take your time. that is an entirely different but important issue, reliability. chera, chola and pandya kings are extraordinarily well known and well researched kings in southern india. if these kings indeed are Kshatriyas, there should be preponderence of sources, not just books by publishers known for fact-checking but also peer-reviewed articles. some random book written by a random guy isnt good enough. --CarTick (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Rajkris - your reference above, #1 - Encyclopedia of Dalits. Can you provide a proper Google Books reference please. The version you give links to a list of various volumes/editions of this work and a quick glance through is not showing up the sentence you refer to on the page that you refer to, I presume that I keep clicking on the wrong editions/volumes. If you actually go to p 203 of whichever it is and copy/paste the link here then all will be ok. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I found this on google books [20] page 239. I have found some other sources, I will provide them in the coming hours and/or WE.Rajkris (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

please copy and paste the specific quote from the reference. --CarTick (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see it now and it is as Rajkris says above, "The ruling kings were admitted into the Kshatriya caste and, in some cases, certain princes were integrated into the Brahmin community itself". The problem with this is that further down the page the author says (in agreeing with Ayengar) that " ... the Brahmans naturally tried to introduce their socio-religious organisation into the Tamil Society. But a religious oligarch and a social democracy could not very well mix with each other. Hence the Brahmanas did not succeed in arranging the people of Southern India as members of the four varnas as they did in Northern India."

So, what we have here is an initial statement about the ruling class, which does not specify which ruling class or where, and then a later statement which seems to be saying that attempts to impose the varna system were unsuccessful. The entire page, and indeed those before and after it, are extremely ambiguous. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Further comment to my above - is admitting the ruling kings, whoever they were, quite the same as there being a Kshatriya caste in Tamil Nadu? If the incoming Brahmins assimilated a few kings then that would be quite a normal diplomatic event. It does not in itself seem to me to indicate any particular notability or even significance with regard to the caste in TN as opposed to elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

i dont clearly understand what admitting a few kings into Kshatriya status mean? i still dont understand the full context. but, i tend to agree with Ayengar's assessment. the source you said is not reliable enough that i quoted above seems to state exactly opposite of what Rajkris seems to claim. --CarTick (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

CarTicktold that the notion of kshatriya cannot be applied to south india, tamilnadu. I have provided refs which tell that tamil kings claimed to be kshatriyas and were recognised as such. Therefore the notion of Tamil Kshatriya does make a sense. I have found other refs & will provide them before the end of the week.Rajkris (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a general note to both of you: it is perfectly ok for an article to present two points of view. What I am hoping to determine is whether in fact there are two points of view and, if so, how to present them in a balanced manner. If, on the other hand, one or other of the POVs is tenuous then we move into the area of whether or not the article should stand alone or be merged. There is no rush: this is not, for example, a copyvio situation where something needs to be removed promptly. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

i am perfectly fine with an idea of presenting two points of view. but we should be careful not to give too much significance to minority view points and WP:Fringe theories. i am going to accept whatever decision you are going to make whether i will like it or not. --CarTick (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

While sorting out Kaniyar Panicker I have come across this from Edgar Thurston. I'm not a wonderful fan of the guy as (a) it is old stuff, (b) much of it is tertiary and (c) he can be very confusing ... but p. 199 says, in his typically vague way, that "The Kaniyans are said to keep at a distance of twenty-four feet from a Brahman or Kshatriya ..." Hm. - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

here is another one. it goes.

"The penetration of north indian culture into the dravidian south began in the second half of the first millenium before Christ. It took place mostly in a peaceful manner. The usurpation of the Pallavas can be looked upon as an exception as they appeared "foreign" to the Tamils because of their coming from the North. The triumphal march of emperor Samudragupta (about A.D 360) was another exception without, however, brining any political changes. The cultural infilitration which took place in a completely non-violent manner did not affect the languages of the dravidians. rather, it procured for them a new intellectual and spiritual world of ideas, thus raising them to a higher level of civilisation. They kept strictly to their languages while Sanskrit was only adopted for religious and literary purposes. The complicated caste system of North was taken over insofar as the Brahmins, the real promoters and protectors of the new culture, united in a special caste, whereas all others remained "non-Brahmins". Ofcourse, they also gradually formed subcastes of their own. They had, however, no genuine warrior caste, as the warlike groups (Bedas, Kurish, Makal and Nairs) did not unite. For this reason, we do not find ""Tamil-Kshatriyas"

--CarTick (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

From History of mediæval Hindu India by Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya:

"What a great source of strength and happiness to the country when the Rajputs did not look down upon the Khatris or the Marathas or both upon the Bengal and Madras Kshatriyas!

From The Madras Presidency with Mysore, Coorg and the Associated States By Edgar Thurston: (p.133)

"It has been said that there are, in South India, possibly a few representatives (Rajputs) of the old Kshatriya caste, but the bulk of those who claim to belong thereto are pure Dravidians. The Rajas of Jeypore (named after the celebrated town in N.India) trace their pedigree back through more than thirty generations to one Kanakasena of the solar race of Kshatriyas. The Maharaja of Mysore belongs to the Arasu caste of Kshatriyas. And there is said to be an old Sanskrit verse, which describes eight classes of Kshatriyas as occupying Kerala from very early times, namely Bhupala or Maharaja, such as those of Travancore and Cochin.

From Rethinking India's oral and classical epics:

"It is noted, in the Madras Census Report, 1901, that 'Parasurama is said to have slain all the Kshatriyas seven times over but 80,000 persons have returned themselves as such in this Presidency alone'"

Slaves of the Lord: the path of the Tamil saints by Vidya Dehejia p.160:

"KO-CHENGA CHOLA Caste: Kshatriya; Occupation: crowned monarch; Home town: not known; Saint's day: Masi 25 (March 9); Iconography: top-knot, or crown; palms joined; Historicity: historical figure"

Optional Subject Indian History Medieval India p.33:

"Those who fought valiantly were adorned with the title of Kshatriya Sikhamani"

Rājarājeśvaram, the pinnacle of Chola art by Balasubrahmanyam Venkataraman:

"Tiruvalangadu Copper Plates: "he, versed in the dharma of Kshattra (Kshatriya), did not desire the kingdom for himself"

Early Chola art, Part 1 by S. R. Balasubrahmanyam p.214:

"Takkolam came to be known as Kshatriya Sikhamani- puram in the days of Rajaraja I"

Art and culture of Tamil Nadu by Irāmaccantiran̲ Nākacāmi, R. Nagaswamy:

"It is said that when Prasurama was annihilating the Kshatriya race the then Chola king of Kaveripattinam, Kandan, entrusted the care of the city to Kakandan, a son of a ganika, and retired to forest"

"Tradition of vedic ancestry is not mentioned in the Sangam literature, but it had taken deep roots long before the 6th Century AD. It was following this tradition that the rulers added the Kshatriya honorific Varman, to their names. This is another trait which is not noticed in the early Sangam period. But the Pallavas, who appear in the Tamil land by the end of the third century, mentions both these traditions."

Historical perspectives of warfare in India: some morale and matériel determinants by Sri Nandan Prasad, Centre for Studies in Civilizations (Delhi, India) p.193 & 225:

"The Cholas also are seen to have followed a similar practice. Rajaraja I conferred the title Kshatriya Sikhamani Kongalva along with the village of Malawi on a warrior Manija, for his role in the Cola campaign against the Chengalavas, a ruling dynasty of Kudagu region."

203.75.23.20 (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Google books and scholar search

Google book searches

"Rajput Kshatriya": 329 results
"Maratha Kshatriya": 161 results
"Tamil Kshatriya": 10 results

Google scholar search

"Rajput Kshatriya":58 results
"Maratha kshatriya": 23 results
"Tamil Kshatriya": 1 result-- this is a copy of a wikipedia article.--CarTick (talk)- 11:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Of the ten books that show up for "Tamil Kshatriya", three has the word in the snippet or limited view and the other 7 doesnt. i dont know why they show up in the search at all. dont understand google search well. i am copying and pasting whatever snippet view i can see from the three books.

The first one is a book about Nadars calling themselves kshatriyas see here
snippet view from the second "One of the most striking differences between caste in North and South India is the absence, or so it seems, in South India of original Tamil Kshatriya and Vaisya classes. This may be due to the fact that the scheme of the four ..."
snippet view from the thitd "These several pointers in their totality make it plausible that the thirty-two "kings," whom Duttagamini had to vanquish after he overcame Elara, were the residue of the Tamil Kshatriya nobles who lingered on in South Ceylon" --CarTick (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Some other sources for Tamil Kshatriya

A History of Tinnevelly by Bishop R. Caldwell,Caldwell R. Bishop page 12 [21]:
"... in the Hari vamsa and several Puranas in which Pandya, Kerala, Kola and Chola are represented as the four sons of Akrida or of Dashyanta the adopted son of Turvasu, a prince of the Lunar line of Kshatriya"

Hindu culture in ancient India by Sekharipuram Vaidyanatha Viswanatha page 156 [22]:
"In the Tamil works we read that the Pandyas and Cholas claimed their ancestry from the Aryan kings of the north... The Tamil kings were elevated to the rank of Kshatriyas... "

Essays on Indian history and culture by H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy page 33 [23]:
"It is quite significant that the brahmins themselves are prepared to recognisd the Tamil chiefs in the Kshatriya category of the Varna order,..."

Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Volume 49 page 112 [24]:
"They (Brahmins) equated the Tamil chiefs to the Kshatriyas and connected them with the Aryan puranic heroes through various devices"

The courts of pre-colonial South India: material culture and kingship by Jennifer Howes page 25 [25]:
"... Dumont eloquently describes how south indian society is hierarchically structured according to the caste system; this four-tiered system places brahmins as the highest-ranking members of society, followed by kshatriya..."

All the references I have given (and also given by IP(s)) since the beginning of this discussion show that:
1° Old Hindu texts considered Tamil kings, chieftains as Kshatriyas
2° Tamil kings (& more generally south indian chieftains) claimed to be Kshatriyas
3° Tamil/South Indian kings, chieftains were recognised as such by religious authorities, etc.
Therefore, the notion of Tamil Kshatriya, South Indian Kshatriya has a real signification... If it has not been well studied by scholars it is because of the complexity of Indian history and also for political reasons... If I have time, I will write some sentences concerning the complexity of the notion, definition of Kshatriya.

Rajkris (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments to review

as with Sitush, i find the argument that varna system didnt work out very well in south india because it couldnt co-exist with the prevailing social democratic system interesting. i also agree with you about the contradiction there when the author goes on to say that Brahmans dominated the lower castes. fyi, though i dont have a reference for this, i know for a fact that non-Hindus especially christians of some castes in Tamil Nadu are very caste conscious in that they do not marry with members of other castes. Interestingly, during this inter-religious marriage within the same caste, the bride or groom often chooses Christiantiy as their family religion as opposed to Hinduism. --CarTick (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible vandalism by Sitush and Rajkris

The content I have added has valid reference, yet a few here seem to like this page with non-descript references. Will very likely report for opinions on the above users if this should persist.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 16:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It has to be related to the article. Just dumping general info about Cholas etc is not related. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It is related very much to the article. Read it with your eyes(all of them) wide open. The references that were asked for were to prove them to be Tamil rulers, which anyways is funny, and the source that I added does just the same. If you have references countering their tamil linkages, rather add it than be a vandal removing content. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 17:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in what you added mentioned kshatriya. Well, nothing I saw anyway. It is not about rulers in a generic sense, but about kshatriya. - Sitush (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have moved this thread to its "correct" place on the page. Now, look up a bit. A huge review is underway. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

'Varman' is the title prescribed for Kshatriyas as per Manu Smriti, which these kings used. Ashwamedha yagna can be performed only by emperors. These are already there in the content I posted. Spare me your mumbo jumbo. I have no time to repost everything. And did you see the title, 'Kshatriya shikhamani'? You probably wouldn't have. What's your problem sir/madam?Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 17:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"My" problem is actually the problem of a lot of other contributors to this debate - did they exist as kshatriya or not? Nothing that you added related to this. In fact, "Varman" is a different title altogether, which rather confirms the point of those who say that this article is incorrect, either in title or indeed in content. You are expected to work collaboratively here, so please do take time to read what has been going on instead of acting unilaterally. Calling long-standing contributors "vandals" does not help matters. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, what you have added in your last round of edits is total gobbledegook. Hopefully someone can fix it but it is a complete mess. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Long-standing vandalism or for that matter, contribution, I suppose, is not the discussion is on. The reference that I cited fully supports the view that 'varman' is a Kshatriya title. Do you have references that say otherwise? Kindly add the same to the article, to neutralize it. First and foremost, did you check the references that I added? The article is riddled with bad sourcing and poor writing, which were never taken care of in good faith. Also, associating with Solar, Lunar and Fire races is a very Kshatriya tendency. Add valid references, should you counter, and I shall do the difficult task of adding the same to all the other Kshatriya articles. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 17:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a small example of what you have written that is plain wrong: "the same is suggested for the Cheras, of whom not much inscriptions about their genealogy are available, as they were matrilineal" - the book does not say this. In fact, it says pretty much the opposite, that this explanation is dubious. Furthermore, the book is an "introductory" text and is relying (in the bits you refer to) on ancient texts, which are known to be unreliable sources. It is next to worthless. You have also copied some bits more or less straight from the book, which is as near as dammit a copyright violation and is prohibited on Wikipedia as "close paraphrasing". - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Poor writing! Jeez, and you think yours is good? - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is with your limited reading capabilities. Can't do much about that now, so stop worrying. The book suggests a brahminical origin, citing some literary evidences. You had failed to read the entire content, then started in bits and pieces, and then, well, thus is your ability. Sources that don't agree with your personal opinions shall not necessarily be dismissed as worthless. Yes, it is a book, and it can be biased. Yet, it is a valid reference, as it is a published source. Did you at least manage to read the copyright violations? You are talking too much.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 18:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a hard time trying to verify tangential claims added by n number of wikipedians everyday. could you please do us a favor and quote the exact sentence in the book that supports your edits? --CarTick (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not every book is a reliable source. Your arrogance, especially in ignoring consensus, is breathtaking. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the sentence is "Many kings had names ending in 'varman', the name suffix that texts such as the 'Manu Smrti' prescribed for Kshatriyas", from p. 560. - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You shall better post the source in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to check if it is reliable, than spilling your personal opinions. I have included the page numbers in the sources. Nobody wants YOU to check each and every other source. If you don't have time, you are not supposed to be here. Which consensus are you talking about? The only consensus on this page is of bad faith, which is delete this page. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 18:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting accusation - User_talk:MichaelQSchmidt#Help_required_for_the_page.2C_Tamil_Kshatriya. I'm ROFL here. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What are you trying to say with that 'varman' suffix? You cannot expect others to complete your arguments with loose ends, come on! I am hitting my head on the wall here, as one is bound to be with folks like you around. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 18:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not know enough about the topic to speak knowledgable as to any one's particulat edits. However, I can read above that we are having ongoing issues with civility and AGF. All sides... why not step back, cool down and do further research. Research [26] under Sri Lanka's earlier name of "Ceylon" reveals a great deal of scholarly coverage of the Kshatriyas. Dig through and find several sources for any uncited information. That'll lay the issue to rest. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No, we are not all having issues with civility. There is one person having an issue. There is a consensus here to hold off edits to the article until a big review is completed. One person is defying that consensus. - Sitush (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The above person is trying to rid this page of all valid references. When I came across this page, this had no referable links, and my research on it led to the content that I added, which was met with dagger heads wielded by the same person. I see no problem with the link I added, which he/she regards as good for nothing, though Pearson India found it worthy enough to publishFreewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 18:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sitush there are enough evidence concerning the existence of tamil kshatriyas. Therefore this page will not be deleted as Cartick wants and as you seem to want to. I have noticed that on both Nair & Tamil Kshatriya pages you always manage to find a good reason to remove, dismiss refs which link Nair to Kshatriya caste, etc. You managed to portray the Nair as Shudra whereas reality is much more complex... You prefer to concentrate on authors, scholars who took the position of Kerala Brahmins (which is a very minority position) & treat nair as Shudras...And now you are trying to remove this page... I'm watching you for sometime... And I don't like at all the way you are dealing with this matter.Rajkris (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You're the one who reverted the guy first! I have no particular opinion on this subject. I think that you will see in the list of books reviewed above that it is a mixed message. - Sitush (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't portray anyone as shudra. That was someone else, not me. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Then why did you tell easily "this page is likely to be delete soon" (on manorathan page)... I assure you, this page is not going to be deleted. In your discussion it was clear for you that Nairs are Shudras.Rajkris (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a reference to persuade him not to alter the article & thereby launching another war, and concentrate on getting his message across on this talk page. What we've been trying to do for some time, in other words. Going around calling people vandals, ignoring consensus, poorly citing, close paraphrasing etc is not a great way to do things. The whole page needs blanking: it needs a rewrite if it survives - so either way it will be "deleted". Why did you revert him? I merely continued what you started. Look at what is above? Does it seriously look like someone who has a one-sided view of the argument? I have specifically said that some of the anti-kshatriya references provided simply will not do. - Sitush (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This Sitush just wants the page deleted, ridding it off all the references. If one goes through the course of discussion, it is very much evident that he/she had not gone through the link before he removed my content, and some complain they don't have time. Huh! The page should be rewritten with more categories and can definitely be rescued. The same person also has problems with that close paraphrasing clause. I have given line by line citation, and he still seems to not budge, which is his own problem. And he gives these self styled judgements such as the page should be deleted, blanked and such, and nothing else, nothing constructive for the page, to be precise.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 19:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There are enough historical evidence to tell that Tamil kings, rulers were Kshatriyas and if (some) Brahmins did not consider them as Kshatriyas and if some shcolars (western, left ones & dravidians) took the position of this minority for some dubious political reasons, this is another pb. Wikipedia is not here to put forward Brahmin vision of the world.Rajkris (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Prove it. This is ABF on a massive scale.- Sitush (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

@Rajkris. Indeed it is not. It is also not here to present, for example, the Tamil view. You may recall that I suggested the outcome here might be that both views would need to be presented. You still have not answered my query - why did you revert? - Sitush (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted because what he wrote initially was not related to the article. FYI, the fact that you and your 'friends' (cartick & mathew) have mentionned in the very first lines of the Nair page that they belonged to the Shudra (peasant, labor, slave) varna clearly show clearly that you have taken the position of the Kerala Brahmins (a very minority ones).Rajkris (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the link in the citation proper? Does it say the same facts as mentioned in my content? Hence proved. Your believing is neither mine nor the subject's problem. If you have valid references that counter the same, add them. Now if you go up a few lines, I have said the same thing there. Phew! Everything has to be reposted! Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 19:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If you bothered to read this page you would see that I cannot add content to the article. I excluded myself in order to remain neutral. - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Leave also Nair related articles. You don't have have enough knowledge about India and its history to edit such articles (at worse you have a biaised POV). It seems that because of you and your 'friends' some valuable people have left wikipedia. To be honest, I'm really angry against you because of that.Rajkris (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

But you shouldn't be removing references that support the subject to make it remain dubious. All I had before me was a page that lacked references and I filled in the gaps to save it. If you had excluded yourself from adding content to the article, you shouldn't also be removing content from it. I assume the discussion on this content rests here, as it is just not worth it. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 19:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now that there is a reference which describes Cheras, Cholas and Pandyas as Kshatriyas, why don't we have separate categories for them with their brief histories? There can also be a section on the way Tamilnadu was earlier divided into different kingdoms. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 20:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There are already articles for that.Rajkris (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not understanding it at all. Go read WP:CONSENSUS. Reverting to the state of the article before your edits was in line with that consensus, however poor it meant that the article was until things were straightened out. If people relieve me of my obligation to remain neutral here then I'll happily rip into it. No idea how it will end up because I haven't decided myself, but my guess is that I'd opt for the middle ground after completing my own personal review. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If it is such a contentious issue that is notable, ie, the existence of Tamil Khatriya group, let it be an article that has valid references that slide on both sides, which should be the case, than the deletion of the page itself. And in the event of consensus, disruptive editing with valid citation and explanation on the talk page is not a no-no. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 20:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The consensus was to not edit the article until we'd straightened things out here. Have you actually read all of the above? - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The war was on other things dealing with the subject. And a consensus is sought on an edit that is disputed, which in my case was sorted out by explaining its valid footing. Editing was not frozen for this page when I looked it up, which should have been the case for a serious dispute! Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 20:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What "other things" ? - Sitush (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

On the existence of such a group. And the references cited being inaccessible. Did you by the way read my content before deleting it first? Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 20:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked it the first time, but Rajkris beat me to the revert. Thereafter, just glanced because you seemed basically to undo the revert. The existence of the group is precisely the problem. You have not proved anything more than we already knew 3 weeks or so ago, ie: that ancient literature etc refers to kshatriyas in various places. Does anyone actually believe the ancient literature is sufficiently accurate nowadays? They tell the story, but do they believe the outcome? There is a difference between commentary and critique. - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

no, sangam literature and several other puranic writings are not authoritative sources for verifying facts for the purposes of wikipedia. --CarTick (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

But now there is a reference that is valid. And all such references should be included, be it literary or historical. There is a difference between fictional epics and historic literature. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 20:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

But that is the problem! It is now considered to be unreliable and in many parts fiction. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Manorathan, you have a poor understanding of scientific writing. people write things based on past writings. If a modern book claims something based on sangam literature, just being a modern history book doest give it any more authority and therefore, the book itself is no more reliable than the sangam literature. --CarTick (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

From Donkin: "there are no native literary works with a developed sense of chronology, or indeed much sense of place, before the thirteenth century". - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Elaborate on your understanding of scientific writing of historic events. The reference that I provided talked about inscriptions. And that 'varma' fact. Maybe the lineage fact is from Sangam Literature, which anyways is the same case for every dynasty. And the performance of Ashvamedha sacrifice might have been mentioned in a sangam poem, detailing the events that happened in its period. Okay, list out the proven fictional elements in them, or rather if the unreliability is notabile enough, start a wiki article on that. Also cite the references that claim the Sangam Literature sources to be fictional. That is the only solution for this, we shall then work on all other wiki pages that cite literary works like Arthasastra. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 20:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not "the only solution". We had a solution; you have blown it sky high. - Sitush (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't blown anything up. Citing all the sources along with sources that discredit them is the only valid solution for this. Otherwise, this would inspire hunting out all such literary sources on Wikipedia. Or do one thing, create a page with reliable and non reliable literary works. That would aid my blacklisting other such wikipedia pages. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 20:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

[ec] Yes, If citations offer different interpolations of historical evidences, then per WP:BALANCE, both views should be represented. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"Create a page with reliable and non reliable literary works". What exactly do you think was going on above, with the agreement of both sides to the debate? - Sitush (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In any case, I just found an another source that says Rajaraja performed Asvamedha, a vedic ritual performed only by emperors.this. Nope that was not something that concerns this page, but many others, which cite such reference. So create a new page on their non reliability. The issue is notable enough. It would then aid other wiki pages with mytjological and literary sources to be blacklisted.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 21:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about the quality of other articles. This is the one we're dealing with. - Sitush (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

manorathan, you want to tell us how that reference is relevant to this article. please show us the word "Tamil Kshatriya" in your reference. --CarTick (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Tell me what you understood from the content in your words. I would then correct you if you had not comprehended it properly and tell how it is relevant. Read it atleast for now. 'Tamil Khatriyas', what do you mean by this? Khatriyas who were in the Tamil region? Didn't Cholas rule the Tamil region? Didn't they have varma titles, which are Kshatriya suffices? Didn't they perform the Ashvamedha yagna which is a Kshatriya ritual? Didn't they identify themselves with one of the Kshatriya lines? This is not synthesising, but plain comprehension Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 21:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

'you want to tell us how that' - your bad English shows itself in many places. But that shouldn't hold you from assessing the references properly lest you shouldn't be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorathan (talk • contribs) 21:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Cartik is not understanding... He just want to remove Kshatriya from all south indian castes at any cost.Rajkris (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Whats your problem Cartik? Do you have a history of racial abuse as a victim? Feel free to email me. I know a number of good counsellors. You shouldn't be harbouring such a heavy thing in yourself for long.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 21:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

what you are doing is WP:Original research. combining sources and add your own interpretations to come to a new conclusion that Cholas were Tamil Kshatriyas. As a matter of fact, this is the major concern with this article and that is why User:Sitush volunteered to verify the authenticity of the claim "Tamil Kshatriya" in the above section here. you can add your reference also to the list and wait for his review to be over. --CarTick (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No, what YOU are doing is WP:Original research. I didnt combine or interpret anything. Cite my alleged interpretation. They were kings who followed the same clan system as in YOUR Kshatriya system. YOU are trying to interpret things at your convenience. Am not talking all insects are bees fallacy here. And how do YOU interpret Tamil Khatriyas? That is the problem here. When you have got this basic problem, waiting for your review is a waste. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 21:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

First how do they interprate Kshatriya, then we can see for Tamil Kshatriya and others.Rajkris (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you and me sockpuppets, Rajkris? Now I'm ROFL!Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 21:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

section break

some of the comments and the editing history makes me wonder if Konguboy (talk · contribs) is back. --CarTick (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder also. SPI? - Sitush (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You are fit enough only for such conspiracy theories. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 21:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Am going for a walk. If the article has not been fixed by the time I get back then I am going to rephrase things. Not add/remove, just rephrase. Unlike M, I will not risk 3RR. There is some close paraphrasing and it needs fixing as per copyvios. - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Lets talk business. You would copy paste the duplicator reports supporting your claims of copyright violation, okay? And how did you cook up 'close paraphrasing of facts'? You are very interesting.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 21:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to use the tool. It is blatant. Am now fixing, since you have not. Why do I end up having to clean the mess other people leave behind? You are clearly not stupid, so it seems daft that you offload this on to someone else. A bit of copyediting is one thing; having to do a quite major rewrite is something else. Context is everything Cherry-picking sources simply is not good enough, and close paraphrasing and/or copyvios are beyond the pale. I have already spotted a bit of perhaps unintentional POV caused by the cherry-picking, which appears to move us from 2nc C BCE to around 700 AD! Not a big leap, then. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

When you accuse something, you should be able to prove it. Now that you cannot prove either of your claims of close paraphrasing or copyright violation, you would only whine this way. You don't even time to refer the links given in the references, than whip away such loads. You are here to clean up the mess. I don't see any other reason why you should be. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 03:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Article protected

Article protected for 2 days - I have no doubt in the wrong version. Please work out here what references are to be used, what it should say etc. When you figure it out, you can ask any admin to lift the pp. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine, thanks. It will likely take more than two days, though. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Review of sources

What I suggest that we do is continue to add sources to the section above over the next few days & then I'll go through them in this section and create a numbered list for ease of referring to them in discussion. I did pretty much the same thing at Paravar, although as it happens there was not much discussion following my review there. Is this acceptable to people? Obviously, I welcome any discussion that does follow. - Sitush (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. Thanks to you and everyone for trying to untangle this. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

sounds good. i will be absent for a large chunk of next week. if we postpone the discussion to the following week, that would be convenient for me. --CarTick (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok for me.Rajkris (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I am away over this coming weekend, in a place with dodgy internet access. I see that there is a lot of stuff up above to be sifted through, so this is just a note to let everyone know that I will start either Sunday or Monday. I'll go through things as best I can and comment on each source. What people make of my comments is, of course, entirely up to them. - Sitush (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

... The above is just a partial compilation of suggested sources. More to come, then a review. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the list above with the items numbered from 21 onwards. I'll start to review the above and then, if necessary, go through the items which I have omitted from the list. The omitted items are the Google search results contributed by User:CarTick. I apologise for the delay in getting this far: I got sidetracked by another issue relating to subcontinent articles & for much of today have also found Wikipedia (and nothing but Wikipedia) to be so slow that most pages refused to load properly. - Sitush (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

take your time. nobody is in any hurry. looking forward to see what we are going to decide eventually. --CarTick (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Review

Interesting book. I do not see that it supports the existence of kshatriya status. It does discuss a movement claiming such status in the late 1800s but makes clear that the claim was rejected by the Census Commissioner. The Commissioner accepted that the Tamil Shanars may have been a war-like tribe but dismissed the notion that this meant they were kshatriya because there was no such thing as a Dravidian kshatriya. The High Court also dismissed their claims in 1908, adding that there was no proof that they were descended from the Pandyas, Cholas or Cheras. Some of the claims seem a little far-fetched even to me, eg: they claimed that the shanar coin's name meant that they had the right to mint coinage at some (vague) point in the past ... but why this should be a claim to kshatriya status is beyond me. The book is an academic work, published in 1973 by University of California Press. However, the relevant section appears to rely almost entirely on Edgar Thurston's CATSI, as all the relevant footnotes are to that work, other than one which relates to the High Court ruling. It is a commentary, not an analysis. Conclusion - this book provides evidence that it was the belief of Raj officialdom that Tamil Shanars had no claim to call themselves kshatriya, and also that the claim itself only appeared in the late 19 century as a consequence of a caste desire to improve their social standing due to them moving away from their traditional occupation. The strength of the book is also its weakness: it relies on Raj sources and Raj opinions. - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Rajkris (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Britannica is a tertiary source and in this particular instance unfortunately does not cite any references for what it says. What is does say is that the kshatriyas were the second-ranking in the four traditional Hindu Indian varnas (ritual social classes). It says that membership of the varnas varied over time, with both individuals and groups moving betwee the four. It does not mention Tamil Nadu which, of course, had a large Christian population from the time of the Portuguese & a not inconsiderable Muslim population prior to that as a consequence of Arab influx. Conclusion - I cannot see that Britannica has any direct relevance to this article. No-one is disputing that there was such a thing as a kshatriya group in Hindu India generally; the dispute centres on what the situation was in Tamil Nadu. It might be supposed that if there were Hindus in TN then there were also kshatriyas, but some might consider this to be synthesis/original research if the statement was based on Britannica alone. - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Rajkris (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I need to do some work on this one - I'm not 100% sure regarding its claims to reliability. Need to check out the publisher & the author, plus skim through the book as a whole before making a critique of the relevant bits. Any book can be called an encyclopedia. Will update this asap. - Sitush (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Academic publisher & author has a couple of degrees, multiple books published & has headed NGO etc (although she is a "social activist", so some care may be required). Will now review. - Sitush (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC) This source actually comes out clearly against the notion of varna in southern India - something which I have previously come across in discussions at Paravar and elsewhere. P. T. S. Ayengar is brought out to support the viewpoint that only a minority of the natives were absorbed into the incoming Brahmin's caste system, and that only a very few entered the kshatriya element of it (the ruling kings being the principal example). The fundamental argument is that it was impossible for the existing social democratic system to live in harmony with the new (for the region) religious hierarchy. This is potentially a very important point, since I am aware of the significance of non-Hindu religions in south India and, of course, the caste/varna system only applies to those who subscribe to Hindu beliefs. However, I temper my awareness with the fact that I do not actually have any numbers for the various religious groups, eg: whether the Hindu believers were in the majority, minority or whatever. Furthermore, there is a perhaps inevitable problem of terminology: in demonstrating that the Brahmins had intellectual/cultural superiority (eg: literacy), the author lapses into saying that they dominated the lower "castes" despite saying that the concept of caste was never established in the area. I can accept this, on the whole: it is a difficult concept to put across and there is also the issue of "English English" vs "Indian English". The point being made seems clear to me even if there is some unfortunate ambiguity. Conclusion - the source makes it clear that there was a class system in the area but no caste system until Aryanisation and that even then it did not become the predominant culture. It also makes it clear that only a few people were kshatriyas. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok but concerning "only a few peopple were kshatriyas" fyi the rulers, nobles have always been a little minority in feodal societies (less than 1 to 5,max 10%... So it is normal that kshatriyas were minority, it was the same elsewhere in India.Rajkris (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Tamils 1800 years ago is to my mind as poor a source now as it was when I first looked at it for another article. The book was published in 1904 and relies on content that is often much older, as is the case with the specific example quoted above. For whatever the reason may have been at the time, there was a frequent recitation of the Puranas and other ancient texts which I have found, time and time again, to have been refuted as reliable sources by modern writers. These ancient texts may be beautiful writing but they lack context, are often chronologically and geographically vague and were written by people who were often seeking or already the recipients of patronage. I have elsewhere used as an example that we would not rely on Shakespeare's history plays, such as Henry V, for factual verification here on Wikipedia, and that the ancient Indian texts fall into a similar (if not the same) category. If these issues are significant then they will have been dealt with by much more modern works and by use of other evidence, such as archaeological findings. Conclusion - discount this book. I have checked out the relevant portions and my views remain as they were when I looked at it for other articles. - Sitush (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok but some parts remain interesting and the author tells that rulers were integrated as Kshatriyas, the ruling class of the Hindu system.Rajkris (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Jewish communities - I can only see this in snippet view & therefore will have no context. To make matters worse, I searched for the phrase "Kshatriya dynasty known as the Cheras" and for the words "kshatriya" & ""kshatriyas" but could find only one hit (on p. 218, not 233). This may be down to the OCR software. If whoever mentioned it wants to scan a few pages either side of the relevant bit & email them to me then that is fine; otherwise, I am going to have to ignore it. Conclusion pending - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Here it is mentionned "Kshatriya dynasty" for the Chera.Rajkris (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

History and culture of the Indian people - not even a snippet view for this one & I doubt that I will be able to find it in any library near to me. It is scans or nothing, I am afraid. Conclusion pending - Sitush (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Tamil epigraphy - snippet view only and it does not appear to contain the words "kshatriya" or ""kshatriyas". In this instance, I doubt that scans from around the page noted by the contributor (p. 148) will make any odds. The contributor appears to be indulging in WP:synthesis and perhaps even original research, trying to connect certain worship practices to a region/people and using that to conclude a connection to kshatriya. Conclusion - seems to be of no use for our current purposes. - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Culture in Ceylon - snippet view only, no context. I can see possibly relevant stuff on pp 22, 23 and 306 but all of these seem to be referring to extremely small numbers (and on p. 306 seems to be saying that only the chieftains were kshatriyas, and only after Aryanisation). My gut feeling is that this supports #3 above but without more context I would not like to assert the point. Written by an anthropologist with academic standing, so reliability would be ok. Conclusion pending - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This source clearly mention 'Tamil Kshatriyas' when it speaks about Tamil rulers.Rajkris (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Maratha renaissance - snippet view only, no context. 60 year old book and the only bits I can see appear, again, to support #3. Eg: there is a sentence on p. 69 that appears to say the Chloa kings were kshatriya. I have some doubts regarding reliability as the writer appears to have been a poet also & the number of GHits for him is not great (just four cites of this book show on Scholar; 7,500 hits on GSearch but that includes his poems, fan sites, everything ). Conclusion - I am inclined to disregard this due to doubts regarding the author's standing. - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. But I will try to check if possible.Rajkris (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thurston - CATSI. Oh, not again! I'll take a big breath before commenting on this. - Sitush (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry because I know that a lot of the articles about aspects of southern India do use the works of Edgar Thurston, but I simply find it difficult to accept that we are still relying on content produced in 1909 and which itself merely reproduced content from a still earlier time. Thurston makes no judgements of his own but rather catalogues what others have said, and he is sometimes a little indiscriminate in his choices. Is what he says wrong or right? I have no idea. What I do know is that there is no other area of history of which I am aware in which reliance in placed on such old secondary-borderline-tertiary sources. I got two history degrees myself from Cambridge, so I do know a bit about what is/isn't used. Anything that is still significant in his work should have been commented on in much more modern works. Conclusion - Unless someone is absolutely insistent that I read through this work again, I am simply ignoring it. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok.Rajkris (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Road to Nationhood - page 98. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC) !973 book written by a German diplomat who, it is claimed, was extremely knowledgeable about India. There is an annual memorial lecture in his name & speakers appear to have been prominent in their own right. He states unequivocally that there was no Tamil Kshatriyas & bases this on the various war-like groups not uniting. I may have this wrong, but I didn't think that cross-caste/group unity was at the root of the kshatriya idea. However, the book is primarily about political developments and I do worry a little about relying on non-historians/sociologists/anthropologists etc. He doesn't appear to cite many other works and I could not spot a bibliography in the preview version at GBooks. GScholar shows 32 citations but they include other works by him & I have not checked the context. Conclusion - it might be a weak aid to tip the balance but I wouldn't consider it a stand-alone authoritative work on the subject of Tamils or Kshatriyas. - Sitush (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

OkRajkris (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Mediæval Hindu India - 1921, prolific author but first glance suggests that it may be another in the Thurston vein. Will take me a while to wade through this one. - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC) OK, I've spent an hour or so with it, on and off. I'm not convinced. It may be ok, it may not be. Working out what is the author's opinion and what is regurgitated from unspecified (and therefore undated) sources is difficult. One thing that struck me right between the eyes was an aside where he said that it is a controversial subject. Well, blow me down with a feather, plus ça change, plus ça même chose, and all that sort of stuff. I feel that he is sitting on the fence and that it is too easy to find one point where he sways this way, and one where he sways the other ... and the fence is sinking due to lack of support. Conclusion - I'd rather not rely on it because it is equivocal and yet in a way so vague that little can be usefully researched further. Eg: I've just pulled some stuff from JSTOR (for another article) that had footnotes leading me to more stuff from JSTOR that usefully cleared up a point or two. This book leaves me stuck at the first hurdle. - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This author is a famous Indian shcolar [27]. We cannot reject his work.Rajkris (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Madras Presidency. Another vague, tertiary product from Thurston. I had a look at it, though, because I have not done so before. Conclusion - typical Thurston - not a useful source. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok.Rajkris (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Oral history. Probably ok as a source but it covers the same ground as #1, ie: that the Census Commissioners believed the claims to kshatriya status to be nonsense. Conclusion - reiterates Raj opinion that there were no kshatriyas. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok.Rajkris (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Slaves of the Lord - not at GBooks or anywhere else where I can put a context to things. I certainly cannot put a context to the quote provided. Conclusion - cannot comment. - Sitush (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Update - found at GBooks in snippet view but still no context, and it appears to be a brief reference to Ko-Cheng Chola, which leads me to suspect that is is based on Sangam literature/Puranas etc. If it is then it is pretty much pointless, IMO. There was a long discussion about the validity of this literature on the tlak page for Paravar not too long ago, and I stand by what I said then. - Sitush (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Optional Subject History ... - not available to me. Conclusion - cannot comment. - Sitush (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Rājarājeśvaram - not available to me. Conclusion - cannot comment. The quote given has no context at all. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Chola art - not available to me. Conclusion - cannot comment but note that the supplied quote appears to be about one person. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Art and culture of Tamil Nadu - snippet view only, therefore no context. However, it appears to be referring to ancient texts & using "it is said" terminology. This is never a sign of a good source because it is vague commentary. Conclusion - cannot really comment but prima facie it adds nothing (in a Wikipedia sense) to either side of the debate. - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Historical perspectives. I looked at this one a few hours ago but it has drifted with recent events, sorry. Can only see snippet view here. "Appears to" is a little worrying (reliance on the old literature?) but I really cannot see enough to be sure. It is published by a body with a grandiose title but I struggled to find anyone citing it at GScholar. Perhaps it is too new, although it is nine years ago. Conclusion: cannot comment. - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Caldwell. I can make short work of this one, having read it right through for another article. It is an old book, based on older writings of the Portuguese missionary St Francis Xavier (1600s AD). Caldwell asks questions everywhere because he admits that his source is unreliable, partly he feels because something may have been lost in translation or transcription. On the page mentioned above (p. 12), the sidemark actually says "legendary" and he expresses uncertainty regarding the tale. There are other references to kshatriya in the thing and always he is in doubt, just as he expresses doubt in general about the legends. Conclusion: it tells a story but it does not confirm anything either way. The primary purpose of this book was, in any event, not to write an academic history but to document the life of a saint. - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok.Rajkris (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hindu culture in ancient India. Based on 1925 lectures. I am not sure what bit of this I am supposed to be looking at because there are references to kshatriya(s) throughout. Might have to start from the beginning unless someone can pin down the point they were intending to make. - Sitush (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Ouch! Page 156, I see. Will concentrate on that chapter, then. - Sitush (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC) I've read around it but cannot see pp 153-161 here. I am afraid that the book is full of "It seems", "it appears", "it is said", "it is claimed" etc. I can also see some appendices which appear to contain excerpts from ancient texts in Sanskrit or whatever it may be. Conclusion' - an academic source of some sort, but old and there is no real context. It has the appearance of being a commentary on old texts rather than a critique. The writer bemoans the lack of sources in his introductory chapter. I would need to see the specific page range to be sure but my inclination is to think that it is not particularly useful in our current situation. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

In this book the author tells very clearly that Tamil kings were integrated in the Kshatriya varna as rulers... It is very clear.Rajkris (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Essays on Indian history and culture - a 1990 festschrift, and so is reliable. Review to follow. - Sitush (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC) I like this! A contribution by M G S Narayanan, trying to explain what the ancient texts say about peasants. In parts it is a swashbuckling tale, but supplied with copious footnotes. Really enjoyed reading the entire chapter, which ranges far and wide beyond the peasantry issue. Think of The Guns of Navarone but with cattle as the target; or something like that. That's the good news. The bad news it that is a little on the vague side for our purposes but, if it falls anywhere, tends to support the opinion already described at #3 etc. He says that the immigrating Aryan Brahmins were accepted in the royal palaces/courts/milieu and that "It is quite significant that the brahmins themselves are prepared to recognise the Tamil chiefs in the Kshatriya category of the varna order ... This implies the treatment of the Tamil chiefs on the same footing as the Aryan chiefs in practice." The problems are that: (a) the quote refers to what the ancient texts say, which we already know were written to favour the writers' patrons & have for that & other reasons have been discounted on reliability grounds; (b) it is very clear that the reference is to a few people, not a large number (it could, indeed, be just the chiefs themselves, not even their hangers-on); (c) "recognise" may not be quite the same as "name" (they could be seen as being equivalent to kshatriya, but not of them - although this may be a specious distinction). Finally, he next explains the next (chronologically) developments, on an unrelated issue, with the phrase "The next phase of development is comparatively better documented ..." Hm. Since he does not really explain how documented the kshatriya stuff is, this is certainly a vague comment. Nonetheless, he says that the latter phase has sources from temples, coins, artefacts, pictures etc - which sort of implies that all he has for the kshatriya bit is the Sangam etc literature. Conclusion: There may have been some who were kshatriya but they were a very few, and it is possible that they were not officially recognised as being in that group but rather equal to it. - Sitush (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Kshatriya (rulers, nobles) have always been very few.Rajkris (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Proceedings of the Indian History Congress , Volume 49. I may be doing something wrong here but the supplied link does not appear to show volume 49. Can anyone confirm this, please? Also, if I am correct, can anyone supply a link to that volume? - Sitush (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Expecting your comments on link 25 Sitush.Rajkris (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional sources from Manorathan

Below are sources found by User:Manorathan subsequent to the compilation of the above list.

Ancient Indian History and Civilization. Written by a former history prof (S N Sen) & intended for university students etc. Quite clearly says (p. 205): "The traditional caste system present in the vedic society did not exist as we do not get any references about castes like Brahamanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras. However, the caste system existed in an inchoate way ... Thus the Tamilian people had their own class divisions instead of traditional hide-bound four-fold divisions of society." This is in the section dealing with Sangam literature. Conclusion: it is unequivocal - Tamil Kshatriyas are not mentioned in the surviving Sangam literature. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
History of Ancient and Early Medieval India. This is terribly unclear. Have requested contextual pages, both here & on resource exchange. Conclusion pending. - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comment on the first reference amounts to synthesis. "The Tamil people had their own class divisions" amounts to the recognition of the ruling class, which claimed themselves to be Kshatriyas, as seen in the case where Cholas had titles that had Kshatriya and their identification with the Solar race. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 23:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not what the source says. You cannot make these assumptions about what they might mean. You have to go off what they actually say. - Sitush (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the unique class divisions of the ancient Tamil society and hence the source supports it. Kshatriyas actually translates as the ruling class, just like Brahmanas the priestly class. Your interpretation discounts the existence of Brahmanas along with Kshatriyas. So, this IS, and not might, what the source says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorathan (talk • contribs) 00:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. It says what it says, ie: "The traditional caste system present in the vedic society did not exist as we do not get any references about castes like Brahamanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras". This WP article is about Tamil Kshatriya. The cited source says that there are no references to that group, per the quote. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No, this article is not about Kshatriyas, but Tamil Kshatriyas. So the quote you are hanging onto has no relevance per se.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 00:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It does, because I read around the quote. The entire section is about Tamil Nadu and indeed I quote above that "Thus the Tamilian people had their own class divisions instead of traditional hide-bound four-fold divisions of society." I'm sorry, but you appear to be having difficulty understanding how WP:CITE etc works. This was explained to you earlier today with regard to the other source which you introduced. Perhaps take some time to read the basic policies? - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't, because this source talks about the unique class divisions of ancient Tamil society, while your quote is about the Vedic Kshatriya caste. You seem to be ignoring the nuances involved. I would later review the sources you had discounted. You cannot dismiss published sources, though they quote from historical works. Sangam literature cannot be pooh poohed as many historical works depend on them solely. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 00:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, this is extremely simple. The section you introduced from the book into this WP article is dealing with Tamil society. The book says that there was a class system but not a caste system. The quotes are there. You are missing the context. This is not my problem but yours. I suspect that you may actually be too close to the trees here. For example, it is difficult to maintain neutrality when looking at sources if you approach them with an expectation of what you want to find there. You appear to be trying to impose your interpretation on a crystal-clear, quotation which is embedded in a contextually valid section of a reliable source.

Feel free to review anything you want. However, unless you can divorce yourself from the subject matter then I feel it is likely you will not be able to do so in a neutral manner. I certainly will not be discussing every single point you raise because, well, I trust my ability and (for that matter) so did CarTick, Rajkris and Qwyrxian. Am I always right? Of course not! But I am not going to argue the toss about the blatantly obvious. Someone else might but I will not.

Finally, beware of Sangam literature. It is not a reliable source, period. Take a look at the talk page of Paravar if you wish to see a long, detailed discussion of this, involving numerous contributors. I have already provided one quote today which disputes the reliability. I can provide many more but, frankly, I am starting to get fed up of having to justify things which should be common sense. As I have said elsewhere, I would not rely on Shakespeare's Henry V to write a WP article on Agincourt, and equally we cannot rely on the (admittedly very stylish) tales of Sangam literature to write a WP article about Tamil Kshatriya (or indeed pretty much anything else, other than an article actually about the literature itself). - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Questions for Sitush (although others can chime in): I just read through your entire section above and here, reviewing sources. First, do you expect to be able to get at any more of those sources listed above? Not a problem if not, because I actually think we already have a clear answer. Also, if anyone else has other sources that they believe will help, then now would be the time to speak up.

Having said that, though, I feel like, if nothing more is forthcoming, there is a pretty clear summary: While a few sources may have asserted that the there was a Kshatriya group in Tamil Nadu, there isn't good evidence (especially modern evidence) of such a group, and even if there was, the group wasn't particularly large and wasn't fundamentally distinct from other Kshatriya in other places. Many of the sources asserting the existence of the group appear to be very close to primary sources, and are, at best, repeating the opinions of one particular historical group, and many of those sources explicitly perform a lack of certainty in the claims (under the guise of qualifiers like "It has been said" or "Some have claimed that"). Some sources even explicitly state that there there was no group called the Tamil Kshatriya, due to fundamental differences in the way the South Indian class system worked compared to the Brahmin caste system. If that is the case, then it seems to me that CarTick's original suggestion of merging this info into Kshatriya is a good one. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yours appears to be a good summary. The only source that I know is forthcoming is for the missing pages that Manorathan has not been able to supply for his source which was added to the article yesterday. My gut feeling right now is to merge but I am prepared to give M a chance to find something else ... but not to argue tediously regarding things which have already been covered here. It may surprise some people but I do actually have a life, and even interests on Wikipedai which extend far away from the Indian caste system. I will see this through, of course I will, but going round in circles is just not productive. - Sitush (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If we can't gain "local" consensus, we'll turn to dispute resolution. An RfC will do the trick (ideally--I do sometimes get accused of having an unfounded faith in the DR process to produce useful, lasting results). You wouldn't even need to participate if you wanted to move on to other things (not driving you away, just pointing out that we are all, after all, just volunteers)--you've done the good hard work of in depth source analysis; now, the question appears to be a more meta-level question of whether or not that analysis clearly indicates what should be done with this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC is fine with me — i dont think we will have too much choice if the local editors disagree with your summary. --CarTick (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I do want to respond to a point Manorathan made earlier that I missed. It is, in fact, acceptable to discount mythic/literary sources. For example, when historians study ancient Greece, they do not accept the accounts of the Illyiad to be historically accurate. They may look to the source, and then try to find other evidence (archeological, other texts, linguistic, etc.) to see if there might be a nugget of truth underneath the myth, but they do not trust those sources as being "true" in the sense that historians mean it now. The same principle applies here. Policy says that we must use reliable sources. If this article is kept, or if the information is moved elsewhere, it is acceptable to say something like "Texts from the late 19th and early 20th century reported that older literature made claim X". But we certainly cannot just say "X is true (see late 19th century and/or older literary sources)." That's not how Wikipedia (or academic/historical writing in general) works. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I will try also to add my comments asap.Rajkris (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I will add my conclusion asap.Rajkris (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

For the editor who posted on the unreliability of literary sources, I have only one thing to add : none of the soruces quoted otherwise have archaeological evidences. The evidences available in the form of epithets, only bear wordings like 'Kshatriya Shikhamani'. And what does he mean by 'other texts, linguistic'? And for his information, it is Iliad, if he didn't know about it. Epics like Silappadikaram can be compared with Iliad, but not the literary sources these references cite, as they would fall into the 'other texts' category. If the Cholas claimed that they belonged to Solar race, as documented in the references that I added, they have to be added citing them, than an editor's interpretation. I haven't yet added the mythic sources. So no hurry in adding them to the article. And, this article should say talk about the distinct class division of the Tamil society, and not the supposed absence of vedic 4 class division, as they are irrelevant. And there is citation that the rulers identified themselves with a certain race. Are you trying to say that you cannot allow the subjects claiming it themselves? Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 09:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If the only evidence of a group called "Tamil Kshatriya" are literary references, then this information should be merged into those literary texts. As for the other information, I still see a single source saying with any certainty that "Tamil Kshatriya" exist. I see a few sources that say that somebody else said that they may have once existed. That's not reliable enough for a Wikipedia article. We need at least one or two good, high quality, reliable sources that assert that this group existed. It's that simple. These cannot be sources that say "Group A existed" and then you say "Of course we know that Group A is another name of Kshatriya. If you cannot produce good references supporting the existence of this group as being a distinct, separate group from other Kshatriya, then the article should be merged. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You have neither read nor responded to my comment above. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 10:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You ask what Qwyrxian meant when referring other texts, linguistic evidence etc. Other texts could include writings and inscriptions which were not from the area in question but about it. Modern historians often discount the reliability of Sangam etc due to contradictions demonstrated by the works of contemporary and (relatively) near-contemporary travellers/explorers/traders etc. Marco Polo and Duarte Barbosa, for example, are considered often to be more reliable than the Sangam literature because those writers do at least put dates, locations and consistent names to things. They were also not in the pay of the people whom they were describing. You also need to bear in mind that very little of the Sangam literature survives and there are concerns that what is missing (the vast majority of it, in other words) may have described things differently. Using combined evidence - inscriptions, archaeology, comparative textual analysis, cultural shifts shown by developments in language etc - is the way in which academics progress their knowledge of these ancient times. Here on Wikipedai we rely on the work of those people. Pretty much anything else is original research, including referencing primary sources such as Sangam. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Manorathan, I did read your response, but I was trying to reply to the overall issue, without dealing with the specifics. I will try to respond to your specific points if you think it will help, and then show why I think that they still lead to the same big picture:

Sitush has already done a good job of what I meant by textual evidence. Information found solely in one ancient text cannot be relied upon as an accurate statement of history; it needs to be corroborated by other texts from other places, or by archeological evidence, or by textual analysis (like when they try to figure out how internally consistent any given work is), etc. If all of the evidence for this group comes only from a single collection of texts, especially if those texts are fragmentary, then the most that we could say is "The Tamil Kshatriya are a group of Kshatriya describes in the Sangam literature. Current scholarly opinion is that (they may not have existed/their existence is unlikely/etc.)." However, if that's the most that we can say, it's very likely that this information belongs in some other article. However, note that we can't even say that if the Sangam literature itself does not use the term "Tamil Kshatriya".
You mentioned the Cholas before, but, as Sitush already explained, that has nothing to do with this article. If the Cholas claimed to be part of the Solar race, and we have a reliable source to support that, that information should certainly be in Wikipedia somewhere. But it can't be here, because this is the article about a theoretical group called the "Tamil Kshatriya". You can't just say "Solar = Kshatriya" or "Chola=Kshatriya", especially since you have no source supporting that and we have a source explicitly saying that those terms don't match. However, if I have misunderstood, and there is a source (a reliable secondary source, not a primary source) saying that these are the same, then including may be possible.
It is correct that some article somewhere should talk about the specific class division in Tamil society. I completely agree with this. But how could that possibly be this article, since "Kshatriya" is a Vedic classification, not a Tamil one? It sounds like that is great, important information that belongs in the History of Tamil Nadu article, or some similar article.
I'm not saying that subjects can't identify themselves as a certain race. However, I'm saying that 1) you still haven't given a source that says "X people claimed to be Kshatriya", and 2) a self-claim is not sufficient evidence for a Wikipedia article (it is evidence, but not enough to state something with certainty). Nazi Germany, for instance, asserted that Germans descended from a semi-mythical "master race" called the Aryans (which has a real basis in historical India/Iran/Europe). While the race did exist, there is no actual viable evidence that it was particularly linked, historically, to Germany. So while we need to note in Wikipedia that the Germans claimed to be descended from the Aryan race, we can't actually state that they descended from the Aryan race. Similarly, we state in Ten Lost Tribes that the Book of Mormon says that some Native American tribes are descended from ancient Israeli tribes, we cannot state as a fact that that happened (especially since, scientifically speaking, it didn't).
This actually leads into a key issue, which I think we've raised before but I will re-iterate for clarity: Wikipedia articles cannot rely upon primary sources. And when we look at secondary sources, we need to evaluate how those sources treat the primary sources; if they simply repeat the primary source, they don't really qualify as a secondary source for our purposes; if, instead, they analyze and interpret that primary source, then we may repeat/summarize their interpretations (still, though, being careful to state who made the interpretation and how "certain" it is, attributing as necessary).

I hope that this more detailed response to your points helps. The big, overall message is still the same, I think, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Your reply only reiterates your confusion with the terms Kshatriyas and hindu castes. There are lots of secondary sources that support my fact about Kshatriya clans. And my demand is not to add that 'Cholas descended from the solar race', but 'Cholas claimed solar lineage', like in other wikipedia articles, for which there are sourcees available. To rid your confusion on varnas, search google books with key terms like, 'occupation', 'varna' and 'hindu castes'. This is my final posting in this discussion page, as I cannot waste my time and energy on people who have already made up their mind into not being reasonable. There are numerous sources in Tamil language, with quotes that literally translate as 'So and so caste became Kshatriyas', supporting the occupational basis for varnasFreewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 05:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)