Talk:Khatri/Archive 5

meaning of Khatri

Khatri is not a caste. it includes people of various castes. as you know that Khatri is the Punjabi version of Kshatriya. Kshatriya is warrior caste out of the four castes (others are Brahmins, Vaishya and Shudra) Kshatriya caste includes Rajputs, Tarkhans, Gujjars, Lohars and Kambojs and these tribes are genetically related to each other and they have common surnames. But when people of these tribes converted into Sikhs, some of them were appointed for the security of the Sikh Gurus. and the descendants of those who were appointed for the security of the Sikh Gurus came to be known as Khatri. So that is why Khatri is caste formed by the combination of different castes and Khatris are not merchants and traders by profession, they are warriors. whereas Aroras along with Lohanas form the Vaishya caste and people of Vaishya caste are Merchants and Traders by profession. 122.173.4.181 (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The Ramgarhias(Tarkhans), along with Rajputs, Ahluwalias, Gujjars, Lohars, Ahirs, Kambojs, Garhwalis , Yadavs , Patidars, Sarins, Dhai-Ghars, Bara-Jatis, Char Ghars, Khukrains/Khokhars, Bawanjais, Sikh Rajputs, Mair Rajputs, Muslim Rajputs, Kumaoni people(excluding Brahmins) and Labanas, are the subdivisions of Khatri(or Kshatriya (excluding Jats, Sainis,) ) caste. They are said to be the descendants of ancient Siberian, Caucasian and Central Asian tribe, Khazartarians.

122.173.6.154 (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

16 November 2010

Hi Sikh-history
This page has continously had ad infinitum referenced content removed and vandal insertions incorporated .
Your edits are usually coherent and logical
But what is the rational of the following content ?
Khatris, Ramgarhias, Jats, Gujjars, Rajputs and Kambojs people claim usually Caucasian, Central Asian, Eastern European ancestry. According to Ramayana::ref ::Ramayana, Romesh C. Dutt, Publisher Kessinger Publishing, 2004
What page from the cited book is this reference on ?
This page has had some ludicrous editing in the same vein , by ferocious anonymous editors ,
in fact such Identical and matching disingenuous insertions have extended to many related articles .
Would appreciate to see your response
Intothefire (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi fellow editor, I may in my zealousness have inadvertently deleted that. Please make sure if this is insereted, add properly cited references with ISBN numbers and page numbers with proper links. Thanks --Sikh-History 14:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sikh-history

No you did not delete content .

You have added/restored odd and unreferenced content 16 November 2010

akin to what you added unreferenced earlier as well on 26 September 2010,

Request since you are adding this content please provide the correct and complete references as well .

Thanks Intothefire (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Will take a look when I get a chance. Thanks --Sikh-History 09:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Khatri

Tarkhans, Gujjars, Rajputs, Lohars and Kambojs. These tribes claim origin from a common ancestor, who said to have migrated from regions like Siberia, Caucasus and Central Asia. Some people of these tribes were appointed for the security of the Sikh Gurus, and later on the descendants of the people appointed for the security, came to be known as Khatris (Punjabi version of Kshatriya). 122.173.4.181 (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRaXrH014CI&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.4.181 (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Khatris are a part of Kshaitrya Warrior caste Khatris actually originated in South Western Russia The Khatris converted from Christianity, Islam and Buddhism to Sikhism, Hinduism and some remained Christians, Buddhists and Muslims. Khatris, along with the Jatts were the first to become Sikh. All the 10 sikh gurus were Khatri Sikh Rajputs . Later on Khatris adopted various professions, on the basis of which their subdivisions were named :-

1. Those who adopted Carpentry, became Tarkhans (Ramgarhias) 2. Those who adopted Iron Working, became Lohars 3. Those who became farmers, came to be known as Kambojs 4. Those who remained Warriors, called Rajputs (including Gujjars,)

The following is a list of last names of the Khatri community of Northern India and Pakistan listed in alphabetical order:

Contents [hide] 1 A 2 B 3 C 4 D 5 G 6 H 7 J 8 K 9 L 10 M 11 N 12 O 13 P 14 R 15 S 16 T 17 U 18 V 19 W

[edit] AAatli Ahdi Ajimal Arrii Assi Attalia Attli Amrith Alung/Alang/Alagh/Alg/Alangh Anand Aulakh Amba Atwal [edit] BBal Bahl Behl Bahri Bassi Batta Bawa Bhinder Bedi Bembey Beri Baidwan Bathra Bhalla Bhambrah/Bhamra/Bhambra/Bhamrah/Bamrah Bhangu Barmi Bhandari Bharara Buttar Bhasin Bhatti Bindra Boparai Bhullar Bains Basur Brar Bhurjee Bajwa Bhurjee Bansuta/Banwait Bhurji Bhullar Bilkhu Birmi Birdee (also spelt Birdi/Virdi/Virdy/Virde/Verdi/) Birdi (also spelt Birdi/Virdi/Virdy/Virde/Verdi/) Bombhi Bubbra Budhoo Burmy Bajaraha BANDUKWALA Bharihoke [edit] Cchhura [[Chadha] Chagger Chhatwal Chandhok Chopra Chatha Chadhar Chadha Chodha(also spelt chadha or Chaddha) Chhina (clan) [edit] DDhall Dadyala/Dadiala/Dhadial/Dhadyal Dhand Dhawan Dhir Dhody Dhotar Dhupar Dhariwal Dhaliwal Duggal Diwan Devgan Dosanjh Dhaman Dhiman Dumra Dhindsa Dhamija [edit] GGadhiok/Gandhok Ghai/Ghei/Gehi Ghumman Gujral Gandotra Gulla Goraya Gandhi Ghasuta [edit] HHanda/Hande Hunjan Hanjra Hundal Hayer/Heir [edit] JJerath/Jeirath/Jairath Jaggi Jagga Jagota Johar Jolly Johal Jassal Jawanda Jhangra jaidka{{subst:Indian surnames (Khatri)}}jaidka'{{subst:Indian surnames (Khatri)}}' [edit] KKumra Kakkar/Kacker Kapoor Kalsi Khanna Khattar Kamboj Khullar Khuman Kohli Kahlon/Kahloon Khokhar Khosla Kaler jaidka kanotra [edit] LLamba Lidhar Larh Lohar Loomba [edit] MMehrotra Midha Mahil Malhi Makkar Mithu Madhok Mahana/Mahna Mahendroo/Mahendru/Mahindru/Maindru Maini Malhotra Mehra Mehrania Mehta Marwah Matharu Mangat Main Makani/Maken/Malkana Makol Mahon Mahoon Malhotra Marway Mandaley Mandur Mankoo Manku Matharu (also spelt Matharoo) Matyar Meen Mehrotra Momrath Mion Mudarh Mudan Mudhan Mudhar Multani Mundae Munde Mundey Muttair Mahal Misan Punjabi [edit] NNair/Nayer/Nayyar/Nayar Nijhawan Nikhanj Nanda Nagi Nagra Natt [edit] OOberoi/Oberai/Obhrai/Uberoi Ohri [edit] PPabby Parwanda Prickett

Purewal Puri Passi Pandher Pannun Pal (clan) [edit] RRathod Rayat Rihal Rakkar Rehan Rekhraj Rekhi rekha

[edit] SSyal/Sayal/Sial Sabharwal Sadana Samra Sablok Saggar Sahai Sahay Sarna Saggu Sarai Sahi/Shahi Sahni/Sahani/Sawhney Suri Sandhu Sammy/Semi (tribe)/Sammi/Sehmi Samnotra Sareen/Sarin Sarwal Saggi Sehgal/Sahgal Sekhri Sethi Sehdev Sibal Sacher Sobti Sohal Sodhi Sondhi Soodhar/Sooddhar Saini Sarao Sipra Sokhi [edit] TTalwar Thamman Tandan/Tandon Trehan Tuli Thapar Tiwana Tarar Thathaal Toor Thind Takhar [edit] UUberoi. Uppal Ubhi [edit] VVadehra Vig/Vij Vohra/Wouhara Vedi Vishwakarma Wadhawan Wahi clan Wahla

The list is incomplete this is d list of all Khatri (Tarkhans (Ramgarhias), Lohars, Gujjars, Rajputs, Kambojs) surnames.

there are around more than 10000 Khatri surnames some don't exist nowdays. 122.173.7.88 (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Sikh Boys (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 17:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected}} Sikh Boys (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of images

KhatriNYC3 asks here why certain people have been removed from the infobox for this article. This is despite challenging the situation earlier on my talk page and seemingly accepting the situation. I do not understand what the issue is here. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, why are these people being removed from the Khatri page? They were in place long before you started editing the page, and clearly, they are of Khatri origin. Kapoor is a Khatri last name, even the Kapoor family identifies itself with being Khatri. Roshans (Hrithik Roshans) are Bahadi Khatris (most Roshans hail from HP and Kashmir).

KhatriNYC3 (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have explained this to you before and provide a link to that explanation above. If you still believe that you are correct & you have no other means of verifying it other than the last names then please provide a reliable source which clearly states that Kapoor is a name only used by the Khatri community, and similar sources for the other names. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

References: Failed verification

The ref [A glossary of the tribes and castes of the Punjab...] by H.A. Rose etal doesn't support the statements being made in the article's intro:

• Xathroi: The book says "It is difficult to accept the identification of the Xathroi of Alexander's historians with the Kshatriya..." (p. 505)
• Kśātra (the first king of Persians): No mention in the specified pages (525-530)
• Hittites: No mention in the specified pages (525-530)
• Taxila, Malwa, Doaba, and Majha: No mention in the specified pages (525-530) -- anyway, I don't understand how is this relevant in the intro, unless there is a ref which says that the Khatris composed the Vedas

I'm removing these. Please feel free to add back with a proper source. utcursch | talk 19:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I, too, have been unable to find them but am close to 3RR. KhatriNYC3 did say in their edit summary that they would provide the correct page numbers later - that is not how Wikipedia is intended to work, although a 15 minute or so period of grace should be ok.

BTW, I think you mean "with a proper source" in your last sentence ;) - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the last sentence. utcursch | talk 20:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, the ref doesn't support the assertion "warrior tribe". P. 507 says "The Khatris are essentially a trading caste".

Also, I am removing the claim that Rajputs (Mair, Sikh and Muslim) are part of the Khatri community. I can't find any mention of Mair Rajputs or other Rajputs being Khatri in The Khatris, a Socio-Historical Study. Please provide a page number. This is a huge claim, and should not be present in intro without a proper source. Even if such a claim is found in this book, it should be used with attribution ("XYZ says that..."). utcursch | talk 20:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added sources about some facts (such as all the Sikh Gurus being Khatri), but I'm unable to find any sources for some other sentences in the article. I've removed some of these assertions. Also, to avoid synthesis, things that are not directly connected to Khatris (e.g. history of Lahore or Katas Raj) should be removed. Please don't hestiate in adding the removed content back with proper sourcing. utcursch | talk 21:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

To those users who want to re-add the previous content, please do so with proper citations. I've clearly explained above that I've removed the sentences which failed verification. So, please do not simply add back the content saying "it was sourced". It was sourced, but it wasn't sourced properly -- references cited do not support the claims being made.

I don't understand this obsession with "warrior" status, but let me point out that I've retained the "Kshatriya" stuff from the intro. Also, I've actually added content about the Khatris having administrative and military roles in the "Origin and history" section, with proper citations.

Also, I've added several new sentences with sources and re-organized the section. So, please do not simply simply restore the article to an older version. If you want to make changes, please add the content without removing the existing cited text. utcursch | talk 06:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

1013 - sourcing

The Khatris, a Socio-Historical Study by Baij Nath Puri is available to me in snippet view here. The obvious thing to search on was "1013" but this returned no useful result. I had the same issue when I used a US proxy to view the thing. Can anyone see it in full? At the least, we need to sort out the page number and given recent events we should probably check the entire statement. - Sitush (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Photos in infobox

I have now explained on several occasions why I have removed photos of Inder Kumar Gujral, Kareena Kapoor and Hrithik Roshan. KhatriNYC3 keeps reinstating but fails to address the problems. So, for the last time, there appears to be nothing to support these people being of the Khatri community - no citation, and mention of "Khatri" in the linked articles.

Rather than just reinstate the things, either find a reliable source or fix the linked articles (preferably, do both). If they are added again without suitable verification then I shall seriously consider reporting it at the edit warring noticeboard, primarily because the unverified statement that they are Khatri is potentially a breach of WP:BLP.

There are links to some previous discussions in the Talk:Khatri#Removal of images section above. - Sitush (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, you are clearly not a Khatri, so what is your obsession with this page? I do not see you marking up mocking around with other pages as much as this one. Also, who added the picture of of Sodhi and Bedi clans in the Origin and History section? I didn't see any citation for this image??? YOU and others do not own this page, it was perfectly fine the way it was before until you had your own hidden agenda to make it how you seem fit. I guess you've come to realize that you cannot re-write history, but the best option you have is to re-write a wikipedia page, am I correct? Another thing....what other community claims Kapoor as their last name other then Khatris? they only other community is Punjabi Jatts, but they spell it Kapur, not Kapoor. What other group/community do you think the Kapoor Family belongs to????? KhatriNYC3 (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that you had problems when you used your previous user name but rather hoped that this new identity might be matched by a new manner of editing. Please do not attack me. You know little about me and cannot possibly form judgements as you are doing, in particular since even some basic research of my contributions would demonstrate that I have barely touched the surface of this article & certainly I have not ripped into it as I have sometimes done elsewhere. I try to follow policies and guidelines, and you should do the same. All you have to do is provide reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sitush my dear, where in my last message did I "attack" you? Please explain. I am sure you have been a delightful help to the wikipedia community and I truly believe you have followed guidelines, however, as for the Khatri page, you have a negative bias towards them for some reason. I do not see you going after other communties who have none referenced information or who do not provide citations for thier pages, yet you consistantly come after the Khatri page. I agree with you, I should provide resources. Wait....I have provided resources! Yet you still removed the information and the references. Sounds like you are in the wrong on many instances. KhatriNYC3 (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You have failed to provide valid, reliable references. You have accused me of bad faith and bad actions, and you have clearly not done your homework regarding my contribution history. I have contributed to many caste/community articles in far, far greater depth than Khatri - Nair and Paravar are but two examples. You are in difficulties misunderstanding edits by Clarkpoon which are similar to those you are experiencing with myself and Utcursch here, and you appear to have ignored the advice of MangoWong on your talk page. So, the common denominator in this problem is ...

For the record, I have no opinion for or against any Indian caste or community. I am not even Indian, by birth or descent, and have neither lived there nor visited the place. None of those are prerequisites for contributing to this or any other India-related article. I strongly suggest that you re-read the Five Pillars.

I am currently trying to source material for another article but shall be returning to this one. It desperately needs some work and I am grateful to Utcursch for getting to grips with it. In the interval, you are welcome to add or remove content if you do so in a manner compliant with the project's policies and guidelines. Indeed, I would encourage you to do this. As a start, there are plenty of areas with cite requests attached to them and which will likely be removed unless they are resolved, so some reliable sourcing work would be A Good Thing. - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, I have seen even on your own user page, other users complaining about how you are shaping other pages to the way you seem fit. You are not the admins of these pages. i.e. the Nairs page, the Kshatriya page, etc. You are goldpating certain castes that you seem interested in, while discounting other castes. This is wrong sir/madam.

See what I find interesting is that user Clarkpoon keeps removing "Khatri" and "Arora" from the Lunar Dynasty page, yet fails to remove other communties listed who do not have references as well. It seems as if you both are in an agreement with how you want to shape Indian communities on the wiki pages.

Oh and by the way, I think its funny how one can denounce their Indian heritage just for the mere sake of being able to edit Wiki pages without sounding bias, or at least "trying" to sell the idea that one is not being biased.....that's just my opinion KhatriNYC3 (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Response to KhatriNYC3's remarks on user talk pages

Response to KhatriNYC3's concerns mentioned here and here

• "User Sitush removed information from the page that was cited and tagged with references."
  • Please read the discussion above on the talk page. The "references" do not back-up the statements they are supposed to support. It has been explained in detail, point-by-point, before the edits were made.

• "There seems to be a lot of people who are of non-Khatri Punjabi origin trying to fabricate this article to as they seem fit"
  • Please don't make personal attacks -- others have been civil to you, there's no reason for you to denigrate them. Nobody is trying to "fabricate" the article. Every statement added by the "non-Khatri Punjabi origin" editors you're talking about is sourced.
  • You're the one who has displayed ownership issues here. You were blocked 3 times for similar edit warring and refusal to let others contribute. More than half of your previous account's edits were "Undid revision x by User:Y", where 'Y' were a number of users including Vikramsingh, SpacemanSpiff, Pk5abi, Sikh-history, Woohookitty, Scythian1, ISKapoor, Anoopkohli, Copana2002, Sameersuri, Yusuf.Abdullah, Nefirious, Rjwilmsi and several others (many of whom were Khatris themselves, but you still had problems with them).

• "How is it that you are adding a picture and a description "The Sodhi and Bedi clans of the Khatris derive their lineage..." without providing any resources from where the image comes from?
  • The sentence about the lineage is sourced -- please read the article. The image page has details about the image. In fact, this claim of lineage was also present in your version of the article -- only it was unsourced. I added a proper source for it.

• "Who do you think you are changing the Khatri page, and then removing my changes?"
  • I'm just another Wikipedia contributor. There's no rule which says that only members of the Khatri caste can edit this page. In fact, being a Khatri can actually lead to conflict of interest, as is evident from your edits.
  • The reason for removing your changes has been discussed above, on your talk page and in the edit summaries: it contained unsourced statements or statements backed up by fake references (failed verification).

You have made several unconstructive remarks here questioning other editors' intents, but you have still not provided any sources that support the statements you believe were wrongly removed. Please discuss the content, not the people. utcursch | talk 16:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Utcursch, I can agree with you, I may have come across as "taking ownership" of this page, its due to the fact that I have passion for my community, and I don't believe it is right if others project a falsified view of them by changing/removing the information on this page.

** The sentence about the lineage is sourced -- please read the article. The image page has details about the image. In fact, this claim of lineage was also present in your version of the article -- only it was unsourced. I added a proper source for it.Italic text

I agree with you, the sentence of the the lineage is sourced, however, where is the source of the image? KhatriNYC3 (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The source of the image is mentioned on the image page. What exactly is your concern about the image? Are you saying that the image should be removed because the claim of lineage from Lava/Kusha is mythical? If so, I'm fine with it. I added the image because text looks bland -- feel free to go ahead and remove the image. utcursch | talk 18:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Khatris in other states

Please also consider another section for Khatris in other states. There were Khatris found as British censuses in Gujrat, Mysore and Bihar where they followed different profession than trading (profession of Punjabi Khatris). I added the following quote with references for starters:

There are Khatris that are found in other states of India and they follow different professions in each region. The Khatris of Gujrat are said to belong to "Darji" or tailor caste. English writer Dr. Buchanan wrote that ' in Behar one-half of the Khatris are goldsmiths.' Another writer of English era added that 'the 'Khatris are traders in Punjab, and silk-weavers, when we find them in Bombay.' Lewis Rice echoes a similar view about the Khatri caste in various regions of India. --Sun Quake (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That is a good point. I do not want to get too involved here in a discussion that borders on other stuff exists territory but there is a similar issue running on another caste article at present, viz: whether geographically disparate communities who share the same communal name should be dealt with in one article under that name or in separate articles according to geography. I've come across it before also, and all sorts of issues begin to fly around. Examples are: genetics, occupation, common family names, even religious beliefs (some communities are alleged to have split on religious grounds, usually but not always Hindu/Muslim). I have no strong opinion regarding how to deal with these issues generally but I feel that there may be need for a wider consensus because it does affect more than just this Khatri community. Is this one for WT:INB, I wonder? As a general concept, of course, not specifically in relation to any one community. - Sitush (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Another attempt at dispute resolution through talk page discussions

KhatriNYC3 is the only editor here who has problem with the edits made after the discussions listed above on this page. So far, s/he has provided following reasons for his/her actions:

• [1] "you all are envious and insecure about the Khatri people."
• [2] "I've HAD ENOUGH OF YOU GUYS change this page WITHOUT "discussing"!!! your changes on the Discussion board (very hypocritcal of you)" -- every single change has been discussed above.
• [3] "you guys are the ones who have the agenda. I have respectively asked you and others to discuss your changes yourselves, but you have not!" - In fact, everyone except KhatriNYC3 has been discussing the changes on the talk page since past one week.
• [4] "this page has been repeadily butchered and filled with citations from propanganda references and books" - no argument given for why are these citations "propganda references and books"
• [5] - "theres a huge group of you trying to change this page with falsely cited propaganda"

On the other hand, zero references (or fake references; see the discussion above) have been provided for claims like these:

• As administrators and rulers, Kshatriya were assigned with protecting dharma, and serving humanity and the world.
• This ancient tribe was first mentioned by the Greeks as "Xathroi", corresponding to Sanskrit Ksatri (Chronicles of Megasthenes).
• The clansmen of "Ksatra" the first king of the Persians and the ancient "Hittites" of Turkey, were in fact known to the Egyptians as "Khattis", or 'Khatris'.
• Khatris are in directly associated with composition of Vedas, Mahabharata, Ramayana and Puranas.
• Khatri is the name given to Mair Rajputs, Sikh Rajputs and Muslim Rajputs.

Also, KhatriNYC3 has repeatedly removed citations for the following statements added by others:

• Khatris played an important role in India's transregional trade, and have been described among the most important merchant communities of early modern India.
• With the Mughal patronage, they adopted administrative and military roles outside the Punjab region as well.
• According to one theory, the word "Khatri" originates from the word "Khsatri"
• All the Sikh Gurus were Khatris.
• Sikhs like Sahib Singh Bedi, Bhai Binod Singh, Bhai Daya Singh, Gulab Singh Dallewalia and Hari Singh Nalwa were Khatris.

KhatriNYC3, the other editors are waiting (since the past week) for you to:

• Provide a proper reference for your claims like "Khatri is the name given to Mair Rajputs, Sikh Rajputs and Muslim Rajputs.".
• Explain why references that state "All Sikhs Gurus are Khatris" or "Khatris are an important merchant community" are "propanganda references and books".

There is already consensus among other editors. KhatriNYC3, if you have no comments to make other than personal attacks on other editors, I encourage you to take this to a dispute resolution forum. utcursch | talk 06:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A bit of a mistake on my part

Admittedly 3RR/content disputes are my weak point as an administrator. But that aside... I sorted through all the talk page discussions on the talk page. Consensus has been reached by just about everyone but KhatriNYC3 (pretty much a single purpose account, if you ask me...). I'm not going to block at this point; I admittedly don't have the confidence when dealing with 3RR to block on this. However, no prejudice against any one of you taking him to the 3RR noticeboard, and getting it dealt with.

However, above consensus was established against KhatriNYC3. His additions are uncited, and yet to be proved. If he reverts yet again, after I unprotect this page, which I will do after posting this, I certainly will block for edit warring. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering. I guarantee that my ratio of mistakes/good edits is a lot worse than yours, and in any event this was not a mistake but rather a not unusual problem in this topic area: talk pages etc are a nightmare to wade through if a person is uninvolved.. - Sitush (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Since KhatriNYC3 has still not justified any of his/her changes in response to the discussion above, I'm restoring the cited version. WP:DRN is now the place to go in case of any more dramatic revert wars. utcursch | talk 06:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

To all the haters of Khatri people out there....(Sitush, Clarkpoon, Mango, Utursch, etc etc)

I will revert this page back very soon. you guys have exploited the Khatri people to how you seem fit. Only goes to show how much you all are envious and insecure about the Khatri people. This page will not last the way it currently is.

KhatriNYC3 (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPA. Please, don't do it. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added pictures and sources to the article -- and every single of my edits has displayed the Khatris in positive light. MangoWang has actually been on your side all along. Other editors like Sitush have provided reasons for their edits, and have been discussing their edits on the talk page. Even Sun Quake (whose addition about the non-Kshatriya status you probably have problem with) has discussed his/her additions in a civil manner on this page.

On the other hand, you've not added any content to the article till now -- all your edits have been undoing others' additions. You've not provided a single source for your claims (like Sikh/Mair/Khatri Rajputs being Khatris). And you're the one who's calling others "haters" and "envious". Who's being insecure here? utcursch | talk 17:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Distorting someone's username is a good way of losing AGF.MW ^ℳ 07:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Accusing someone of deliberate distortion is also a quick way to lose the AGF high ground. It happens a lot, unintentionally, and this particular version of your name is scattered all over and not always commented on by you. I know very few people who are touchy about it, and one solution might be to change the name to one that is less likely to be distorted. Of course, Utcursch's name is also distorted in the very heading to this section & there were no complaints at the time. Mine is often mangled, including deliberately, but such things are rarely worth worrying about. - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If someone is distorting your username, then give your opinion. Otherwise, stay put.MW ^ℳ 10:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I thought yours was a more general comment about distortion, sorry. What you are actually saying is that it is a quick way to lose your good faith. That, of course, is your affair. My feeling is that most people have more important things to concern them/are less prickly etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Protected until dispute resolved

3RR violations on both sides. No one side seems to be particularly incorrect, but please work out your differences through dispute resolution, or hash this out yourselves. Work it out on the talk page, and ask for it to be edited through protection if you make headway. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid this can't be worked out on the talk page anymore. The discussion has been happening above since the past week above, and all other editors except KhatriNYC3 have been in agreement.

I wish you had gone through the discussions above before protecting the page. The version restored by you contains unsourced statements which have been challenged and discussed above in detail. KhatriNYC3 is the only user who keeps restoring the article to the version containing these statements, and refuses to provide any sources for the claims being made by him, while making personal attacks.

I'm not going to restore the page to the version with better citations, since that might be seen as abuse of admin tools. But, I'm initiating a dicussion below to give KhatriNYC3 one more chance to present his/her sources without resorting to personal attacks. utcursch | talk 06:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with utcursch. This is unfortunate but KhatriNYC3 is the only person ignoring consensus here, they have been warned for warring and should have been blocked, as happened when they did similar things under their old username. The COI issue is palpable even in the username. - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I was quite lenient. If anything more happens bring him to DRN or the 3rr noticeboard, and then link my talk page. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"undoubtedly the ancient Kshatriya"

KhatriNYC3 (talk · contribs) has added following text to the article's intro:

"The modern Khatri is undoubtedly the ancient Kshatriya."

I tried searching the reference for "modern Khatri". All it says is:

"It would be of great interest to investigate whether the modern Khatri teaching is based on any literary or traditional descent from the old Kshatriya literature." (page 504)

Page 507 (cited as ref) says:

"a race of pretended Kshatriyas who are really Banias of the Nanak Shahi (Sikh) faith, and who trade, and have a large share of public offices. These are evidently Khatris."

"The Khatris are essentially a trading caste, like the Aroras and Bhatias, comparatively few being engaged in as:riculture, but they stand higher than either of those castes".

The closest I can find is(p. 506)

"The Khatri occupies a very different position among the people of the Punjab from that of the other mercantile castes [...] he is not, like them, a mere shop-keeper, but a direct representative of the Kshatriya of Manu."

The above sentence clearly states that they are a "mercantile caste" but adds that they have 'Kshatriya-like features'. It doesn't say that they're Kshatriya. In fact the next few sentences explain

"Trade is their main occupation"

"They are not usually military in their character, but are quite capable of using the sword when necessary"

Page 501 says that the word Khatri is derived from the word Kshatriya, but doesn't state that "the modern Khatri is undoubtedly the ancient Kshatriya":

"Khatri appears to be unquestionably a Prakritised form of the Sanskr. Kshatriya."

It also talks about the various claims of mythological origins (grandsons of Bharadwaja, Angiras descended frm Agni, Kausika gotra descended from Lunar dynasty through Kusha, Kausalya gotra descended from Solar race etc.)

"Rationally iuterpreted these historical legends say clearly enough that the Khatri caste is made up of at least three probably racial elements, Solar, Lunar and the Agni-kula or Fire-race. Of those races some families became Brahmans and others remained Kshatriyas. Others, according to the Mahiibharata, became Vaisyas, Sudras or even barbers."

KhatriyNYC3, can you please explain which part of the book supports your claim. If you can't provide a proper source, the sentence being discussed will be removed. The origin section already talks about the word Khatri being possibly derived from Kshatriya -- the above reference can be used to support that sentence.

Also, the above above sources provided by Sun Quake (talk · contribs) dispute your statements. So, any claims should be used with proper attribution (e.g. "According to XYZ, the Khatris are a Kshatriya caste. According to ABC, they are a trading caste." It's best to avoid the varna status in the intro, as per discussions at WT:INB. utcursch | talk 03:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The revised reference provided by KhatriNYC3 also fails verification. Page 59 is about Banias, and Page 509 (which is what you probably meant) describes sub-groups like Khokhran, but doesn't mention anything like "modern Khatri is undoubtedly the ancient Kshatriya" (archive.org version). Also checked the page 59 1996 reprint. Page 59 is about the Mali caste, Page 509 is about a Jat sub-group. utcursch | talk 15:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's on p. 59 of Volume 1 [6]. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've fixed the ref to indicate that it's volume 1, and included attribution. Also, since there are opposing views, they need to be included as well. Personally, I think this stuff should be moved out of intro, since there are multiple theories -- will wait for others' opinion on this. utcursch | talk 17:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Needs to be moved out of the lead. I haven't yet read the relevant bit of Rose but he sometimes came out with some really dodgy ideas, and other times was mainstream. Is there no more modern source discussing this issue? If not then I would be inclined to consider it one of his fringe-y things. - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll wait for KhatriNYC3 to comment, before I move it out.

Most sources I came across say something like "They're considered between Kshatriya and Vaishya in status". The British colonial and anthropological sources which discuss the physical features of various castes say things like "They're involved in mercantile occupations but they've Kshatriya-like physical features." A lot of sources say that they claim Kshatriya status, but other Kshatriya castes such as the Rajputs consider them lower in the hierarchy. utcursch | talk 19:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we should generally consider inserting quotes (in the article) for contentious points. Having quotes makes it easier to understand the issue, increases the verifiability too. There is little room for fake refs that way.MW ^ℳ 07:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Fake refs? The most common problem on this type of article is not a fake reference but rather one that is taken out of context by member/supporters of the community in question. We have had this discussion before. Quotes have their place but who determines whether a point is contentious or not? Such quotes would be added retrospectively if cause for controversy is demonstrated on the talk page. Furthermore, if the source is at archive.org then there is no need: AGf, and it is visible to all who have access to the internet. Honestly, the footnotes on some articles are becoming increasingly bloated with unnecessary quotes, so while I accept the principle I do have some concerns about the practice, and especially when a statement is summarised from across, say, three or four pages of a source. - Sitush (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding a reflist so the discussion can proceed with substantiation of good citations . Something seems amiss with the citations removal , addition , quality , balance , misquote , false quotes or half quotes at el!! CheersIntothefire (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Response 1 from Intothefire

Sitush

Please do not delete my comment on a talk page ,
if there is a rule against putting a citation section on talk pages please inform me ,

if there I will adhere .Intothefire (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no such rule. And modifying or deleting other people's good faith comments is against WP:TPG and is uncivil.MW ^ℳ 11:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, stop following me around, Mango. You talk lots of policy and little sense. - Sitush (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to do uncivil things, I am going to to object Stupish. You can't be uncivil with others. You have asked me to "go away" in the edit summary of your above comment. If you can't help being uncivil with others, you go away.MW ^ℳ 03:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I notice that you have chosen to distort my username deliberately, and in a way which you know I object to. There have been three occasions when you have been involved in discussions where I have objected to this particular distortion of my username.

MangoWong, if you are going to quote policy, you should probably also follow it. Please edit your post so that Sitush's username is properly spelled. An apology would be a nice touch, if you are able to manage it. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Raj Kapoor and Kareena Kapoor images...

Sitush - You kept removing Raj Kapoor's, Kareena Kapoor's, and Hrithik Roshan's images from the Khatri page a couple weeks back by claiming that other communities claim them or claim the Kapoor last name as names in their own communities. can you tell me which communities make this claim? otherwise, I will add these images back to the page. KhatriNYC3 (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not what I said. - Sitush (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Lets take the case of citation 4 and b

Can a wikilink be a citaion ?
Can editors remove citations after citation bully other editors and preach scholarship and wikipedia rules while providing dodgy references themselves , this is what Utcursh , Sitush and several others are doing not only on this but other articles as well , here's a specific example of citation 4a and b of this article currently Intothefire (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A wikilink should not be a citation, as per the concern with circular references. However, it does not look like the wikilink is intended as a citation especially as it does have as many pages as are indicated in the footnote (p 41-69). To me, it looks like "here is a link to more information regarding this source". But if you feel that the wikilink is ambiguous and misleading, you may request that it be removed; this talkpage is probably the best place, and you may be able to gain a consensus to do so. JanetteDoe (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with the citation for the reasons given. It is formatted in the usual way citations are formatted, and adding a wikilink is no problem IMO. However, the citation may have other problems. It looks like a dated and non expert source. i.e. a non WP:RS.MW ^ℳ 02:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Sitush has already said he's not happy about this book as a citation ,though he was ok contributing to it till I asked .
• Next Utcarsh says he dident put it it was already there but that's not true , or partly untrue or partly true , or all of the above , lets see his edit , so it was there earlier but he only readdedd/fixed it .
• It turns out that it was added originally then by Sunquake , who has created a new username to only contribute to this article and yet his wikipedia skills by all accounts can only be that of a veteran . Sitush and Utcarsh continually discuss with him on the talk page , and befuddle another editor .
  

If Utcarsh and Sittush go about slashing citations , what is happening here with a fake citation ? Intothefire (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

From what I can gather, you're trying to say that this book doesn't qualify as a reliable source. You can go ahead and remove it -- there are other references supporting the same statement.

I've mentioned this before: the varna stuff is contentious, and should be moved out of intro, as discussed in detail on WT:INB earlier.

As for my edit, reverting an article to a previous version is not necessarily an endorsement of that version's content or references. I made the revert because another editor restored a previous version, which included references that had been challenged as fake on the talk page earlier (see References: Failed verification section above). Also, the edit removed several citations that had been made to display the Khatris in a positive light, without any discussion on the talk page. utcursch | talk 13:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have looked through the diff to Utcarsh's edit which you provided. In that edit, Utcarsh is only reverting some massive changes which were done without sufficient discussion and without obtaining consensus. I see nothing wrong in that edit and it is unreasonable to hold Utcarsh responsible for everything that was restored. The edit was appropriate and if (for example) someone blanks an article, and someone restores it, you can't hold the restoring ed as responsible for everything that was restored. So, Utcarsh's argument is correct. I would recommend that you take some time off and read through WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:TPG closely and modify your behavior accordingly. You may take this as a warning. Next time you fail to AGF, you may be blocked. I have also looked through Sun Quake's contributions and do not find that Sun Quake has been talking too much with anyone on usertalk pages. Not that there would be anything wrong even if Sun Quake did talk to others. If you see ref# 4 as a fake cite, you can discuss it, but the reasons which you gave earlier look mistaken to me. Don't fail to AGF, and try to see what others are saying too. Otherwise, you may lose your own AGF fast.MW ^ℳ 14:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the erstwhile ref#4 which was being disputed in this thread. Also deleted the varna discussion from lead. There appeared to be consensus for both these edits.MW ^ℳ 16:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi MangoWong
Its your prerogative as an admin Please go ahead and block/ban/banish me and whatever powers you hold on Wikipedia .

Point is I really do not have a problem with any article having more than one diametrically opposite view ,or content conflicting with my contributions , everyone has a perspective I do too . Conceptually Wikipedia is not only an open source but so absolutely egalitarian for both knowledge receivers and givers .So ample space for both revisionists , anti revisionists ,
But what I am finding increasingly disgusting is the mobs collectively working together to undermine the spirit of wikipedia often with the active but covert support of an admin such as Qwyrxian , and increasingly managing to receive the protection and privileges of the system they are undermining , through the good offices of well meaning but uninformed admins

A typical mob operation here is MathewVnitas , Sitush , Utcarsh ,Clarkpoon ,Qwyrxian , Sunquake , its more than apparent what they are upto on scores of related articles . Cooperation is good but cooperating to damage is bad news for Wikipedia . Collaboration to delete scores of good citations , split articles to delete content , browbeat individual and other editors and walk them into getting blocked/warned .Good news is in the end they invariably goof up in their success .

Wikipedia's protection to Sunquake is a case in point , commendable for the high ideals of Wikipedia protecting someone undermining it . Intothefire (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have sensed your game and it is an old one. You don't want to engage on the content of somebody's contribution but on personal diatribes and conspiracy theories. This is a disruptive tactic and it looks like you want to prevent discussion on actual content. You did not mind when this article was turned into cheap promotional pamphlet for Khatri caste. You did not complain when a number of fake references were posted by editors for a number of years (exposed by Utcarstch above) and now you have chosen to come out of wood work about a "typical mob" after all these years. This is the last time you will hear from me unless I see you addressing the content of contribution instead of the contributor.--Sun Quake (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and even if I were, I would not be allowed to block you or anyone else on this article because admins who are involved in an article or heavily involved in an area are not allowed to perform admin actions in that article or area. See WP:INVOLVED. If you continue to fail to AGF, it will be for the community to decide what to do. I would urge again that you should tone down your blustering and try to contribute in a constructive way. Try to discuss specific, article related issues in a civil fashion. You cannot achieve anything by getting yourself blocked.MW ^ℳ 03:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Mischievous images

These images look mischievous to me because they seem to be depicting Hindu and Sikh icons as muslims/mughals. They should be deleted IMO.MW ^ℳ 04:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The Sikh Gurus lived in medieval India, which had a strong Indo-Persian culture. They didn't wear janeu/dhoti like traditional holy men, but dressed in the contemporary style. Almost all the images of Guru Gobind Singh, including those by Sikh artists, depict him in similar attire. The Rama-Lav-Kush image (a Kalighat painting) is used on the pages Rama, Kusha and Lava and nobody has interpreted them as "mischievous" yet. Hindu icon Shivaji can be seen in similar type of clothing in sculptures and paintings by both Hindu and Muslim artists (see commons:Category:Shivaji). utcursch | talk 05:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• The Indo-Persian culture article has only two refs, one of which (iranica.com) happens to be a tertiary source. So, I do not see any value in whatever the article may say.
• I have never seen a Sikh wearing a muslim style skull cap. The link which you provided also does not seem to show Sikhs in skull caps.
• In the Gobind Singh-Nanak Dev image, the beard style is also of typical Muslim type.
• That the Lava-Kusha painting is used in other articles is no reason to think that it is correct. The use in other articles is also wrong IMO.
• That nobody else before me has made this argument is not a valid reason to stop me from making an argument. My argument can still be valid.
• The Maratha traditional attire has some similarities with the Mughal attire. And Shivaji is considered to be human and from an entirely different time period than Rama, Lava, Kusha. The traditional Maratha attire has no link with the usual depictions of Rama, Lava, Kusha.The usual &/ proper depiction of Lava Kusha would be something like this [7] IMO. Regards.-MW ^ℳ 09:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That particular beard style or skull cap are not exclusive to the Muslim culture. The Sikh Gurus handed down a tradtional maala (prayer beads/rosary) and a topi ("skull cap") to their successors, until Guru Hargobind adopted the sword (see this book for a reference). Nanak is displayed in a variety of headgears including conical hat and skull caps, because the dastars were not adopted as part of the Sikh attire until the foundation of Khalsa (1699). See Sikh art and literature (p. 66) for examples. There is no exclusive "Sikh Guru" costume as such. If some other painting displays Guru Nanak in saffron attire holding a kamandal, I can say "it's a mischievous Hindu conspiracy!", but that would be original research.

Rama, Lava and Kusha are mythological characters from a text which contains no illustrations. So, there is no "proper" depiction of those characters in absolute terms. The typical modern depictions of the Hindu mythological characters started in the 19th century with painters like Raja Ravi Varma. I could as well say that this painting is mischievous because it displays two Kshatriyas in Brahmin costume, reading books instead of holding a sword.

If you start associating a particular style of clothing or beard with a certain religion and start calling offensive the images which don't adhere to this stereotype, you'll probably find 90% of the medieval Indian paintings mischievous or offensive. IMHO, you're reading too much into these paintings. utcursch | talk 10:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I deleted one of the pictures for a different reason - based on source of tradition being dubious and controversial.--Sun Quake (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Khatri as "Kshaatri" instead of Kshatriya

Please note that this article implicltly treats the word "Khatri" as derived from Sankrit "Kshatriya". The Kshatriya status of Khatris is diputed. There is another explanation for the word "Khatri" as derived from "Kshaatri" which was a mixed caste of low status born from the union of Kshatriyas and Shudras. The following references can be checked which support this interpertation.

1) A Social History of India, p 248, S. N. Sadasivan, APH Publishing, 2000 2) Kshatriyas And Would-Be Kshatriyas, p 41-69, Kumar Cheda Singh Varma, Pioneer Press,3) 1904 Of clowns and gods, Brahmans, and babus: humour in South Asian literature, p 179 , Christina Oesterheld, Claus Peter Zoller, Manohar Publishers & Distributors, 19994) Incredible story of social justice in India, p 47, L. M. Khanna, Aravali Books International, 2002

All of these references should be quoted in the article which give alternate meaning of the term "Khatri"

Here is more on this issue from an online essay on Punjabi castes;

"Please note that although the word Khatri appears to be a vernacular form of Sanskrit Kshatriya, the caste is exclusively composed of cloth merchants, grocers, prefume sellers (or "Gandhis") and traders . Dashrath Sharma, an eminent historian, has described this caste as probably a "pratiloma" or ritually inferior mixed caste created through union of Kshatriya fathers and brahmin mothers. Some say that they are the descendants of Shudra fathers and Kshatriya mothers. It is impossible to ascertain which one or both of the views are actually true. S.N. Sadasivan cites a version of the popular fable regarding the origin of Khatris which is closer to the latter view, that is , Khatris are a caste born of the union of Kshatriya mothers and Shudra fathers. In the ancient India such mixed castes such as Khatris were regarded as "'varnasankara" and were denied the respectability extended to the well-born and ritually pure Kshatriyas and Brahmins. Manu Smriti gives the name of a caste of this composition as "Kshaatri" instead of "Kshatriya". The word Khatri accordingly may have originated from "Kshaatri" instead of "Kshatriya". Rajputs , the bonafide Hindu Kshatriya caste, disown all connection with them and treat them same as one of the Baniya castes. Aggarwal Baniyas, a reputable vaishya caste of Hindus, also deny any link with them.

Some speculate that the word Khatri is derived from the word "Khata" . Before the partition of Punjab, Khatris were largely concentrated in West Punjab where, according to English writer Barstow, they were employed in a rather humble way by Pathans as their accountants. It is in this reference some derive the origin of word "Khatri" from "Khata" or an accounting scroll. It could be that Arora caste which came under patronage of Pathans and Khokhars in NWFP and upper western Punjab as their accountants came to be called "Khatri" because of maintaining "Khatas" or accounting books of their patrons. Pathans, according to Barstow, could treat Khatris like personal property , much like the medieval lords in Europe who treated their Jews like chattels. He wrote , "In Afghanistan, among a rough alien people, the Khatris are, as a rule, confined to the position of humble dealers, shopkeepers and moneylenders; but in that capacity the Pathans seem to look on them as a kind of valuable animal and a Pathan will steal another man's Khatri not only for the sake of ransom, as is sometimes done in Peshawar and the Hazara frontier, but also as he might steal a milch-cow, or Jews might, I dare say, be carried off in the middle ages with a veiw to render them profitable.""

http://www.sikhcastes.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.9.235 (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I added the alternate explanation after verifying the following references (there may be more):

• Kshatriyas and would-be Kshatriyas, p 41-69, Kumar Cheda Singh Varma, Pioneer Press, 1904
• Incredible story of social justice in India, p 47, L. M. Khanna, Aravali Books International, 2002/ quote: "The only problem was in marrying a woman from a higher caste, but still such marriages were not that uncommon. For example, all Punjab Khatris are said to be the children of a higher caste woman and a low caste male" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sun Quake (talk • contribs) 00:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of the issues regarding caste "glorification". However, I am not entirely convinced by the two sources which you have added. Varma reads to me as a polemic and I am uncertain of the reliability. In the case of Khanna, I can only see the book in snippet view but the quote which you supplied is insufficient because as it stands it seems to be original research. Could you possibly supply a couple of pages before and after that quote? It mentions neithers Khatri nor Kshatriya, and as such it is a bit of a leap. - Sitush (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Khanna clearly says "Khatris are said to be the children of a higher caste woman and a low caste male." Where is the synthesis here and where is the original research? It is a direct slam dunk from a secondary source. Further, Khanna himself is a Khatri and cannot be said to be biased. You are being over-cautious. Please check Sadasivan who mirrors the same view as Varma(1904) and Khanna (2002). There is a corroboration of the view from multiple sources. Please also check Dasrath Sharma who says the same. Although, I have only checked this in snipped view of early Chuhan dynasties... It contains enough context to conclude that it is accurate. The Kshatriya claim of Khatris is hotly disputed across the board. Futher there are Khatris found in Gujrat, Mysore and Bihar who follow very humble trades as weaving, tailoring and goldsmithing. Why is there no mention of this in the article? Punjabi Khatris are not the only Khatris. Please bring balance to this article.--Sun Quake (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article is a bit of a mess. If Khanna says "Khatris are said to be the children of a higher caste woman and a low caste male." then why did you quote "The only problem was in marrying a woman from a higher caste, but still such marriages were not that uncommon. For example, all Punjab Khatris are said to be the children of a higher caste woman and a low caste male" ? I am confused. Also, and with no offence intended, experience of these articles tells me that often quotes are presented out of context. It really would be appreciated if you could somehow clarify this. For example, as I understand it, Khatris are not confined to the Punjab. You did not respond to my point about Varma - who was this person? - Sitush (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see your point although I credit that you are erring on the side of over-caution. Khanna says "The only problem was in marrying a woman from a higher caste, but still such marriages were not that uncommon. For example, all Punjab Khatris are said to be the children of a higher caste woman and a low caste male" He is saying that marrying into higher caste for men was not easy but it was not that uncommon. He cites Punjabi Khatris as an example of how a new caste was born when low caste men married upper caste women. Such marriages were called Pratiloma (see Dasrath Sharma) and children born of such unions were considered ritually polluted. I have read Khanna's book in library and find it again but you are making something so obvious unecessarily difficult to edit. The context of Khanna's comment is self-evident even in the two lines cited. There is no second interpretation possible. Also, Varma is quoting J.N. Bhattachary , a renowned authority, on the subject. Whatever may be the academic value of Varma's work J.N. Bhattachary's opinion can't simply be brushed off. Nor does Sadasivan's and Dasrath Sharma's who are exactly saying the same thing.--Sun Quake (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will have a think, as it is late here. Sadasivan seems to raise hackles on various articles, and if Varma is quoting Bhattachary then why can we not quote that original source also? Anyway, your response is appreciated and, yes, tomorrow is another day. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to respond to your other point. KCS Varma was Barrister-at-Law at Allahabad High Court. Although it is a polemical work but it is cited in many academic publications.--Sun Quake (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have had a partial think, concentrating on the more dubious issue of Varma. I am unsure that this is a reliable source. Polemics rarely are, and in this instance it is also both pretty old and has the appearance of being self-published ("copies are available from the author", it says). Additionally, yes, the author was a barrister: unless they wrote quite a lot about the subject matter, this makes me think that he is no more an expert than I am, and should be treated rather as was recently determined at WT:IN for the soldier-turned-"historian" Ram Swarup Joon. Further, if the author was quoting other people, then we could quote those others directly.

The one thing that stops me from proposing that it is removed at this moment is your comment that it is cited in many academic publications. I'll have to see if I can figure out the manner in which it is cited, eg: is it as an example of polemical writing in the sanskritisation debate or as an accepted theory. It might take me a while because I am up to my eyeballs in caste/community-related debates at the moment. Feel free to help me decide, though, if you have any further points or elaboration of existing ones. It might even be worth raising the issue at WT:IN. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

In Nepal the word for Kashatriya is "Chettri", isn't "Khatri" just a Punjabification of the word? I think for Kshatriya's who fall o hard times, is not the work of the Vaisya (shop keeping etc) one of the allowable professions? ? Just a few thoughts. SH 10:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that there are Khatris found in Bihar, Gujrat and South India who follow trades such tailoring, weaving and goldsmithing. A large number of Punjabi Khatris also have goldsmithing connections. The so-called Mair Rajputs which NYCKhatri is claiming as Khatris are actually Sunars or goldsmiths. Mair Rajput was the name they adopted during English era.--Sun Quake (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're jumping the gun. If you read Manu Smirti, it defines allowable professions for a Kshatriya who has fallen on hard times, and these are the professions associated with the Vaishya. I do however, agree, this Varna thing needs to be ignored. SH 12:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this varna stuff should be moved out of intro. We've discussed this in the past at WT:INB. utcursch | talk 17:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Definitely, because there is some doubt. As I recall, WT:IN was basically ok about it if the situation was clear-cut, but here it is starting to look like it may be far from clear. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Authorship of Bachitar Natak and Khatri Claim

In the article a claim is presented of the descent of Sodhi and Bedi Khatris from Lord Rama. This claim is based on a text, Bachitar Natak, which is considered apocryphal by many scholars and practioners of Sikhsim .Here is the one reference regarding the controversy about this text:

• Essays in Sikh history, tradition and society, W. H. McLeod,p 56-57, Oxford University Press, 2007

Wherever there is any claim tracing to this text, it is necessary to add that the attribution of its authorship to Guru Gobind Singh is disputed . --Sun Quake (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, go ahead. utcursch | talk 03:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Utcursch

You say here I agree ...what do you agree  ? Are you questening the validity of the Dasam Granth ? , The Second Scripture of the Sikhs , based on your own depth of the knowledge of the subject ? or on the basis of Sun_Quake , a new/veteran editor who arrives on the scene only for this article ,or by the looks of it someone you and Sitush already know well to collaborate ?

Please provide your valid reasons why you agree , I hope you engage in this this topic with some erudition and gravity considering its greater importance and not with a cavalier approach .Really look forward to seeing your cogent reasons .
Intothefire (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Mcleod is himself a discredit author who has been heavily criticised for his theories, which are based on oudated British Martial Race classifications, therefore I would not be so quick to delte the Dasam Granth. Thanks SH 14:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

See Dasven Padshah Da Granth#Authroship. Anyways, the sentence is not being removed from the article Khatri -- it just says that Bachitar Natak is _said_ to be the autobiography of Guru Gobind Singh. utcursch | talk 15:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Where did I say that that reference needs to removed? What I said is as follows : " Wherever there is any claim tracing to this text, it is necessary to add that the attribution of its authorship to Guru Gobind Singh is disputed." Regardless of what somebody else might way, McLeod was among the few first rate scholars of Sikhism and among the very few who have acceptance in Western academy. Here is what he wrote:

"Although Bachitar Natak is traditionally attributed to Guru Gobind Singh, there is a strong case to be made for regarding it as the work of one of his followers (see Surjit Singh Hans, A Reconstruction of Sikh History from Sikh Literature [Jalandhar:A BS Publications, 1988], p. 229)."/ The Sikh Struggle in the Eighteenth Century and Its Relevance for Today, Author(s): W. H. McLeod, History of Religions, Vol. 31, No. 4, Sikh Studies (May, 1992), pp. 344-362, The University of Chicago Press

In the interest of symmetry in representation for various opinions on the issue, McLeod's and Hans' opinion must also be presented about the authenticity of Bachitar Natak as Guru Gobind Singh's work. It is not a fringe opinion but has been a raging controversy within Sikhism for over one century.

You may also refer to the following research paper which dissects this issue: Different approaches to Bachitar Natak, Journal of Sikh studies, Surjit Singh Hans, Volume 10, 66-78, Guru Nanak University.

Its also ironical to see somebody would offer Daljit Singh's critique of McLeod in defence of questioning Bachitar Natak's authenticity. Daljit Singh's lifetime work was based on proving that all of the Dasam Granth is not work of Guru Gobind Singh, not just Bachitar Natak. Discerning editors are referred to the website of his group for more : http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/ . --Sun Quake (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have and they seem to be very critical of him here. I could list other authos like Jagjit Singh (THe Sikh Revolution), who have taken apart WH Mcleod and debunked his theories. Mcleod is old hat. As for the authorship of the Dasam Granth I have issues with the authorship, however, it has an excellent section on the origins of the Bedi's and Sodhi's (considered Khatri and Kshatriya clans) ThanksSH 12:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources disputing Khatri claims

Given below is a quick list of references which dispute Kshatriya status of Khatris:

• Incredible story of social justice in India, p 47, L. M. Khanna, Aravali Books International, 2002
• Of clowns and gods, Brahmans, and babus: humour in South Asian literature, p 179 , Christina Oesterheld, Claus Peter Zoller, Manohar Publishers & Distributors, 1999
• Kshatriyas And Would-Be Kshatriyas, p 41-69, Kumar Cheda Singh Varma, Pioneer Press, 1904
• Hindu castes and sects: an exposition of the origin of the Hindu caste system and the bearing of the sects towards each other and towards other religious systems, Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya, p 138, Thacker, Spink, 1896
• The imperial gazetteer of India , W.W. Hunter , Vol. VI, p 502, 1881
• Early Chauhān dynasties: a study of Chauhān political history, Chauhān political institutions, and life in the Chauhān dominions, from 800 to 1316 A.D., Dasharatha Sharma, p 279, Motilal Banarsidass, 1975
• A Social History of India, p 248, S. N. Sadasivan, APH Publishing, 2000
• The tribes and castes of Bengal: Ethnographic glossary, Sir Herbert Hope Risley, p478-483, Printed at the Bengal secretariat press, 1892
• Notes on the Origin of the 'Lunar' and 'Solar' Aryan Tribes, and on the 'Rājput' Clans, B. H. Baden-Powell, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, (Apr., 1899), pp.295, Published by: Cambridge University Press

JN Bhattacharya's and Dasrath Sharma's references, that Khatri is derived from "Ksatri" instead of "Kshatriya", are also given above. --Sun Quake (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are the words of J.N. Bhattacharya on Khatri caste:

"Some authorities take them to be the same as the bastard caste Kshatri, spoken of by Manu as the offspring of a Shudra father by a Kshatriya mother. The people of this country include the Kshettris (Khatris) among the Baniya castes, and do not admit that they have the same postion as the military Rajputs. The Kshettris themselves claim to be Kshatriyas, and observe the religious rites of the military castes. But the majority of the them live either by trade or by service as clerks and accountants, and their caste status ought, it seems, to be intermediate between that of the Rajputs, on the one hand, and the Baniyas and the Kayasthas on the other." (Hindu castes and sects: an exposition of the origin of the Hindu caste system and the bearing of the sects towards each other and towards other religious systems, Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya, p 138, Thacker, Spink, 1896) --Sun Quake (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the word (Khatri) in parenthesis was added by KCS Varma. I checked the original by JN Bhattacharya to confirm the quote is accurate. It is. Removing "Khatri" from the above quote takes away none of its implication as JNB's text makes it abundantly clear that he is referring only to the caste of Khatris as "Kshetri". That JNB is referring only Khatris with the above text is also clear from Ghosh's citation along with Varma's.--Sun Quake (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

These can be added to the section where the origin of the word Khatri is discussed. utcursch | talk 03:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are the words of HH Risley on Khatri caste:

"It seems to me that the internal organization of the caste furnishes almost conclusive proof that they are descended from neither Brahmans nor Kshatriyas, and that the theory connecting them with the latter tribe rests upon no firmer foundation than a resemblance of name, which for all we know may be wholly accidental. Their features and complexion, indeed, entitle them to be ranked as Aryans of comparatively pure lineage, but among their numerous sections we find none of those territorial names which are characteristic of the Rajput septs. The section-names of the Khatris belong to quite a different type, and rather resemble those in vogue among the Oswals and Agarwals. Were they descended from the same stock as the Rajputs, they must have had the same set of section-names, and it is difficult to see why they should have abandoned these for less distinguished patronymics. In addition to their own sections, they have also the standard Brahmanical gotras ; but these have no influence upon marriage, and have clearly been borrowed, honoris ctium, from the Saraswat Brahmans who serve them as priests. If, then, it is at all necessary to connect the Khatris with the ancient fourfold system of castes, the only group to which we can affiliate them is the Vaisyas. This conjecture is at least in keeping with the present occupations of the caste, and gets us out of the difficulty which led Sir George Campboll to propound the doubtful theory that in the ordinary course of history the warlike conquerors of one age become the astute money-dealers of another. In truth, however, all speculatious which profess to connect existing castes with the four traditional castes are on the face of things futile and misleading. We do not know enough about these primitive groups to be able to apply to their internal structure that minute analysis which alone can determine their precise tribal affinities."/The tribes and castes of Bengal: Ethnographic glossary, Sir Herbert Hope Risley, p478-483, Printed at the Bengal secretariat press, 1892 --Sun Quake (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are the words of Powell on Khatri caste:

"Or in the spoken form Chatri. This, in fact, is the equivalent of' Kshatriya,' and not the word Khatri, which is also in use but indicates quite another caste.The latter has no real connection with tho old military order, though sometimes attempts are made to assert such a connection. "/Notes on the Origin of the 'Lunar' and 'Solar' Aryan Tribes, and on the 'Rājput' Clans, B. H. Baden-Powell, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, (Apr., 1899), pp.295, Published by: Cambridge University Press--Sun Quake (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

If KCS Varma is not quotable then H.A.Rose and Ibbetson, etc are not quotable either

I see in somebody's logs compaint about "pedestrian invectives" in Varma's work. He cites Varma's politically incorrect views about Kayasth caste as the reason for his not being allowed to be quoted. True enough. But there is a catch here. This editor did not raise the same issue about quotability of HA Rose who has written blatantly racist , casteist and downright libelous stuff about a number of castes in the work that is currently being used support Kshatriya claim of Khatri caste. Rose's work actually fares much worse than Varma work on the yardstick which is being used to fail latter's quotability in wikipedia articles. Here are a few nuggets from Rose's works which should disqualify him by same bar as used for Varma:

• "They are small of stature, of quite remarkable personal ugliness, and very quarrelsome and litigious", ( "ugly" Mahtons)

• " adds that they are wasteful in marriage expenditure, hospitable to travellers, thievish...." ( "thievish" Kharrals)

Reference: Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province, p54 & p 496, H.A. Rose, IBBETSON, Maclagan, Asian Educational Services

• "...smaller in physique and less intelligent than a Jat". ( "less intelligent" Kambohs)

• "They differ entirely in character from the idle, thievish and cowardly Gujars of the Southern Punjab" ( "thievish and cowardly" Gujars)

• "They are of inferior physisque , envious, secretive, cowardly, lying , great bigots, inooffensivem and capital cultivators" ( "cowardly and lying" Bannuchi Pathans)"

Reference: A glossary of the tribes and castes of the Punjab and North-West frontier province: A.-K." H.A. Rose, p445,p36, p63 Atlantic Publishers & Dist, 1997

These examples are just a handful. Entire works of these "authorities" are littered with sweeping generalizations about castes that are blatantly racist and would not be accepted anywhere as genuine scholarship by today's standards. Not just a few individuals , entire castes and tribes are termed "criminal", "ugly", "theivish" etc. Is all this not considered "pedestrian invective"? Why is Rose not being same treatment as Varma? You cannot cherry-pick your sources like this to make the arguments that suit your agenda. Same yardstick needs apply across the board. Would somebody consider deleting Rose's references just as Verma's have been deleted?

All the caste passion notwithstanding, Varma's work fares much better than Rose's on the quality of references. Rose's work is almost entirely based on rumours and free-wheeling references (if they can be considered references at all). If Varma's references need to go out , so do Rose's--Sun Quake (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I will be glad to see Rose and Ibbetson deleted. You cannot blame me for not doing it already. I am not omniscient and cannot be expected to know all the problem in this, or any other article. You can go ahead and delete both these authors by me.MW ^ℳ 03:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC) I see no need to keep encyclopedic rubbish.MW ^ℳ 03:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I never meant to accuse you of anything. I was just bringing the issue to everybody's attention. Since there seemed to be consensus, I went ahead and deleted HA Rose related references and content. Any source which traces to HA Rose's or Ibbetson's authority or work should not be allowed to be cited either.--Sun Quake (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've always been uncomfortable about the use of these 19th/early 20th century works by the British writers who saw India as an exotic land of snake charmers and jungles. But, unfortunately, they've been quite popular on Wikipedia because they positively stereotype certain castes ("martial race", "a tribe of great warriors", "fair, tall and well-built" ). utcursch | talk 05:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you fully about the sources (I've taken the issue to Jimbo Wales' talk page, WT:IN and the village pump). Two points where we may differ:

1. Some Wikipedia editors hold that "exotic" view even today (I'm seeing the view being held at the talk page of a very popular article right now). They edit articles with this view point and it damages the encyclopedia.
2. It's not always positive, for example, Shivaji has been called a freebooter in some sources and I dread the day when some uninformed editor takes such claims seriously. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

SUN QUAKE - uhhhhh sorry buddy, I am not in agreement with you or any others with removing H.A. Rose, so how can you say there is a consensus??? Here you guys go again, you get an inch with putting biased sources that are false, and you take a foot - you are trying to morph the Khatri page into how you guys seem fit. You cannot rewrite history by saying Khatris are not of the Kshatriya caste, you will sadly mistaken. I am reverting back your changes immediately! KhatriNYC3 (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Try to keep your cool and I suggest that you self revert. You are not going to achieve anything by trying to act in a rash manner, and unilaterally. You will not be achieving anything by getting yourself blocked. Most of the sources in this article are non RS IMO and need to be deleted. Please discuss them one by one. Don't stay fixated on one thing only. Broaden your horizons. Above all, don't get yourself blocked.MW ^ℳ 02:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that generalised descriptive statements of nature, appearance etc by anyone should not exist without a specific inline attribution that also puts the writer into their own context, eg: "X, an administrator during the 1880s in the British-operated Indian Civil Service, who was one of many such administrators who spent much time studying the relatively new field of anthropology", or "Y, an Indian freedom fighter and member of this community". We could probably do with some "boilerplate" footnotes that could be deployed for this purpose (maybe even some sort of template system). One of the reasons why I am unhappy with AnSI is because they rely on such things but do not usually indicate it sufficiently well - a dreadful source, in that respect if no other. - Sitush (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

N. Attribution may get you around with plagiarism/ close paraphrasing/ copyvio concerns. But not with WP:V / WP:NOR / WP:RS requirements.MW ^ℳ 07:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Broken record. You know what to do. - Sitush (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is the definition of questionable source from wikipedia: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."

If racism, wholesale labeling of castes and tribes as "criminal", "cowardly", "ugly", etc is not extremist, what else is? Most of the opinions in Rose's work don't trace to any reliable text and are based on rumours or poor treatment of primary sources. Further, British officials used these census reports to settle scores with the rebellious tribes. A tribe which could lobby hard and prove its utility to colonial rulers would be arbitrarily upgraded and a rebellious tribe would be similarly downgraded. For example, first Nairs were included in Martial Class and then they were removed for no reason. Works of Enlish administrators are an atrocious source of history and tradition every way you look at them and should never be relied on in any circumstance, unless other reliable sources agree with them in some manner.--Sun Quake (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

My recent revert

I have just reverted the article to its state prior to the recent disruptive editing. The contributor in question is now blocked for a week.

Some of the points raised may actually have been valid, and I am particularly concerned about the accusation of what they called "quote-mining" here. However, I cannot see many of those sources and I do know that some other experienced contributors have been working on the citations/verification etc lately, so it seemed better to revert and then examine. Can anyone confirm/deny that particular allegation? - Sitush (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I can see the sources in snippet view. The quotes removed in this diff [8] were actually in the sources. However since snippet view is not adequate for WP:RS, I'll try this weekend to get the Khanna, Ghosh, and Sharma books so we can see some context. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, for a good library on my doorstep! Thanks very much. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Accusation is groundless. There could be a good faith error here and there. On the whole there is no truth in the accusation as would be borne out when JD checks the context. I have already expanded a number of quotes to prevent disruption again through repetition of this groundless accusation. --Sun Quake (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Khanna [9] Sharma [10] I have requested Ghosh and will scan and post when it arrives. JanetteDoe (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sun Quake, please do not take offence. I have my own opinion regarding the accusation, based on things unconnected to the specific sources. However, I would rather do this out in the open as then the issue is nailed for good, which ever way the result may be. Thanks to JanetteDoe, as always, for coming up with the goods. It is late here & so I will review the info tomorrow. Obviously, anyone else is also welcome to review: as far as I can make out, the issue is simply one of whether the quotes are, erm, quoted. A comparison of each word in the source with each word in the article seems to be what is needed, based on the edit summaries etc. But perhaps the point raised has a more subtle aspect. I will soon learn :) - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

We cannot use Khanna to support the statement that "According to another theory, the word "Khatri" originates from the word Khsatri mentioned in Manu Smriti to denote a mixed caste of born of Kshatriya mothers and Shudra fathers." That source neither mentions Manu Smriti or Khsatri and the citing the quotation (although done accurately) is therefore a breach of WP:SYNTH. Either that entire statement needs to be removed or a much better source found for it. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC) I have removed the cite. - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sharma says (pp. 279-280) that "The Khatris probably were a pratiloma class, born of a Ksatriya father and a Brahmana mother. At least that is the tradition now current in Rajasthan, though some of them maintain that they are full-blooded Ksatriyas who have gone down in the social scale on account of their taking to trading, commerce and money-lending."

The article currently says that "Dasrath Sharma also described Khatris as a mixed pratiloma caste of low ritual status, but he suggested that Khatris could be a mixed caste born of Kshatriya fathers and Brahmin mothers."

This is a misrepresentation. Sharma has no opinion and is merely recounting the traditional belief held in Rajasthan and a contrary, minority viewpoint. At least in the pages that I have read - kindly provided by JanetteDoe - I cannot even be sure that "gone down the social scale" is necessarily the same as "of low ritual status", since this presumes that the ritual status and social scale are synonymous. There is also a world of difference between "low" and, for example, "lower". It is not acceptable and needs either to be fixed or removed.

This is quite worrying & I am concerned that someone will have to check all of the sources over again. Much as KhatriNYC3 was POV pushing, on these particular points there was some justification for their edits. Let's see what happens when Ghosh turns up. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

And here is Ghosh: [11] JanetteDoe (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

LM Khanna and Dasrath Sharma

Sitush, I'd really wish you would be a little less aggressive in reverting contributions of other editors. All of your above analyses is wrong and your insinuation of "misrepresentation" is groundless. Please explain what part of this citation is unreliable and involves synthesis? What part of this citation does not apply to Khatri caste ?

"The only problem was in marrying a woman from a higher caste, but still such marriages were not that uncommon. For example, all Punjab Khatris are said to be the children of a higher caste woman and a low caste male. Should millions of them be regarded as backward and ostracized? They are among backward classes in Tamil Nadu and Gujrat, perhaps, because all non-Brahmins are considered Shudra."

Reference: Incredible story of social justice in India, p 47, L. M. Khanna, Aravali Books International, 2002/ --Sun Quake (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What in the following quote makes you infer that Dasrath Sharma himself does not hold the prevalent opinion of Rajasthan?

"The Khatris probably were a pratiloma class, born of a Ksatriya father and a Brahmana mother. At least that is the tradition now current in Rajasthan, though some of them maintain that they are full-blooded Ksatriyas who have gone down in the social scale on account of their taking to trading, commerce and money-lending."

Please also explain, how the prevalent opinion in the entire province is a minority view which the author himself considers "probably" true?

I am not going edit war with you on this but I would expect you to reinstate these deleted references yourself if you can't provide adequate explanation. Please have a another editor review the edit if you still have a different opinion.

--Sun Quake (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, let's have other people look at it. That was my entire point, and until they do then we should err on the side of caution. My explanations are already listed in the section prior to this. Perhaps I need to rephrase them but let's see what others say first. There is no rush about this: the Khanna point has other sources in any case, and I did not remove the other one you refer to. - Sitush (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think your removal of Khanna is a big mistake. Please have Utcurtsch provide his opinion. You still have not explained my objection above. I have read your explanation in previous section and strongly disagree with it. Here is the question again for you: Please explain what part of this citation is unreliable and involves synthesis? What part of this citation does not apply to Khatri caste ? PS- The exact English translation of "Pratiloma" is "marriage of lower caste male and upper caste woman" . Please do more search on this word. Translating a Sanskrit word to its English equivalent does not involve any synthesis of material. In any case, even if you remove the word "Pratiloma" from edit, the substance of the edit still stands.--Sun Quake (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Guru nanak.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Guru nanak.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

An Aryan business caste but nevBold texter Kshatriyas (warriors).

Big difference between U.P. Khatri and Punjabi Khatri.

Mish Mash

I believe this article in its current format is a major mish mash because by a curious mix of disparate citations it seeks to cover Khatris from the Peshawar to Nadia in Bengal and deep south into peninsular India .

• So either the article is restructured to cover by provinces ( Both India and Pakistan)
• or by creation of separate articles for Khatris from different states . Although the overwhelming majority of Khatris are Punjabi , this article in its current state has juxtaposed citations and content from books pertaining to one region to attach to another , which is really quite absurd .
• Some interesting references to Manu Smriti and Dasam Granth also need discussing in the way these books have been used in the article .
• And off course the addition and deletion of some interesting citations on this and related articles by both "new" and experienced editors also needs exploration .Intothefire (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Be more specific, please. However, one thing we do not want is the sort of POV-y split that you introduced with the Gakhar articles, where we have ended up with two dreadfully poor versions based on religious/geographic "criteria" & stuffed full of a disconnected series of quotations without context. The fact that the countries were split in the 1940s does not impact on a communal history that extends for a much, much longer time. - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 December 2011

Musalman Cutchi Khatri Jamat Karachi

Khatris belongs to Indian Origin migrated to Karachi in 1800 century.

1850: Khatri Jamat was being built in Karachi. 1901: First official Agewan Committee was built. 1932: Purchased a Plot for Jamat Khana (Community Center)in Lidbetter Road, Plot No. TL2/22, size 1200 Meters. 1942: Purchased a Graveyard from Muncipal Corporation Of Karachi. 1942: Registering the record of born or dead in the community. 1943: First Rules & Regulations of the Jamat was published. 1949: First Generral Body Meeting was called in Jamat Khana. 1953: Office of Jamat was built in Jamat Khana. 1962: Weddings must be held in Jamat Khana (the rule). 1963: Purchasing a bus and Death equipments for Death Carrier.

Current Activities

The elected current management committee of Khatri Jamat running succesfully all regular works including the registration of death or birth, weddings, donations, running Haji Ayub Memorial Computer Institute and Hajiani Rahima Bai Industrial Home.

Presidents:

Dr. Ghulam Abbas Koraya (LATE) August 1997 to 2002 - He died in his era & Vice president Abdul Aziz Khedoiwala run the entire cabinet Anwar Hussain Gubeet Wala August 2003 to July 2006 Master Abdul Rasheed Mithaiwala August 2006 to July 2009 Mohammed Shafi Vayorwala August 2009 to Current futher history will be edited later on

Institutions of Musalman Cutchi Khatri Jamat Karachi

Muslim Cutchi Khatri Bazm-e-Taleem: There was a time when there was scarcity of educational and social welfare activities. Muslim Cutchi Khatri Bazm-e-Taleem came in to action in 1963 with the purpose of providing guidance, promoting educational awareness and fulfilling the educational needs of Musalman Cutchi Khatri Jamat.

It was a good fortune that this society got very good founders and this fortune remain continue at present. These youngsters never impose negligence from their duties and always continued to work by keeping the focus on the primary objective of the MCKBT. Initially the body worked for only educational needs but then time came when it grown further with efforts of some well known personalities who contributed for social work other then educational needs.

It has spent almost 45 years in the educational and social welfare of community. Many of the indeed peoples have benefited by the lamp that was lighten 45 years ago by Mr. Gulam Abbas Abdullah Koraya (Late). What a leader he was? He was a spirit, He was an ambition, He was a hope for poor people, He was the one who initiated the change into Khatri society. In short he was a true leader for Khatri community.

The journey is still lighten from such a pride and enthusiasm as It was a long time ago and will (InshAllah) remain continue forever.

Current Activities Involved: Provide Books to community students. Running School under the joint venture with Muslim Cutchi Khatri Association. Cricket Tournaments Summer Programs for the students Debate Competitions for the students Quiz Competitions

Main source of income for the institute comes from the collection of Hides at Eid-UL-Adha www.mckbt.org

Cutchi Khatri Education Society: Musalman Cutchi Khatri Education Society is providing community services from 2004 and arranged variety of educational, cultural & community promotional activities.

We have to achieve numerous objectives by our own self, lets join hand to hand and participate all community activities to survive and promote Khatri community.

Fakhr-e-Khatri:

Introduction

Name: Ismat Ali Pen Name: Khatri Ismat Ali Patel (Fakhr-e-Khatri) Father Name: Abdullah (Late) Mother Name: Aisha (Late) Date Of Birth: Tuesday, 21st September, 1948 Marriage Ceremony: 19th July, 1975 Children: One Daughter and One Son

Profession

He joined famous children magazine "Hamdard Non-e-Hall" of Hakeem Muhammad Saeed (Shaheed) from 14th July 1970. He still has links with this extreme organization.

Translated Books From Gujrati To Urdu

1. "Mir-e-Karawan Sir Adamjee", published in 1980 by Pakistan Memon Educational and Welfare Society, Karachi.

2. "Tahreek-e-Azadi Aur Memon Bradari", published in 1982 by Wada Sada Wala Foundation, Karachi.

3. "Hayat-e-Jawedan Sir Adamjee", published in 1984 by Adamjee Foundation, Karachi.

4. "Memon Shakhsiat", published in 1985 by Memon Youth Organization, Karachi.

5. "Asas Sorath-O-Sindh", published in 1987 by Pak Sorath Dar-ul-Adab, Karachi.

6. "Tareekh-e-Khatri", published in 1999 by Muslim Khatri Loc Adab, Karachi.

Edited Souvenir

1. "Abdul Sattar Adam Khatri Ki Samaji Khidmaat", published in 1978 by Muslim Cuthi Istaqbalia Commitee, Karachi.

2. "Kawish", published in 1979 by Khatri Students' Progressive Movement, Karachi.

3. "Asas-e-Khatri Qaum", published in 1980 by Musalman Cutchi Khatri Jamat, Karachi.

4. "Khatri Samaj", published in 1983 by Khatri Students' Progressive Movement, Karachi.

5. "Khatri Alam", published in 1988 by Muslim Khatri Loc Adab, Karachi.

6. "Khatri Bazm-e-Taleem (Silver Jubilee Sovenir)", published in 1990 by Muslim Cutchi Khatri Bazm-e-Taleem, Karachi

7. "Haji Abdul Sattar Fazlani Ki Samaji Aur Adbi Khidmaat" published in 1994 by Gujrati Kawi Sangat, Karachi.

8. "Danishkada", published in 1995 by Muslim Cutchi Khatri Bazm-e-Taleem, Karachi.

9. "Haji Jan Muhammad Dhaga Ki Khidmat", published in 1997.

10. "The Memon", published in 1997 by Memon Youth Walfare Organization, Karachi.

Published Books

1. Naat-e-Rasool (P.B.U.H) of Khatri Non Muslims published in 1998 by Muslim Khatri Loc Adab, Karachi

2. "Tahreek-e-Pakistan Aur Khatri Bradari", published in 2001 by Muslim Khatri Loc Adab, Karachi.

Awards

He performs his duty very honestly, therefore, "Hamdard Organization" gave him "Husne-e-Karkardagi Award" on 28th March, 1985. The award was given by the hand of Shaheed-e-Pakistan, Hakeem Saeed.

Acquiring his social, welfare, research and literature work for Gujratee, Memon and Khatri community, he became popular as "Fakhr-e-Khatri" from 8th July, 1988.

He received "Literary Service to Memon Community" shield on 23rd November, 1992 By Memon Students' Organization.

Mr. Ismat was awarded "Nishan-e-Movement" on 29th January, 1993 by Khatri Students' Progressive Movement.

Okhai Memon Jamat presented the "shield" against the nobleness of his literary work on 29th October, 1993.

He received "Best Performance Awards" on 3rd December, 1993 from "All Pakistan Memon Federation."

He attended the conference of "Literal Academy of Pakistan" as the "Presenter" of approx 13 Lacs "Gujrati Community" in 1994 and 1998.

He was awarded the "Best Writer Award" on 7th January, 1994 by "Memon Friends Educational Society."

"All Pakistan Memon Federation" presented the shield of "Best Writer of Memon Community" on 11th September, 1995.

Fakhr-e-Khatri received "Excellence Award" from "Pakistan Art Cultural and Litrary Foundation" on 2nd May, 1996.

Rag Rang Society presented "shield" against his literacy work on 9th June, 1997.

He received "Gold Medal" from Gondal Memon Asociation for accepting his literacy work on 21st June, 1997.

Mr. Ismat Ali Patel received "Honorable Journalist of Memon Community" from Akhbar-e-Memon on 27th Faburary 1998.

He received the "Best Writer" award from "National Memon Council of Pakistan" on 29th May, 1999.

Fakhr-e-Khatri received "Senior Writer" award from Health and "Heigen Society" on 29th October, 2000.

Khatri mastermind (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done. Create separate articles if you believe these to be notable. They are not directly relevant to this one. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

K C S Varma

Given that K C S Varma has a somewhat polemical agenda in his book, Kshatriyas and would-be Kshatriyas, and given that he is only used here as a source for quotations of statements originally made by Buchanan and Kitts, can we not find the original Buchanan/Kitts works? I cannot see the Varma book here but would hope that there is some sort of note that would enable us to pin down his sources. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 May 2012

Khatris are one who took to the occupation of trading and business...As time went by..they realised that a Kshatriya status will consolidate their roots and hold in the Indian Varna Classification..So they started calling themselves as Kshatriyas.. Khatri ki maachodo (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC) They are only businessmen and shopkeepers...In Gujarat...they are tailors(Shudras)...

 Not done - The article already pretty much says this, and with reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 July 2012

Mahindru's are not Khatris, they're Rajput's. This source is wrong. Mahendro's, Mahindra's, Mahindru's are the same people spread across three states/provinces including Sindh, Rajashthan and Punjab.

Revolution00 (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects the contents of reliable sources. You'll need to explain in more detail than "this source is wrong", and you will need to provide sources for your own statements. - Sitush (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 November 2013

Khatris are Kshatriya. Most of Punjab’s governors of provinces been Khatris. Dewans (governor) of the Mughal period, they were all Khatris. Ranjit Singh’s highest ranking military officials, they were Khatris. several army generals or small princes in North India have been Khatris. For example, General Hari Singh Nalwa in Mahraja Ranjit Singh’s army who had conquered lands across the River Sindh, was a Khatri. Dewan Mool Raj, the Governor of Multan Province, was a Chopra Khatri. The Rajas of Ludhiana area, Jalandhar, Burdwan in Bengal were Kapoor Khatris and so on. In modern times, Khatris have largely become an urban community living in Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and other parts of North India.

ALL the Gurus were Khatris. Guru Gobind Singh, the greatest warrior of our land,he was a Khatri too. The basis for the Sikh religion formed came from the upbringings and teachings of Khatri people that is why the religion is full of honor and valor, and prestige. It is because the Sikh faith defends its beliefs first with the mind, and then with the body. Jatts are another group of people I have respect for because they have unity and pride in their people.

Kshatriya tribes and gotras:

Suryavansi: (Raghava or Raghuvans): Kachwaha, Haiwaha, Rathor, Balla, Tomar, Senghar, Gaur, Sarin

Chandravansi (Yadava or Yaduvans): Jadon, Bharra, Dahia, Sammad, Jethwa, Silahar, Chavada

Agnivansi: Pramara, Parihara, Chalukya, Chauhan, Jhalla, Scindia, Dora

Nagavansi : Tank, Meir, Bais, Bhatti, Dabhi, Anwan, Khukrain

Govansi (or Bhumivansi): Bhandari, Gurjara, Bhalla, Kushi, Nair, Bhonsla, Katoch

Apavansi (or sagarvansi): Kapur, Wahi, Wadhva, Duggal, Kochar, Dhawan, Mehra

Vayuvansi: Khanna, Tandon, Kakar, Chopra, Sami, Sahni, Uppal, Chadha

The Suryavamsha as well as the Somavamsha originated from the common ancestor, the great Brahma. His sons were : Marichi ;his son sage Kashyap; his son Vivaswan or Surya i.e. Sun, and the descendants vamsha was Suryavamsha, the other son of Brahma was Atri.and his sons were Sagar or samundar i.e. sea (from which the apavansi or sagarvansi sprang and Sagar’s son was Soma or Chandra, and his descendants were the Somavansa. From his own body, Brahma created Svayamabhuva Manu, a male and Shatarupa, a female. Humans descended from Manu and so are known as manava. And subsequently from them appeared the Prachetas. They created wind (vayu) and fire (agni) from their mouths, whence we have the Vayuvansi and Agnivansi clans. The earth is said to have derived its name from Prithu, the 6th king of the line of Vaisasvata. From this we have the Bhumi- or Govansi. Manu eldest son of Iksvaku, king of Kosaldesa (Ayodhia). A few generations later came Masndhatri, in whose line the 31st king was Harishchandra, wellknown to live for truih. Raja Sagar of the same clan performed the ashvamedha yajna (from him we have the Apavansi ). and his great grandson bhagirath is reputed to have brought ganga on earth by virtue of his penances.

Like all other castes in India, Khatris are also divided into many sub-groups. On the top are dhai-gharas or those belonging to the two and a half houses. These are the four castes of Kapurs, Mehras (or Malhotras), Seth and Khannas. These are then followed by Bahris or the twelvers e.g. Tandons, Chopras, Wahis, Gadheoks, etc. Then there is the large mixed group of Bhunjais or fifty-twoers; which includes almost all the remaining Khatris ; Wigs come in this group. There are also special sub-groups of Khatris called Khukhrains and Sarins/Sareens, which do not fall into all of the above groups. Khukharain Khatris include names like Anand, Chadha, Kohli, Sethi etc. Of course the most famous Khatri of all times is Guru Nanak Dev (1469-1539) who was a Bedi Khatri. All the following nine Gurus were Khatris with sub-castes like Trehan, Bhalla and Sodhi, etc.

Edit request on 17 October 2013

Legend relates that Parashurama (Rama, 6th incarnation of Vishnu) wanted to massacre the Kshatriyas and caused every Kshatriya woman to miscarry. However, some women escaped and took shelter in Brahmin (highest priestly caste) houses. The Brahmin declared them to be Brahmin and even ate with them in order to show Parashurama that the Kshatriya women were from their caste, and thus saved them. According to this story, the children born of these women became the Khatri. 182.64.4.5 (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a secondary source (academic journal, book about Indian legends, etc.) that discusses this legend. We need to cite a specific reliable source to include the material. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 November 2013

Khatris are Kshatriya. Most of Punjab’s governors of provinces been Khatris. Dewans (governor) of the Mughal period, Ranjit Singh’s highest ranking military officials, they were all Khatris. Several army generals or small princes in North India have been Khatris. For example, General Hari Singh Nalwa in Mahraja Ranjit Singh’s army who had conquered lands across the River Sindh, was a Khatri. Dewan Mool Raj, the Governor of Multan Province, was a Chopra Khatri. The Rajas of Ludhiana area, Jalandhar, Burdwan in Bengal were Kapoor Khatris and so on. In modern times, Khatris have largely become an urban community living in Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and other parts of North India.

ALL the Gurus were Khatris. Guru Gobind Singh, the greatest warrior of our land,he was a Khatri too. The basis for the Sikh religion formed came from the upbringings and teachings of Khatri people that is why the religion is full of honor and valor, and prestige. It is because the Sikh faith defends its beliefs first with the mind, and then with the body.

Kshatriya tribes and gotras:

Suryavansi: (Raghava or Raghuvans): Kachwaha, Haiwaha, Rathor, Balla, Tomar, Senghar, Gaur, Sarin

Chandravansi (Yadava or Yaduvans): Jadon, Bharra, Dahia, Sammad, Jethwa, Silahar, Chavada

Agnivansi: Pramara, Parihara, Chalukya, Chauhan, Jhalla, Scindia, Dora

Nagavansi : Tank, Meir, Bais, Bhatti, Dabhi, Anwan, Khukrain

Govansi (or Bhumivansi): Bhandari, Gurjara, Bhalla, Kushi, Nair, Bhonsla, Katoch

Apavansi (or sagarvansi): Kapur, Wahi, Wadhva, Duggal, Kochar, Dhawan, Mehra

Vayuvansi: Khanna, Tandon, Kakar, Chopra, Sami, Sahni, Uppal, Chadha

The Suryavamsha as well as the Somavamsha originated from the common ancestor, the great Brahma. His sons were : Marichi ;his son sage Kashyap; his son Vivaswan or Surya i.e. Sun, and the descendants vamsha was Suryavamsha, the other son of Brahma was Atri.and his sons were Sagar or samundar i.e. sea (from which the apavansi or sagarvansi sprang and Sagar’s son was Soma or Chandra, and his descendants were the Somavansa. From his own body, Brahma created Svayamabhuva Manu, a male and Shatarupa, a female. Humans descended from Manu and so are known as manava. And subsequently from them appeared the Prachetas. They created wind (vayu) and fire (agni) from their mouths, whence we have the Vayuvansi and Agnivansi clans. The earth is said to have derived its name from Prithu, the 6th king of the line of Vaisasvata. From this we have the Bhumi- or Govansi. Manu eldest son of Iksvaku, king of Kosaldesa (Ayodhia). A few generations later came Masndhatri, in whose line the 31st king was Harishchandra, wellknown to live for truih. Raja Sagar of the same clan performed the ashvamedha yajna (from him we have the Apavansi ). and his great grandson bhagirath is reputed to have brought ganga on earth by virtue of his penances.

Like all other castes in India, Khatris are also divided into many sub-groups. On the top are dhai-gharas or those belonging to the two and a half houses. These are the four castes of Kapurs, Mehras (or Malhotras), Seth and Khannas. These are then followed by Bahris or the twelvers e.g. Tandons, Chopras, Wahis, Gadheoks, etc. Then there is the large mixed group of Bhunjais or fifty-twoers; which includes almost all the remaining Khatris ; Wigs come in this group. There are also special sub-groups of Khatris called Khukhrains and Sarins/Sareens, which do not fall into all of the above groups. Khukharain Khatris include names like Anand, Chadha, Kohli, Sethi etc. Of course the most famous Khatri of all times is Guru Nanak Dev (1469-1539) who was a Bedi Khatri. All the following nine Gurus were Khatris with sub-castes like Trehan, Bhalla and Sodhi, etc.

Hey Sitush, you are here as well.

Again I would like to ask, who were these Hindu Kings???? that you mentioned, who ruled over khatris. Can you name few??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.14 (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2013

This page has a lot of text that is speculative or is based on sources/books that give opinions and not historical research. To make the article more factual, I request the following changes:

1. Please remove the following from the introduction paragraph - it is repeated in the History section below apart from not being based on research based reference.

---

Khatris played an important role in India's transregional trade under the Mughal Empire. With the Mughal patronage, they adopted administrative and military roles outside the Punjab region as well. Scott Cameron Levi describes Khatris among the "most important merchant communities of early modern India."

---

2. Please change the Origin section to the following:

---

Khatri (Punjabi for Sanskrit word Kshatriya) community are a north Indian community that originated in the Punjab[26][27][28][29][32]. In the course of time, as a result of economic and political exigencies, Khatris expanded from military into mercantile occupations.

---

The comparison of the Punjabi word "Khatri" with the word "Khsatri" in Manu Smriti is inappropriate as they refer to 2 different things in different languages. Hence this reference is incorrect.

Indianuser11 (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The information you have asked to be removed is verified by several reliable sources. We don't get to simply declare another source is wrong. Could you provide some sources that indicate the alternate theory(ies) you propose? If there are various different theories, we can include each of them, per WP:NPOV. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Khatris not only claimed, but their claim was also accepted.

Khatris are kshatriye and it is widely accepted^ Eleanor M.Nesbitt. Intercultural Education:Ethnographic and Religious approaches. 101.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya301 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC) http://books.google.co.in/books?id=QOJ5cOgJ4y8C&pg=PA101&dq=Soni+caste+of+punjab&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tGXzUMKMIIfIkQX77oD4DQ&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Soni%20caste%20of%20punjab&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya301 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2013 : agreed

I agree with his edit request especially the one where comparison has been made between "panjabi word khatri" and hindi manusmriti word.

Here, we have to understand that panjabi and hindi are two different languages and cannot be compared.

Eg

In english "whore" word means some thing offensive, and in panjabi "whore" word means "more to it".

Now, i cant say that panjabi "whore" word has been derived form english word "whore". It is illogocal to compare two languages like this.

Also authors whose books are referred in this context belongs to Bengal, thus they dont know hindi nor panjabi. So i dont think so their view can be of any value in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya301 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2013 : he is right

He is right, and language is good enough.

Also, I went through, Jognath Bhattacharya reference. He is calling khatris "bastard".

OMG, he seems to be illiterate of his time. How can he even use this type of language for anybody. He don't even know the correct spelling of khatris and he is trying to give the homology.

he is talking about the believes of people without any survey, or public opinion. Thus, implying his personal view only.

I dont think so, Wikipedia should include any such reference which are from British era and opinion based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitksharma1 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

i find this article abusive

This article writes only bad things about us, there is nothing good in it. Even text picked up is selective (everything negative), except fro few add on s to make it less offensive. I request the editors to read the page 139 of reference from which only bad thing has been picked up (https://archive.org/stream/hinducastesands00bhatgoog#page/n163/mode/1up) It is reference 5 in the given article. It tells about supremacy of khatris above all. But, administrators seem to be biased in thinking only in one direction i.e. to defame us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya301 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia articles are not censored. Also, that sources from the British Raj period are not generally considered to be reliable. - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Sitush for your prompt reply.

I am happy that you removed the reference which was criticized by many.

Also I thank you for your update on the wikipedia policy on censoring and british era text.

Please consider another request. Please look into the reference where two languages have been compared without any relevance. I am talking about the Panjabi language (khatri) and Hindi language(khsatri). Authors of the references seem to be not good at Panjabi.

I also gave one example where i have compared english word whore with panjabi word whore, which are entirely different.

Also, references given are not from good publishing houses so they cannot be trusted. So I request you to remove it as suggested by many.

Thank you.

I think that you are referring to the book by Oroon K Ghosh. I'm trying to find out more about him - is he this person? If so, then he doesn't seem to have any relevant expertise. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes Sitush, it seems so. I also tried, but i could not find any literature by him. Also, most of the discussions in talk section are contradicting his point especially his comparison of two languages. Please look into it and omit it as suggested by many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya301 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

He has actually written quite a lot of stuff but almost none of it is cited and the subject range is wide. The only possible linguistic expertise would seem to be that he was a member of a body involved in the states reorganisation process ... but I'm not convinced that all members of that would have been linguists or even academics. For example, his positions as a business executive would have given him a degree of administrative expertise that might be useful to such bodies.

I'm not going to delete it right now but I have left a note with Qwyrxian regarding what is happening here. Let's see what they think, bearing in mind this new info regarding reliability. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

In place of this line, "Thus, the Khatris have an ambiguous position in the varna system".

It should be "The Khatris have an ambiguous position in the varna system". As this line is not in continuation with its last line. It has its own reference, so thus is not required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya301 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that has arisen because of the edit warring etc that resulted in the article being semi-protected. I'll need to check the history. - Sitush (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Please include line to line

This is one of the latest reference in the field, from the house of most trustworthy publishing group. And by the highly qualified historian. Thank you

Text:

Irrespective of individual ranking within the khatri community, the Punjabi khatri never abandoned their cast rank of kshatriya. Instead as shown in colonial India, the khatris believed they were of pure vedic stock and they regarded the Rajputs as lesser kshatriyas because they were not Vedic. Bhai Gurdas defined the khatris as Kshatriyas and the Rajputs as Vaishyas. While Khatri employment in warfare was waning, their ideas of violence were connected to Kshatriya ideal. The social status of the Khatris as Kshatriyas seems to have been well established in the Punjab and this meant that the khatris did not have social pressure to justify their rank. For khatris, a Kshatriya was never used as a tactic for social mobility:all Khatris had martial genealogies. And they considered these martial genealogies as pure and must have connected to the court because only real kings could use the ‘violence’. This may have encouraged the Khatris to seek government service because they did not want to severe their ties to royality.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=9RzzxcEL4C0C&pg=PA35&dq=khatris+as+kshatriya&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sBi4UqqoNsKJrQen04GQCg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=khatris%20as%20kshatriya&f=false.

Taken from :Reference: Sikh Militancy in the Seventeenth Century:Religous Violence in Mughal and Early Modern India Hardip Singh Syan I.B.Tauris, 29-Jan-2013 - History - 315 pages (Macmillan)

About the author: http://us.macmillan.com/author/hardipsinghsyan

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=9RzzxcEL4C0C&pg=PA35&dq=khatris+as+kshatriya&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sBi4UqqoNsKJrQen04GQCg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=khatris%20as%20kshatriya&f=false

That looks great. I've added it to the Further Reading section and will try to read it thoroughly asap. I'm not keen on just grabbing something from a source without reading around it. - Sitush (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Please remove the unreliable resources (like unknown publishing houses and like wise authors)

.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya301 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you please name the sources that you are referring to. - Sitush (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

^ The changing Indian civilization: a perspective on India, Oroon K. Ghosh, p282, Minerva Associates (Publications), 1976

^ Early Chauhān dynasties: a study of Chauhān political history, Chauhān political institutions, and life in the Chauhān dominions, from 800 to 1316 A.D., Dasharatha Sharma, p 279, Motilal Banarsidass, 1975 –

Book offers a snippet unreasoned view and must be excluded.

^ People of India: Rajasthan, Part 1, p303, Chapter titled "Darji" by Ramesh Chandra, K. S. Singh, Popular Prakashan, 1998/ quote: "Peepavanshi Darji are also called Peepavat Khatri."

There are many, i will go through them and will let you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya301 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The Ghosh one is likely to go - we're waiting on Qwyrxian's opinion, per the thread above. The People of India one can go because I'm aware that particular volume plagiarises the unreliable Raj ethnographies. I've seen the Sharma source used a lot but I'll need to look into it. - Sitush (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

^ Mahatma Hansraj: Maker of the Modern Punjab By Sri Ram Sharma, Published 1941, Arya Pradeshik, Pratinidhi Sabha -Unnecessary. Please remove this reference (British era reference). Also I request you to delete the name Hans Raj Gupta (as it is irrelevant in this context).

According to Bichitra Natak, said to be the autobiography of the last Sikh Guru Gobind Singh, but whose authenticity is a matter of ongoing dispute,[10][11][12] the Bedi sub-caste of the Khatris derives its lineage from Kush, the son of Rama in the Hindu mythology. - The references should come at the end of the statement.

Indian settlers: the story of a New Zealand South Asian community, p48, Jacqueline Leckie, Otago University Press, 2000/ quote :"Tailoring was a caste occupation that continued in New Zealand by those from Darji and Khatri castes who had been trained in appropriate skills. Bhukandas Masters, a Khatri, emigrated to New Zealand in 1919. He practiced as tailor in central Auckland...

- I could not get the book, but again it seems to be a snippet view (p48) i.e. more of describing about few individuals definitely not reflecting the whole population.

I think that you are perhaps unaware that Google Books does not display the same content to everyone. For example, people in the USA can see things that I cannot see here in the UK, and vice versa. There is an essay about this somewhere on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes you may be right about the content of Google Books. But still even in the quote taken, it is evident, that author is talking about few individuals. And it has nothing to do with Indian population. Satya301 (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

^ John R. McLane (2002). Land and Local Kingship in Eighteenth-Century Bengal. Cambridge South Asian Studies (Volume 53). Cambridge University Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-0-521-52654-8. "The Khatris were a Punjabi mercantile caste who claimed to be Kshatriyas. Nineteenth-century Indians and British administrators failed to agree whether that claim should be accepted. The fact that overwhelming majority were engaged in Vaishya (mercantile), not Kshatriya (military), pursuits was balanced against the Khatri origin myths..."

Snippet view (p131). Infact, Introduction says some thing different. (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3671208), i am trying to get the complete volume. Then I may say something about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya301 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not a snippet view all around the world. I can see it and the quotation is correct. More, the review of the book that you link (it is not the introduction) does not contradict the quotation. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I agree to what you are saying about this reference, i believe you on this, as i could not access this reference. Satya301 (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

On issue of use and supporting slang

Khatris are actually Shudras who took to the occupation of trading and business...As time went by..they realised that a Kshatriya status will consolidate their roots and hold in the Indian Varna Classification..So they started calling themselves as Kshatriyas.. Khatri ki maachodo (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC) They are only businessmen and shopkeepers...In Gujarat...they are tailors(Shudras)...

Your reply:- Not done - The article already pretty much says this, and with reliable sources.

[Sitush] - As far as I know, we are not suppose to use or support the use of slang (last line). I also used slang once and i regret it now. I hope and wish, that we stick to morals while discussing such sensitive issues.

Especially when we are referring to a community who has given people like Kalpana Chawla (NASA) , Legendary Hargobind Khurana (Nobel laureate), Kiran Bedi, Virat Kohli, Gagan Narang, Our PM, to so many legends including freedom fighters ( I think much more than any of the Indian community.

Thank you. Satya301 (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what is slang in the last line? Last line of what? - Sitush (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I have highlighted the words. Satya301 (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya301 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm still confused, sorry. The article doesn't mention the phrase " Khatri ki maachodo", whatever that may mean. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

All nonsense to which you agreed, line that i highlighted means that "fuck the mother of khatris",,, can you show one line in article or in any reference which says Khatris are Shudra. And its better not to comment if you dont know something.. Satya301 (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Request to bring the discussed changes

Thank you.

Satya301 (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Finally i got the access to this book. John R. McLane (2002). Land and Local Kingship in Eighteenth-Century Bengal. Cambridge South Asian Studies (Volume 53). Cambridge University Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-0-521-52654-8. "The Khatris were a Punjabi mercantile caste who claimed to be Kshatriyas. Nineteenth-century Indians and British administrators failed to agree whether that claim should be accepted. The fact that overwhelming majority were engaged in Vaishya (mercantile), not Kshatriya (military), pursuits was balanced against the Khatri origin myths..." e line

Yes, now i may write about it, in my opinion the book indicates a balanced view giving support to both sides (i.e. their kshatriye origin and controversy due to their profession).

I suggest, we should include complete quote, half quote do not reflect the author's view. As there were reasons for khatris claims and that should be highlighted.

Thank you. Satya301 (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[Satya] 117.202.64.31 (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2013 is(UTC)

I'm confused here, too. We paraphrase sources and the article already says that the varna position is open to interpretation due to various claims. What do you want it to say? - Sitush (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"Confused", the reference tells about both sides. One cannot pick one side and write and give that reference.

half line has been exactly copied (plagiarized) . Ideally it should be complete sentence or nothing (if you are picking up a quote). Satya301 (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)