![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
User:Uncle_G/On_common_Google_Books_mistakes is worth everyone taking time to read if you haven't before. Google Books does not render the same content to everyone. Ergo, if you have submitted a Google books reference (a) you need to cite it fully and (b) you need to be prepared to have other folks query what you can see (see [1] for an example of folks getting caught out by Google books.) -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 12:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to add a note saying that Rajkris said on my talk page that xe is planning on leaving a detailed response, but just hasn't got to it yet. I have no problem waiting for that response (not forever, of course, but I know how other things, both real life and on wiki, can push projects like this to the back burner). I don't think even those people who think the article should be merged feel any need to do it in a hurry; I know I certainly don't think this is such a critical issue that it needs to be decided upon today. Qwyrxian ( talk) 07:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Following moved from top; it seems to be part of this same discussion, so adding here. Qwyrxian ( talk) 13:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC) You've no any reliable source then why you try to add this on Kshatriya page? I am afraid If everyone start adding their own page like "Delhi Kshatriya" "Gujarat Kshatriya", "State Name Kshatriya", "Village Name Kshatriya" :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunnusingh ( talk • contribs) 13:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The Tamil Kshatriya wiki page belongs to this template
[2] which was created to list all the castes and ruling lineages from all Indian states, regions. These castes and family lineage were Kshatriya (by occupation) in the traditionnal Hindu Varna. As a part of this template, this article as a real sense: it deals with the ancient rulers of tamil speaking areas...My conclusion is exactly the same as I already wrote here [
[3]], the refs I (and some others) have provided tell clearly that:
1) Ancient litterature, Hindu texts asserted that Tamil kings were Kshatriyas
2) Tamil rulers claimed descend from the mythical Hindu dynasties, like all historicall Indian/Hindu kings, rulers; actually 'genuine' kshatriyas (the ones from the Surya Vamshi, Chandravamshi, etc. lineages) are myths, we do not have any proof of their existence... And it became a tradition among Hindu rulers to claim descend from one of these dynasties and therefore being authentic Kshatriyas
3) Religious authority (Brahmins) equated Tamil rulers to the rank of (proper) Hindu Kshatriyas
Now concerning the arguments of those who wish to delete this page:
1) There is no evidence of the use of the term Kshatriya in Tamilnadu --> there are archelogical sources which show the contrary (see refs we have provided)
2) even if we find some mentions, it seems there were very few kshatriyas in Tamilnadu --> feodal rulers were never numerous
3) Tamil/South Indian class system was very different from the Brahmin caste system --> some scholars assert the exact opposite --> see the last ref i added
[4]: "... Dumont eloquently describes how south indian society is hierarchically structured according to the caste system; this four-tiered system places brahmins as the highest-ranking members of society, followed by kshatriya..." page 25... Tamil speaking areas belonged to the Hindu culture from time immemorial and therefore the traditionnal Hindu Varna applies to it.
As a conclusion, I would tell that if we should remove Tamil Kshatriya article, then we should remove also all the other state Kshatriyas articles and the Kshatriay template itself... Merging the Tamil Kshatriya article will only make the kshatriya article heavier and more cabbalistic. My position is that this article must not be neither deleted nor merged.
Rajkris (
talk)
16:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict)I have not rejected it; I have offered to review it. If you cannot arrange that, and bearing in mind the sheer preponderance of bad sourcing above by yourself and others, then I will probably reject it because the onus is on you to provide verification when something is queried and runs contrary to the dominant opinion of reliable sources. The reference you have just added (by Behere) is only snippet view - can you see more of it? If you can then let me have a copy; if you cannot then it is not acceptable. My work here is uniform: I adopt the same approach to sources etc across all articles, so you cannot cherry-pick in that regard. - Sitush ( talk) 13:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
To S & Q, it is not because some scholars argue that the south indian society did not correspond to the vedic model (that is: priests at top...), that the workd Kshatriya cannot be used to designate south indian rulers!... There are historical sources showing that tamil rulers knew & used this term ( [9], [10]), and scholars also use this term when they work on south indian rulers ( [11]). So telling that the word Kshatriya cannot be applied to designated south indian rulers is totally wrong. Rajkris ( talk) 12:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Step back for a moment and consider what has gone on in this thread. Only one publisher has been rejected, and that rejection is based on a series of community discussions that had nothing to do with politics or religion. Other proposed sources have been rejected because even you cannot see them and have no idea of the context. In addition, one of those included a phrase the meaning of which even you do not know (k-s-k). Of the remainder, none of them said that there were Tamil Kshatriya; at best, they required synthesis. The crux of the problem is that you have been unable to find any source that says TK existed and is visible for contextual reasons + reliable. Now, whose problem is that when you bear in mind that there are some valid sources that specifically say TK did not exist? Add into the equation that you did agree to my review & accepted what the consequences might be, which actually makes the present situation look as if you are now abandoning AGF. The review was fair and it was open. I stand by it and deliberately approached it in a neutral manner. Remember, I rejected some sources from the "other side" in this debate also. - Sitush ( talk) 23:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Sunday is fine by me. An RfC would cover the "other editors POV". Do you mean WP:RSN rather than WP:N? Or am I completely missing the point? - Sitush ( talk) 21:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
At Talk:Kshatriya#Restart merger discussion, I have re-opened the discussion in light of what Rajkris has supplied so far, and to remove the taint caused by Shanon1488's involvement. Rajkris, I know you want to add more but are too busy, but we shouldn't have to wait indefinitely for your evidence, given that what you've produced so far hasn't changed our opinions. If this article is merged, and, in 6 months or a year from now you finally have time to pull together more evidence, you can always restart discussions at Talk:Kshatriya to recommend a split. Qwyrxian ( talk) 01:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Here are some sources (which i found reliable enough &) which i want to submit to wikipedia analysis (rfc, etc.) and other editors opinion.
Sources which tell that Hindu texts, sources considered Tamil kings as Kshatriyas:
Political and general history of the District of Tinnevelly in the ...Par Bishop R. Caldwell,Caldwell R. Bishop page 12
[14]
"... in the Hari vamsa and several Puranas in which Pandya, Kerala, Kola and Chola are represented as the four sons of Akrida or of Dashyanta the adopted son of Turvasu, a prince of the Lunar line of Kshatriya"
Hindu culture in ancient India Par Sekharipuram Vaidyanatha Viswanatha page 156
[15]
"The Harivamsa and the Puranas relate that the kings of South India Pandya, Chola and Kerala were the descendants of Yayati, the Aryan king of the North." page 155
These sources may be too old and/or not reliable enough but they all tell exactly the same thing: hindu texts considered Tamil rulers as Kshatriyas... Therefore, a deeper analysis should be taken on this point...
Sources which tell that after 'Aryanisation' of the Tamil society, Tamil rulers started identifying themselves as Kshatriyas, the varna of rulers within the Hindu society and adopted traditions, practices which were related to this varna:
History of mediaeval Hindu India, Volume 1 page 377
[16]
"We similary find the Cholas of the south call themselves solar kshatriyas in inscriptions..."
History of agriculture in India, up to c. 1200 A.D. by Vinod Chandra Srivastava,Project of History of Indian Science, Philosophy, and Culture
[17]
"... due to the impact of the Brahmanic order of society, chiefly, groups who were originally tribal and agrarian started changing their descent, relating themselves either with Suryavamsa (Solar line) or Chandravamsa (Lunar line), as the Kshatriya caste of nothern India."
Art and culture of Tamilnadu by Sundeep Prakashan, 1980
[18]
"... tradition of Vedic ancestry is not mentionned in Sangam literature, but it had taken deep roots long before the sith century A.D. It was following this tradition that the rulers added the kshatriya honorific Varman to their names." page 2.
Sources which tell that Hindu religious authority considered Tamil rulers as Kshatriya:
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Volume 49 page 112
[19]
"The Brahmins who entered the field as adventurous immigrants from the north, soon became the advisors and confidants of the chiefs. They equated the Tamil chiefs to the kshatriyas..."
Other sources mentionning, talking about Tamil Kshatriya, Kshatriya varna, etc.:
The background of Maratha renaissance in the 17th century by Narayan Keshav Behere
[20]
"... and the Chols who were purely Tamil Kshatriyas..." page 60
"The Cholas were Tamil Kshatriyas..." page 69
Penumbral visions: making polities in early modern South India Par Sanjay Subrahmanyam
[21]
"Further south, in the Chola country, one gathers that the varna status of rulers did continue to be a preoccupation; some of them are known to have performed the hiranyagarbha ceremony, by which they were inserted into a large womb-like gold vessel, and subsequentely emerged 'reborn', and declared to possess kshatriya status." page 229
Slaves of the Lord: the path of the Tamil saints
[22]
"Ko-Chenga Chola, Caste: kshatriya" page 160, "Nedumaran, Caste: kshatriya" page 165, "Charaman, Caste: kshatriya" page 178
Eventhough they are snippet view, they are clear and therefore need further research (full access, etc.) before taking any action...
To Sum Up
I have privided different refs which tell:
- Tamil rulers are considered as Kshatriyas in Hindu literatture sources
- Tamil rulers used this word for themselves
- Tamil Brahmins considered Tamil rulers as Kshatriyas
- Different scholars used the term Tamil Kshatriya
As you can see, there are so much refs dealing with Tamil speaking Kshatriyas... How can one tells that the word Kshatriya cannot be applied to designate Tamil nolbles ???...
Sitsush has rejected these refs by appleling to the following arguments:
- Old source
- Non reliable source
- Snippet view
I don't agree with his position because:
- Old book does not mean (always) wrong
- it is not because a book is considered not reliable that everything is wrong in it
- snippet view mention clearly Tamil Kshatriya and thefore need futher enquiry before taking any action
Sitush also argues that there are numbers of book which tell that there is no Tamil Kshatriya. I want to know on which basis these scholars assert that there is no such as Tamil Kshatriya whereas there are historical & archeological sources which assert the contrary ???... My opinion & answer concerning these scholars is: They assert this based on their idiology & political opinion instead of using scientific evidences & therefore they are not reliable scholars and so should not be used...
Can anyone tell me how to submit my refs to rfc & other stuffs ?... Thank you. Rajkris ( talk) 00:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
User:Uncle_G/On_common_Google_Books_mistakes is worth everyone taking time to read if you haven't before. Google Books does not render the same content to everyone. Ergo, if you have submitted a Google books reference (a) you need to cite it fully and (b) you need to be prepared to have other folks query what you can see (see [1] for an example of folks getting caught out by Google books.) -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 12:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to add a note saying that Rajkris said on my talk page that xe is planning on leaving a detailed response, but just hasn't got to it yet. I have no problem waiting for that response (not forever, of course, but I know how other things, both real life and on wiki, can push projects like this to the back burner). I don't think even those people who think the article should be merged feel any need to do it in a hurry; I know I certainly don't think this is such a critical issue that it needs to be decided upon today. Qwyrxian ( talk) 07:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Following moved from top; it seems to be part of this same discussion, so adding here. Qwyrxian ( talk) 13:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC) You've no any reliable source then why you try to add this on Kshatriya page? I am afraid If everyone start adding their own page like "Delhi Kshatriya" "Gujarat Kshatriya", "State Name Kshatriya", "Village Name Kshatriya" :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunnusingh ( talk • contribs) 13:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The Tamil Kshatriya wiki page belongs to this template
[2] which was created to list all the castes and ruling lineages from all Indian states, regions. These castes and family lineage were Kshatriya (by occupation) in the traditionnal Hindu Varna. As a part of this template, this article as a real sense: it deals with the ancient rulers of tamil speaking areas...My conclusion is exactly the same as I already wrote here [
[3]], the refs I (and some others) have provided tell clearly that:
1) Ancient litterature, Hindu texts asserted that Tamil kings were Kshatriyas
2) Tamil rulers claimed descend from the mythical Hindu dynasties, like all historicall Indian/Hindu kings, rulers; actually 'genuine' kshatriyas (the ones from the Surya Vamshi, Chandravamshi, etc. lineages) are myths, we do not have any proof of their existence... And it became a tradition among Hindu rulers to claim descend from one of these dynasties and therefore being authentic Kshatriyas
3) Religious authority (Brahmins) equated Tamil rulers to the rank of (proper) Hindu Kshatriyas
Now concerning the arguments of those who wish to delete this page:
1) There is no evidence of the use of the term Kshatriya in Tamilnadu --> there are archelogical sources which show the contrary (see refs we have provided)
2) even if we find some mentions, it seems there were very few kshatriyas in Tamilnadu --> feodal rulers were never numerous
3) Tamil/South Indian class system was very different from the Brahmin caste system --> some scholars assert the exact opposite --> see the last ref i added
[4]: "... Dumont eloquently describes how south indian society is hierarchically structured according to the caste system; this four-tiered system places brahmins as the highest-ranking members of society, followed by kshatriya..." page 25... Tamil speaking areas belonged to the Hindu culture from time immemorial and therefore the traditionnal Hindu Varna applies to it.
As a conclusion, I would tell that if we should remove Tamil Kshatriya article, then we should remove also all the other state Kshatriyas articles and the Kshatriay template itself... Merging the Tamil Kshatriya article will only make the kshatriya article heavier and more cabbalistic. My position is that this article must not be neither deleted nor merged.
Rajkris (
talk)
16:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict)I have not rejected it; I have offered to review it. If you cannot arrange that, and bearing in mind the sheer preponderance of bad sourcing above by yourself and others, then I will probably reject it because the onus is on you to provide verification when something is queried and runs contrary to the dominant opinion of reliable sources. The reference you have just added (by Behere) is only snippet view - can you see more of it? If you can then let me have a copy; if you cannot then it is not acceptable. My work here is uniform: I adopt the same approach to sources etc across all articles, so you cannot cherry-pick in that regard. - Sitush ( talk) 13:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
To S & Q, it is not because some scholars argue that the south indian society did not correspond to the vedic model (that is: priests at top...), that the workd Kshatriya cannot be used to designate south indian rulers!... There are historical sources showing that tamil rulers knew & used this term ( [9], [10]), and scholars also use this term when they work on south indian rulers ( [11]). So telling that the word Kshatriya cannot be applied to designated south indian rulers is totally wrong. Rajkris ( talk) 12:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Step back for a moment and consider what has gone on in this thread. Only one publisher has been rejected, and that rejection is based on a series of community discussions that had nothing to do with politics or religion. Other proposed sources have been rejected because even you cannot see them and have no idea of the context. In addition, one of those included a phrase the meaning of which even you do not know (k-s-k). Of the remainder, none of them said that there were Tamil Kshatriya; at best, they required synthesis. The crux of the problem is that you have been unable to find any source that says TK existed and is visible for contextual reasons + reliable. Now, whose problem is that when you bear in mind that there are some valid sources that specifically say TK did not exist? Add into the equation that you did agree to my review & accepted what the consequences might be, which actually makes the present situation look as if you are now abandoning AGF. The review was fair and it was open. I stand by it and deliberately approached it in a neutral manner. Remember, I rejected some sources from the "other side" in this debate also. - Sitush ( talk) 23:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Sunday is fine by me. An RfC would cover the "other editors POV". Do you mean WP:RSN rather than WP:N? Or am I completely missing the point? - Sitush ( talk) 21:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
At Talk:Kshatriya#Restart merger discussion, I have re-opened the discussion in light of what Rajkris has supplied so far, and to remove the taint caused by Shanon1488's involvement. Rajkris, I know you want to add more but are too busy, but we shouldn't have to wait indefinitely for your evidence, given that what you've produced so far hasn't changed our opinions. If this article is merged, and, in 6 months or a year from now you finally have time to pull together more evidence, you can always restart discussions at Talk:Kshatriya to recommend a split. Qwyrxian ( talk) 01:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Here are some sources (which i found reliable enough &) which i want to submit to wikipedia analysis (rfc, etc.) and other editors opinion.
Sources which tell that Hindu texts, sources considered Tamil kings as Kshatriyas:
Political and general history of the District of Tinnevelly in the ...Par Bishop R. Caldwell,Caldwell R. Bishop page 12
[14]
"... in the Hari vamsa and several Puranas in which Pandya, Kerala, Kola and Chola are represented as the four sons of Akrida or of Dashyanta the adopted son of Turvasu, a prince of the Lunar line of Kshatriya"
Hindu culture in ancient India Par Sekharipuram Vaidyanatha Viswanatha page 156
[15]
"The Harivamsa and the Puranas relate that the kings of South India Pandya, Chola and Kerala were the descendants of Yayati, the Aryan king of the North." page 155
These sources may be too old and/or not reliable enough but they all tell exactly the same thing: hindu texts considered Tamil rulers as Kshatriyas... Therefore, a deeper analysis should be taken on this point...
Sources which tell that after 'Aryanisation' of the Tamil society, Tamil rulers started identifying themselves as Kshatriyas, the varna of rulers within the Hindu society and adopted traditions, practices which were related to this varna:
History of mediaeval Hindu India, Volume 1 page 377
[16]
"We similary find the Cholas of the south call themselves solar kshatriyas in inscriptions..."
History of agriculture in India, up to c. 1200 A.D. by Vinod Chandra Srivastava,Project of History of Indian Science, Philosophy, and Culture
[17]
"... due to the impact of the Brahmanic order of society, chiefly, groups who were originally tribal and agrarian started changing their descent, relating themselves either with Suryavamsa (Solar line) or Chandravamsa (Lunar line), as the Kshatriya caste of nothern India."
Art and culture of Tamilnadu by Sundeep Prakashan, 1980
[18]
"... tradition of Vedic ancestry is not mentionned in Sangam literature, but it had taken deep roots long before the sith century A.D. It was following this tradition that the rulers added the kshatriya honorific Varman to their names." page 2.
Sources which tell that Hindu religious authority considered Tamil rulers as Kshatriya:
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Volume 49 page 112
[19]
"The Brahmins who entered the field as adventurous immigrants from the north, soon became the advisors and confidants of the chiefs. They equated the Tamil chiefs to the kshatriyas..."
Other sources mentionning, talking about Tamil Kshatriya, Kshatriya varna, etc.:
The background of Maratha renaissance in the 17th century by Narayan Keshav Behere
[20]
"... and the Chols who were purely Tamil Kshatriyas..." page 60
"The Cholas were Tamil Kshatriyas..." page 69
Penumbral visions: making polities in early modern South India Par Sanjay Subrahmanyam
[21]
"Further south, in the Chola country, one gathers that the varna status of rulers did continue to be a preoccupation; some of them are known to have performed the hiranyagarbha ceremony, by which they were inserted into a large womb-like gold vessel, and subsequentely emerged 'reborn', and declared to possess kshatriya status." page 229
Slaves of the Lord: the path of the Tamil saints
[22]
"Ko-Chenga Chola, Caste: kshatriya" page 160, "Nedumaran, Caste: kshatriya" page 165, "Charaman, Caste: kshatriya" page 178
Eventhough they are snippet view, they are clear and therefore need further research (full access, etc.) before taking any action...
To Sum Up
I have privided different refs which tell:
- Tamil rulers are considered as Kshatriyas in Hindu literatture sources
- Tamil rulers used this word for themselves
- Tamil Brahmins considered Tamil rulers as Kshatriyas
- Different scholars used the term Tamil Kshatriya
As you can see, there are so much refs dealing with Tamil speaking Kshatriyas... How can one tells that the word Kshatriya cannot be applied to designate Tamil nolbles ???...
Sitsush has rejected these refs by appleling to the following arguments:
- Old source
- Non reliable source
- Snippet view
I don't agree with his position because:
- Old book does not mean (always) wrong
- it is not because a book is considered not reliable that everything is wrong in it
- snippet view mention clearly Tamil Kshatriya and thefore need futher enquiry before taking any action
Sitush also argues that there are numbers of book which tell that there is no Tamil Kshatriya. I want to know on which basis these scholars assert that there is no such as Tamil Kshatriya whereas there are historical & archeological sources which assert the contrary ???... My opinion & answer concerning these scholars is: They assert this based on their idiology & political opinion instead of using scientific evidences & therefore they are not reliable scholars and so should not be used...
Can anyone tell me how to submit my refs to rfc & other stuffs ?... Thank you. Rajkris ( talk) 00:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)