Talk:Khatri

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 not questioning Bachitar Natak's authenticity. Daljit Singh's lifetime work was based on proving that all of Dasam Granth is not work of Guru Gobind Singh, not just Bachitar Natak. Discerning ediors are referred to the website of his group for more : http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/ . --Sun Quake (talk) 23:27, 18 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

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)

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 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...if then it is at all necessary to connect Khatris with the four-fold system of castes , the only group which we can affiliate them is the Vaisyas."/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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)