Talk:Kshatriya

But KAMMAS ARE KSHATRIYAS

Kammas were ruled from 3rd century, there some big evidences in tamilnadu. KAMMAS have early origin and history before christ. If u dnt knw about this, plz don't talk. Kshatriya Nayaka (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that information be verified by reliable sources. If you know of such sources, please provide them here for review. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Kshatriya List

I've removed the whole section. Given that the vast majority of entries were "This group claiims membership, but independent sources say it wasn't, or was only partially"...what the heck use is that? We don't have a list somewhere of countries that claim to have been the greatest in the world (although, I suspect it's probably quite similar to List of countries). Since these reports fall under WP:BLPGROUP (in my opinion), I don't see why we would want anything other than the best possible sourcing. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me and, it would seem, the person who comments in the thread below this one. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with this solution, it is an easy one which support the pov of those who claim that there are only two castes: Brahmins & Shudras (which is a position supported & spread by (orthodox) Brahmins and often taken up by the British colonialists). I think the main pb comes from the definition of Kshatriya: Kshatriya = Warrior --> this is wrong ! and allows many communities to claim a Kshatriya status or origin. Kshatriya was just a term used to designate the aristocraty, nobility of the Hindu society, the ones who ruled the different kingdoms (and so, many of them were often involved in military activities as army commanders... And not simple soldiers !) and their descendants. Only lately Brahmins attempted to give a ritual status to that position in order to dominate it...And this is the other main pb: some support the view that only those who are ritually recognised as Kshatriyas by the Brahmins are genuine Kshatriyas. This does not correspond to historical reality and this view gives to Brahmins a position which they have not occupied before the Muslims & British invasions. Here is a ref: [1]: it is an old ref (with its colonnial pov) but regarding history of kshatriyas, it seems giving a neutral vision. I let you check. If we have to follow your action Qwy., we can remove this page entirely, this is the natural next step of such type of actions. I think by taking this action, you don't respect the neutral position of Wikipedia. If I don't make mistake, all the castes you have removed had a tradition of rulers and top military warriors (this is why I have not removed them myself whereas I have removed many others: Ahirs, Gujjars, Jats, Vanniyars, etc.). The fact that (most of tem) were not recognised as Kshatriyas by Brahmins is a fact but only a detail among others. Rajkris (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, understand the situation and I know that you have long held concerns regarding Brahmin POV pushing. Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims. I also know that you have been among those who have reverted contributions to the now-deleted list on numerous occasions, which you seem to accept were often down to what might arguably be described as pov-pushing from the "other side". And there is the rub: you appear to want to show one aspect but not another. Surely, you can accept that the list was doing more harm than good, if only in the sense of the disruption being caused by it? This is not an area of Wikipedia that gets a tremendous amount of oversight and so it becomes very difficult to deal with. This is not about Brahmin pov or any other pov; rather, it is about removing contentious content and what amounts to a honey-pot for random IP contributor etc.

Your logic fails when you think that the next step will be removal of the article. Why should you think that? The subject is notable even if some of the details (ie: at community level) are best deal with elsewhere. We also have Category:Kshatriya, although my bet is that a lot of the entries there are arguably inappropriate. Perhaps what we really need is Category:Communities claiming Kshatriya status? - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to provide support for your claims", please have a look on the ref: "It seems therefore that the ancient Kshatriyas like the more modern Rajput, was a social class to which all rulers in virtue of their sovereignty were recognised as belonging; and both Kshatriya and Rajput groups can, therefore, be described as 'essentially an occupationnal caste, composed of all clans following the Hindu rituals, who actually undertook the work of government'". What better ref can i give, tell me ???. This is the type of definition I use to check whether a caste can be added in this Kshatriya page.Rajkris (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you undid the archiving here. This discussion isn't going on. The quote you have in boldface doesn't say that Rajput were Kshatriya; in fact, it very clearly lines them up as being not the same, because it refers to them as two distinct classes and places them in parallel. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the discussion is still going on. You misunderstood, I'm not using this quote to equate Rajput with Kshatriya... I am using it for the definition of Kshatriya. My quote and my ref (book) clearly states that the Kshatriya is a social class to which all (Hindu) rulers were recognised as belonging. This is the (historical) definition of Kshatriya. Here is another ref: Kingship and community in early India By Charles Drekmeier page 82 [2]: "The very fact of governing was often enough to qualify the ruler as a kshatriya.".Rajkris (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh gosh, I am involved in too many articles with disputed content at present and my brain hurts. Rajkris, can this be stayed for (say) a week or so? Obviously, if others want to respond then that is perfectly ok but I really need a bit of time right now. You can ping me on my talk page to remind me in a week. Sorry about this but I've got a lot going on both on and off Wikipedia and am not even keeping up with fixing the obvious problematic changes to articles that show up on my watchlist, let alone many of the talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No pb. No hurry.Rajkris (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

REMOVING CLAIMED MEMBERS: GOOD IDEA OR NOT ?

I don't agree with this solution, it is an easy one which support the pov of those who claim that there are only two castes: Brahmins & Shudras (which is a position supported & spread by (orthodox) Brahmins and often taken up by the British colonialists). I think the main pb comes from the definition of Kshatriya: Kshatriya = Warrior --> this is wrong ! and allows many communities to claim a Kshatriya status or origin. Kshatriya was just the term used to designate the Aristocraty, Nobility of the Hindu society, the ones who ruled the different kingdoms (and so, many of them were often involved in military activities as army commanders... And not simple soldiers !) and their descendants. Only lately Brahmins attempted to give a ritual status to that position in order to dominate it...And this is the other main pb: some support the view that only those who are ritually recognised as Kshatriyas by the Brahmins are genuine Kshatriyas. This does not correspond to historical reality and this view gives to Brahmins a position which they have not occupied before the Muslims & British invasions. Here is a ref: [3]: it is an old ref (with its colonnial pov) but regarding history of kshatriyas, it seems giving a neutral vision. I let you check. If we have to follow your action Qwy., we can remove this page entirely, this is the natural next step of such type of actions. I think by taking this action you have removed a part of India history (not deliberately I think) & you don't respect the neutral position of Wikipedia. If I don't make mistake, all the castes you have removed had a tradition of rulers and top military warriors (this is why I have not removed them myself whereas I have removed many others: Ahirs, Gujjars, Jats, Vanniyars, etc.). The fact that (most of them) were not recognised as Kshatriyas by Brahmins is a fact but only a detail among others (explained by some scholars). But through your removal, you have made a detail, the main point (not delibaretely I think)...[User:Rajkris|Rajkris]] (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I definitely disagree with both removal of the section as well as Rajkris's definition of Kshatriya. The word Kshatriya is not just about nobility, but also about being a warrior race. Take the example of Rajput kingdoms, who have undoubtedly got Kshatriya status. The rulers of these Rajput states were Rajputs, but most of the armymen were also Rajputs. They definitely don't have that prestigious status, which Rajput princes had, but still they will be regarded as Kshatriya because the chief definition of Kshatriya is warrior. -Sensehuman (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong. See the root definition of the Kshatriya [4]: "Kshatriya from Sanskrit Kshatra 'rule' or 'authority' . This is the definition of Kshatriya and this clearly shows that only rulers (kings and nobles) were considered as Kshatriyas. The duty of rulers was to fight (as commanders, officers) during wartime and govern during peacetime. This is the proper definition of Kshatriya. The definition Kshatriya = Warrior is wrong !... And this wrong definition is used by many low castes communities to claim Kshatriyas status !... All Indians (and all people in the world) have warriors among their ancestors, does it mean they are all Kshatriyas ???... NO!

Regarding Rajput, they are not all considered as Kshatriyas, only the top members of them (kings, princes and other land lords (thakurs) & land owners). See definition of Rajput [5]. "but most of the armymen were also Rajputs" --> wrong, pov, these people lately claimed Rajput status and are looked down by real rajputs.

Only rulers of a Hindu society can be considered as Kshatriyas and only their descendants can claim Kshatriya origins.

A soldier, warrior is not a Kshatriya

There are 2 main reasons why this article is a mess: the fake definition of Kshatriya (kshatriya = warrior) and the fact that some wrongly consider that only those who are recongnised as Kshatriyas by Brahmins are proper Kshatriyas.Rajkris (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I could not see my data

I have added kshatriya communties, gotras, culture and tradtions, and organizations. why could I see that data after logging out?. I think the article Kshatriya is owned by some one else and no one is permitted to edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylaptops (talk • contribs)

What you have add has been removed because there is no proper refs. Discuss first & show proper refs. Then we can see.Rajkris (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rajkris here. You must use reliable sources; for more information, please see WP:RS. However, I don't recommend even trying to source a list of Kshatryia clans; such a list would certainly be incomplete, and absolutely lead to people edit warring clans on and off the list. No one source would be sufficient to verify such a list. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Real Kshatriyas

Kshatriyas are orthodox in following vedic (or brahminic) rituals like tonsuring, wearing sacred thread at Upanayana, naming ceremony, kanyadaan, mangalsutra etc. They have gotras with sapta rishi names just like those of Brahmins. Kshatriyas are called by different names in different states of India. Non-Orthodox kshatriyas are considered as degraded kshatriyas who does not believe in vedic rituals.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylaptops (talk • contribs)

As we mentioned above, you need reliable sources to add such information to the article. However, I am certain that it's much more complicated than you're explaining, and that your explanation does not cover all possible circumstances. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)