Talk:Khatri/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

A mess

This article appears to have become a glorifying mess of poor sourcing, synthesis and so on. Is there a better earlier version which we could restore? Sitush (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow, you're right. I'll find one. Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

What about [1] Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is the mess on here? Sitush (talk) Everything was sourced and added as such. There could have been a discussion on the talk page before half of the article was removed. Abh9850 (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Many of the issues have now been resolved & I left edit summaries by way of explanation. If you want me to explain any of those specifically then it would be easiest if you asked & provided a WP:DIFF - the problems were numerous and of many different varieties. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, sure. Thanks. I would want to ask why is KP Jayaswal considered an unreliable source? Sitush (talk) His seminal works such as Hindu Polity: Constitutional History of India provide one of the most complete understandings of early Indian history and are cited as such in most modern journals & academic sources today. What relation does he have to do with the British Raj in particular?

Are you simply putting an arbitrary deadline of 1947 for a source to be considered valid? Looking for clarification on this issue. Abh9850 (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

It isn't me who is applying some sort of line in the sand. There has long been consensus that we avoid sources from the Raj era etc. There are lots of reasons, including their frequent misunderstanding of caste matters, their statements of folklore as fact, and more generally because academia has moved a long way in the intervening 80 or so years. WP:HISTRS might give you some background to this. - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

As Sitush has correctly noted in edit summaries, we should not be using Raj-era sources. What about these sources from the paragraph Abh9850 had added beginning "According to Scott Cameron Levi":

• Scott Levis, 2016 Caravans: Punjabi Khatri Merchants on the Silk Road
• David Lorenzen 1995 Bhakti Religion in North India: Community Identity and Political Action
• Dhooleka Sarhadi Raj, 2003 Where Are You From? Middle-Class Migrants in the Modern World, 2003, p. 222

I'm not an authority in this area, but noticed that those may have inadvertently been thrown out with the Raj-era bathwater. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I will check that out. Thanks. Sitush (talk). So are post-1947 academic sources that cite the Raj era sources considered valid then? For example, maybe a book from 2005 that relies on data from a 1930 source. What is the policy on that? Abh9850 (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

A modern academic is assumed to have the expertise to ascertain the reliability of an older source for any given point. That's the easy bit but the issue we frequently see is someone citing the recent source but ignoring (more usually, not even noticing or reading) the qualification that the modern writer states for that older work. Very often, those qualifying statements are pages, even chapters, away from the bit that it is desired to use.

The Levi source etc is reliable but there was a valid reason for my removal prior to today. I will try to explain but am on mobile, which is a pain. Give me a bit of time. - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

An example of a post-1947 source that is never acceptable is the "states" series of The People of India. That is quite an extreme approach but it is because the writers mostly just copied the Raj authors. - Sitush (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The Levi mention which I reverted in the last few minutes was an overcite. If you'd prefer to use it in place of the Punjab source then that's fine. The Lorenzen 1995 and the stuff from 2003 that I apparently removed are going to be difficult for me to find on mobile without diffs, sorry. I am not often wrong about this sort of thing in this specific area but am happy to look again if anyone can find the diff. - Sitush (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: sorry, I think you and I have become confused in some way. The 3 modern sources are still cited for the paragraph beginning "According to Scott Cameron Levi", albeit I tagged one of them. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies for the confusion, I see that I misread the diff as to what was removed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed clarifications. Sitush (talk). In regards with this, I have updated the page with some recent post-1947 sources in the early history tab. Hoprfully, that should not be a issue as they are not Raj era. Regards, Abh9850 (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I still have my doubts but will wait to see if anyone else pipes up. These putative ancient Greek caste connections have always been shown to be wrong, in my experience - the ancient writers had no understanding of caste & what they said is often ambiguous and anachronistic. But caste members love them because of the aura of respectability/status they impart. It's speculative bordering on pseudo-history as far as I am concerned, and I have a feeling I've seen it said before that Puri, like Sarkar, is still revered in India but dismissed by his peers elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Greek origin seems like a fringe theory published by a non-academic publication. Also, they are not white by any stretch of imagination. I know that genetics is not allowed on wikipedia so I will not go into sources I read - but some genetics papers mention they are closer to Bania and could have some middle eastern mix. Also, even a look Bijay_Chand_Mahtab (a Khatri ruler) - does not look European. But if other editors want to keep this, I do not have any objection. I am of the opinion that a source, once found reliable (which Puri is, although not sure about the publication), can/should be used without cherrypicking. If it is a fringe opinion, we can use "according to Puri". Will wait for other opinions. They were described as "fair and handsome" by some anthropologists to be fair(pun intended).

Their basic profession of weaving, scribal, merchants shopkeepers etc. has been wiped out due to removal of academic sources. Now we have a caste of rulers and highly educated administrators and warriors. There is no doubt they were one of the literate communities. Please see previous section for references and I plan to add more so it will be easy to show admins the amount of caste promotion prevalent on this page. There is no reason nor any intent to disparage anyone but wikipedia certainly should not be used for caste promotion. We have to reflect the sources and show all view points. The version pointed by Chariotrider555 above clearly summed up their occupations in the lede Historically, Khatris were merchants, traders, bankers, scribes, accountants, civil administrators, silk weavers, and shopkeepers. This line has been removed. I think the version pointed to be Chariotrider is much better and as I checked the history it seems another editor also was concerned about puffery on this page. See this by Shurpanakha. Note that Khatris had migrated all over India and were present in large numbers in Surat even in the late 1700s. And please read ["The Political Economy of Textiles in Western India: Weavers,Merchants and the transition to a Colonial Economy." https://brill.com/view/book/9789047429975/BP000011.xml] by Lakshmi Subramanian that mentioned Khatri 28 times. This article is currently POV as a lot of academic sources were blanked out. Even singh is misrepresented in the only statement mentioning weaving. The quote in the book is The traditional and present - day occupation of the Khatri is silk and cotton weaving , colouring , dyeing of threads and making jari and garlands . Some of them are engaged in other occupations like business and government jobs but the statement in the article implies that they started with silk weaving in 1998! I will keep adding more sources with quotes to the previous section of the talk page. I got my hand on a few more sources - mostly books- today. Also, Sitush , OhNoitsJamie, please see this [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abh9850&diff=prev&oldid=1037886961 message]. So according to the editor, It is understandable that many people get angry and irritated when they read glorious things about kshatriya castes that they do not belong to. Some people are not happy to read positive things about khatris and are therefore constantly trying to misrepresent the khatris as clothiers and silk weavers. , if anything. So I assume all the western academic scholars given in the previous sections are angry and unhappy and hence have called them weavers? Please note that there is absolutely no intent to offend anyone - the only intent is to use WP:RS sources and put them on the article. If I find a WP:RS that says they are the most awesome community, I have no problem adding it. ALso look at this example of caste promotion here by the same editor. IMO, Khatris are certainly a good and progressive community and have produced many notables and have contributed lot to the Indian culture. They are also very cultured based on what I have read so far from 2 books(the Silk trade and the one on the Sikhs). The Khatri sikhs were very brave. But that does not mean we rewrite history for most of the community members that were an ordinary nobodies like me. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

A lot of these claims to Greek origin (generally, not specifically for Khatris) arose from the writings of people who peddled the discredited theories that tried to demean/demote the experience of indigenous people & claim a glorious Aryan etc origin for what became higher castes. Is that what is going on here? Nationalist historians, in particular, got a bee in their bonnet about this & Puri is certainly of that generation - he carved himself an academic niche writing about Greek/India connections. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Sitush, Yes, that is what is going on in his book. He refers to Khatris as original Aryans, "handsome and fair", and related to Iranians, etc. The entire book seems to be written for the intent of glorifying - no wonder they had to publish it with some "M.N.Publishers and Distributers, Greater Kailash, New Delhi" instead of some academic press. Perhaps I did not search properly but did not find too many sources that cite this book. I think we should give more importance to academic publications for such sensitive topics. Is this publication reliable? LukeEmily (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Might be worth asking at WP:RSN but it is a bit esoteric. Pinging @RegentsPark, Doug Weller, Fowler&fowler, and Utcursch:. Happy to see any other people with experience of India stuff join in here or even for this to be asked at WT:INB. - Sitush (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the entire para should be deleted. One source is WP:PRIMARY and the connection ascribed to Puri appears dubious from what little I can see on google books. --RegentsPark (comment) 11:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not a Greek origin at all, you seem to have misunderstood the source perhaps. Sitush (talk) - It is a record of Greek historians of an Indian tribe living in Punjab. The primary source is cited by Puri in his book, which I have also linked. (Arrian's Anabasis). The historians do not say the tribe is Greek, neither does Puri claim that. As for reliability -- the historian KP Jayaswal in his Hindu Polity & Constitution made the same claim, but due to the Wiki rules on caste sources his book is not considered a valid source. So I do not see any bias or any claims of "Aryan origin" here. Just a historical documentation by Macedonian writers. Abh9850 (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

This is not true. LukeEmily (talk) Brij Nath Puri's book was cited by multiple academic presses, including Routledge here in IBSS: Anthropology: 1988 Vol 34 by Christopher J Hunt. Here is the citation link in the Bibilography. (https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Ibss_Anthropology_1988/bmxZicQtIooC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=the+khatris+a+sociocultural+study&pg=PA67&printsec=frontcover). Moreover, Puri's book was literally cited by another source being deemed valid on this page (KS Singh: People of India: India's communities). Hence, it would certainly meet your criteria of reliable presses citing it.

Abh9850 (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was a question. The article has been confusing & I cannot read the source. But my general point stands &, in addition, we don't usually give much weight to ancient sources recounting their travels in India etc: like the Brits, who are still slavishly cited by some modern Indian historians, we know that the Greeks relied a lot on anecdote & had no valid approach to ethnology/anthropology etc. Again as with the British Raj authors, they seem to be trotted out by certain Indian writers who seek to promote a glorious past etc. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Ancient Indian historiography is notoriously poor & undocumented, as I'm sure you are aware - It is why Ancient Greek & Chinese sources are used copiously in all matters of Indian history (on wikipedia as well), which would include probable tribal documentation. In fact, the very date of Indian chronology is fixed by knowing when Alexander's Invasion of Punjab happened corroborated with the Buddha's death. BN Puri is a reputed historian and this specific work was cited in most anthropological/sociological books by reputed publishing houses such as Routledge that discuss India, Punjab & the Khatri caste as I mentioned above. Sitush (talk) I don't see major reason to question the academic nature of his work henceforth. Abh9850 (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I haven't questioned whether Puri was an academic. I don't know in what context he has been cited, though, and if his is not a fringe viewpoint I would expect quite a few citations directly relating to his opinion. The Khatris do appear to be a fairly well-documented, even if not as well as, say, the Nairs. - Sitush (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed that I was pinged by @Sitush: about the quality and reliability of this article. Well, I have quickly skimmed it. It is in a terrible state, full of the usual wild speculation that is a feature of many gray-zone communities or caste groups in India. By this, I mean that they very likely belonged to the vast conglomeration of non-elite jatis who in the 20th-century, especially in the post-1947 period, have been obsessed with claiming Kshatriya status for themselves. As for Puri, I haven't heard of him, but I can rummage. Back soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I found this in Susan Bayly's Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age, Cambridge, 1998, pp. 328–329.

Examples of continuing fascination with the Kshatriya ideal abound, as can be seen in the many post-Independence publications which exalt the doings of individual named jatis. The production of these ‘community’ histories has been as active an industry in the late twentieth century as it was in the pre-Independence period. As recently as 1988, a polemicist representing himself as an Oxford-trained Indian ‘socio-historian’ published an account of the supposed origins and heritage of north India’s Khatris. Today, as in the past, those who call themselves Khatri favour the livelihoods of the pen and the ledger. In the colonial period, however, Khatri caste associations extolled the heritage of their ‘community’ as one of prowess and noble service (seva), claiming that their dharmic essence was that of the arms-bearing Kshatriya and therefore quite unlike that of the commercial Agarwals and other pacific Vaishyas. These same themes were recapitulated by the author of the 1988 text: the Khatris, ‘one of the most acute, energetic, and remarkable race [sic] in India’, are heirs to a glorious martial past, ‘pure descendants of the old Vedic Kshatriyas’. The writer even tries to exalt Khatris above Rajputs, whose blood he considers ‘impure’, being supposedly mixed with that of ‘inferior’ Kols or ‘aborigines’: in his view only Khatris are ‘true representativesof the Aryan nobility’.<39>
Footnote: 39 Puri 1988: 3, 78, 163, 166. The writer appeals to the Khatri ‘race’ to ‘wake up’ and cherish their heritage as ‘followers of the Hindu Dharma Sastras’ (5). Above all they should guard against ‘hybridising’, i.e. marrying non-Khatris (166). These views closely resemble those of pre-Independence race theorists (see Chapters 3-4). Compare Seth 1904.

Sitush, I think you should run your red pen through the article and reduce it to no more than a tenth of its current size. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Fowler&fowler. Given the quote above, Sitush's comments, non-academic/relatively unknown publication, as well as a racial and fringe theories given in the book, it might be worth asking WP:RSN about the reliability of that book. Of note, found a citation that says Puri was a Khatri himself (but ideally that should not matter). There are also other issues on this page a)Some notables have disputed castes - Todar mal b)Saraswat Brahmin association is considered "symbiotic" by a couple of scholars to achieve Sanskritization by the Khatris c) Some text is literally WP:FAKE and WP:SYNTH. Not supported by sources. Sitush is currently not editing for a few days, as he is unwell but I will at least try to make a list of problematic issues and verify the sources.LukeEmily (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

@Sitush: and @Kautilya3:: There is has been repeated vandalism on this page, especially in introduction paragraph. Bizarre claims about Afghan Hindus in introduction as well. Please take note. 117.198.114.218 (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I did not check who added it but it is sourced. I did not check the given source but this 19th century quote from a modern source says that the Khatris were present in Afghanistan [[2]] LukeEmily (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2021

Source-checked correction to typo in Reference list. "The culture and politics of Persian in pre-colonial Hindusim" to "The culture and politics of Persian in pre-colonial Hindustan"

Thanks! Neconnaitpoint (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. Nice catch! Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2021

202.43.120.157 (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I want to add 24 Khatri kings

Raja Bhagrat Khatri Anangbhim Ranbhim Gajbhim Deodaet jag Singh Barmah Singh Mohandat Benod Singh Silar Sen Sattarjit Bhupati Sadhrak Jaydhrak Udai Singh Bisu Singh Birmath Rukhdeva Rukhbind Jagjiwan Kaludand Kamdeva Bijai Karn Sat Singh

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Caste

Khatri is a prakrit form of sanskrit word kshatriya and kshatriya is know as Khatri in apbrahmsa language. 27.63.21.210 (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

too much whitewashing

This page is becoming a mess. Too much POV. Need to present a balanced view. Lamperdamper, please can you not removed any sourced words or sentences? We need to fine comb this page.LukeEmily (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2022

Add Khanuja in Section Of Arora 103.81.182.147 (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

To remove the references related to Gujarati Khatris and silk weavers

@RuudVanClerk:

According to all scholarly sources, the Khatri community primarily engaged in commercial professions (traders, merchants, bankers and accountants) during medieval times. However the lead mentions silk weavers as among the primary profession of Khatris which is inaccurate.

0 scholarly sources links the Punjabi Khatris with the Gujarati ones. The only commonality between the two is their name which is merely a coincidence.

Differences between Punjabi Khatris and Gujarati Khatris

Punjabi Khatris	Gujarati Khatris
They claim Kshatriya status.	They claim Brahmakshatriya status
Overwhelming majority participated in trading	Overwhelming majority participated in silk weaving
Their Gujarati equivalent are Lohanas.	They dont have a Punjabi equivalent. But there is a caste of weavers known as Julaha in Punjab and other parts of North India.

Most importantly, both the Punjabi Khatri and Gujrati Khatri are not connected through any caste organization. They do not inter marry nor they have any legends about being the same. Like how Rajputs of Rajasthan are connected through Rajputs of Bihar on basis of common origins, professions, culture, surnames there is absolutely no source that mentions the connection between the Khatris of Punjab and Gujarat.

As pointed out in Schaflechner's book Lohanas are the Gujarati version of Khatris. Both were aligned to Sikhism. Both have similar surnames. . They are even genetically similar.

On origins of Gujrati Khatris (Brahmakshatriyas), one source clearly mentions their origin as Champaner in Bihar or in Sindh. Both these regions are not connected with the vast majority of Khatris.

On basis of the above points, this particular article should remove the Gujarati Khatri (silk weaver) part and form a different article of them due to non-availability of scholarly sources connecting the two distinct groups. Thank you. Toxicity66 (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. The article is already divided into sections pertaining to each group.LukeEmily (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

If the Khatris of Gujarat are silk weavers then this needs to be mentioned. The article is not just about the Khatris of Punjab. We would need a reliable source detailing that the Khatris of Punjab and the Khatris of Gujarat are entirely separate groups. Otherwise, I would recommend making an article exclusively for the Khatris of Punjab and Gujarat. RuudVanClerk (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd recommend that we keep info on various regional Khatri communities here only, with proper mention per WP:CFORK. This is not an article on specific regional caste. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Also to add, the table you posted above would constitute original research and should be avoided. RuudVanClerk (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

One, if there are no reliable sources pointing the common origin of the 2 communities. It is merely a coincidence of sharing the same name. With this logic even Nepali Khatris are the same as Punjabi Khatris but this article straight up refuses their connection. Isn't it original research to include silk weaving Khatris while not including Nepali Khatris?

Two, I have pointed above some logical reasons for the 2 communities to be completely distinct. If they were the same community why do they claim different Varna origins? One thing which y'all should understand is that Khatri is not a pan-South Asia caste like Rajput, Gujjar, Brahmin or Jat. It is associated with 1 region (Punjab and KPK) like Nairs or Khandayats. If Gujarati Khatris were really the same as the Punjabi ones, there would be some scholarly source connecting them with Punjab. There is none. On the contrary, the source connects them with Bihar (mentioned above). Gujarati Khatris have completely different surnames, different Hindu sect (Shaktism), different culture etc.

Three, It is not an original research RuudVanClerk, I have provided the sources for each non-obvious statement. It is clear the edit is made with a bias. Right now I am mentioning in the lead.

Four, even if we ASSUME Gujarati Khatris and Punjabi Khatris are one, the Gujarati Khatri population in Bombay Presidency (modern day Gujarat + Maharashtra) is only 9700. While the population of Punjabi Khatris is around a million. Do you think such a small minority be considered important for the lead?

Toxicity66 (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

There are reliable sources actually. This particular paper details the migration of Khatris from Punjab to Gujarat:

Ashok Malik, Caste Census, 2010, India International Centre Quarterly

Vol. 37, No. 1.

It is already referenced in the article and available of JSTOR. The rest of your reply is mostly original research and has no relevance. The sources are unanimous that Khatris were historically shopkeepers and silk weavers. End of story. RuudVanClerk (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Ashok Malik is a politician, he doesnt have any background or high degree in the field of history or sociology. Hence, it is an unreliable source. Plus, Ashok Malik also points that many people that call themselves Khatris are not Khatris but are Telis who are attempting Sanskritization. "Khatris were historically shopkeepers and silk weavers." -this proves you are biased. Multiple scholars agree with the Khatri-Kshatriya relation (though it is not relevant in this discussion). The main point is that it is unfair to include the silk-weaving references (atleast in the lead as of now) without having any reliable sources. Toxicity66 (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

If you do not believe it is a reliable source, then you will have to take it to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where consensus would need to be gained. The consensus at this point though is that academic papers are reliable for the most part. The paper details that some Teli shopkeepers who lived I. close proximity to the Khatris of Gujarat started calling themselves Khatri so it already details an “original” Khatri community in Gujarat. Refrain from ad hominems like calling me biased or you will be reported. RuudVanClerk (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Just checked and Ashok Malik is not a politician but a policy advisor in the Indian government. Prior to joining the government, he was a distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation. Big difference from how you portrayed it so why are you misrepresenting the author? RuudVanClerk (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

References

The occupational switch at the time of Akbar

I've done a routine fact-check of one of the claims in the text, and it doesn't seem to match the source cited. The relevant passage was first added as Khatris claim to have stopped serving as soldiers and started trading during the reign of Akbar (1556-1605).[ref] on 12 Feb by Lamperdamper and was reworded and elaborated in edits [3] [4] [5] by RuudVanClerk to its present form:

In the British-era, the Khatri community started to claim that they were originally soldiers who took up trading and artisanal professions during the reign of Akbar (1556-1605) however many British-era administrators doubted that this was true.

References

Could someone provide the exact location in the text? The google books link is for p. 154, where there's some discussion of the diversity of occupations among the Khatris and a mention of the refusal of the British to count them among their "martial races", but nothing to support the claims made in our article. In fact, there's a statement that's at odds with them (it says that the Khatris were acknowledged as Kshatriyas but were arbitrarily lumped together with the "trading casts" in the British census reports. I've checked four pages in each direction from there, but there wasn't anything related. I've also had a look at all pages mentioning "Akbar". There's an account on pp. 58ff. of a story told to the British about how the different lineages of the Khatris owe their existence to events precipitated by Akbar, but that's a completely different thing and the author reads it as a political allegory rather than an origin story. There are also two notes on p. 233: one of Ibbetson's doubts over the claim made by the Khatris that they descendants of the khastriyas of Manu, and another about Akbar recruiting elite officers also from among the Khatris.

From what I've seen in the source, I can't find anything remotely resembling the claims it's used to support. Am I missing anything here? – Uanfala (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Uanfala, that is only a Khatri legend that is proven to be untrue (please see sections like Benares etc.). You can read about in it in McLane. Even McLane does not agree with it. Also, you can see the "Trans-regional trading history" section on the page that they carried trade from at least 1300s'LukeEmily (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. If it's just another one of those legends, then we should simply remove it from the lede. If it's worth mentioning at all, then it could be added (with a new source that supports it) somewhere in the article sections, right? – Uanfala (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2022

Sir/Madam actually in house of 4 there are also 'Kapila' surname along with Kakar or Seth 2409:4056:EBD:A84C:88EA:F9DA:49A0:1EED (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

SORATHIYA KHATRI

Please add gujrati khatri basically sorathiya khatri surnames and their professional or mercentail activities. 106.66.59.114 (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Khatri and Slavs

Khatri and Slavs have high proportion of R1a1a. Genetics don't lie. These groups are closely related to each other. 77.9.5.240 (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Agrizhan

the agrizhan page is full of mistakes and misspelled. This is the real story please read:

Unfortunately, the article is full of errors, The Agryzhan spelled out Agrizhan Tatar or Agryjan (Indian form), were the Muslim descendants of 51 Indian Hindu Punjabi Khatri Merchants and one Muslim trader from North India mostly from Khatri caste , primarily from the Punjab, but also Sindh and Rajasthan from the Marwari tribe, who settled in Astrakhan in 1649 (the Indian yard), and called Astrakhan Indians and married local Muslim Tatar women. Indians settled in 1638, in 1647, 1649 and 1650. The Agrizhan eventually assimilated with the Astrakhan Tatars and later with some russians too. They speak Tatar language and russian language as first languages, but they know about there Indian Heritage and are proud about.

• https://books.google.de/books?id=GqEWw_54uVUC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=agrizhan&source=bl&ots=WvYnloTX28&sig=ACfU3U2KRwDDTsO7OR483ouG1TqCYzzupg&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8zsKkxfn9AhUF2aQKHXDYDmQQ6AF6BAgXEAM
• https://theprint.in/opinion/security-code/forgotten-story-of-great-hindu-merchants-in-central-asia-shows-enterprise-can-defeat-china/1132477/
• https://brill.com/display/book/9789047401209/B9789047401209_s009.xml
• https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001946469303000106?journalCode=iera
• https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2014/09/12/early_traces_of_indian_life_in_russia_38261
• http://www.punjabmonitor.com/2013/04/punjabi-colony-in-astrakhan-russia.html

Tatarsko (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of alternate identification of Kathaíoi tribe

Recently User:Codegeass123 has been removing content that provides an alternate identification that the Kathaíoi tribe mentioned in Greek sources were Kaṭha Brahmins. It is claimed that the content is "irrelevant and misleading". I disagree that it is irrelevant, as it provides an important alternate view that the Kathaíoi tribe was not the ancestor of modern Khatris but rather an alternate social group. It is also not misleading, as

"Note also the fierce Kathaíoi "tribe" (i.e. Kaṭha Brahmins) who live in the same area as the Salva (and Mahāvṛṣa) at the time of Alexander . . . Arrian, Anabasis 5.22. This "tribe" is reported to be one of the fiercest in north-west India. Alexander was almost killed in the siege of its major town, Sággala. Normally it is not in the nature of Brahmins to be in the forefront of battles, but obviously their name here stands for that of the tribe; cf. Patañjali, Mahābhāṣya 6.3.42:157.14 kaṭhadeśīya, kaṭhajātīya, (cf. also Kaṭhī vṛndārikā = Kaṭhavṛndārikā"the female chief", or "the wife of the chief of the Kaṭha" 6.3.42:157.13). All of this indicates that Kaṭha also is the name of a territory and "tribe/caste" (jāti). Cf. Wirth & v. Hinüber 1985: 929, cf. p. 1096."

Chariotrider555 (talk) Chariotrider555 (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chariotrider555 and Codegeass123: I'd say it is very much relevant to put the alternative theory. I don't see a reason to remove it, especially since it is coming from a reputable source Michael Witzel. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Witzel here is speaking of the Kathaíoi here not Khatris. The Khaṭas were brahminical preists, on the contrary, the Khatris are warrior/pastorial tribe. This part doesnt belong here. The two name sound similar hence have been merged by the author of this article. Infact the cited reference by Witzel itself never claims "Khatris" to have originally been Khaṭa brahmins. (Please refer to pg 140-141).

It is a misquotation. Codegeass123 (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Chariotrider555 and Codegeass123: The Greek described Kathaiois were equated to the "Khatri" by Baij Nath Puri and S. Sasikanta Sastri in there books, Witzel on otehr hand is simply providing an alternative theory that Kathaiois were infact "Katha Brahmins". So it is very relevant and WP:DUE, since we are providing difference opinions on Kathaiois. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Chariotrider555 I agree that there is no legitimate cause for them to remove the cited statement proposing an alt. theory of origin. I have reverted their edit. ThethPunjabi (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

PUNJABI KHATRI IS A WARRIOR CLAN IT S NOT TRADING COMMUNITY HOWEVER IT BEGAN ITS ROLE IN BUSINESS AFTER PARTITION

PUNJABI KHATRI IS A WARRIOR CLAN IT S NOT TRADING COMMUNITY HOWEVER IT BEGAN ITS ROLE IN BUSINESS AFTER PARTITION BadalChawla1550 (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2023

BadalChawla1550 (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

khatri is a warrior caste claimed ,,, its not trading community

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The warrior vs trader thing is already in the article, so please be more specific. Closhund/talk/ 17:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2023 (2)

BadalChawla1550 (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

KHATRI IS A WARRIOR CASTE ITS NOT TRADING OR SCRIBING CASTE

 Not done: Please do not open multiple requests for the same thing. Closhund/talk/ 17:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Why is Neutrality of this article disputed?

The Khatri is a prominent caste and community in India. Why should there be a debate. "The Neutrality" is disputed implied some one has raised a divergent point of view. This point of view is not to be seen any where in the talk page. (Themisislegal (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC))

Impossible to edit this article

I was going to make a grammatical correction to this article but that was impossible since it appears to be locked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation! 76.190.213.189 (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The article is protected because of prior disruption. You can request an edit that makes the grammatical correction using Template:Edit semi-protected. Or just point out the correction here and someone will take care of it. RegentsPark (comment) 17:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)