Talk:Bhāts

Regarding edits on Bhats article
Hello. Thank you for pointing out my mistake in removing the mention of other communities from Bhat article. I agree that the mention of other social groups is necessary for complete understanding. I think there is an issue with this line in the article under the 'Social Status' heading:

Here, 'sacred brothers or sons of their patrons' can goddesses' actually refers to the 'Deviputra'(sons of the goddess) title, which is given in the referenced book by Anastasia Piliavsky, and it can be verified with multiple sources that it was only Charans who considered themselves and were known as 'Deviputra'.

The book given as source: Nobody's People: Hierarchy as Hope in a Society of Thieves | Anastasia Piliavsky, is cited as reference 4 times in the article. Reading some sections of the book, it is clear that the author has mistaken the Bhat and Charan as one, on multiple occasions. For example, Chapter-2: Lords of Begun, page 49:

In the above example, it is clear that the author has confusion regarding the distinction between the Charan & Bhat communities and their traditional role. In Indian society, Genealogists are Bhats. The 'register of births, marriages, deaths, and property purchases made' are all functions of Bhats who serve all Hindu castes as well as a few Muslim castes. Whereas, the Charans, among their diverse occupations, were also poets. And as a subsection through poetry when their subjects were Rajput kings, they can be considered as Eulogists.

So, I wish to explain that there can be inaccuracies in this article and if not all mentions completely, at least the first-mentioned line about "sons of goddess" should be removed. I am listing a few sources and quoting the lines which should establish the relationship b/w 'Deviputra' i.e. 'sons of goddess' term and the Charans, which is unique and exclusive.


 * 1) Sources:

1. [Folk Art and Culture of Gujarat Guide to the Collection of the Shreyas Folk Museum of Gujarat By Jyotindra Jain, Shreyas Folk Museum of Gujarat · 1980] (PAGE 84)

2. [Women of India Colonial and Post-colonial Periods 2005] (PAGE 531)

3. [Power, Profit, and Poetry Traditional Society in Kathiawar, Western India By Harald Tambs-Lyche · 1997] (PAGE 271)

4. [Asian Folklore Studies 2000] (PAGE 42)

5. [Transaction and Hierarchy: Elements for a Theory of Caste Harald Tambs-Lyche · 2017] (PAGE 131)

6. [Ashes of Immortality Widow-Burning in India By Catherine Weinberger-Thomas · 1999] (PAGE157)

7. [German Scholars on India: Contributions to Indian Studies Friedrich Max Müller · 1973] (PAGE 389) Krayon95 (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Deviputra
Hello,. Anastasia Piliavsky is a scholar and please do not have the impression that she is confusing social groups. Scholars like her who get to publish their work in publications like the Stanford University Press does not confuse social groups.

Please note that none of the sources provided above by you says, anywhere, that the Bhats (elite/royal Bhats) were not regarded as Deviputras. None of the sources provided by you says that Piliavsky, in 2020, was confused between the Bhats and Charans. Piliavsky never said that the Charans were not regarded as Deviputras. Piliavsky said that the elite and royal Bhats (not low-status Bhats) and the royal Charans were regarded as Deviputras.



Also, we must remember that we must not violate WP:SYN. Piliavsky is actually only saying something more, however, it is not coming directly from her as she has attributed that to Shah and Shroff (this way, she is also attesting their work). Providing quotes below from the article of Shah and Shroff:



Their article was published in a scholarly publication after 1947, and is therefore, acceptable as a source on Wikipedia. I mean to say that if a modern scholar cites that article (attests that article and its content), then it further adds to the degree of reliability of that article and that article can be cited on Wikipedia. Any text attributed to that article in the book can be cited on Wikipedia.

While noting that Piliavsky's book is published by the Stanford University Press in 2020, please understand that research and knowledge improves with time and we should prefer the views of modern scholars as much as possible.

I am providing below one more scholarly source which is published by the Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology of the Banaras Hindu University which says that the Bhats were regarded as Deviputras.



Now we know that Anastasia Piliavsky, A. M. Shah, and R. G. Shroff are not the only scholars to have said that the Bhats were regarded as Deviputras. However, I think that keeping the text while attributing it to them might actually be a more encyclopaedic act in this situation. Something like Anastasia Piliavsky agrees with A. M. Shah and R. G. Shroff that..., Anastasia Piliavsky quotes A. M. Shah and R. G. Shroff..., According to A. M. Shah and R. G. Shroff, etc.? I suggest that we make this change. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC) [Nothing deleted, made no change to already written text but only inserted the quote under discussion from Piliavsky's book] Мастер Шторм (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Genealogist








Below mentioned is a scholarly source saying that the Charans had worked as traditional bards and genealogists in a region in Rajasthan:



For the sake of clarity and the avoidance of doubt, a few of the many scholarly sources saying that people from the Charan social group did work as genealogists are provided above. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Multiple occupations & professions




I have provided this one more source only for the sake of clarity and the avoidance of doubt. Just to show that not each and every Charan in history had been either a poet & eulogist or a genealogist. I guess we can agree that all the individuals from any social group, in any country, could never have been in exactly the same occupation. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC) [Expanded] Мастер Шторм (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding mention of Charans in this article
Hello, Authors can make mistakes. But as I read WP:SYN, we cannot make conclusions or judge them from the text. I understand that you are not local or related to the region and I also understand that it shouldn't stop anyone from making meaningful contributions to the wiki, given reliable sources.



According to the above-given source that was quoted in your reply, Deviputras are those who worship Devi(goddess)! So why aren't Rajputs, Devipujak community, and the massive population of India including the Bengalis who primarily worship Devi, aren't called Deviputras? As I said authors can make mistakes. The simple reason why Charans are Deviputra can be found out from the fact that Karni Mata, Khodiyar, Bahuchara, Tanot Mata, and many other regional goddesses worshipped in the western Indian region including Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Sindh were born in the Charan community. That is the only reason.

According to the book: Big Words, Little People Cash and Ken in Modern Rajasthan By Jeffrey Gore Snodgrass · 1997
 * 1) Controversies

In the above lines you can see that there can be problems as even though there's no relation, a sub-group of Bhats took on the name of 'Charan', a case of appropriation. So, I want to point out that the subject is controversial. As you can see in my previous reply, I quoted 7 sources that indicate the exclusive usage of the Deviputra term for Charans. I can also list other sources which can negate the text of the Bhats article. It would be unnecessary. I simply suggest that we should revert to my previous edit. Mention of 'Charan' term would be left out. And if you find it very important despite the slight controversial nature, 'sons of the goddess' term for bhats may be kept in place. I think this would be better solution. Thanks. Krayon95 (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, . I will begin again by requesting you to not have the impression that any scholar is confusing between any social groups. We know that scholars are free to challenge the findings and views of another scholar, and this is not something that happens very rarely. The general practice is that, if one wants, to challenge the findings and views of a scholar who has been cited in an article, one would need to provide comments from other scholars who have challenged the works of that scholar. If such challenging views are available, than in those situations, the scholar being challenged may be un-cited from the article or the views of other scholars regarding her/his findings (the specific points) may be added to the article for WP:NPOV. It depends on several factors which approach would be taken.


 * Of course, there is not a shred of doubt that the Charans were regarded as Deviputras, because the scholars say so, and we read and edit from the works of scholars. Why other people who worshipped the goddesses were not ragrded as Deviputras? I don't have the answer to that question because I have not come through any explanation by a scholar regarding that. If I try to answer it by myself, that would be my POV. So, I won't do that.


 * As long as it does not fails WP:SYN, only necessary and limited mention of other social groups (only as required and only per sources) in articles on social groups is general encyclopedic practice. No encyclopedia article on social groups can be developed without some mention of other social groups. And as you do understand and agree to this, please let us not even consider removing the mentions of other social groups from the article.


 * Please note that no mention of any social group is unnecessarily dragged into this article. Only a necessary and very limited mention of other social groups is there and that too when the scholars have themselves deemed it necessary to mention other social groups with the Bhats (in the sentences they wrote) to state something in their articles and books. We get to have no say in this. We can only edit from what they have stated in their articles and books.


 * As far as this sentence under discussion from the article is concerned — The Bhats and Charans serving the royals were regarded as "the sacred brothers or sons of their patrons' clan goddesses" and were seen as "sacrosanct and inviolable". — I have removed it from the article for now, and I won't make a request to keep it/add it back even with the attributions until we or other editors agree with that. No one WP:OWN any page here, and there is no WP:DEADLINE.


 * Fully answering your above comments will require a lengthy response from my side which will have replies and counter replies. I am too busy in real life to go for a lengthy discussion, and don't want to closely follow up either, as that would consume the time which I really don't have. No chance for months or perhaps even more than that. So, can we close this discussion for now. If this is discussed again in distant future by other editors, we will be pinged, and we can state our views. I don't think that I am opening a discussion on this for a very long time, however if I do, I would ping you. Now my dear, can I take a Wikibreak, please? Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC) [Nothing deleted, made no change to already written text but only added some text] Мастер Шторм (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I would like to have things on the brighter side. So, I will says a few more words about these below comments of yours:

, firstly, I am mentioning below your own comments where you had shown good understanding of how better encyclopedia article can be written, for which I am thankful:

You have yourself recognized this fact. I hope that when you reached this right conclusion, my comments in this edit summary might have also helped you in reaching that understanding. After that also, I hope that I was able to further add something to your understanding by my comments in this and specially in the sections above. So, please don't go back to the old day 1 situation. Please!

Social sciences are indeed full of contentious, controversial, debatable topics, specially when about social groups of Asia. However, that shouldn't stop us from studying and exploring them. In fact, this is what makes it all so worthy of our time. Being a part of the evolving encyclopedia is so good. As long as we are carefully reading and properly rephrasing the words of scholars, there is nothing wrong in editing controversial topics, we just have to stick to our sources. In a situation when we have multiples scholarly sources expressing varying opinions, we can simply mention those varying opinions in the articles. Absolutely nothing wrong in that. In fact, that is the right way to edit an encyclopedia.

As far as this part below is concerned:

Please re-read my comments in this and specially in the sections above. Also, see this edit and edit summary. You provided sources which say Charans were regarded as Deviputras and requested removal of this sentence. My replies showed that although Charans were recognized as Deviputras (no doubt), other opinions exist that say that Charans and Bhats both were regarded as Deviputras. The sources provided by you were not contradicted as those sources never said that only and only Charans were regarded as Deviputras. Please note that one additional source that I provided was published by the Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology of Banaras Hindu University. Even a famous Indian university publication also said so. That means something, right!

I still believe that that information can be added in the article with attributions but what I did was removed it myself (in goodwill) because of the good faith discussion and to try to make sure that the discussion is continued in good faith and kept on the right track. However, I am never requesting that that sentence be kept/added back in the article as long as other editors also think that it can stay. I repeat, no one WP:OWN any page on Wikipedia. Please also refer to the previous comments above. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Joanne Punzo Waghorne
Joanne Punzo Waghorne can be cited with attribution in the WP articles.

Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)