Talk:Khandayat (caste)

Cowherds are not khandayats

Please write full information
Peoples some time editing the page without prior knowledge. hence I request them not to write half information Nayak sp (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You have been told about this before. Please can you ensure that you understand the information at WP:V and, in particular, WP:RS before you add material to articles. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

that's the mistake I did .. Sure I'll add the Reference Nayak sp (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Khandayat are the marital caste not the cultivating caste. Change the definition Aparna Dalai (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

New source
is this source ok for info on khandayats https://books.google.com/books?id=H-IbAQAAMAAJ&q=khandayats&dq=khandayats&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3pNLC4IzPAhVi6oMKHRHoB1UQ6AEIKzAD

labeled "journal of orissan history" - this is where the previous author Prasant Pradhan had received his information from User:sadaryohan —Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, there has been a lot of rubbish coming from Odisha/Orissa history faculties etc, so I'm not sure how reliable this source may be. I am also only able to see small snippets of it. I will leave a note at the India project talk page to see if anyone is willing to comment here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

''' this may be the case, but it gives an accurate brief description of the community for introductory paragraph, as is it made by local historians who would have detailed briefs of each community presiding in Odisha. You can easily verify this by news reports in Odia shown in google.com search engine also. I not using it for historical purposes,(I have other citations for that) but rather to give the reader a brief on what the community is in Odisha. Let me know if I can use this source for only the introductory paragraph and feel free to let me know if I have made mistakes in the writing of that paragraph. I feel it is well written.' Italic text''


 * what about the source written by English Officers such as LEB Cobden Ramsay who toured Odisha in British Era and made live documentations in his journal Feudatory States of India https://books.google.com/books?id=Rbye1SEL1KAC&pg=PA42&dq=khandayats&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibnYT44YzPAhVH54MKHS1oAFc4ChDoAQgbMAA#v=onepage&q=khandayats&f=false


 * Also another citation is coauthroship by Biswamoy Pati and Waltraun Ernst who have published a book in 2007 detailing on caste issues and districts issue in Odisha and other princely states prior to Independence. Hopefully this should be credible as it is foreign authors, as you insist. https://books.google.com/books?id=9eKbW3ukh9oC&pg=PA87&dq=khandayat+biswamoy+pati&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilzNGDi43PAhUK0IMKHai1A1wQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=khandayat%20biswamoy%20pati&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadaryohan (talk • contribs) 17:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * We do not use sources from the British Raj era - far too many problems with them. There is no insistence on using "foreign authors" but we do need reliable ones. - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

==>Sure I will correct it and find credible authors but the second citation is from 2007 written by both foreign and Indian authors. Is that credible as it explains in a nuanced view of the feudalism historically among the princely states. If it is, could I use for my edit of history section of the page Sadar Yohan —Preceding undated comment added 17:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I should think it's an acceptable source. A government website archives it (although saying nothing about their standards), and plus, it seems pre-internet era, much before we had this deluge of fake and unreliable journals. MikeLynch (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. So is it possible to use the first citation for intro and third one for history. You can see what I wrote for this in the previous edits talk


 * Yes, thanks MikeLynch. It'd be great if one or two others comment over the next few hours. Your point about the pre-web thing is likely more useful than the government website (Odisha govt is notoriously useless regarding this sort of thing, as you may or may not be aware).


 * Sadaryohan, you keep mentioning this book by Pati & Ernst but I can't find it. The link you give is actually the same as for the Raj source. Is the book online? If not, it should have an ISBN number if it was published in 2007. - Sitush (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not, but I can well imagine. MikeLynch (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * , the books link has been updated. Also could you respond to my reply of your Journal of Orissan History comment.


 * Thanks for the update - that source is very much ok to use. I'd still rather wait a bit on the journal source: there's no rush and I am trying to recall the name of the person who seemed to know quite a bit about these relatively obscure journals. Can you please try to remember to sign your posts? One way to do it is to add ~ at the end of them; another is to click on the little squiggly pen thing at the top of the edit window (third button from the left on my screen). - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the updates. So for now, I will only edit on the History section using the web source by Ernst and Pati. For the introduction, until that source has not verified or another source for the intro I have not been been able to discern, i will not edit/add on the intro section. Sadaryohan (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I am no expert on these old journals, but from what I can see these appear to be conference proceedings of some kind. With obscure conferences in general, this would tend to lower the reliability of the source (because they do not get the detailed editorial oversight of a full-time journal, just that of the people putting it together). That said, I cannot go out on a limb and say that it is completely unreliable. Caste is not my area of expertise, though. Vanamonde (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * thanks for the response. however i am only using that source for an introductory paragraph for the page, not for historical accuracy. why i thought this would be helpful for this intro, is because it contains an overview of the community in the lens of Odia people who could accurately describe the various social enclaves, community, relations in Odisha. Maybe, this source would be useful for the intro.


 * Sadaryohan, when you say "overview of the community" and "introductory paragraph" do you mean the stuff written right at the top of an article? If so, that's the lead section and some special rules apply to how we handle it. Among them is that we do not usually put citations there because it is meant to be a summary of what the rest of the article says. In other words, you would have to use the journal thing in the "body" of the article before you could refer to it in the lead section. I'm still uneasy about using it at all - you seem to be finding other sources that seem to be reliable and so perhaps we do not even need to drift towards something that, at best, has raised a few doubts. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

--->, Also I am writing for another section for an detailed brief on the community today and their customs and the various class stratas, so is the three citations/sources credible for writing it
 * 1) Feeding, Sharing, and Devouring: Ritual and Society in Highland Odisha, India by Peter Berger (2015) / link is https://books.google.com/books?id=hvJeCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA158&dq=khandayat&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix5_SEjI_PAhVHWD4KHaQ0A68Q6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=khandayat&f=false - contains a detailed account on social relations, rituals, and customs practiced by people and their communities in Odisha.
 * 2) Six Acres and a Third: The Classic Nineteenth-century Novel about Colonial India by Fakir Mohan Senapati, Tr: Rabi Shankar Mishra, Dr. Satya Mohanty (Cornell University) / link is https://books.google.com/books?id=8NhN-0g7unYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=six+acres+and+a+third&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFl8WkjY_PAhWKGT4KHersCB4Q6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=six%20acres%20and%20a%20third&f=false -- this book is one of the classical accounts of the rituals, customs, feudalism, and political movements prevading  Odisha in Colonial India written by the greatest Odia writer Fakir Mohan Senapati (This is already Included in the Further Reading section of the page, just thought might use it for reference)
 * 3) Economic History of Orissa, 1866-1912 by KD Samal / link is https://books.google.com/books?id=NO4xIxxt0kYC&pg=PR7&dq=khandayat&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDjYitjo_PAhUFGj4KHdA-Chw4FBDoAQhGMAc#v=onepage&q=khandayat&f=false --- gives an detailed economic analysis of the people presiding in Odisha for over 100 years. The book is extensively cited and researched.

Sadaryohan (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Books published by de Gruyter are ok. Novels are not ok - we can't split the fact from the fiction. I woudl imagine the Samal book is ok. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks will do when creating the new section. and also is the introductory web source ok just for the intro or need new source? Sadaryohan (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I replied further up re: the journal thing - just below Vanamonde's comment. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. I will take note of it. What i meant by introductory paragraph, is not the lead section, but a brief detail about the community before covering the history and present day. But for now I have found another source that should be used for the introduction or in the body of the article. It is https://books.google.com/books?id=uJtnQN3KueEC&pg=PA48&dq=khandayat+history&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjtssaj2o_PAhWG4CYKHdmpBl0Q6AEILjAE#v=onepage&q=khandayat%20history&f=false - Situating Social History: Orissa, 1800-1997 by Biswamoy Pati Is this source credible as it discuss the conflicts of Indian history (particularly Odisha), and how Khandayats played a role in it. Sadaryohan (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I have added citation of a government website where it's clearly mentioned that Khandayats are belongs to Khsatriya community. I think that would be enough. Isn't it ?? Nayak sp (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Check out the link http://www.orissa.gov.in/people/religion.htm Nayak sp (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this citation will be enough to clear that Khandayats are belongs to Khsatriya community http://www.orissa.gov.in/people/religion.htm. Nayak sp (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Martial Races of undivided India
Dear editors I've added a small citation of a book with ISBN please review the edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daddy Sher (talk • contribs)


 * That book is not a reliable source. See Potentially unreliable sources/Books that plagiarize Wikipedia. utcursch &#124; talk 18:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

'History' section
Well done on sourcing that, nice. I've broken it up a bit (see edit summary), but hardly changed the text. However, that brings me to- for example- them being "at a complete loss"... I was at a complete loss understanding what that meant! Can we clarify some of the technical aspects, do you think? Also, that Telegraph link at the bottom- that seems like a relaible source, but isn't being used at the moment? Cheers,Muffled Pocketed  15:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. The concern that you had over the phrase "at a complete loss" is just to indicate the course of history. Because most of the zamindars of Odisha were from that community, and when feudalism was destroyed by independent Indian constitution, naturally people from that community (especially zamindars) would be at a loss financially and to some extent socially. However the next sentence goes on to say that, that despite the loss, they clinged onto the civil education passed by the state and became successful bureaucrats, officers, and educators among the various state institutions. also you are right, that telegraph link is not needed, should be removed, because it adds no value to the article. Sadaryohan (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources and pics
I recently saw your edits on the page. It was nice to know that you truncated what was unnecessary. I had few questions, why did you remove the warrior picture. This is a painting of a paik,  a special unit like the Janissaries of Ottoman Empire, which fought for their kingdom in Medieval times. All the paiks, not normal infantry, were only selected from the Khandayat community, and hence I placed it there. The paik is a military officer during those times who would lead the Paika Akhada(fighting ground) and the normal infantry (this is quoted in most references). Also another question is why to remove overview. If you do think it is tedious, it is better to place it in the introduction/lead section as it gives the reader a brief before engaging them with other sections such as history, present day. etc.(also the citations used in overview will be placed with the text). And I thank you for your removal of certain icons as it was unnecessary. I was better trying to emulate other ethnic group pages from India. that is why i put the icon there.Sadaryohan (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The Hinduism icon is just decoration. You are right that it appears in lots of articles - but it appears in less than it used to do and that process will continue! Regarding the image, if we have some decent sources that verify that only Khandayats were Paiks then there wouldn't be much of a problem - we would say that in the body of the article and the image would presumably be ok (I'm assuming that the description for the image is correct). However, although we do mention the martial art, there is nothing (yet) that verifies this point - it is a form of synthesis or original research.


 * Regarding truncating the unnecessary, it wasn't so much that it was unnecessary than that the sourcing was poor. The book is fine in itself but I tried to get my head round the chapter you were using and it seemed mostly to be analysing the fictional work with just a scattering of comparisons to how things really were. I couldn't actually find in that source some of the stuff we said. If I've missed something important then just mention it here and I'll take another look. - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * thanks for the reply. I will edit correspondingly. The warrior image can be easily also verified with the muliple sources I have presented in references, and also in the wikipedia pages "Paika Akhada" and "Paik Rebellion". Also the paika akhada martial art is sourced with the organization of martial arts sources. Sadaryohan (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * What we need is sources that unambiguously say all Paiks were Khandayats. Again, I am assuming that the image uploader's caption is correct in identifying the person as a Paik. The martial arts thing is not relevant. - Sitush (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * There are two sources which verifies that Paik officers were all Khandayats who led the Padatika (infantry militia). The Padatika (trans. Infantry) were selected for military service from lot of castes, however the officer leading them was an bestowed with the title of Paik(such as Paikaray, Samantaray) and was a Khandayat. The picture is painting which displays the Paik. The sources are as follows,


 * 1) The Sufis of Bijapur, Medieval India 1300 -1700 by Richard Maxwell Eaton/ source is https://books.google.com/books?id=j2F9BgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Sufis+of+Bijapur,+1300-1700:+Social+Roles+of+Sufis+in+Medieval+India&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOno_746DPAhVJbSYKHdkDDUMQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Sufis%20of%20Bijapur%2C%201300-1700%3A%20Social%20Roles%20of%20Sufis%20in%20Medieval%20India&f=false /This book talks about the historical relations in village of Bijapur in Odisha, and how Khandayats were trained and led army expeditions. This source can also be used for the introduction.


 * 2) Sacred Complex in Orissa, 2000 by N Patnaik / source is https://books.google.com/books?id=Fk0vAAAAYAAJ&q=Sacred+Complex+in+Orissa:+Study+of+Three+Major+Aspects+of+the+Sacred+Complex&dq=Sacred+Complex+in+Orissa:+Study+of+Three+Major+Aspects+of+the+Sacred+Complex&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjK5KLv5qDPAhWi2YMKHVIWCfgQ6AEIHjAA/ this sources talks however the social communities presiding in Orissa and their status so far. this can also be used for the introduction


 * regarding the overview section which you had removed, the two sources that I presented seemed ok. If you would search for "khandayat" or paik, you could get an overview on them.


 * https://books.google.com/books?id=uJtnQN3KueEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Situating+Social+History:+Orissa,+1800-1997&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitgsiH6KDPAhWF14MKHaWNCaIQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=Situating%20Social%20History%3A%20Orissa%2C%201800-1997&f=false


 * https://books.google.com/books?id=hvJeCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA555&dq=Feeding,+Sharing,+and+Devouring:+Ritual+and+Society+in+Highland+Odisha,+India&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidqM-e6KDPAhXmz4MKHQ96D0kQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=Feeding%2C%20Sharing%2C%20and%20Devouring%3A%20Ritual%20and%20Society%20in%20Highland%20Odisha%2C%20India&f=false

Sadaryohan (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

did you check the sites?? Sadaryohan (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm really thankful to them who are writing & editing Wikipedia. I have no doubt on there ability & knowledge, But this doesn't mean that the particular person knows everything in the world. With humble submission I request those people to not to spoil the genuineness of the articles for there personal arrogancy. we belong to the community we know ourselve better than you & whatever the reference has given is more than enough to prove it. Nayak sp (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

first of all who are you referring that to? if you are referring to the editor, because he has right along with any editor or commentator to inform how articles should be written with accordance to grammmar and citations. Also one should be humble when editing, because a article gains credibility when it is peer reviewed. Also, I have extensively edited with recommendation from editors on neutrality and without bias, along with references so as to make the article look like a genuine Wikipedia article. It is high time that communities along with cultures of Odisha get highlighted and people from other places outside Odisha get informed. We should not exaggerate claims and hence I have written and edited the article to the best the references could provide. This is an encyclopedia article and it has to be cited whether the editor/writer may be from that community or not, and this is not a forum. So we cannot just place claims hereSadaryohan (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Surnames
just because something is sourced does not mean we must include it. The list of surnames that you reinstated just now is basically trivia. The list is not exhaustive and the names are not unique to the Khandayat, so it isn't really going to help anyone. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update. However, I know that these names (I am from that community and staying in Odisha), except for a very few, are restricted to that community. We can place those surnames which are exclusive to that community only and that are referenced. I then don't think it should be a problem and still people who read this article can be informed more about the community. Skbaral484 (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No, we cannot because that is original research, if only because you would have to assume that all living people who bear the name(s) actually self-identify as being Khandayat. And it would still be trivia. - Sitush (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Polai, swain, parida, jena, nahak, sahoo,nayak are the surname O9 rishi (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , you must provide a reliable source which verifies these as Khandayat surnames, e.g. you can provide name & page no. of a book, journal, etc. which lists these Khandayat surnames. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Why the complete deletion???
I just wanted to ask why did you completely delete all this content on this page? THis was properly cited, and referenced? The content seems accurate, as I myself know this from being from this community. The content seems accurate and not biased in any manner Skbaral484 (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Too much faking of refs etc from your mate. - Sitush (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Then why remove that sword. From what I know, Khandayats dont have a curved edge sword and have straight one ( as seen in Paika Akhada) hence I placed that picture there. Skbaral484 (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The sword in the picture has nothing to do with the Khandayats. As for rest of the deleted text, the refs hardly support the content they are being used to cite. utcursch &#124; talk 23:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Cultivators
This source was being used to support the claim that the Khandayats were "kshatriya" and "warriors". The source quite clearly states that they were cultivators.

I am aware that we are citing a martial arts website that seems to suggest otherwise. It is, of course, possible that a few Khandayats were notable fighters but I don't think the website can trump an academic source. It doesn't, for example, give any information anywhere regarding its own source for the information or indeed any information that its gives. - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I am seeing sources that refer to them as "militia-cultivators" and "warrior cultivators" etc. I've not done enough reading yet but those sources also seem generally to be suggesting that their claims to relatively high rank were due to a process akin to sanskritisation. This is likely to be a rather nuanced issue. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * So, for example:
 * - "an agricultural caste which sought upward social mobility and drew legitimacy from a 'martial' (Rajput) tradition" (footnoted as "One can roughly locate the Khandayats as the rich peasants")
 * - "These sections also identified themselves as Khandayats (sword-wielding martial caste, who invoked the Rajput tradition of north India) to distinguish themselves from their social origins, elevate their social position, and assert their exploitation. There were also revenue officials and village headmen who identified themselves as Khandayats. Moreover, in some [princely etc] states ... were adibasis (Bhuyans) who both distinguished and distanced themselves from their community and their social origins by calling themselves Khandayat Bhuyans." And (p. 89) "In terms of caste, the agriculturists were mostly identified as Chasas or Agarias, some of whom emerged as 'rich' peasants as reflected in their identification as Khandayats ... Consequently, the highly complex phenomena of Hinduization/Kshatriyaization and Oriyaization are implicated here."
 * - "They sometimes even claimed status equivalent with the militia-cultivator caste of Khandayats." And "In most villages of Orissa the cultivating caste (Chasa) or the militia-cum-cultivator caste Khandayat [the wielders of swords] were the landowning and economically powerful castes which were served by all the functional castes ... The Khandayats especially behaved like lords and held in many cases military service jagirs"
 * What I am struggling to find is decent sources that say Khandayats = Kshatriya. I found one snippet where it said they prefer to call themselves that but, of course, that is a common vanity thing. To the best of my knowledge, Orissa/Odisha didn't follow the Vedic varna system, just as South India didn't (apart from Kerala). - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * u|Sitush Well Odisha has followed the varna system since quite a long time. Please check with any sources, either literature, or simply meeting an Odia person. Also, you have mistakenly read incorrect part of the cited readings. Though I have provided new citations, I would like to clarify the assertions that you have placed in the previous comments. At first Khandayat is a diverse kshatriya caste with people taking various professions. Some were merchants (sahoo), some were royalty(singh deo), some were teachers and gurus (rout ray and acharya), some were even priests and religous scholars(muni), as in the case of many temples in Bhubaneswar and Cuttack, and some were agricultural landholders (zamindars or jagirdars, especially during feudal times), etc. Though profession was linked to caste (which was based on varna), in Orissa, caste was an identity marker rather than professions. This is because many Brahmins undertook agricutural pursuits, farming, mercantile, etc, despite their varna being otherwise. Hence,Khandayats can be placed in a class(varna), as they come under kshatriya, because the origin is from military profession.


 * Almost most families that call them Khandayat,( not Khandayat bhuyan, or Khandayat-Karana, or Khandayat-kuilta) are people who are the kshatriya caste in orissa. Don't confuse Khandayat with the three names/terms that I have provided above. Khandayat bhuyan are tribals, who in order to accord themselves higher status in the varna system, especially in tribal populated districts like Kalahandi, Mayurbhanj, etc, called themselves Khandayat-Bhuyan, so they could be respectively accorded chieftain of tribal lands/ fiefdoms. Please read a recent news from Odisha of how a member of a tribal community fell into gray waters recently when running for elections as MLA, as she was though a tribal, her forefathers claimed Khandayat-Kshatriya status(eventually she got the reserved tribal seat because her claim of being part of tribal community was met). Also, there is an agricultural caste known as Kuilta, Agharia or simply as Chasa, who are farmers and own lands. After independent India, they started calling themselves Khandayats so as to rise through social class system. However neither of claimant groups have ever intermarried with members of the  Khandayat community. Hence, lots of time when taking polls in Orissa, Khandayat population varies from 15% to 45%. This is because there are lots of groups that claim to be Khandayat. This form of societal upliftment is also present in North India, where many tribals, and pastoral and agricultural communities, like Ahirs, Mundas in Chattisgarh, Jats, started calling themselves Rajputs as they started gaining power in the region. Doesn't mean they were so. And also it doesn't mean that Rajputs are not kshatriyas, or rather agricultural or pastoral communities. Do read tyhe new book that I have cited in the article, and you will see that people who call themselves Khandayats (nothing hyphenated) will follow rituals similar to Rajputs of west India (Gujarat, Rajasthan) and are accorded Kshatriya status.   Please check all the citations that were provided in my recent edit, and also the citations provided in the previous sections of this page. This should suffice as information. I or neither any person is speaking out of thin air, we have lived and grown up there and we know exactly how the caste (based on varna) system works.
 * I worry that you are cherry-picking sources in your latest attempt on the article. I deliberately tried to stick to sources from academic publishers in my above list. - Sitush (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not, to be sorry, but you are assuming that. Based on the sources, I am just explaining what is the reason and context behind the assertion you give on the sources. Again I am not talking out of thin air, we know the context of caste and religion in Odisha. Hence, Just providing context to your claims. And please read the new sources that I have cited. Maybe that will help understand the context. Writing an article is not for vanity, but it should be detailed in an accurate manner with the context provided. PS- We can have a civilized discussion. There is no need to block my edits or threaten vandalism or sock puppetry, to get your point across.
 * I have read your new sources and I think you are cherry-picking. They're also in the wrong place in the article - I can't be bothered fixing that just yet because I'm waiting for others to comment here. Given the problem with anons, who all appear prima facie to be you, I'm inclined to give very little weight to the comments both of them and of any newly-registered accounts. So, to pre-empt what may happen, please note that discussions such as this are not votes: it is not a case of having the most supporters. Please also note that much of what you say above is plain original research - you may know it to be correct but you don't provide any basis for verifying it. - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well thank you for reading them. But, The news sources are books and compilation of historical proofs by authors such as Pati, which prove that Odisha did have a varna system and Khandayats were just the synonymous word for "Kshatriya". Yes I do agree that this source could be placed in another place in the article, but because I need to substantiate the claim on which we are having a discussion on, that is why I placed it over there. Therefore, I am not cherrypicking but substantiating the claim. If you feel this may be wrong, please do provide a context, and we could discuss. Also I do understand that discussions are not votes, rather a way to get to the truth. But looking at the past discussions on various topics, it seems that admins "feel" the need to change an article or template, not on the basis of discussion or fact finding, rather on how many people agree on one's side. After, once discussion is leveled on how admin thinks in a certain way, then then discussion is blocked from editing without actually reaching a proper conclusion.

Also, again I am not blowing out of thin air, I have provided sources to verify my claim, but I cannot just write word by word what every source from various books detail. Then, the whole article would be a paragraph and also a case of plagiarism. You take facts and contextualize it to the reader so they may properly understand where this truth emerged from. Facts are a sentence, but contextualizing it can maybe be a paragraph. SO in writing an article, we are providing facts, and not just vanity as you say rather, and broadening the article so any layman reader can understand what this means.

PS - all of those sources previously provided were also legitimate. Do read and, again in your terms, don't cherry pick.

There are four varnas in Odisha Bramhan, Khandayats , Vaisya ( called as Chasa means farmers) there are many other communities belong to Vaisya varna IE: Sahoo etc. Sudhra varna is also divided by many communities such as barber, washer man etc .... Nayak sp (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the editor must do lots of research before writing about a sensitive topic like Caste & community Nayak sp (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Government of Odisha's web portal will be enough to ensure that Khandayats are Khsatriyas http://www.orissa.gov.in/people/religion.htm Nayak sp (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have reverted you again. You were still misrepresenting sources and adding unacceptable ones, such as the government lists etc. As I think I have said before, the Khandayats are at best claimants to a status that elsewhere in India is referred to as kshatriya. We don't use government sources for varna claims because they are almost always driven by political considerations. And, in any event, there was no varna system in Orissa. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

What will be reliable source for citation .?? I've given reference of many books stating the social status of Khandayats. What about them ?? There are many sources stating differently. You must go through a brief research to come to a point. In Odisha there are also 4 varnas as other Aryan people Bramhan, Kshatriya , Vaisya & sudhra. If you are sure that Khandayats are Vaisyas & cultivators then where are Khsatriyas of Odisha ?? You're probably mistaking the information in source. Hence I request you to do a little research before writing about Khandayat. Nayak sp (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I've done the research and I am not the only person who has pointed out that your sources are poor. You may not like what you read here but unless you can find some sources that are actually reliable, your opinion is not going in this article - see WP:IDHT and WP:OR. Please also note that even if you do find one or more such sources, you're not going to see the present content removed because it is valid. The best you can hope for is that the alternate opinion is shown as well as the currently displayed version - see WP:NPOV. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I must accept the fact that my sources were not reliable but what about the article. Khanda means sword Ayyat means Control ... What a farmer supposed to do with a sword ?? & why anyone should denote them as master of sword ?? . Nayak sp (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Try WP:RD for an answer. Someone there might know. You're still not getting it, are you? We say what reliable sources say, period. You're just wasting my time and your own with this sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I would request you to check the composition of article Khandayat. Things written there aren't relating anyway Nayak sp (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not about me or that article ... What a reader would get from that !! Nayak sp (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * They get the etymology. For what it is worth, even if someone used a sword in battle it wouldn't make them a kshatriya, which is the hobby-horse thing you keep referring back to. - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok whatever ... I have tried to explain was Truth as per my knowledge. But seems like you it know better. Still I would like to request you to do a little research about caste systems in Odisha. Hope you will.... Nayak sp (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Confused
What is going on here. Why you guys are removing sources that describes social status of Khandayats ??? Anyone here to answer ?? Nayak sp (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Just drop it. How many more times must it be explained to you. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khandayat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222123049/http://odisha.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/2014/Dec/engpdf/48-50.pdf to http://odisha.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/2014/Dec/engpdf/48-50.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Khandayats historically
Historically 'Khandayats', the so called Kshatriyas are the royal and top most varnas in social order of Odisha state of India, that they mostly lost after the Muslim occupation of India. After Muslim invasion of India the Royals lost their territory and left all their wealth in temples that made the priest caste so called Brahmins richer and stronger as the Khandayats/Kshatriyas could not regain their power. The 'Brahmins' who were poor, living on donations and begging, and equivalent to Sudras had the responsibility to read write and do the services in temples. Although many priest castes are still considered 'Sudras' in social order and do the worshiping and services in Odisha. For the temple services they enjoy a piece of land as property. The 'Brahmins' suddenly stopped writing about the kings, queens as next to god and wrote about themselves as supreme Varnas modifying history that we still see in the history books. 'Khanda' means sword and 'Ayat' means control in local language. 'Khanda' also means land. Khandayats had control over sword as fighters and also on land. 'Khandayats' are mostly engaged in cultivation now a days and many live under financial constraints. The 'Khandayats' still show very high level of leadership skills in the state of Odisha. Most leaders and many top leaders of various political parties in Odisha state identify themselves as 'Khandayats' or simply farmer/farming community. 'Kshatriyas' are known in different names in different states of India. Rajputs in Rajastan, Jats in Hariyana and Punjab, Khandayats in Orissa are some of the Kshatriya communities in India.

The revolution of 'Paikas', one of the 'Khandayat' communities is considered as one of first independence movement in India. The 'Khandayats' fought very bravely in Kalinga war against Asoka, king of Magadha that changed Asoka's mind to follow non-violence than war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.247.49 (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Some of the 'Khandayat' communities are Paltasingh, Harichandan, Srichandan, Parida, Raut, Biswal, Rautray, Samantray, Raut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.247.49 (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2017‎

Alleged failure of WP:V
According to this edit, there is a mass of information which is not present in the sources. However, just take one of those sources as an example and it clearly states "Mangaraj is a Khandayat, an agricultural caste which sought upward social mobility and drew legitimacy from a 'martial' (Rajput) tradition" etc. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the removed material, it clearly is the case that the information is in the sources. - Sitush (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Change the defination
Khandayat are the marital caste not the culivating caste. Shanti.lataa1 (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent addition
With this edit, an editor has misrepresented the source cited by them, as it does not mention that Khandayats are of "Kshatriya Varna". Anyway, here is the relevant quote from the source:

So please do not reinstate the unsourced detail. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

About Protection of this Page
I am requesting to Administrator, please protect this page , here many new commer wikipedian edits this page without reliable sources for more times. Thanks user P.sitansu P.sitansu (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Response to Sangramz
In response to this, since the content issue should be discussed here:

Politics and Social Change: Orissa in 1959 is not a novel, but a scholarly publication written by an academic and published by an academic publisher. The claim that is supported by that source is also supported by a second scholarly source that is also used in the article (Ernst & Pati 2007). The source added in this edit does not support the claim you make, and it is not even about this topic! --bonadea contributions talk 21:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite
Looks to me as if we need to go back to a last clean version, which is probably over a year ago when I was last involved here. I have just attempted to fix numerous problems but suspect that an old version around the time I was last here would be better. Too many POV pushers, ignorant of or unwilling to abide by our policies etc + seemingly unable to express statements with clarity. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Improvement
Information on this page is totally opposite of Scholarly sources. Editors without much knowledge added Unsourced glorification and that lead to Senior editors to remove information with minimal mistakes. Then the whole article got messed up. Khandayat is a Major caste of Odisha and generally associated with Odia history. This page need improvement & a lot of information is yet to be added. If anyone want to give any suggestions then welcome. Peacepks (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2021
Brahmin and others consider khandayats as Shudras should be taken back, as this information is not correct.This statement is tarnishing the image of khandayat caste and will have social and political consequences. Secondly who are others? For information khandayats are under general caste in central list and ncbc web page may be seen, which says that khandayats are martial caste. Jajati keshari jena (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please clearly indicate what change you would like to see in the article. Please also note that any new additions need to be accompanied by a reliable source and existing sourced content may not be deleted without a consensus discussion. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2021
Khandayat have some sub castes mainly Mahanayak and Chasa(Ancient Cultivating militia Odras) .Page 147. Hindu caste and sect. Sagardon4 (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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) 19:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I want to add some more points. These are source that says chasa is a sub caste of khandayat. It is also true. Pls read these source .it is clearly mention as chasa khandayat. Sagardon4 (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2022
163.53.86.199 (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC) The last line is incorrect Khandayats are purely kshtriya
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Add Status of Caste
Khandayat is a forward caste 42.110.138.100 (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Mass removal of sourced content alongwith previous sources and their content as per consensus of user sitush administrators plz look into it
User peacepks removed sources added by me, he also removed sources which were there in the article from the very start based on the consensus of sitush, on top of that user bishonen who is himself an administrator did nothing about it and removed my sources, if wiki is this biased then im really sad to be a part of it AuthenticSources2546 (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

No gouda is Khandayat. It's only oda chasa
Gouda are not khandayat. Chasa are the real khandayat. This is why khandayats are cultivator. Gouda has no connection with khandayat caste. Studentlife123 (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

They got some jagiri. There is no khandayat from gouda caste. Only oda chasa form khandayat caste. Pls reserch on this Studentlife123 (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Origin of khandayat
Wikipedia should give facts to people .should not stay on one source and take on ego. HH risely, John beam, LK Mohapatra, prasant Pradhan, jogendra nath bhattacharya, madox settlement report, Akio tanabe, Cuttack Gazetteer by IAS Tara Dutta and many Writters written clearly chasa are khandayat. There is no mention of gouda caste on any Khandayat article. Khandayat means land owner and chasa are land owning cultivator. Gouda are cow herder. They have no connection with khandayat. Every people know this. You can ask any one. How one speculation source of a dictionary by gopal Chandra praharaj is so important for Wikipedia. And also he has said chasa and gouda enjoying khandayati jagir. Just below that line he said there is no history of khandayat caste but chasa caste mentioned on historical books. Now days Chasas became khandayat. Why the first line misused or misunderstood. Is all the writers i have mention are wrong. Everyone knows the fact that chasa and khandayat are one caste. Gouda has no connection. This kind of article is wrong. we should give information with proper research. Not just taking one source granted. Studentlife123 (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Degrading and disrespectful representation
This article making reference of khandayat with Cowherds and cultivators is a degradation. Khandayat is a martial caste and are Kshatriya varna. Chasa is Cultivator. Surely Khandayat had a large Jagir but they don’t work in field. It is chasa and halua Brahmin who work in field. Chasa still belong to Kshtriya Varna because they fought under command of Samants and Khandayats. Karana are accountants to Khandayats. Karana caste origin is unknown. They don’t belong to four varnas of Hindu fold. Their origins lies in questionable births from parentage of higher castes. i.e. Khandayat and Brahmin. Since, they are of questionable birth they are not accepted into any of above folds. 2405:201:A007:F031:F861:202C:23A:A080 (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Recent Revert: April '23
Hello, : can you please have a look at the recent version of the article which I have reverted! As far as I know, most of the sources say that the Khandayat caste has been basically a cultivating caste. I noticed that Sitush had clearly expressed his concern regarding caste glorification using poor sources on the user talk page, User talk: Peacepks! As you may be aware, Sitush has not been active for more than a year now. Can you please help validate the sources or simply express your opinion! Sorry to bother him, but I am pinging as well in case he is around (hope he is better now)! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pradhan characterises them as peasant militia, and says they are next only to Brahmins in status. So I don't think the edits were far off the mark, though the quality of the sources wasn't great. This page needs serious work. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, There is only one source which mention Khandayats as farmers while there are 10+ sources which mention them as Landed Militia, Feudal Chief, Zamindars, Military Generals etc. According to Wikipedia policy the 2nd opinion should be given more value. In my edit, I have added every Pov including the farmer one as well. Thanks Peacepks (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Majority of the sources are not up to the mark; we don't accept poor quality sources and especially in caste articles; moreover, snippet views with specific search strings (and without context) are not supposed to be used as per long term consensus! Anyway, as mentioned on my talk page, I am examining/reviewing each & every source from your version and we will soon come up with a better & reliable version. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think majority of the sources are of high quality specifically books which are published by good scholars & publications. If any source violate the Wikipedia reliable source Policy it should be deleted. I had plan to replace snippet with proper Wikipedia format but didn't able to do because of my University Exams. Peacepks (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Peacepks, "high quality" means journal papers or books written by established scholars and published by academic publishers. You had five citations for your first sentence, not a single one was of this kind. No page numbers or quotations were included. We have no idea what the sources say, and who the authors are and what are their credentials.
 * The WP:ONUS for arguing for inclusion of contested material lies on you, especially if you are trying to change the existing content, which is well-sourced. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, You won't find much info regarding small and regional castes since reasearch on these castes is very limited. We all know about this. Among the first 5 sources the number 2,3,4 can be considered as High quality sources. If we can't keep these type of sources then most caste pages will be blank. The next 3 sources (6,7,8) also say the same thing. All other sources in the page which include few University press as well also support the first paragraph. These are all reliable sources. Regarding the page number and quotation, I didn't able to do it because of busy life schedule. Sorry for that. Thanks Peacepks (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey Peacepks, as per your last version, they form the largest caste, and you are considering them among the 'small and regional castes'! I am not aware, how many caste articles you have edited, but I edit articles mostly related to castes & social groups; I can tell you that we, in fact, use much better quality sources for actually small & typically regional minor castes.
 * I completely agree with . Thanks Kautilya3 for your analysis. And Peacepks, none of your first 5 sources support the previous version's first statement in the lead! What you have tried is WP:SYN in order to push your POV and glorify the caste, as rightly pointed out by Sitush! Please note that Sitush is no longer active here for quite some time now due to health issues; you have mentioned at least twice on my talk page why didn't he revert your sources/related content! Anyway, after reviewing the lead section of your version, I could find only one source which I could use in order to support the statement that they are also considered as peasant militia or landed militia. The source (same para) clearly talks about agriculture as the main source of livelihood! In fact, the same page (page 116) says that the Karan caste ranks next to Brahmins, not the Khandayat! In fact, none of the other sources can be used as a reliable source (some snippet views, missing page numbers, questionable author credentials; most of them don't support the previous lead). Even source no. 11 in your version, which has been used to support that they are the largest caste in the state, couldn't be verified! I will continue reviewing the rest of the sections from your version, and update the article as well. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, Actually I didn't added the largest caste claim, it was there before my edits. First paragraph is basically the summary of whole article. And all later sources basically say the same thing including sources from Routledge, Kyoto University Press etc. Can you please check the 3rd source, Nihar Ranjan Pattnaik & Indus publishing. In page 157, it says " These estates were generally held by Khandayat militia chiefs who earlier served the Gajapati Kings." I don't see any problem with this source. Source no.8 by Waltraud Ernst & Bisomay Pati - Routledge, Page - 89, mentions " As highlighted above, most of the chiefs, zamindars, privileged tenure holders were Kshatriyas/Khandayats - this marked them out as rulers. ". Except the first 8 sources all other edits of mine follow proper Wikipedia format with page number. Thanks Peacepks (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In source no. 22, Gender and Modernity: Perspectives from Asia and the Pacific by Yōko Hayami, Akio Tanabe, Yumiko Tokita-Tanabe, Kyoto University Press, Page - 68, mention " Land that had been granted to chiefs ( dalabehera ) , sub - chiefs ( dalai ) , and peasant foot - soldiers ( paik ) - primarily of the Khandayat caste." Peacepks (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ekdalian gave more weightage to a single source and used it as the first reference while ignoring multiple reliable new sources. This is violation of WP: WEIGHT which says minority opinion should't given more weightage. Also his recent edit violate WP: CONFLICTINGSOURCES . According to the above policy, while dealing with conflicting sources, Editors should prefer up-to-date sources. Ekdalian gave more importance to a source published in 1970 while ignoring sources from 2003 and 2007. Peacepks (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Responding in your newly created section 'Weightage to Single Old source over multiple new reliable sources'! Please avoid the same statements in multiple sections & different talk pages. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your edits still violating WP:CONFLICTINGSOURCES. In your first reference, you had given priority to a source from 1970 over multiple new sources from 2003,2007 and 2008. However, According to Wikipedia policy, during conflicting sources up-to-date sources should be given priority over old sources.Peacepks (talk)

Removal of Realiable sources in the name of failed Verification and Unreliable sources
Ekdalian just removed many reliable sources including one from Kyoto University Press in the name of Failed Verification and unreliable source. Though it don't violate Wikipedia Verifiability policy. Kyoto University Press isn't an unreliable source either. Peacepks (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, Peacepks! You may help verify any such reliable source by providing relevant quotation along with page number. We can request other editors to validate as well! And all relevant statements from such reliable sources will be incorporated! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Weightage to Single Old source over multiple new reliable sources
Ekdalian gave more weightage to a single source and used it as the first reference while ignoring multiple reliable new sources. This is violation of WP: WEIGHT which says minority opinion should't given more weightage. Also his recent edit violate WP: CONFLICTINGSOURCES. According to the above policy, while dealing with conflicting sources, Editors should prefer up-to-date sources. Ekdalian gave more importance to a source published in 1970 while ignoring sources from 2003 and 2007. Peacepks (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are simply wrong, Peacepks! Rather, due to the absence of Sitush, who used to monitor/review the article, you have given undue weight to your POV stating that they are a landed militia caste in the first sentence (lead). It's not just about numbers, which you have tried by searching Google Books with this particular phrase 'landed militia' and citing all of them without any context irrespective of the quality of sources! At least, two other experienced editors, Sitush and Kautilya3 have expressed concerns over poor quality sources, and Kautilya3 has clearly mentioned above that none of your sources provided in the lead support your version of the lead!
 * It's not just one slightly old source that mentions them as primarily a cultivating caste, rather most of the reliable sources use the term 'peasant'! Pradhan mentions that their Kshatriya claim was rejected by other castes since majority of them were peasants. In fact, your main source from Kyoto University also uses the term peasant foot -soldiers; same is applicable for the other source provided by you which identifies them as peasant militia! Therefore the term peasant is mentioned by almost all reliable sources, some (I have now segregated the sources) explicitly mentioning them as a cultivating caste. In fact, the texts cited by you (providing selective quotation) also mention that majority of them were agriculturalists.
 * You have violated the policy on WP:WEIGHT by highlighting that they represent the feudal chiefs and zamindars, whereas the fact is some of them were feudal chiefs in the medieval period under the reign of the Gajapati Kings, and later became zamindars as well (as per sources). Had most of them been feudal chiefs, zamindars, large landholders, ministers, etc., the Government of Odisha wouldn't have classified them as Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC). This classification is only justified by the fact that majority of them were peasants (some other cultivating castes also merged with them) and cultivation was their primary source of livelihood apart from playing the role of peasant militia much earlier, typically when required! Hope you understand! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sitush was active even after 1 yr of my edits and he didn't revert my edits once because it was completely Neutral Pov. Kautilya agreed with information but had doubts over sources and that's the reason I replaced the sources with high quality ones. I'm pursuing higher studies in history so this is my primary subject. Contrary to your opinion, Both Kyoto University Press and Rutledge mention "Most" of the Feudal Chiefs, Zamindars were belongs to Khandayat caste. Peasant Militias are a part of Khandayat Caste but so are the Feudal Chiefs, Zamindars, Large landholders. I used the word Landed Militia to describe Both Peasant Militias and Feudal Chiefs, Zamindars. We can't ignore any part of the caste. You should read the Pradhan's journal from first to last. He mention the rulers of Gajapati empire as Khandayats and their status as Kshatriyas. He also Opined that the status of Khandayats reduced when they lost their Political power in later mediaeval era. Regarding your Odisha SEBC claim, Wikipedia policy don't allow Govt. Classification as a method to push any Pov. Khandayats come under General category in Govt. Of India list. Even Rajputs come under OBC in Karnataka. The same same Odisha govt. Gazzeter call Khandayats as Kshatriyas and the dominant caste of the state. Your didn't gave proper weightage to Feudal Chiefs, Zamindars and milita chiefs of the Khandayat caste even in your recent edits and only pushing the agriculturalist Pov. Nevertheless your edits still violating WP:CONFLICTINGSOURCES. Hope you will follow Wikipedia Policies. Thanks Peacepks (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Contrary to your claim, there's no question of conflict since all reliable sources mention the fact that they were basically peasants. Some categorically mention them as cultivating castes, some say majority of them were peasants, while some say they also played the role of peasant militia earlier. Some sources also mention that some other cultivating castes / peasant castes also merged with them in due course of time. Therefore 'peasant' part is common among all reliable sources! Other POVs like peasant/landed militia have been given due weight in the lead as well as other sections as per WP:NPOV. By the way, I used the SEBC example just in order to explain you, not as a source in this regard!
 * Let us wait for Kautilya3's opinion. can you please check my latest version and express your opinion regarding weight and NPOV. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * pinging Kautilya3 once again for their opinion! Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what the issue is. What part of this diff is being contested? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I have already explained above that it's all about weight and WP:NPOV! Anyway, hope Peacepks has already understood after my detailed explanation above! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
, Khandayat in general is considered higher caste in Odisha along with Brahmin and Karan. They are socially and politically dominant in the state. Check this book, page 44, 48, and 44 to 71 for details. Khandayat have several clans or subgroups. Some may be in SEBC list but the caste in general  long are having pre-eminence in odia society. You're using a primary source, and synthesizing it with a newspaper article. WP: Primary, WP:Synthesis, WP:Undue. Thank you.CharlesWain (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you, CharlesWain as far as WP:PRIMARY & WP:SYN are concerned! But I do agree with your first part, and will move this from lead to some other relevant section. In case you have further concern, we shall consult other experienced editors! Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I researched little bit more. Khandayat has many subgroups, but in general they enjoy fairly high rank in Odia society. But they are indeed in SEBC list( Excluding some creamy layer groups). There are politics involved in these things too. At this point your edit seems fine to me. Thanks, .CharlesWain (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 December 2023
In this.page it has been written that khandayat is a shudra caste where as khandayat caste comes in kshtriya caste and also a general caste and there are no evidence of it kindly chage as it can hurt the sentiments of the khandayats caste and we can protest! 101.0.32.163 (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the grammar of this request; no specific changes are proposed, I think, nor are any sources given. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * i just want to say that in this wiki page it has been written that khandayat comes under shudra but there are not any proves of it 101.0.32.163 (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/Centrersquos-no-to-Orissa-on-including-Khandayat-caste-in-OBC-list/article16851310.ece/amp/
 * the link which states that orissa government doesnt considers khandayats as socially Backward caste. The state government has deemed them in the general category and forward caste rank. Sawantmumbaikar (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Khandayats are not deemed as the economically backward and socially backward class by the odisha state government.
They form the majority of the representation of the state (approx 40%) and are not entitled to any state reservations in any form. They fall under general category. Sawantmumbaikar (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/Centrersquos-no-to-Orissa-on-including-Khandayat-caste-in-OBC-list/article16851310.ece/amp/
 * reference to the link where khandayats are deemed as general category caste and fall under kshtriya caste. Sawantmumbaikar (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * kindly edit the misinformation which might hurt caste sentiments which is still prevalent today, and serve as a misinformation campaign and tool which might alter the trust in wikipedia by masses from the eastern states and if campaigned can get a pan india reach. Sawantmumbaikar (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * the misinformation lies in the history drop down info column, somewhere in the last paragraphs. Sawantmumbaikar (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)