Talk:Saini/Archive 2

Saini is a Kshatriya Rajput warrior caste. Vote bank politics in punjab had given sainis status of OBC after this no. of protest took place in many districts covered by leading newspapers. People boycotted reservation. Sainis are landowners and zamindars.

saini article is filled with POVs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Utcursch

SainiDear Utcursch, I saw your concerns regarding Yadu/yaduvanshi/yadav. & also about Saini. For saini, kindly see some scholarly comment about them, [1], which says by their own account it is derived from persian rasaini, which means "skilled gardener", given by a Moslem Ruler. it has nothing to do with shoorsaini, or Yaduvanshi. Reputed Scholars like, Sir Bhandarkar, ghurye, Karmakar, Pusalkar, Chanda, Russel, Nesfield, Bhati and many other considers only Ahir/Yadav caste/Ayir and also to a limited extent Jadaun (whom scholars consider to be o

ffshoot of yaduvanshi ahir) while talking about the topic yadav and descendants of Yadu. I would urge you to try to improve the Saini article which is full of POVs and tries to relate to shoorsainis of ancient scripture. Infact the region Mathura was called saursena and is named after king Madhu, about whom scriptures say had gifted the entire territory of Mathura to Abhira, as per Padma Purana. So, Please try to understand the issue. Feel free to talk to me if you need any clarification. Ikon No-Blast 18:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumitkachroo (talk • contribs)


 * This reference is already discussed in the article and it is from Ibbetson's work (which you are misquoting for some reason). He does not mention it is a "title given by moslem ruler". He acknowledges the claim of Rajput background but speculates about its authenticity without identifying the source of his information . He is actually misquoting Purser and there is good likelihood this source is quoting a bureaucratic forgery. In any case the accuracy of Ibbetson's work based on unscientific 1881 census is widely disputed and does not pass Wikipedia's WP:RS given the following observation from a noted scholar, Kevin Hobson :

"By establishing themselves as authorities on the caste system they could then tell the British what they believed the British wanted to hear and also what would most enhance their own position. The British would then take this information, received through the filter of the Brahmans, and interpret it based on their own experience and their own cultural concepts. Thus, information was filtered at least twice before publication. Therefore, it seems certain that the information that was finally published was filled with conceptions that would seem to be downright deceitful to those about whom the information was written. The flood of petitions protesting caste rankings following the 1901 census would appear to bear witness to this. "

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/article/castesystem.htm


 * There are multiple other refrences from peer-reviewed academics (Dr. Sher Singh Sher, Dr. Ronald Inden, Dr. Malavika Kasturi et al )which would disqualify Ibbetson as wikipedia citable source. It would not be totally out of line to regard it as a questionable source.  At the most it can be treated as a fringe view and needs to cited only with proper weight (which has already been done.) Further, there are many other documents and works from British era itself authored by English scholars like Hugh Kennedy Trevaskis which give alternate explanation of term "Saini" closer to or identical with community's own narrative about their origin (cited in the article and in the section titled "Origin of Sainis" above). In all records of British era Sainis and Malis till 1931 have been identified as distinct and separate groups. After 1931 there was no caste based enumeration as the system of caste classification was found to be very contentiuous and unreliable.


 * With regard to your speculation of Ahir connection with Yadavas of epical era, you need to provide better references and in any case restrict that discussion on the Ahir artcile. Thanks. --History Sleuth (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh Where is reliable proof or refrences?
Please remove this list as this refrence doesn't show percentage of sainis. Help required ..........

Punjab District Gazetteers,Volume Xiv, Jullundur District, 1904, p 93, Lahore, Printed At The "Civil And Military Gazette" Press, 1908


 * Although I acknowledge there is some OR added by unknown IP users to this sections, do not even pretend that you have read the actual source reference. The quoted reference DOES give pretty clear village ownership percentages although not all villages given below are there in it. If you have doubts about this section you can tag it appropriately for other editors to address but do not make less than honest statements that you have reviewed the source reference . thanks,--History Sleuth (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

* Behron Majra (Near Chamkaur Sahib) * Bheen (district Nawanshahr) 50% * Birampur(disstt. Hoshiarpur near Bhogpur) complete village. * Ladhana (complete village) * Jhika (complete village) * Sujjon (complete village) * Surapur (complete village) * Pali (complete village) * Jhiki (complete village) * Sheikhupur Bagh (district. Nawanshahr) 50% * bharta (near shaheed bhagat singh city) * langroya(near shaheed bhagat singh city) * sona (near shaheed bhagat singh city) * mehatpur (near shaheed bhagat singh city) * alachaur (near shaheed bhagat singh city) * kahma (near shaheed bhagat singh city) * banga city (banga is last nama of saini's)(near shaheed bhagat singh city) * Chak (complete village) * Khurd (complete village) * Dalli (complete village) * Gehlar (complete village ) * Saini Majra (Complete Village) * Desu Majra near mohali (Complete Village) * Hawali near Ropar (Complete Village) * Laroha (almost complete village) * Nangal shahidan ( almost complete village) * Bhundian (almost complete village, 5/6) * Urapur- (part- 3/4 or 75%) * Bajidpur- (part- 3/4 or 75%) * Pali Unchi (part- 1/3 or 33%) * Naura (part- 1/2 or 50%) * Gobindpur (part- 1/4 or 25%) * Kama (part- 1/4 or 25%) * Dipalpur (part- 1/2 or 50%) * Balur Kalan (part- proportion not known) * Khurde(part- proportion not known) * Dudhala-(part- proportion not known) * Dalla (1/2 or 50%) * Jandhir (1/2 or 50%) * Chulang (1/3 or 33%) * Giganwal (1/2 or 50%) * Lasara ((1/2 or 50%) Note: this village fell in Phillaur Tahsil.   * Adda Jhungian (complete village)    * khurampur (75%)tehsil phagwara    * akalgarh(nawa pind)(75%)tehsil phagwara    * fadma(tehsil hoshiarpur)    * bhungrani(tehsil hoshiarpur)    * harta (tehsil hoshiarpur)90%    * badla (tehsil hoshiarpur)90%    * mukhliana (tehsil hoshiarpur)90%    * rajpur (tehsil hoshiarpur)90%    * kadola (near adampur)    * rajpur (tehsil hoshiarpur)    * tanda (tehsil hoshiarpur)    * thaska sainian (tehsi mohali)    * Kheri Salabatpur (Ropar)90%    * Khizarabad (Ropar) 75%    * Khairabad (Ropar) 75%    * Ghanuali (Ropar) complete    * Bhalian (Ropar) 90%    * Manunpur (Fatehgarh sahib) complete    * Saidpura (Fatehgarh Sahib) complete    * Chota Balharai (Fatehgarh sahib) complete    * Shahpur (Ambala) 40%

Apart from the above villages in Jullundhur district of British Punjab, Sainis were also amongst the proprietors or landowners of Phagwara. It needs to be duly noted that the Saini population in Jullundhur district was only 14324 as per 1880 records.[68] So the above list only contains a small fraction of total Saini landownership in Punjab. The largest Saini estates and villages were in Hoshiarpur and Dasuya tahsils of Hoshiarpur district where they were much more influential and numerous. Ambala division (which included Ropar district) also had a large number of Saini owned villages. There were 54 villages that were held by Sainis in Gurdaspur district.

Villages in Gurdaspur District and hoshiarpur :-

* Baghpur(hoshiarpur) 90% * Satour(hoshiarpur) 80% * Gunnopur(Gurdaspur) 95% * Taragarh(Begowal)(Gurdaspur)70% * Baknaur (Gurdaspur) 60% * Majra (Gurdaspur) 70 % * Kaji Chak (Gurdaspur) 70% * Dodwan(Gurdaspur) 80% * Marara(Gurdaspur) 80% * Bhaotya Nehar Wala(Gurdaspur) 70% * Phakochak(Gurdaspur) 60% * Shaora(Gurdaspur) 90% * Jhanichak(Gurdaspur) 60% * Shevochak(Gurdaspur) 60% * Rampur(Gurdaspur) 70% * Bhirth(Gurdaspur) 60% * Balaur (Gurdaspur) 70% * Daburji (Gurdaspur) 70% * Chelechak (Gurdaspur) 70% * Joian (Gurdaspur) 80% * Paharochak (Gurdaspur)60% * Niamta (Gurdaspur) 60% * Bala Pindi (Gurdaspur) 50% * Gande Pindi (Gurdaspur)70% * Shekhuchak (Gurdaspur) 60% * Gajju Jagir (Gurdaspur) 70% * Daburji(DNN) (Gurdaspur) 80% * Bhatoya (Gurdaspur)70% * Gulelara Sainian (Gurdaspur) * Madeenpur (Gurdaspur) 70% * Raji Beli (Gurdaspur 60%   * Lari Gujran di (Gurdaspur) 80%    * Dhobra (Gurdaspur) 80%    * Deeda Sainian (Gurdaspur) 80%    * Jagatpur (Gurdaspur) % NK    * Pathanchak (Gurdaspur) % NK    * Govindsar (Gurdaspur) 70%    * Khobe (Gurdaspur) 70%    * Barth Sahib (Gurdaspur) % NK    * Juswali (Gurdaspur) % NK    * Rajparura (Gurdaspur) % NK    * Samrala (Gurdaspur) %NK    * Avvalkhair(Gurdaspur) % NK    * Gol Datial (Gurdaspuir) % NK    * Bharial Lari (Gurdaspur) % NK    * Toor/Bharyal (Gurdaspur)% NK    * Rara (PTK) (Gurdaspur) %NK    * Thakurpur(Gurdaspur) % NK    * naraingarh jhungian-100% saini    * harigarh bhorakh -100% saini

Surasena/Shoorsaini- References
How does this article state that saini is linked to the Surasena people? from the links/references provided in this article it is clearly established that there is no established historical link between the Surasena and the Shoorsaini, and only the Saini people have claimed that they are descended from the Kshatriyas/Surasena.
 * There is a problem with this article that must be addressed. Simply reverting and ignoring the issues will not make it go away.
 * Statements like "Trace their descent from Rajput/Surasena/Kshatriya" are totally unacceptable without reputable cites or contemporary accounts.
 * This article should state it very clearly that it is claimed by the Saini people and not "established" that Saini is linked to the Surasena or Kshatriya/Rajput.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryaudhay (talk • contribs) 05:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This issue is already more than addressed in the thread Origin of Sainis. Trevaskis clearly states Sainis have originated from Rajput clan from Mathura which was the seat of Surasenas. He treats this claim as implicitly true because he mentions it in reference to the movement of Rajput clans in the aftermath of Turk invasions and at no point doubts veracity of the account . So this is as well established as the claim of any other clan tracing origin from ancient lineage. Further, this is not the only reliable and third party source, which links them to Surasenas. Hari Singh Bhati clearly mentions them as Saini Yaduvanshis. Both Trevaskis and Bhati are [|wikipedia citable sources]. Gahlot and Sashi (again reliable sources) clearly mention Saini as Rajput descent clan and Yaduvanshi Ksahtriya clan respectively. Further, there is a citation from Dr. Pritam Saini who was a distinguished historian in his own right, being a member of Indian History Congress and widely cited academic, which reinforces the above third party references. All of these sources are cited with exact quotations. Dr. SS Gahlot, a Rajput scholar himself, clearly and unambiguously  (in a pretty established way) says that Sainis of Punjab originated from Rajputs and continued to maintain their Rajput character in submontane Punjab where almost the entire community is located.   If you have trouble accepting those references, this is a different issue but do not insinuate that direct and reliable third  party references linking this tribe to Surasenas and Rajputs do not exist. This is simply inaccurate.Other editors would also be curious to know that on what basis you determined that any of the foregoing and other sources cited in the article are less than relaible sources.  Thanks.--History Sleuth (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding reply History sleuth. Keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.71.241.254 (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Saini as OBC
If the above is true why Saini and Yadav are both in OBC. Obviously the above is just falsehood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.221.117 (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sainis of Punjab and Chandigarh are not in OBC. Sainis of Haryana & Delhi comes under OBC category. Sainis of other states (U.P. and Rajasthan) are Neo-Sainis and I don't care about them. --Clarkpoon (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Clarkpoon, About 80% of authentic Saini population is in Punjab where they are a forward caste. Same in J&K and Chandigarh. In Haryana OBC status of Sainis has been contested on the grounds that there were irregularities in the criterion used to give them this classification. In the original survey of Gurnam Singh Commission, Sainis were ranked higher than Aroras/Khatris, Rors, Jat Sikhs, Tyagis, etc of Haryana. Sainis of Haryana obtained 11 points on the backwardness scale while Aroras/Khatris obtained 15 points and Brahamans 10 points. Tyagis got 27 points, Jat Sikhs got 24 points and so on. The higher the points the more backward a community was supposed to be. Thus Sainis were ranked only a notch junior to Brahmins of Haryana in the original determination of Gurnam Singh Commission.  It is alleged that Sadhu Ram Saini who was one of the three executive members of the commission circumvented rules to project a single economically backward  Saini village as representative of the entire Saini community of Haryana to get them OBC status in the state. He was accused of manipulation to benefit his own community. Also, not all Sainis of Haryana are authentic. Malis who changed their surname to Saini after 1930 have confused the identity of the community in Haryana. In Punjab there is no such confusion and the community is top ranked in the caste hierarchy of the state.


 * Secondly, and more importantly, OBC status of a community cannot be used to judge a community's origin or ancestry. Meos and Rajput Malis are both in OBC category but their Rajput ancestry is doubted by no scholar. Even Rajputs of Rajasthan have made attempts to sneak into OBC category and if tommorow they manage to succeed, would their Rajput descent get nullified overnight? Actually, Gurnam Singh Commission had recommeded OBC status for the entire Rajput community of Haryana. It is Bhajan Lal government which did not implement it.


 * Unable to refute the references cited above this editor has resorted to an argument which is both factually and methodologically incorrect, and would qualify as original research in any case. Even serological studies (cited in the article) have shown complete overlap between genetic frequencies of Saini and Dogra Rajputs (who also claim origin fromm same lineages as Sainis). Even though this synthesis has nowhere been made in the article but even to the most rabid and  skeptical of the critics  it would be obvious that genetic evidence (collected by uninvolved parties) fully and uncannily tallies with the oral accounts of the community. --History Sleuth (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging unconstructive
Tags which were placed on the entire article without any commentary on discussion page to justify them were removed. Please note that such drive-by tagging is unconstructive and invites vandalism.--History Sleuth (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Great concerns about this article presenting an argument vice description
I'm still going over the details, aside from the fact the article had a ridiculous amount of overlinking, but I have great concerns that a large portion of the article appears to have been written to argue the case "the Saini are Rajputs and unrelated to Malis". Now, if there are RSs saying that, sure, it'd be good to cover the controversy. Instead we have editors making OR statements about the 1881 census being better than the 1911, or which colonial authors they think are better (hint: the ones who agree with said editors). The entire section "Distinction from other groups" is an unveiled attempt to state a case vice describe a controversy, and the ridiculously complicated disambiguation hat at the start of the article kicks off the whole process.

This article is in need of some smoothing out. Yes, if there is an attested debate as to Saini-Rajput-Mali issues, by all means that should be included, but it should be based on secondary sources, not internal analysis. Same with this Shoorsaini issue, which should also not be presented as fact unless the majority opinion, and nuanced if it is contested. Further, too much info has too many references (statements should not routinely have 4 refs). Glancing at the footnotes, a lot of the refs are very vague mentions that don't really seem to support much, and/or are far weaker than a neighbouring reference, so I estimate we can trim out, bare minimum, 25% of the excess footnotes and leave the statements just as strong but less frantic in presentation.

I've gone ahead and done some pretty standard formatting and copyediting, so hopefully nothing controversial yet. I'll tread cautiously and discuss here before making substantive changes to content, but such is certainly required. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You make some good points Mathew. The article does need some overhaul. Distintion from other groups section needs to be shortened. The problem with removing the hatnote is that there are multiple and unrelated castes that now use this surname. Before that note was there, a lot of unrelated content was getting posted to this article by both good faith and not so good faith editors. Here is some history. In 1930 Rajput Mali community of Rajputana changed its identity to "Saini" to take advantage of Martial Class quotas which privileged only certain class considered "martial" (Sainis were an officially designated martial caste in British era). Before 1931 Rajput Mali community was just named as Rajput Mali or Kshatriya Mali. It is a group among Malis with very well established origin from Rajputs who fought alongwith Prithviraj Chauhan and were taken captives after his defeat. In the later censuses whole bunch of other castes jumped on the bandwagon to take advantage of 'martial race' based recruitment policies of British Indian Army. These composite groups also use surname "Saini" now but this usage is deeply resented by the original Saini group (found only in undivided Punjab in all pre-1931 censuses, not just 1881) who believe that their identity has been highjacked and compromised by these new groups they have nothing in common with. And this tension is also reflected in this article and some of the references cited which refer to this controversy.


 * I agree that the controversy, to whichever degree it exists, should be mentioned briefly only. The prior editorial effort may have gone a bit overboard in clarifying to the difference to either prevent or to pre-empt motivated edits that pushed the Sanskritization agenda of post-1931 Mali-turned-Saini groups.


 * There is also the need of great deal of caution that needs to be used in citing colonial authors who mostly wrote their description as administrative blurbs rather than as academic tracts with a rigour that would be acceptable to wikipedia or any peer-reviewed academic work. The editorial dilema here is that if you don't quote them, you could be accused of oversight and if you quote them unquestioned you are unwittingly perpetuating an information cascade. The example is Denzil Ibbetson. If you do not quote him , you may be accused of ignoring an influential colonial writer and if you quote him without reservation, you are promoting a view which has been proven to be flawed by many later studies (all peer-reviewed or by peer-reviewed academics). Ibbetson, for example , himself admitted that his work was flawed and that he had extended to Punjab his observations from a very small part of it which was not even considered Punjab proper. His work is full of internal contradictions and if you do not adduce them where he is tendentiously sought to be quoted as an authority either by good faith or malicious editors, you could again be accused of an important oversight. The truth is that , although he is questionable source per wikipedia definition, neither he nor his contradictions on the topic can be ignored when his view his cited for or against a viewpoint. This is where "internal analysis" becomes unavoidable and this treatment will continue to be a gray area for editors on this and many other articles. --History Sleuth (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

My recent revert
I have just reverted a mass of contributions here. They spread across several sections Rather than try to analyse each one, I simply referred the prior editor to my numerous and detailed edit summaries of recent days that applied to those items. I'll mention a couple specifically here, and please feel free to raise any others: a discussion is better than a war.

Firstly, I quite dramatically pruned the number of citations. When we have a modern, reliable source for a statement there is no need for us to also tack on numerous additional citations that rely on much older sources. This is particularly the case when those sources are from the British Raj period (which are often poor) or when they are primary. Citing legal acts, court judgements and so on is nearly always wrong here.

Secondly, I removed a section concerning blood types/genetics. The methodology in that sphere moves very quickly, and the source was a study from 50 years ago. Indeed, it may have been published in a peer-reviewed journal etc but without careful phrasing it could be very misleading nowadays. And since it did not appear to be terribly important to the article, it was not even worth trying to phrase it in a more suitable manner. It is important to realise that things change over time and that academics, as much as ourselves, are standing on the shoulders of giants: they take the work of their predecessors and build upon it using new viewpoints, new methods etc. Just because a journal is peer-reviewed etc does not implicitly give it the kudos to be used by us. If it did, then we would still be saying that, for example, scientific racism is a valid classification system rather than a pseudo-science. - Sitush (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, a peer-reviewed and reputable academic reference cannot simply be removed based on the opinion of a single editor. In any case you are are engaged in original research if you do such a thing. What you write above is your personal opinion which unfortunately is not a citable source. If you dispute a peer-reviewed source, then you must do that in a journal which supports original research. Once that happens your opinion above can be cited for or against the position in question. Not before that. Please do not remove a clear and straight forward reference from an academic journal. It will bring your editing style and intent in question. None of your other edits have been questiobned. I in fact removed many edits by Garry Singh Girn which looked poorly sourced and unacademic. This my way or the highway approach is non constructive. You cannot willy nilly sit in judgement on a source like American Journal of Physical Anthropology. You have allowed far more weaker sources to prevail because they seem to support your projection. If a source like American Journal of Physical Anthropology is not citable then nothing on wikipedia is citable. Thanks


 * Hi, I have no "projection". I am not even connected to India, let alone the Saini community. Are you happy for me to include references from the Journal of the Asiatic Society ca. 1920? Are you 100% sure that there has been no more recent genetic etc study? - Sitush (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt your claim that you are not connected to India. You are of Indian descent most likely and may I add that your editing style and interests are very similar to that of Shanti Bhai--98.103.88.147 (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is we can blank the entire article if we were to carry out your advice to its logical conclusion. Wikipedia rules say that a peer-reviwed source is reliable. American Journal of Physical Anthropology qualifies that definition by any means one looks at it. You are taking egregious liberties with the rules here and it is dangerous precedent that you are setting. You are changing the wikipedia definition of what is reliable and acceptable. If this source is unacceptable, then every single other source in the article is unreliable and we can delete the entire article because there is no source that will qualify your personal definition. Do you want to see this article revert back to a stub?. I do not have sufficient time to pursue this issue to endlessly with you and you would probably have your way because of this. But think what you are doing here. Your editing style is clearly unconstructive. You must cite community consensus before you radically alter a source like this. thanks


 * I do understand that point. As I said, there might be a way to rephrase that block of text, although you have not responded regarding your other reverts nor have you addressed why that particular block of text has any content-based merit for inclusion. Nor whether you would be ok with me adding stuff from JAS, which is also prima facie reliable. - Sitush (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

- Sitush (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For clarity, and in case someone else should jump in, the text that you are addressing is "ABO blood group and p, q and r gene frequency distribution study done on the Sainis of Punjab by Department of Anthroplogy, University of Delhi, which was published in 1961 in American Journal of Physical Anthropology, stated that there is a complete overlap between the blood strain and genetic frequencies of Sainis and other Punjabi groups of Rajput extraction (mostly from present day Himachal Pradesh) and Punjabis from Peshawar in North Western Frontier Province. The same study also concluded that ABO blood group and genetic frequencies of Jats and Khatris of Punjab significantly differed from those of Rajput groups of the region. Some other groups with which ABO strains and gene distribution frequency of Sainis resembled were Khatris, Kayasthas and Brahmins of Uttar Pradesh. The similarity of Sainis of Punjab with the latter groups of UP was not as close as with the Peshawaris and broader Punjabi Rajput group which showed Chi-squared coefficients of 0.631 and 1.20 respectively, degrees of variance which have no statistical significance. The Chi-squared coefficient for ABO blood group distribution between Sainis and Khatris, Kayasthas and Brahmins of Uttar Pradesh were 2.086, 4.771 and 4.520 respectively which are close but somewhat distant when compared with those in respect of Punjabi Rajputs and Peshawaris."


 * Actually, can you get hold of a copy of that paper in AJPA ? - Sitush (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Then you should have attempted to rephrase before deleting the entire section which was based on a reliable source. JAS will be citable too and anything contradicting it published in a reputable source will be citable as well. Your tactic seem to be to wear people down with endless red herrings and petty fogging technicalities and you will succeed at  this because others don't have so much time at their disposal to keep battling with you endlessly. There was nothing objectionable in section you deleted. The citation seemed to be saying which many other sources were indicating as well and the language was restrained. There was no prima facie case to radically chop down that section without seeking to discuss and establish consensus. Why such rush? Please reconsider your editing style and learn to show respect to other editors who disagree with you.


 * You are still avoiding my points, eg: what merit is there for that content in this article? why did you revert the other stuff? It is not about whether something is objectionable or not, but rather whether it adds something of benefit to the article, is reliable, inclusive, clear and neutral etc. If other sources say the same then that is fine ... but I have yet to see them. The way that that passage is used seems to be very odd to me: the mention, for example, of Jats and Khatris seems to be inviting some sort of synthesis: either the article says that Sainis are related to X or it does not. Just as we need better sourcing for the synthesis that currently exists re: the ancient Shoorsaini community and the modern Sainis. If you do not like my style, btw, then feel free to seek other opinions on this specific issue or to report me to WP:ANI regarding my general modus operandi. You may be right. - Sitush (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Saini vs Shoorsaini
Can anyone find book/other academic sources that directly connect the modern day Saini community to the ancient Shoorsaini one? I've been struggling to do this for some weeks now & the best I can come up with is the stuff that is already cited ... but that is far from being adequate. We have had a similar issue with Ahir/Abhira and Yadav/Yadava. - Sitush (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Considering that you can even consider American Journal of Physical Anthropology to be an unworthy source, there is hardly any source which will convince you. But if your ready to take deep breath here, then this citation positively links both terms without any synthesis required on the part of the editor:

"Many of these clans in the past had established their rule in different parts of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Punjab and were named after powerful kings. For different periods, the community was then known by its clans or segments rather than Shoorsainis. Thus the community came to be known by different names in different areas depending upon the area of origin, name of the king that ruled the area, or the occupation they prusued. In course of time, these became caste and subcaste names. Thus, one can notice that Sainis are known by different names such as Sarsaini, Rajput Saini , Sarsainik...."

/People of India: Haryana, p 430, Kumar Suresh Singh, Madan Lal Sharma, A. K. Bhatia, Anthropological Survey of India, Published by Published on behalf of Anthropological Survey of India by Manohar Publishers, 1994


 * Please note the author is positively identifying both the terms not just expressing it as a matter of community belief. He is just saying they were known originally as Shoorsainis but over the period of time got identified with different clan names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.132.217 (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I only see one community name mentioned in that quote, and AnSI is not a great source (has been discussed at WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * See above completed quote. The third party author clearly links both terms affirmatively as a matter of fact. So the synthesis is present in the source material itself. There are other references too which you have deleted. It should be obvious even to somebody with a very basic knowledge of Indian history that a community which is supposed to have originated from Mathura will be naturally called Shoorsaini because that was the original name of area surrounding Mathura. Yadav/Yadava  is a wrong comparison. Yadav name is adoptive identity of certain group of castes only since 1924. This community was known as Saini in all historical records, some even going back to Sikh rule of Punjab. They have never switched their identity. It is other castes which have adopted their identity to obtain admission to military in colonial times.


 * But all this is besides the point here. Since according to you American Journal of Physical Anthropology and ANSI are not reliable sources, there is almost nothing that can be regarded as citable about this and many other groups on wikipedia. The logical outcome of this scheme of things should  be that this article should be entirely deleted or taken back to stub form because you will never be able to find any reference which beats these sources you have discredited in terms of repute and reliablity.


 * PS - I will not be able to participate in further discussion due to other commitments but I would hope that you keep your contributions constructive and would not use arbitrary logic to give weight to one source over other. Where sources appear unclear, it is much better to give the community benefit of doubt and not write anything negative and controversial. And let me remind you, since you have questioned the above sources you have set the bar for yourself and others too high. I hope you live upto it. thanks.


 * The bar is high. It is meant to be, and we do not give anyone the "benefit of the doubt" - source it reliably or lose it is the bottom line. As for AnSI, that opinion was not mine but rather the opinion of the community. Their stuff can be used but only with support. There are plenty of people here, such as User:Fowler&fowler, who probably would rather that it was not permitted at all. - Sitush (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * With 'benefit of doubt' I did not mean we have to allow something that is unsourced. I meant not using disreputable source to make any controversial statement. That is a form of libel. With a high bar I meant any source you quote must exceed these sources you have just questioned in terms of reliability. I fail to see where you could find such sources on this and many other ethnic groups of the subcontinent. This would mean that these articles have to deleted or taken back to stub form as no citable information exists.


 * Well, if that is what has to be done then that is what has to be done. Stubs are better than unreliable content. I doubt that it will be necessary here, though. As much as the article has been a mess, things have gradually improved over the last 6 months or so. - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mr Sitush, Could you plaese explain to me any difference between research in history and scientific research? Do you think when historians write they could be biased as well? Do you think that ABO blood group research that is mentioned above which you have decided to remove is not true? Do you think Wikipedia is better than Pub med? Do you know what pub med is? The above mentioned article is available on Pubmed nd to be in Pubmed it must have been rigrously reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.76.20 (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read the earlier comments in this thread. I am not prepared to keep repeating myself. - Sitush (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Read your comments. You are saying just because a scientific finding is 50 years old it can't necessarily be regarded as scientific or factual. This is the essence of your stand and it is a ridiculous stand. Just becaue Max Planck dicovered Planck's Constant before 1940, it is no longer scientifically accurate? That's a kind of very spurious reasoning and I am surprised how you have gotten away with this. It may be because you have turned wikipedia into the only job you seem to have and nobody would find enough time and interest to question your "I don't like it" kind of editorial style. It takes some gumption to question a peer-reviwed Pub Med journal like AJPH and then be cocky about it as well. If you believe tha resource is dated then the onus rest with you as a doubter to produce a credible refernece to the contrary. Even if you do manage to produce one, the credibility and citability of AJPH simply does not disappear as you would want others to believe.--98.103.88.147 (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Mr Sitoush Sir, ABO blood grouping is a very important test used to give blood to so many people around the world. It is even more important when it comes to kidney transplant than HLA typing/mismatch. So if the frequency of ABO blood types is matching then it is an indication of common ancestery. So there is no question of it being inaccurate. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.76.20 (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That is interesting but I am unsure whether it is relevant because it looks like synthesis. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean the ABO study about sainis. Do you have any proof of it being a synehtesis and not a real data. If you have sound proof that is is synthetic leave it out but if there is not anything against is then it should by allowed to be there in the article. Wikipedia is emeging as the alternative to library or journal where people can put up there own research work and independent reviewers can review the articles. So you should let it be there and let other people review that article too. Do not act like the editor of a journal. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.76.20 (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Synthesis has a special meaning on Wikipedia - please read the blue link. - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis as per wikipedia means If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. I donot think that mentioning the results of thi study " The study of ABO blood groups of Sainis of Punjab." by SINGH IP, SINGH D available on Pubmed PMID: 13913332 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]amounts to synthesis. It took the ABO blood group testing of Sainis and compare the frequency of blood groups found in other groups/castes of Punjab and neighboring areas. So I donot think that mentioning the findings of this scientific study available on Pubmed is synthesis unless you do not want it to be there for some reason which is hard to understand. I hope your opinion is not biased. As far as your comments about the AJPA being not a good journal. It has been mentioned in the wikipedia itself that "In 2009, the AJPA was selected by the Special Libraries Association as one of the top 10 most influential journals of the century in the fields of biology and medicine, along with the American Journal of Botany, British Medical Journal, Journal of Paleontology, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of Zoology, Nature, New England Journal of Medicine, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, and Science. According to the Journal Citation Reports, its 2010 impact factor is 2.693, ranking it 4th out of 75 in the category "Anthropology" and 21st out of 45 in the category "Evolutionary Biology". Additionally, the AJPA has earned the most citations in the category "Anthropology" each year for over a decade." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.76.20 (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have never said that the journal is suspect. The issues are related to the age of the study (has anything new happened since then in terms of methodology etc) and the scope of the study (without seeing it, the thing might be easily be misused here - quite commonly, this is so and it is often due to synthesis). Furthermore, there is the continued problem of determining whether or not the modern Sainis and ancient Shoorsainis are the same community or not and, depending how things are worded, this too could cause synthesis. I think that the best solution may be for me to try to get hold of a copy of the study and run it past some people who are interested/knowledgeable about that sort of thing - people on the Medical project here, for example. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is what you have written about this peer reviewed journal and I quote "Just because a journal is peer-reviewed etc does not implicitly give it the kudos to be used by us". So before removing any article/source, read it and get it reviewed from others and then decide whether to remove it or not. No matter even if the study is old ABO blood grouping still exists and this study was based upon very sound scientfic experiment of ABO blood grouping. I do not see any reason that why a scientific study which provides info about the link of Sainis had to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.76.20 (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For the reasons I have stated above. Can you get hold of a copy or should I ask at WP:RX? - Sitush (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I can probably get it if you can wait til the weekend, but you'd almost certainly get a faster response over at WP:RX. JanetteDoe (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I don't think that this is a rush job because the thread has dragged on for a while anyway. No point in bothering RX if there is already someone willing to assist. When I get the thing I'll probably have to hand it over to people with expert knowledge, but we will see. - Sitush (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Here it is. JanetteDoe (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Got it, thanks very much. I'll read it later. Still curious re: whether there has been any subsequent work on genetics/blood groups etc, given how old this thing is - I'll see if I can spot anything. - Sitush (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Are Sainis Rajputs?
This page talks about Sainis being Rajputs, and there is an attempt to provide evidence, however weak it may be. Sainis have the right to claim whatever they want to and I'll leave it up to the Wikipedia community to judge the quality of those claims. At the same time, it's appropriate and fair to put forth the other side, that the Sainis are not accepted as Rajputs by other communities. Furthermore, there are dozens of sources which do not ascribe the Sainis Rajput status, and this must be noted in equal light. Not doing so is tantamount presenting misinformation to the wiki community. --Rajput666 (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted you for the time being because it seems to me that your use of the sources was in fact mostly original research and synthesis. For example, you propose an argument that the Sainis could not be rajput because they were market gardeners, which is a conclusion that I do not think the sources support. - Sitush (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All of his sources either have been debated before or are already factored into the article. Rose and Ibbetson, and any other source deriving authority from them, are not WP:RS compliant sources and hence should either not be cited at all or cited with extreme caution. In lead section a controversial and questionable sources must be not be quoted. Ibbetson is already cited in a section below with the nuance a controversial source like it deserves. Lastly, Ibbetson is far from conclusive about origin of this community. One of the  "conclusive" sources (KS Singh,pp 845,  ASI) of Rajput666 itself says:  " ....was their leader under whose leadership they changed their caste name from Phulmali to Saini" . This clearly shows the cited article about the community of Rajasthan does not actually apply to Saini article as it is about another community which switched their name to Saini only in previous century (when Sanskritization was very popular). For the record this reference is also quoted in this article. It more appropriately belongs to Rajput Mali article where is also already quoted. Further, even if according to some warped logic this reference is quoted in this article to advance a position, other ASI article (Dak) which says Saini and Shoorsaini are same and that Sainis are called Saini Rajput in many parts also becomes applicable. So does the genetic study published in American Journal of Physical Anthropology which implicitly refutes a colonial view (i.e. Ibbetson)  by substantiating Rajput affinity of Sainis through serological and genetic analysis.


 * Rajput in Punjab is purely a farming group. One of the largest Rajput groups in --99.233.132.217 (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Hoshiarpur are Mahtons. They also now go as Sikh Rajput. They were engaged in market gardening being melon-cultivators on massive scale (see Montgomery, Gazeteer of Hoshiarpur and Archana B Varma, Making of Little Punjab...). Market gardening has more to do with the soil condition of the sub-mountainous region of Punjab than the status of a group. Also, Edward Balfour, a contemporary of Ibbetson, records Sainis as sugarcane farmers (not market gardners). So there is no agreement even among colonial sources and they need to be treated with extreme caution on this and many other points.


 * Lets agree that there are no clear sources about this and many other caste groups on wikipedia. So editors need tread very carefully. If no group is ( quite rightfully) allowed to use wikipedia to gloriy themselves, it is also important that controversial and discredited sources are not used to tarnish them. Thanks.


 * PS - I may not able to respond again soon due to other commitmentss. Hope admins will maintain the order.--99.233.132.217 (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I will agree with you that there can be many sources, for Sainis and others, and it's hard to arrive at the truth. With that in mind, the article must present all major theories, not only those that you have cherry picked, twisted or otherwise created to serve your agenda. On the point about genetics, you are (and disappointingly the admin is as well) conveniently forgetting that caste in modern India is a social identity, not a biological one. Just because a king slept with his maids (or gardeners) does not mean they become royal! I know plenty of Sainis who sleep with Chamar women, but their offspring do not become Sainis; that is, the kid of a chamari is a chamar, regardless of who the biological father is.

Furthermore, Saini@99.233.132.217 is attempting to discredit published and well-renown authors (Indian and British) by saying they are talking about Rajput Malis from Rajasthan. Every reference I provided in my previous edits is unambiguously about Sainis of Punjab, from the Jalandhar Doab region. Each writer clearly mentions the specific region or Punjab by name. All the links I provided are available on the web and can be read for verification.

All this can be argued back and forth for years without reaching any conclusions. Sainis can claim what they want, but other viewpoints must be highlighted as well. In order to achieve a balance in presenting theories of origin and current status, I propose the following two amendments to this page:

1. The governments of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh designate the Sainis as a backward class. The state of Punjab did the same, at the behest of Sainis themselves, but later retracted when other richer & prominent Sainis protested. The current article lists the Sainis as a "forward caste", which is incorrect given their legal status in Haryana and Himachal. In Punjab, the Saini community is evidently split as to where it stands.

2. Sainis wish to be called Rajputs, but are not accepted as such by other communities, academics and historians, with the appropriate details and remarks provided.

The second point is not an argument by me. I am not saying "because Sainis were gardeners, they are not Rajputs." This point simply highlights an alternative theory that is already prevalent. The Saini writers of this article have cherry picked some references and twisted others to put forth a very biased, one-sided and an incorrect article. Bringing the other theories to light will make this article more balanced and fair. Just to re-emphasize: none of this is "my argument"; my proposal is only to summarize what already exists, is known and is widely accepted. --Rajput666 (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I also wanted to point out that it is ridiculous to claim that what I am proposing has been already been synthesized or incorporated. That is plain wrong. Point me to a line where any of this is present on the current article. If you think having a link to Rajput Malis takes care of this, you're incorrect. That is clearly a separate community and is not the object of discussion at hand. --Rajput666 (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rajput Mali is a group which changed its identity to Saini in 1931 to avail quotas under martial classes. The source you cited clearly says that they were not called Saini before some leader had them change their identity to Saini for political reason. They are not original and authentic Sainis. So that source is not usable here except to discuss Rajput Malis tangentially as 20th century claimant to Saini identity as part of the broader Sanskritization movement. The article itself is clearly about Rajasthan, not Punjab. Using your logic even Kashyap Rajput references should be used in Rajput articles, right? --99.233.132.217 (talk) 07:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should indeed need show all non-fringe opinions that are verifiable using reliable sources; and, yes, it would be reasonable to say that the Sainis of this or that region believe themselves to be Rajput. What we cannot do is synthesise information by, for example, saying that because Sainis are classified as BC then they therefore cannot be Rajput. - Sitush (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no synthesis here. I am proposing to make two completely, utterly, and totally independent points:

1. Sainis are classified as a backward class (as detailed above).

2. A number of historians and academics do not give Sainis Rajput status.

1 does not cause 2, and 2 does not cause 1, and 1 and 2 together do not lead to a 3rd point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput666 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. I have misunderstood you. My apologies for that. - Sitush (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, Given ther discussion above, can you please make a note, similar to the one you just made, that their Rajput status is also disputed? You can pick any of the references I provided earlier. I will drop my request to list the Sainis as a backward class, unless somebody else want to put it there (since it is their legal status). I have no desire to belittle any community, so a simple comment saying that "it is disputed" is good enough for me. --Rajput666 (talk) 02:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your references Ibbetson et al are not citable, especially in lead, as they are from a dubious source. I can give you more references which clearly state that these works contains shoddy research and bureaucratic forgeries. SITUSH has even removed a Pub Med reference in recent past and raised serious doubts about the credibility of ANSI reports. He even considers Col Tod, without whom Rajput history, does not even exist, as unreliable. Ibbetson and Rose stand no chance on reliablility scale. Also, your contrite tone is appreciated but it is still misleading because you are still posting libel and half-truths. (1) Saini is not a backward caste in Punjab, J&K and Chandigarh. Reference: http://obcreservation.net/ver2/reservation-mainmenu-9/how-to-get-mainmenu-107/59-punjab.html . OBC certificate is issued by deputy commissioner office using a state govenrment list. Check that list for Punjab on the foregoing link... Sainis do not figure in it. Largest authentic Saini population lives in Punjab.  Sainis lasted in OBC category for less than 20 days through an illegal ordinance when Badal government had resorted to electoral gimmick. No community member from the state has ever obtained even a single reservation (2) Entire Rajput community of Haryana is recommended for inclusion in OBC category by a judicial commission (check Gurnam Singh Commission Report)- Reference: "He pointed out that the report of the Backward Classes Commission of Haryana (Gurnam Singh Commission), set up in 1991, had declared Ahirs, Gujjars, Jats, Jat Sikhs, Bishnois, Sainis, Rodes, Tyagis and Rajputs backward castes" reference: http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2721/stories/20101022272103300.htm (3) OBC status of Sainis in Haryana is disputed for a long time as they were given this status despite failing commission's test of backwardness. Reference: “This is ridiculous. On the one hand the Commission vouches for the comprehensiveness of the survey and claims the sample to be fairly representative. In the original Socio-educational Survey, Saini caste obtained only 11 points which are similar to the non-backward castes of the State ( Arora 15 points, Brahamans 10 points). When the results of the Survey did not help the Commission to declare Sainis backwards, the Commission resorted to a trick which is unique in itself. The Commission chose one of the most inaccessible, underdeveloped villages where Sainis were in majority. Now the Commission compares the results obtained from this village survey with rest of the State. Only information this village survey provides is that the Sainis in this village are backward when compared to the rest of the State. Why did the Commission not applied the the same yardstick  in matter of other castes?  It will turn out that even Arora/Khatris are more backward than Sainis” Report of the Backward Class Commission (Gurnam Singh Commission) of Haryana. 1990, Youthforequality.com. Note: One of the three members of Executive committe was a Saini. It is alleged that he manipulated rules have to Saini community of Haryana in OBC list despite the community having scored only 1 point more than Brahmins on backwardness scale (lower than Khatris, Jat Sikhs etc.  (4) Backward/Forward status of a community cannot be used to ascertain a community's ancestry. Rajputs of Rajasthan are also demanding legal backward class legal status. In Karnataka Rajputs are already listed as a backward caste officially. Check the list here and see caste #152.


 * You say caste is social not genetic. It is true but it is also true that caste order that prevails today was mediated, redefined are reinforeced in colonial era. British unsucessfully tried to piegeonhole Indians into rigid caste groupings until they realized its futility in 1931 and abandoned all efforts in this regard. The category called "Rajput" as a caste grouping was defined in the British era . Many of the caste groupings existing in present day India came into existence only during colonial era. Pre-colonial social order of India was much more fluid. You can easily find doctoral quality  references about this if you have access to any good university library in your area. Check the works of Inden, Kasturi et al in this regard.  I suggest that you tone down your rhetoric  and do not make inflammatory statements about any group (not because it is rude to do so but also because they can respond in kind and it creates an unconstrutive environment for editorial work) . Sorry for this long post and I have broken my own resolve to stay away from wikipedia. Take it easy. If you don't hear back for some time...it means that  I have  been successful in my resolve to stay away from internet. Thanks. --99.233.132.217 (talk) 06:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * SS Gahlot, who identifies Sainis positively as a group of Rajput descent and character, is no fringe theorist but a highly reputable academic who is even cited by Encyclipedia Britannica as a source. He has over 700 references on Google Scholar. Further, SS Gahlot himself is a Rajput and hence wiuld be very conservative in acknowledging such coaims. Trevaskis and AnSI (Haryana)  only echo a well known view. Genetic studies corroborate the oral and historical view. There is a strong academc ring of truth about this.


 * Regarding Ibbetson and Rose, you yourself on many other articles have disqualified them as citable sources for good reasons.  They as sources are more atrocious than Tod.


 * For the record, Sainis are not in OBC category in Punjab, Chandigarh and Jammu and Kashmir. Largest Saini populatin is in Punjab. Not all Sainis in Haryana are considred genuine . Also, according to Gurnam Singh Commission, the entire Rajput community of Haryana was recommended for inclusion in OBC list. I wish I had more time to debunk this guy's libel. Hope you will not compromise your standards for vetting sources. Peer-reviewed academics must be given more credence than other sources. Thanks.--99.233.132.217 (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, there are only two other Rajput groups in Hoshiarpur. Mahton and Ghorewaha . Former are also engaged in agriculture primarily . The latter are considered degraded Rajputs and traitors by others because in Muslim rule they offered their women in concubinage/ marriage to Muslims to retain petty estates . They had received their estate from Muhammad Ghauri who is regarded as the biggest villain of Rajput history. Not a citable opinion but a common view from rural Hosiarpur. Rajputs are an extremely fragmented and heterogenous group . It is not uncommon for one group to deny the claims of others. --99.233.132.217 (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You need to provide sources for your statements. Gahlot only covers a part of your points. & while you do name-drop some people I am struggling to see any specific references. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to Sainis of Punjab who do not intermarry outside the state, then the asnwer is Yes. They are largely descendants of Tanwar-Jadaun Rajputs who ruled Mathura, Bayana, Delhi, etc till 1100 AD. This Tanwar-Jadaun Rajput line coming down from Pandvas and Yadavas of ancient time was called "Saini" as short form of "Shoorsaini". Delhi and Mathura area was part of Shoorsaini (Surasena) kingdom and its rulers were accordingly called "Saini". The Chaunsat Khamba mural in Kaman contains the names of many Saini kings of this region.

According to native accounts they came to Punjab around 11 00 AD to fight Muhammad Ghazni and other Turk invaders. Their clan names have a large overlap with Hill/Dogra Rajputs, in particularly Pathania Rajputs who are also Tanwar descent. Pathania Rajputs have a similar story of their migration from the kingdom of Delhi and Mathura around the same time. Their ancestor founded the fort of Dhameri in Pathankot which was renamed to Nurpur later on. It is to be noted that Dhamrait is a major and dominant clan of Sainis in Hoshiarpuir and Gurdaspur districts of Punjab. In the hills the same clan is found among Pathania Rajputs as Dhamrial. This clan is linked with the fort of Dhameri. Further, there is a Dhameri near Delhi as well which gives the suggestion that the identical ancestors of Pathanias and Saini Rajputs moved from this region and founded another town with the same name to preserve the memory of original home near Delhi and Mathura.

Some people say that Tanwars are not Yadavs but Pandavas. But Col. Tod believed Tanwars are Yadavs. Sri Krishna also had a son called Tamra Bhadra. This line may have been named after him as Sainis of Punjab who have large number of Tanwar Rajput clans such as Badwal, Biloria, Mangar, Dhamrait (Dhamrial), etc invariably claim Jadaun Rajput descent. Even if Tanwars are descendants of Pandavas they would still be linked with Maharaja Shoorsen (the founder of Saini dynasty) through matrilineal blood line. Truth may be somewhat in between as descendants of Yadavas and Pandavas got deeply interfused due to intermarriages.

ABO blood group analysis of Sainis and Hill Rajputs published in American Journal of Physhical Anthropology in 1961 showed almost identical strains (with non-significant differences) which further gives credence to the view that the latter or the former have originated from each other. The term "Saini" or "Shoorsaini" is much older in history than the term Rajput which also gives the indication that many of Jadaun and Tanwar Rajput clans originated from Saini rulers of Mathura and Delhi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.67.93.232 (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Geez. Will people please read WP:RS and WP:SYNTHESIS. All of this rubbish is irrelevant. What you know counts for nothing here - sources are everything and we cannot make connections where they do not exist. And James Tod is not a reliable source, period. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it rubbish. It only mirrors Gahlot, Trevaskis and ANSI citations. However, I agree that it is not citable as it looks like original research and synthesis. But rubbish it is not. It makes an interesting reading. Ciao --99.233.132.217 (talk) 06:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above gentleman that you can not rubbish Tods work. Also there was no synthesis as far as the Anthropology study mentioned was concerned. It was merely mentioned in the article and if you read the initial part of the study it says that even though the Sainis are considered market gardeners by other castes {as mentioned by this gentleman Mr Rajput999 (who seems to me is not a Rajput because I do not think that it is in the character of Rajputs to degrade other castes like he has done in his comments)}, but Sainis consider that they are Rajputs, so this study was done to look at this claim in a scientific way. So mentioning in the article is not Synthesis. I hope that it is looked at with open mind and that the administrators are not biased with some ulterior motive. Moreover there was a General of Sisodia army who was a Saini named Gurdan Saini mentioned by author way before Ibbetson's work. Ibbetson has also degraded Punjabi rajputs by calling them Mahtons. There is story about Mahtons in Punjab as to why they are called Mahtons which means Maa ton (from mother). Rose's work is all based upon Ibbetson's work as he used Ibbetson as the reference. If someone still wants to mention Ibbetson's work and Rose's work they are more than welcome to from my standpoint. I do not feel bad about it. Even though our number is insignificant in India but I feel proud to be Saini, if some one wants to call me Mali who cares, but there are historians and scientfic study which points towards the origin of Sainis from warrior class and it has been proved tme and again by community personalities such as Gurdan Saini who was General of Rajput army, which makes me feel that being a Saini he led Rajput army against invading Islamic army and sacrificed his life. So he was either a Rajput Saini or Mali Saini ( which I doubt as mentioned earlier that in that period how could Rajputs make a Mali their commander), but was brave enough to fight. There are many more personalities like him in the history of Sainis such as Gursa Singh Gahunia one of the first Baptist Sikhs, a Saini who scarficied his life fighting against Islam, a Saini friend of Raja Nahar Singh, then Nanu Mal (Singh) Saini mentioned in the history books and many more such personalities. Atleast Sainis fought against Muslims and chose to die rather than please the Muslims by giving expensive gifts and even daughters as done by numerous other caste people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.30.121.42 (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Administrator note; I've reviewed the history of this article and the associated talkpage, and I see a few editors (Sitush, JanetteDoe, Boing! said Zebedee, and a couple others) working towards a neutral, encyclopedic article being harangued from every direction by users who wish to push their personal analysis into this article at all costs. Consider this your only warning; if I see any more walls of text like the ones above directed at Sitush, I'll start handing out blocks and article bans like candy on Halloween. Can everyone hear now? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 20:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, No body is commenting on the ABO blood group study which is a scientific study. Also this Rajput 999 user is using derogatory remarks and violating the Wiki policy. So did you ban him? How neutral are you as an administrator or Sitush is when none of you guys are commenting on the scientfic study. Someone mentione dthat this study is old so it is not a good study to rely as it was conducted 40-50 years ago. What kind if argument was this? If a study is old it does not mean it is not quotable and if a study is recent does not automatically make it a ground breaking study. If you as an adn=ministrator want to ban the article, go ahead an do it. Who cares about this Wikipedia site when it is managed by administrators like you. That is why it is said that little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Go ahead and ban me or whosoever you want to and ban this article. Next time when Wikipedia appeals for its users to sign the petition so that it not banned I will think twice because now I know it is run by some arrogant and biased people. You do not even know how to talk on the social site. i will be waiting for this candy on Halloween aka your ban, jerk. Sitush has mentioned as on March 6th 2012 somewhere else on Wiki site that he would read all the sources available in 3-4 days and then reach on a conlusion about this articel. he must be genius that he will read all these references written over such a long period of time and then decide in 3-4 days. What was he doing prior to March 6th and if did not ahve all the knowledge why was he suggesting corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.76.20 (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sainis along with other Rajput clans of Punjab such as Mahtons, Kambohs etc are of Rajput origin. Please visit this link http://www.sikhcastes.com/saini-sikh-subcastes and read each and every line carefully. I think the information which is provided in this link will remove all your doubts regarding Sainis as Rajputs. Fact is fact. Thanks! Have a nice day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garry Singh Girn (talk • contribs) 11:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wrong place. This discussion is now at WP:DRN, as you well know. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, the DRN discussion was closed with a recommendation that we continue discussing here and take matters to WP:RSN if required. Are any of the contributors who have ignored the proposed sources that deny the Saini Rajput status actually of the opinion that those sources are not reliable? If not, then we show both sets of opinions; if they are then they should probably open a discussion at WP:RSN. It is pointless going round in circles here and so far all I am seeing is people wanting to censor the article by ignoring anything that queries the Saini's Rajput heritage. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, As i can see in your above comment "....I am seeing is people wanting to censor the article by ignoring anything that queries the Saini's Rajput heritage." Nobody here is ignoring nothing. As i have seen above all comments of this talk page and also at WP:DRN. I noticed that you and other users who are denying Sainis to be a part of Rajputs are unable to provide even a single! source that clearly says that Sainis are not Rajput. And its funny that here you are talking about reliability and non-reliability. First provide any reference/source that clearly says that Sainis are not Rajputs, then we will discuss about its level of reliability and take the issue at WP:RSN. You are unsuccessfull in proving that Sainis are not Rajputs... and then also you are saying that the users are ignoring sources. Morever, i have also seen that the user Rajput666 even does not provide the correct reason of dispute. As i have seen the reason provided by Rajput666 on DRN, he commented that the members of Saini community wants Sainis as Rajput status and non-Saini users disapprove this. He had given totally wrong reason. The users who are in favour of Saini-Rajput status doesnt mean that they are Sainis. They may be or may not be the member of Saini community. So, whether a user is in favour or against the Saini-Rajput status does not approve or disapprove himself/herself to be member of Saini community. I am in favour of Saini as Rajputs, because of strong reliable sources. It doesnt affect me whether i am member of Saini community or not. I would only like to give weightage to the sources and their reliability not to the community to which i belongs. So my advise to Mr. Sitush and Rajput666 is that please do not make any personal image in your heart about Saini community. Meet any Saini person in real life, you will be very surprised about his cool, bravery, honesty and welcoming nature. I feel sorry if i am saying wrong that you and Rajput666 have created an personal image in your heart but it seems to me that you have created. Because you and Rajput666 had always ignored the strong sources/refrences that clearly says that Sainis are Rajputs. You and Rajput666 had always tried to show that Sainis are not Rajputs by twisting the very weak sources to a very much extent. No one references clearly says that Sainis are not Rajputs. So i think we should close this issue here and should give Sainis to be part of Rajputs status in Saini as well other wiki articles related to Rajput Kshtriyas etc... Thanks you. SalariaRajput (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am certainly not saying that Sainis are not Rajput! Where did you get that idea from? I couldn't care less whether they are Rajput or come from Mars. What I am saying, and I think that I can speak for Rajput666 here also, is that the Rajput status of Sainis is a claim made by members of that community rather than something which is necessarily accepted by everyone else. Since we are not censored and we are bound by policies such as WP:NPOV, we should to show any non-fringe theories etc as well as the Saini community's own claim. Plenty of examples of such sources have been provided but thus far most of those campaigning to show just one "side" are generally not even acknowledging that the things exist. I for one am not going to roll over just because members of the community want to show things in a way that places them in a "better" light than might otherwise be the case. This issue has been rumbling on for months across numerous articles and numerous people have removed attempts to make the Saini-Rajput connection a "fact" on those articles. Some probably are from other Indian castes and, yes, some may have ulterior motives. But it could equally be said that some of those who have been inserting the one-sided statement are Sainis and also have ulterior motives. I am not even Indian, let alone a Saini. I have no vested interest in the matter. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "SalariaRajput" (which you are not): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SalariaRajput clearly shows your actual identity (that you're a saini). Not that it matters, but since that's the crux of your whole argument, it had to be pointed out. And I, along with many others, have repeatedly provided plenty of evidence that establishes the Sainis as a separate non-Rajput community. It's unfortunate that you and other Sainis are bent on promoting your own agenda while ignoring the majority view. The majority in this case is not the non-Saini wiki editors, but rather dozens of scholars and vast amount of written material (all available online for validation) produced by them. --Rajput666 (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Rajput666" (which you are not): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rajput666 clearly shows your actual motive (that you're a anti-Saini). Not that it matters, but since that's the crux of your whole argument, it had to be pointed out. And you, along with many others, have repeatedly tried to provide plenty of evidence that establishes the Sainis as a separate non-Rajput community. But always failed (Because these evidences were very poor and weak, and does not even clearly states that 'Sainis are not Rajput'). It's unfortunate that you and other users are bent on promoting your own agenda while ignoring the majority view. The majority in this case is not the Saini wiki editors, but rather dozens of scholars and vast amount of written material (all available online for validation) produced by them. Hope you have understood in your way. 49.14.114.229 (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

@Sitush: no, you are wrong. You should not say and even should not try to guess any user to be member of Saini or non-Saini community, just by his/her editing record or history, unless he/she himself/herself accepts to be the member of Saini community or non-Saini community in his/her comments or anywhere else. As it is a matter of ethinticity, it can hurt any body.SalariaRajput (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

@Rajput666 (Which he is not): haha, you are trying to proving me to be the member of Saini community, just because my editing history is full of articles related to Saini. What's the fun is this? FYI i am not the member of the Saini community. This time, i am interesting in editing articles dealing with Saini dynasty. If tommorow i will start editing articles only related to Jat community, Khatri community or some other community, will you start calling me to be member of Jat ot Khatri community?SalariaRajput (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The term "Neo-Saini"
I'm not seeing any mention of the term "Neo-Saini" in any scholarly sources, or frankly on any websites except Wiki mirrors or caste partisan pages (which are also generally wiki-copies). It's clearly a loaded term, and part of some editors overall angle to emphasise their "Malis aren't real Sainis, but Sainis are real Rajputs" argument. Unless we have some decent amount or use of "Neo-Saini" in scholarly materials, then how can be do anything but assume it's some made-up term by non-academics? I submit the section be re-titled "Malis renamed as Sainis". If we have sources stating (as I expect we do) that some Sainis took issue with this, by all means let us include them. If we have reputable, neutral academics stating that the renaming was not accurate, let's cite that too. But such a section is not the place to state personal opinions, or provide non-scholarly assessments as to the validity of the renaming. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the present title is poor. - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Salaria changed the section to Post 1930 Co-Option of Saini Identity by Mali Caste, which I submit is still POV, since "co-option" certainly rings negatively here, and "post-1930" is rather pointy as well. I've renamed it (yet again) Mali caste identifying as Saini. Hopefully that can be NPOV for both those who think Malis are Sainis and those who do not; regardless of accuracy of Mali claims, we can agree that they "identify" as Sainis, yes? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

B. S. Saini
Has anyone got access to The social & economic history of the Punjab, 1901–1939 (B. S. Saini), which is used as a source for various points in this article? - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Blood group issue, revisited
Please forgive the length post - I really do not have any choice here. I have read the "American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1961 Sep;19:223-5" source, which has been in and out of this article on several occasions, eg: here. Here follow some remarks, from someone who is not an expert in the science: Now, one obvious problem that has not already been mentioned is that the contested passage in our article is clearly someone's interpretation of the data presented in the published comparative table of studies. For example, "there is a complete overlap between the blood strain and genetic frequencies of Sainis and other Punjabi groups of Rajput extraction (mostly from present day Himachal Pradesh) and Punjabis from Peshawar in North Western Frontier Province" and "The similarity of Sainis of Punjab with the latter groups of UP was not as close as with the Peshawaris and broader Punjabi Rajput group which showed Chi-squared coefficients of 0.631 and 1.20 respectively, degrees of variance which have no statistical significance. The Chi-squared coefficient for ABO blood group distribution between Sainis and Khatris, Kayasthas and Brahmins of Uttar Pradesh were 2.086, 4.771 and 4.520 respectively which are close but somewhat distant when compared with those in respect of Punjabi Rajputs and Peshawaris." I am not convinced that these conclusions drawn by a Wikipedia contributor comply with our policies and if we were to include the source at all - which I still consider to be moot - then we should stick to quoting the text of its authors as I have done above. - Sitush (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article describes how Purser and Ibbetson differ somewhat in their opinions of whether a Saini-Rajput relationship exists, that there is a Saini claim of Rajput origin (according to Ibbetson) but also a communal belief that they were of Mali origin (according to Purser).
 * The study was confined to 200 participants from areas in Punjab and took place > 50 years ago. Those participants claimed to be Saini and to be unrelated to each other. Such caste claims are notoriously difficult to prove and formed a large part of the problems with classification in censuses, although the study does not say this. Similarly, with modern DNA techniques I am sure that it would be possible to determine at least any close relationships, but I am less sure whether it was possible to do so when this study took place. Note that many Indian communities are or were endogamous.
 * They use the "Race and Sanger" (1954) technique. Is this still deemed to be suitable today? A similar question applies for their calculation of gene frequencies of ABO, where they used Boyd's "approximate method" of 1950 and Stevens's "maximum likelihood" method. Also for Taylor & Prior's method for ascertaining goodness of fit, and the theory of Bernstein to which all of these various tests were compared.
 * It found that " the frequency distribution of ABO blood groups among the Sainis. We notice that B is found most frequently while A and 0 are also quite common." It also compared the ABO type and gene frequencies with previous studies by other people of other groups in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh: the Rajputs of Punjab; the Punjabis of Lahore and of Peshawar; the Jats of Punjab and Kashmir; the Kayasthas, Khatris, Chamars, Doms, Kshatriyas & Brahmins (2 studies) of U.P.; and the Khatris and Aroras of Delhi. With the exception of the last of these, which considered a population > 3000, the sample size was generally around 110-200, although one was 416. Bearing in mind the problems that are well-known to contributors with a reasonable experience of the various Wikipedia caste articles, I would really query some of those classifications - "Kshatriyas", in particular, seems to be a notoriously dodgy area to pin down.
 * The conclusion of the comparison with other studies was that "Sainis show significant difference only from Jats, Chamars and Khatris of Punjab. They show very non-significant difference with Rajputs of Punjab and Peshawris. They also show non-significant difference with Punjab (Boyd), Kayasthas, Khatris, Doms and Brahmin of U. P. (Majumdar). Very high B gene frequency, namely 0.2633, is noticed in our data which is consistent with the distribution of the gene in this region." I have no idea of the validity of those previous studies.
 * The overall conclusion was that "Blood groups of Sainis, a gardening and cultivating tribe, have been studied. A very high B gene frequency has been noticed among them as in other Asiatic groups. They are not found to be significantly different from other groups for ABO blood groups of Punjabis."


 * Please note that comments like following is clear indication of WP:OR. You are not supposed to dissect sources like this:

"They use the "Race and Sanger" (1954) technique. Is this still deemed to be suitable today? A similar question applies for their calculation of gene frequencies of ABO, where they used Boyd's "approximate method" of 1950 and Stevens's "maximum likelihood" method. Also for Taylor & Prior's method for ascertaining goodness of fit, and the theory of Bernstein to which all of these various tests were compared."


 * Are you now a geneticist as well? Please get published first, then somebody might quote your opinion. This also shows the extent you would go to bend the rules to justify your excesses when an apology would be in the order. What does "non-significant" differences mean other than a "complete or significant overlap"?  Again, you CANNOT question the scientific validity of the report. In any case, what just merited a discussion for a tweak, you deleted the entirely willy nilly and have been rationalizing since because somebody caught it in time. BTW, the researchers are using a scientific study to disprove a quote from a source (Purser, Ibbetson, et al) which according to Wikipedia is not reliable in first place. The quote in the begining of the article is from 1881 census report which is proven to contain forgeries and unscientific data . Purser had written a lot of other nonsense about Rajput groups like Mahtons which was contested in courts later on and expunged from government records. Please check out the history of 99.233.29.22 (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I also want to point out the journal article no where uses the words "communal belief" . It again goes on to show how you introduce your biases by spinning your sources as per your need. Even Ibbetson who created this confusion in first place falls short of clearly identifying Sainis with Malis. BTW, in the same work he acknowledges that he had never visited Punjab proper and his work had serious shortcomings. He also clearly wrote "higher tribes of Sainis would not intermarry with Malis" . Where did these "higher tribes" disappear? And how does an opinion tracing to a dubious source that contradicts itself become "communal belief"? And I see you have deleted HA Trevaskis but have no trouble on harping about a dubious source like Purser to project a "communal belief". If it had been a communal belief, HA Trevaskis who wrote later - who was no relative of Sainis- would have surely mentioned in his work  of 1928 where he implicitly treats Sainis as a Rajput group which took to agriculture after losing the wars.--99.233.29.22 (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this poor source? Why? What Sitush Projecting?
“Holdings, as per revenue records, are mostly small and marginal. Very few owners have holding 10-15 acres. In general high caste Jat Sikhs and Saini Sikhs have bigger holdings and low caste people have smaller holdings” -Rajender Vora, Page 196, ‘Socio-Economic Profile Of Rural India (vol. 3 : Western And North Central India)’, Concept Publishing Company, 2005

I cant understand why Sitush always removes the reliable sources which puts Sainis in better place? This is just one example. He had removed many reliable sources from this article like American Journal of Physical Anthropology etc... and targeting for more references/sources to be removed. One day he will change all the information of this article, which will place Sainis in darker place. I cant understand why he is projecting.

He always tried to proof himself that he is not even Indian. But it doubts me very much. He always said that he is having only Neutral Point of View. No, he is not having neutral point of view (as seen from his edits)

Do any body know what is community/religion to which Sitush belongs? After knowing this it will be more easier for me to give explanation to Mr. Sitush.106.76.173.208 (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That source was used to verify the statement that Sainis are landowners. Doubtless, some are indeed such but it does not say that all of them are (in fact, it doesn't even say that all Sikh Sainis are) and it flatly contradicts the next paragraph, which explains how Sainis have moved into bureaucratic jobs etc. This is not about promoting or displacing Sainins but rather about weight and verifiability. At a pinch, we could perhaps says that "some" are landowners today, but does that really add anything useful? I doubt it. The only people who are wanting to promote Sainis here appear likely to be from that very community, whilst there are several contributors to this article and talk page who do not even have a connection with India, let alone the Sainis or some "rival" community. I am one of those people. I suspect that the IP is SalariaRajput. If so then please can you try not to edit when logged out. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

@Sitush- Though the reference which the IP 106.76.173.208 is talking about is added by me. But this is not me. You should not say this.SalariaRajput (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

@Sitush- It does not flatly contradicts the next paragraph, which explains how Sainis have moved into bureaucratic jobs etc. For example if any person is engineer or doctor by profession, it doesnt mean that he is not having lots of land. You find it very very easily in India that a person who is engineer, doctor, businessmen, lecturer, policemen etc by profession... have very large no. of acres of land.SalariaRajput (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, ignore the word "flatly". It is still confusing and I absolutely guarantee you that not every Saini is a landowner and that the source is inadequate. Can I prove it? No, but you cannot prove the opposite and when a community is as large as this one we really should be erring on the side of caution and reasonableness. - Sitush (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sitush, you have misunderstood the issue here. The word "landowning" in Punjab used to be a legal term reserved only for select caste groups during colonial era. Refer to THE PUNJAB ALIENATION OF LAND ACT, 1900 which gives the official list of tribes considered landowning tribes. Sainis, Bhattis, Chibbs, Mahtons, Jats, etc had the official status as landowning tribes. It does not mean every member of these tribes was a land owner but the majority were deemed to be so. Artisan and business castes were not incuded in this list.--History Sleuth (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

@sitush- I agree with you that all! Sainis are not landowners. Not only Saini, there is not even a single community in India whose all members are landowners. But i guarantee that majority of Sainis are landowners. I have not write anywhere that all Sainis are landowners. I have only added reference, which you have removed by giving unsatisfactorily reason. I only want that reference should be re-added. Whats the problem in adding this refrence? Even this refrence is also not saying that all Sainis are landowners. It just supporting this statement "historically.... and landowners"SalariaRajput (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have explained the problem above. "Sainis ... are landowners" infers that all Sainis are landowners, whereas in fact it is probable that only some are landowners. Since some of pretty much most communities worldwide will own a bit of land, the point is completely trivial. In addition, and what I should have said first time round, we try to avoid citations in lead sections. Leads are intended to summarise an article and I have been trying to fix this dreadful article for months now, so taking a step backward does not appeal to me. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then remove the word "are" only. Why you are removing whole reference? It should be added.SalariaRajput (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have explained that the citation is in the wrong place. That they were landlords is already sourced in the body of the article. You are now way, way past 3RR despite the warnings and explanations given to you. I suggest that you self-revert before an admin spots it. - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, I believe you have been telling that you are not even Indian and you are white. No such old proverb exits that "Saini sainian de sallay" which is mentioned under the section Marriage. Moreover it lacks evidence and as you have been saying that anything that does not have evidence, does not qualify according to Wikipedia policies. So remove those lines, if not then I am going to remove those. Do not use these kind of derohatory remarks. It appears to me as a malafide intention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.76.20 (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Claimed proverb regarding Sainis
So mathew, tell me one thing, if there is something that is added to this article saying that sainis may be Rajpits which is said by Todd, or Gehlot or Bansi Dhar, that had been romoved or distorted. Would like to know why And then there are certain things without proof, not meeting th Wikipedia standards such as this line saying that there is an old saying that "Saini Sainian de Salley" which has no evidence and is against the Wikipedia policies and seems to be rude. Why is it so Is there a hidden agenda? I had requested to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.76.20 (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Given the large number of people who have edited this page, identifying any one "hidden agenda" is impossible. Whoever applied that one particular line may have had an "agenda" in doing so, but if we haven't addressed that line recently it's probably because we've had some controversy in the article recently, as as noted a lot of tampering by IPs who have refused to provide any explanation or coordinate with other editors. That said, you raise a valid point that said line is both uncited and challenged, so I've removed it:


 * There used to be an old proverb popular in rural Punjab, "Saini Sainiyan De Salläy", implying that a Saini will accept only another Saini as his brother-in-law, and will neither give nor take bride from any other caste or tribe.


 * I'm posting it here in case anyone later finds any proper reference for this but I don't want to leave it in the article itself (despite it only recently being tagged "citation needed") if there's concern its inaccurate or unsourceable. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Another section which is now called as Malis named as saini or, I think the claim is and the evidence is that Malis started identifying themselves as sainis. Some vested interests it seems have been trying to create confusion by using he lines "Some people in that area identified themselves as Saini apparently due to their intermarriage with Malis." and try to give the impresson that these people were called sainis because of their marriage to Malis. Whereas previuosly it had been mentioned that Malis started using Sainis later on and not the other way around. Again to me it seems malafide intention and against the wikipedia policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.76.20 (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I must be missing something here. There seems to be no doubt that Malis were accorded the recognition of the Saini title. Are you questioning the sources? Or are you questioning the reason why this recognition was granted? The entire Saini community - with or without the Mali aspect - is an absolute nightmare to sort out from the perspective of an encyclopedic coverage and, frankly, much of it seems to be built on one or more houses of cards. - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ahirs were also given Yadava title by census commissioner in 1931. From the past scrutiny of your edits, it seemed you spent a great energy in deconstructing that connection just on that basis. Here in this case you are singing a different song. The "title" bestowed by a colonial officer, not even fully conversant with the history and culture of the land, has no meaning. Malis wanted to become eligible for army by passing themselves off as Sainis and some leaders wanted to get their votes. This change of "title" was part of that identity manipulation so common in 1920-1930. It is called Sanskritization, hello! And you know it very well. If you acknowledge these "titles", Jheers or water cariers, i.e Kashyap Rajputs,  will have to be included in Rajputs, carpenters will have to be included in Brahmins. Here is the problem with you which others have also noted. You claim to be neutral , but display a clear bias. You don't vandalize an article like those uncouth mud-slingers. You instead fight a battle of thousand cuts and incrementally degrade an article, removing critical references which do not seem to be in line with your particular bias. You take one position in one article and then contradict yourself in another. If the claim of Ahirs to be Yadavas is weak and unproven on the basis of identity manipulation in 1931 census, so is the claim of Malis to be Sainis. Why has Trevaskis been removed from the article?  Why it is said that Sainis "claim" to be Rajputs when there is a clear quote from a reliable source - a source even used by Encylopedia Britannica- positively identifying them as Rajputs who took to agriculture after Muslim invasion.  A source cited by Encyclopedia Britannica cannot be called fringe source. It has to be a source of highest academic quality. [| Check out Gahlot's work and prove that the author has any doubt about the Rajput ancestry and character of Sainis of Punjab]. You will also have to argue as to why a source cited by Encyclopedia Britannica needs not to be given proper weight.


 * For your information even Rajput Malis, who changed their title to Saini in 1931, are regarded to be of pure Rajput lineage. Their crematoriums in Rajasthan are common with Rajputs. Rajputs do not let any other caste use their cremation yards. 1890 Marwar State Census acknowledged them as sub-category within Rajputs. Look its clear that sources about this article are sparse and somewhat diffuse, but instead of seeking clarity, you seem to be exploiting that aspect to project your own bias in the article.Please refrain from this.  Keep your editorial oversight consistent on all articles. Don't shift your positions to suit the need of the moment. Thanks.--99.233.29.22 (talk) 04:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Or may be someone is trying to distort it. I do not think it is a nightmare to sort out. On one hand it is being said that Ibbetson as per Wiki policies is not a reliable source, then his reference is used here. Other references are ignored. And now this line which to me seems to suggest is that some people in that area were considered as or recognized as Sainis due to their marriage with Malis where as sources have showed the other way around that Malis were called Malis and then adopt Saini name as per Census report and Jodhpur king letting them do so. More this line that have mentioned above should not be used as it does not have any citation and is against the Wiki policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.76.20 (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You are going to have to provide some diffs for the various statements that you have made above with regard to inconsistency. You are going to have to provide some reliable sources for those statements regarding the relative status of Saini and Mali. As far as what a census commissioner determined, well, those commissioners changed their mind about who was classified as what at pretty much every Raj census and they were also subject to problematic declarations by the respondents (itself a part of sanskritisation, in the later years). As such, the weight attached to a commissioner's opinion is probably somewhat less than the weight attached to an official recognition made by the head of a princely state, who presumably understood the "real" caste system better than any imported Indophile from Britain. - Sitush (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the proof to this line that some people started calling themselves saini due to their intermarriage to Malis which you have added. So you have to provide the proof for that otherwise remove it. But still there is a proof that Malis and sainis were classified differently as per Census report and started using Saini name after the King of Jodhpur agreed to. So remove the line from the article. Hope you are not Shanti Bhai/Mali trying to mess up or distort the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.30.69.176 (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added nothing to that section and if you look above on this page then you will see that in fact I think this article has been for some time constructed rather like a house of cards, using original research, synthesis, undue weight etc. Do you have access to the claimed source for the marriage statement? That is, "Castes and Tribes of Rajasthan, p 108, Sukhvir Singh Gahlot, Banshi Dhar, Jain Brothers, 1989"? I am not trawling through this talk page to check but it is almost certain that I have asked the question before because I do not have that access. If you do have access, can confirm that Gahlot does not say this etc then you would be correct to insert a tag after the relevant statement. - Sitush (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You edited this section, gave it a new heading and changed the contents including adding this line and you should change it or provide a reference for this line as per Wiki policies, if you can not then delete it. If you can not do either I would request the administrator(s) to block you from editing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.76.20 (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you show me the diff where I added it, please? If not, then please desist from making these accusations. - Sitush (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i agree with IP 76.125.76.20. Sitush Should be permanently blocked from editing this article. He had greatly distorted reliable references from this article. And if Administrator will not block him, then i think he or she is not doing his responsibilities which wikipedia has given him/her. Wikipedia should even change the Administrator of this page.106.78.123.27 (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Your opinion is not helpful because you've provided no evidence whatsoever for your claims of "distortion". Go to the "History" tab of the article, use the buttons to compare drafts to show where a given user has made poor edits, and post them here or on a Dispute Resolution area of WP. Failing you providing specific evidence of poor editing and an explanation how the editing is biased, your opinion doesn't really carry any weight. Further, individual pages of Wikipedia do not have administrators; such personnel simply arrive at articles as needed to solve disputes, block users, page-protect article, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been asked to provide the clai If I do would the administrators block Mr Sitush, I do not think so because every one here is bent to distort the facts and mess up this article. If i speak against them then I am blocked. Okay see the changes Mr Sitush made on feb 6, 2012, distorted the line to create confusion. So do something about him and others including some administrators who claim to be neutral but are not so neutral. For Sitush and MathewVanitas I am providing the history of this article when it was distorted by Sitush, Now both of you will come up with some lame excuse that it means the same and/or we tried to simplify it and what not. Then you will block me too. This tells me how neutral everyone of you are. (cur | prev) 03:10, 6 February 2012‎ Sitush(talk | contribs)‎. . (29,827 bytes) (-18,113)‎. . (Reverted good faith edits by 208.105.158.36 (talk): Seems to be reinstating unnecessary stuff from an old version of the article. (TW)) (cur | prev) 02:38, 6 February 2012‎ 208.105.158.36(talk)‎. . (47,940 bytes) (-59)‎. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.76.20 (talk)

Yes, I agree with you (76.125.76.20)SalariaRajput (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC).

Sitush had removed lots of reliable references not only from this article but also from all articles related to Sainis. References are only the basic roots and strong point of Wikipedia. Then also, Sitush always insists to remove them due to his personal projecting view. He must be blocked not only from editing this article, but also from all articles related to Royal Sainis dynasty. And you know that Sitush personally know lots of Wikipedia administrators. So, someone who speaks against him, he request to those Administrator (who are personal friends of Sitush) to block that user. Many times the user Garry Singh Girn have proved Sitush wrong. And Sitush had no wording to prove him right. Therefore he thinks better to be blocked Garry Singh Girn. As as result of this bad behavior of Sitush, Garry Singh Girn have been permanently blocked from editing Wiki articles. Here, the same condition is prevailing as that prevails in Politics. Whosoever dared to stand against corrupted politicians, they (corrupted politicians) thinks better to finish that person. Also Vanitas and Sitush seems to me that both know each other personally. That’s why he is coming in favour of Sitush, even when no one is speaking against him, then also. I am thinking to took this issue to the top management or owner of Wikipedia. Now-a-days I am very busy in my personal life. But the time is not so far when I took this issue to top management officials of Wikipedia if Sitush continues his bad behavoiur. Because I think its useless to contact Administrator of this page as seen from talk history of this page. I am searching on google how to contact them directly. And I am very much surprised that Sainis who are the Sons of Maharaja Shoorsen Ji, have to prove this also. I know lots of other communities claim Rajput origin. No one claim to be descendants of Maharaja Shoosen Ji except Sainis. Only Sainis worship Maharaja Shoorsen Ji celebrates his birth anniversary as Christians celebrate the birth anniversary of Lord Jesus. Sitush always removes those references which have ‘Shoorsaini’ or ‘Shoorsen’ words saying that you have to provide your connection with Maharaja Shoorsen Ji. This is really very bad, it hurts me and Sainis when Sitush asks the users to prove Sainis to be descent of Maharaja Shoorsen. Do you don’t feel hurted if someone ask you prove your father as your real father? In the same way, Maharaja Shoorsen is founding father of Sainis.SalariaRajput (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * indef blocked as a duck of . - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sitush why did you not answer some one saying that you had made the changes in the section of the article in Feb or so which ou were denying and now you are banning individuals who try to raise the genuine concerns about this article. Is this how democratic wikipedia is now or the wikipedia is losing its touch/shine/popularity because of individuals like you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.71.106.236 (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes sainis are Rajputs
Sainis are Rajputs and they are kshatriyas a warrior caste Ruled in many places. 2405:201:5507:D017:C812:21D9:CDF5:1D8F (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Govt is pushing sainis into Obc for vote bank
Govts of various states had given “Sainis a Rajput kshatriya” caste status of OBC for vote bank politics. 2405:201:5507:D017:C812:21D9:CDF5:1D8F (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)