Talk:Vats (clan)

Compliance with the source
The source used for this edit does indeed mention several states. The problems are two-fold: (a) it doesn't say which states were inhabited in which order (therefore, our claim of "followed by" is original research); and (b) the states did not exist in the 700s and it would be anachronistic to refer to them as if they did. In addition to that, the changes meant that the mention of Bihar etc became nonsensical. - Sitush (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with the removal of "followed by" since the source doesn't mention the "order in which they settled", but I believe the names of states being mentioned since those are mentioned in the source as is which should not be a case of Original Research. Secondly I believe the names of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Bengal need to be in this article as well since they are explicitly mentioned in the sourceFylindfotberserk (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is just bad phrasing. I didn't say that the source doesn't mention the other states. There is a bigger issue, of course: the source doesn't actually mention the clan, only some brahmanas. As such, the entire thing might actually be synthesis because it is quite common for modern communities to claim descent from older groups with whom there is no actual proof of connection. - Sitush (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What it should say is something like Vatsa Brahmanas settled mostly in what is now the state of Odisha around the eighth-century CE, with others in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Bengal. - Sitush (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Among Hindus, Gotra means Clan. And the source proves presence of those Clans through the inscriptions. That is not synthesis since I've known a lot of Vatsa people in Gujarat, Bengal, Orissa, Delhi. If you believe that way than History is full of synthesis and hypotheses. We cannot be sure of the Lingistic Affinity of Indus Valley People or the origin of Proto-Indo-European languages or Ancient European languages. All we have broken potteries, tombs and now some genetic analysis. nothing is proved 100%.


 * Secondly, I believe you know how Clans were formed in history. All these Gotras like Vatsa, Bhrigu, Bharadwaja, Shandilya, etc are names of Mythological Celestial Sages who were created by God Brahma and are also associated with the constellation Big Dipper. I doubt there will be any genetic link between them Heavenly Sages and Mortals of now. Initially Brahmins claimed descent from them, later other castes were also included. So writing Vatsa Brahmins will not do since other castes also have those Gotras. Thirdly, I don't think highlighting Odisha around the eighth-century CE is correct since 8th century Pulakesi-raja was from modern Gujarat and Nayapala was from modern Bengal and not from Odisha. I think it is better to only mention as Vatsas settled in what is now Odisha, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Bengal except in Bihar or Rajasthan.Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know how better to explain this because the problem would seem to be your understanding of English, although your ability with it is far better than my ability with Indic languages. For example, there is no point in mentioning Bihar or Rajasthan in the sentence as you frame it: of course they didn't settle in those places because they are not among the list of places where we say they did settle. We either say that they settled in northern India, except in Bihar and Rajasthan, or we list the places where they did settle - both versions are supported by the source.


 * Yes, I am aware of the gotra system. Nonetheless, the source does not mention the Vats clan. - Sitush (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The source (Swati Datta, pp. 125-126) doesn't say that most of the Vatsas settled in these states. Swati Datta has analyzed 147 ancient/medieval inscriptions that record donations to migrant Brahmins. These inscriptions mention the donees' gotras and their places of origin. Wherever the place of origin is different from the find-spot of the inscription, the author categorizes the donee as a migrant Brahmin.


 * Around 168 migrant Brahmins are mentioned in the 147 inscriptions analyzed by Swati Datta (pp. 133-134)
 * 15 out of these 168 Brahmins belong to the Vatsa gotra
 * Out of these 15 Vatsa Brahmins,
 * 7 migrated to Orissa
 * 6 migrated to Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh
 * 1 migrated to Maharashtra
 * 1 migrated to Bengal
 * 0 migrated to Bihar and Rajasthan (i.e. no inscriptions discovered in these states mention migrant Brahmins of Vatsa gotra)

This analysis, which uses a sample size of 15, cannot be used to make any conclusions about the Vatsa Brahmins as a whole. For example, it may be possible that Bihar and Rajasthan had a large number of Vatsa Brahmins -- just that they were not migrants.

So, the article should read something like "Historian Swati Datta analyzed... According to her analysis of 15 Vatsa Brahmins, ...", not something like "Most of the Vatsas settled in...". utcursch &#124; talk 20:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

, I'm more proficient in English than any of the Indian languages. I can't even read/write/speak in my native tongue so please don't jump to conclusions. Moreover the sentence that I framed wasn't wrong as far as English language is concerned. I just wanted that sentence to be kept as some sort of filler. I was planning to elaborate on the subject as per source but wasn't able to do since my Internet Connection was having problems yesterday/today. I changed your edit [] because I saw some issues with this sentence : They mostly settled in what is now Odisha but had a presence throughout the region, except in what are now the states of Bihar and Rajasthan.[1].:- Anyways, Mr. utcursch had done the job neatly. I don't have any problem now however I agree that more sources are needed since there are vatsas in other parts of India as well(personal experience).
 * Since you mentioned Odisha only, I believed it was necessary to add the names of the other states which are explicitly mentioned in the source for the purpose of neutrality.
 * This phrase "presence throughout the region" is rather ambiguous since it doesn't specify a single region and also the fact that other states mentioned in the source itself like Gujarat, Maharashtra, Rajasthan are far away from Odisha and fall in different geographical zones of India.
 * Thirdly, I kept this phrase "except in Bihar and Rajasthan" because I wanted to elaborate on that part later as explained above.

I believe you should check the Gotra article. Gotra means Clan in the Hindu society and I already explained that to you. Thus Vats Gotra = Vats Clan. And both can be used interchangeably. Now if you think that's synthesis just because those are 2 different 'looking' words, then moving/renaming this article to "Vatsa gotra" would be the most sensible thing to do right now. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * No, sorry. Your English phrasing was all wrong. The source itself was close to unintelligible also, mind you. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)