Talk:Sengar

India: History Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup.

Ethnic groups

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

There are three states of sengar Kshatriya king in Uttar Pradesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sengarvijay (talk • contribs) 14:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

history

The web-page contained in Wikipedia about the Sengar Rajputs commences from History of Jagmanpur, the ruler of which state is hereditary head of Sengars. But prior to it, the Sengars were belonging to Dahar Mandal. Some period before it was a very large territory, very large kingdom. Dahaldeo was the ruler of this state. Later on due to invasions of other kingdoms, this dahal mandal shrunk to very small region. Later on , one Bhisukdeo or Bisokdeo married the daughter of Gaharwar king, Raja Jaichand, who granted a very large state to Bhishokdeo. Phahundeo was his descendant. who founded the town Phaphund in 1411 A.D.near Etawah. The another most important ruler of this sept was Gautamiputra Satkarni. Another ruler was Raja Karan Dahaliya, who was worshipper of Goddess Kalika and had a boon from this Goddess, and accordingly he was getting gold in large amount, and that gold was donated to all hermits.One most important feature is that near Kalinger fort there is another fort known as "Lauri Fort", which is 52 miles away from Banda Head-Quarter and twenty two miles from Karvi. It is said that this fort belonged to King Bahar. There is one water tank here. There is one stone statue of elephant, on that there is one inscription, which mentions the name of some Phaphund Khan. In inscription it is mentioned that some Ibrahim Khan, who was son of Phaphund Khan got it constructed in Samvat 1526 i.e. in 1469 A.D. Ibrahim Khan was some high ranking person (Mulajim) under Raja Bira Singh Deo.The period of Phaphundeo and Phaphund Khan is more or less same. Kalinger was once ruled by Raja Karan Dahaliya, known as Dahars of Bandhogarh. Likewise there is another saint Rupendeo alias Rupenshah, whose monument is near Akabarpur or Guru ka Itora, near orai, Jalon.Can someone tell more about Dahaldeo, Phaphundeo, Phaphund Khan, Raja Karan Dahaliya and Gautamiputra Satkarni, and tell me about their remains, inscriptions, coins, of historical importance. Comments are invited please.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JEEWAN SINGH (talk • contribs) 15:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent revert

I have just reverted a massive expansion of the article. It relied a lot on poor Raj sources and even the pre-Raj James Tod. It was also going into a lot of depth about things that really don't seem to be terribly important. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start at the beginning with Of the numerous clans of this great race, there are thirty-six which are termed having directly descended from the ancient ruling provinces of India. That statement was sourced to James Tod and we already know that (a) he is not considered to be a reliable source by modern writers and (b) his list of the 36 royal races has specifically been disputed. Add to that the completely unacceptable use of "great race" and the odd phrase "ruling provinces". Give me one reason why that statement should be in the article. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

That was a quotation. and a widely regarded one. His accounts of patrilineal greatness do not fall in my genres of interest. It is well known that James Todd was impressed by the Rajputs and somewhat biased in their potrayal. You are welcome to revise the line to a more humble paraphrasing. . Please understand that even "unreliable" sources such as Todd and Bingley are cited in various articles regarding Rajputs in the academic world and even Wikipedia because they do have some terrific and genuine insights. To completely deleting the commentary is a rather harsh take.(http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Rajput) Also, District Gazetteers of the United Provinces and NWP Gazetteers were published by the Government Press. To label them as poor sources is absurd. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=059-iorv_11-2&cid=1-1-1-224#1-1-1-224

However, thank you for the suggestions. I will definitely stress upon the language used in the article.

Rohitsengar (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I do not understand the purpose of the links that you provide here. In particular, that some documents are stored in the UK National Archives is not a comment on their reliability. - Sitush (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent back-and-forth

There has recently been some back-and-forth involving removal and reinstatement of this part of the article. I was involved in reinstating the stuff and have now had a request on my talk page to review it.

Firstly, thanks for explaining the concerns. Since the statements are sourced and the sources appear to be reliable, even if not perhaps all of the highest quality, it is never a good idea to remove such things without at least giving an explanation that complies with our various policies. I now see from the message on my talk page that the concerns are "someone has maliciously put content to defame" and the response to the concern was to " just put material from other relevant sources here".

I've looked again at the material that was being removed and unfortunately I still cannot really see anything wrong with it, although I appreciate that some of it may embarrass. I am sure that there is much more to be said about the Sengar people and it would be great to see it but Wikipedia is not censored and we aim to show all reliably-sourced information that is available. The statements seem ok to me and, interestingly, as they are currently shown, they point out both a potentially negative and a potentially positive aspect of Sengar history. I'm not even from India and I have no particular opinion for or against any group of people in that country but - perhaps by happy coincidence - we have some juxtaposed material here. There is, of course, also the material about infanticide. In any event, we certainly cannot add or remove things at will because that would contravene one of our key policies, which is that of neutrality. The options available to those who object would be to:

show that the sources are not in fact reliable sources
to counter the statements made by those sources using other reliable sources that present a different opinion (in which case, we show both)
to argue that the statements made are undue weight (in practice, this is a non-starter given the brevity of the article)
to find other statements that are worthy of inclusion and which serve to minimise the existing points simply by - for want of a better phrase - hiding them away among a lot of other material

I've also looked again at the material that was being added, which relied on this. Unlike the removed material, which comes from publishers who have a certain reputation for peer review/publishing academic works etc, the added material is sourced to a Sengar-affiliated website that doesn't even name its author or where its information came from. It is inevitably dubious because there is a conflict of interest in its objective. I'm not saying that it is wrong but we'd need to see that information sourced to something/someone that is not affiliated to the community.

Returning briefly to the point about not being censored and the scope for embarrassment. I am British and I spend a part of almost every day having to criticise the actions of the British Raj on Wikipedia - it is a pretty big target! to hit! I do it because I accept the situation: I am not responsible for what my ancestors may have done but I am aware that what they did is often no longer considered acceptable and, indeed, may not have been considered acceptable even at the time. Enunciating the bad parts of history is as important to understanding the present and changing the future as is lauding the good parts. The human race has never been a perfect one and never will be. - Sitush (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the changes made to this page in past two year

I have gone through the talk pages and learned that content from " Handbook on Rajput- A.H Bingley, James Todd and Gazetter " are reffered as poor and non reliable source of information and therefore the contents of it are deleted back and forth. I would be grateful if someone can explain me what is a good and reliable source and what are the check points to describe the source as poor and non-reliable. As "Handbook on Rajput- A.H Bingley" was first published in 1889 and still its in running. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yash44444 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]