Talk:Charan

Hi @RegentsPark: @LukeEmily: @Heba Aisha:. Thank you Ekdalian for taking the time to examine those edits and finding out the exact proportion of 'not acceptable content'. I am still not at that level where I can say that I understand all about Wikipedia editing. Now, these are the sources on which that content was based(I am sorry for the clutter):

1. [Economics and Patriliny Consumption and Authority within the Household by Rajni Palriwala 1993]()

2. [Raj Marwar During British Paramountcy: A Study in Problems and Policies Up to 1923 Book by P. R. Shah 1982]()

3. [Census of India, 1901, Volume 25, Part 1]()

4. [Fertility Behaviour: Population and Society in a Rajasthan Village 2006]()

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

6. [Folk Theatre of Rajasthan: Introducing Three Marwari Khyal Plays Translated into English by Dr. Cecil Thomas Ault Jr. 2017]()

7. [In Praise of Death: History and Poetry in Medieval Marwar (South Asia) 2008]()

8. [The Ain i Akbari Volume 2 By Abū al-Faz̤l ibn Mubārak, Henry Sullivan Jarrett · 1993]()

9. [The Tale of the Horse: A History of India on Horseback By Yashaswini Chandra · 2021]()

10. [Nomadic Narratives A History of Mobility and Identity in the Great Indian Desert By Tanuja Kothiyal · 2016]()

11. [Gazetteer Of The Bombay Presidency Vol-v by Cutch, Palanpur, And Mahi Kantha]() 1880

12. [THE SONS OF A GODDESS]()

13. [The reincarnation of the Charans - India: the children of Shiva]()

14. [The Valmiki Ramayana Vol. 1 · Volume 1 By Bibek Debroy · 2017]()

15 [IITK Valmiki Ramayana]()

16. [Valmiki Ramayana by P.P.S. Sastri 1935]()

17. [THE MAHABHARATA of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa Complete 18 Parvas By Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa · 2014]()

18. [Mahabharata Vol. 1 Volume 1 By Bibek Debroy · 2010]()

19. [Environmental Crisis and Social Dismemberment in Northwest India by GSL Devra 2012]()

20. [The Imperial Gazetteer Of India (Volume Xxi) Pushkar To Salween]() 1908

21. [Rajasthan District Gazetteers: Nagaur]() 1975

22. [First Report of the Royal Commission on Opium With Minutes of Evidence and Appendices · Volume 6, Part 1]() 1895

23. [The Modern Anthropology of India: Ethnography, Themes and Theory 2013]()

24. [Greener Pastures: Politics, Markets, and Community Among a Migrant Pastoral People by Arun Agrawal 1999]()

25. [Between the Desert and the Sown- Pastoralists of Western India through the Centuries]() 2008

Now, out of these British era sources are:

• Census of India 1901

• Gazetteer Of The Bombay Presidency Vol-v 1880

• The Imperial Gazetteer Of India (Volume Xxi) Pushkar To Salween 1908

• First Report of the Royal Commission on Opium With Minutes of Evidence and Appendices · Volume 6, Part 1 1895

There must be some way we can use these mythological texts. Mahabharata by Ganguli is still one of the most authentic works on the epic. And the version of Bibek Debroy, from what I've read, is even superior. Debroy uses the critical Sanskrit version produced by BORI Institute for his 10 volume interpretation, which was made by examining all the variants of sanskrit Mahabharata from all over India, eliminating all the verses which seemed later additions & interpolations. Sources used for mythological epics are:

• The Valmiki Ramayana Vol. 1 · Volume 1 By Bibek Debroy · 2017

• IITK Valmiki Ramayana

• Valmiki Ramayana by P.P.S. Sastri 1935

• THE MAHABHARATA of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa Complete 18 Parvas By Kesari Mohan Ganguli · 2014

• Mahabharata Vol. 1 Volume 1 By Bibek Debroy · 2010

Which among the rest of them are to be considered Primary Sources?

Finally, even after this, I am unable to find any problem with these Sections:

1. Recorded Beliefs of Origin

2. Arrival in Rajasthan

3. Dingal

4. Modern era

5. Clans

5. Mode of Greeting

Please, I would request you to take this into consideration. My only intention was to contribute to this topic in a meaningful way. Thanks.Krayon95 (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:RegentsPark--RegentsPark (comment) 15:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Krayon95, I completely understand that your intention is to contribute to this article. But, apart from the fact that we don't accept primary sources (I personally believe re-writing as well as translation of such epics should be considered nothing better than the respective primary sources), I have one question for you! This is basically an encyclopedia; so do you consider all these mythological content to be relevant and encyclopedic?? Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ekdalian, can you point out from the list which ones are primary sources except for the British-era ones & mythological ones?

And about your question: I don't consider all mythological content to be relevant. As I said earlier, there are more than a hundred verses involving "Charan" in these epics, I was trying to include only the most relevant ones like the creation myth in Bhagavata Gita. I understand the difference between myth & actual history, but as I've seen in many other good quality Wikipedia pages such as Kshatriya or Brahmin pages which include verses directly from semi-religious/mythological texts like Bhagavata Gita, Dharmshashtras, even Buddhist texts. So, why shouldn't we include a few(or fewer) verses? Thanks.Krayon95 (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Krayon95, Ramayana and Mahabharata (or their modern translations), are primary sources. Can you find some modern academic references for the content you want to add?LukeEmily (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi LukeEmily, Though, I was asking "which ones are primary sources except for the British-era ones & mythological ones", can you please go to Kshatriya and see the quotes under 'Later Vedic Period'. Or go through the Brahmin page see loads of quotes from such texts. This is how I got the same idea to put such quotes(to a minimum).

Please, can you also check other sections which were deleted and which were not from Primary Sources: "Finally, even after this, I am unable to find any problem with these Sections:

1. Recorded Beliefs of Origin

2. Arrival in Rajasthan

3. Dingal

4. Modern era

5. Clans

5. Mode of Greeting "

ThanksKrayon95 (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I have removed most of the content related to primary or equivalent sources from the article on Brahmin. Ekdalian (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Ekdalian. That was strict. Btw on the same Brahmin article, are quotations from Dahrmshashtras & Manusmriti not considered Primary sources? Also, the quotation from 'Cula Dukkha Kkhandha Sutta, early Buddhist text' is to be considered a Secondary Source as it's not a direct translation of the text? Again, the quotation from Bhagavata Gita is still present on the Kshatriya page, that too without any source! Thanks.Krayon95 (talk) 11:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed as per our policies. Anything else? Ekdalian (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, please read WP:OTHERCONTENT. Even if such content exists in other articles, it hardly makes any difference. We will not accept any content in violation of our policies and consensus. Ekdalian (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Ekdalian. I apologise if all this seems irritating. The quotation from 'Cula Dukkha Kkhandha Sutta, early Buddhist text' on the Brahmin article is left out. Does this represent an example of a good Secondary source as the subject of this book is not directly related to the Buddhist Sutra:

Piotr Balcerowicz (2015). Early Asceticism in India: Ājīvikism and Jainism. Routledge.

Krayon95 (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey Krayon95; removed now. Ekdalian (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Ekdalian RegentsParkLukeEmily. Then, is there no reliable secondary source for such things? any example of such a source for mythology related texts?

Afterwords, can we talk about these Sections:

1. Recorded Beliefs of Origin

2. Arrival in Rajasthan

3. Dingal

4. Modern era

5. Clans

5. Mode of Greeting These aren't from Primary Sources. If there's any problem with their writing, let me rewrite it properly and reinstate them. Thanks. Krayon95 (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Please understand that if a secondary source simply quotes the corresponding primary source or rephrases the same, it would not be acceptable. In case there is an independent analysis/interpretation of the same by a modern reliable author, that may be considered depending on the context. Ekdalian (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Ekdalian.

For Recorded Myths of Origin:

1. [The Ain i Akbari Volume 2 By Abū al-Faz̤l ibn Mubārak, Henry Sullivan Jarrett · 1993]()

2. [The Tale of the Horse: A History of India on Horseback By Yashaswini Chandra · 2021]()

3. [Nomadic Narratives A History of Mobility and Identity in the Great Indian Desert By Tanuja Kothiyal · 2016]()

Tanuja Kothiyal & Yshashwani Chandra are both modern writers & reliable.

For Arrival in Rajasthan:

1. [Environmental Crisis and Social Dismemberment in Northwest India by GSL Devra 2012]()

2. [Between the Desert and the Sown- Pastoralists of Western India through the Centuries]() 2008

3. [In Praise of Death: History and Poetry in Medieval Marwar (South Asia) 2008]()

Again all reliable & modern sources.

For Mode of Greeting

1. [Rajasthan District Gazetteers: Nagaur]() 1975

This again just states the common mode of greeting that community members practice.

For Dingal:

1. [Folk Theatre of Rajasthan: Introducing Three Marwari Khyal Plays Translated into English by Dr. Cecil Thomas Ault Jr. 2017]()

A modern reliable source. About Dingal language.

Please tell me how content from these sources break Wikipedia? Thanks.Krayon95 (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Krayon95, I sincerely believe you have now understood our basic policies & all. I have devoted quite some time for this article now, and will let other senior editors to take it up from here (due to paucity of time). I shall keep on observing and monitoring this article, and will get involved as & when required. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Ekdalian RegentsPark. Thanks again for taking the time. But, I still don't understand how this section 'Recorded Myths of Origin' can't be reinstated. This content is not from any mythology text which was the case in the verses from Ramayana, Mahabharata, and Bhagavata Gita. These origin myths were recorded by ethnographers & historians & have been used by many modern authors. I believe these origin myths, which are briefly summarized in this section, present an encyclopedic view of changing self-narratives of the community throughout history. The myth in Ain-i-Akbari in the 16th century or the 19th-century Mardum Shumari Raj Marwar 1891 Census are used/cited & interpreted by modern authors. And origin myths such as these are present in almost all community-related Wikipedia articles.

Recorded Beliefs of Origin

RegentsPark LukeEmily Heba Aisha: Please also share your views.

Thanks. Krayon95 (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Krayon95, Tanuja Kothiyal source is reliable. Please note that translations of pre-independence sources are unreliable generally speaking with some exceptions - see WP:PRIMARY. You can look at how Baidya#Bṛhaddharma_Puraṇa is written and acceptable vs. why the sources in Talk:Rajput#According_to_Hindu_scriptures_Rajputs_are_Shudra are not acceptable. The difference is that the former uses secondary sources. The Purana is not referenced directly. Can we look at your sources one by one? The Tanuja Kothiyal source is reliable - it is modern and academic (Cambridge University Press). Can you quote what she is saying? Please note it has to be relevant to this page.LukeEmily (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, LukeEmily.

Narratives A History of Mobility and Identity in the Great Indian Desert By Tanuja Kothiyal · 2016

Page 148:

"Charan origin myths also associate Charans with Shiva, as they claim to have been created by him to graze the bull Nandi. Charans claims that they were created to herd the celestial bull Nandi"

Page 223:

"The fable of origin of Charans claims that they were created to herd the celestial bull Nandi, after the Bhats could not graze him as they were scared of the lion of the goddess Parvati. Pleased by the devotion of the Charan the goddess granted him a unique position encompassing all three qualities of the Charan, that is, the priestly feature of devotion, the Rajput fearlessness and the dexterity with herds."

Krayon95 (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

She is calling it a myth/fable/claim. Raj era ethnographers are not WP:RS. Her analysis of the primary source and how it was used historically is more important IMO. Can we just summarize the mythological claims in one line in the article instead of full quotes for celestial origin?LukeEmily (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

BTW, this source^[1] has some good information on the caste and its customs. If you are interested in this page, you can also use this source to expand it.LukeEmily (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

What else should she have called it? That's why the section was named "Recorded Myths of Origin".

Can you please wait before adding about the professions of Charans? I had provided a better description of professions with the sources. And I still have more of such sources.

I was already using this source(if you see the above list of sources) & was going to add more from this:

Transaction and Hierarchy Elements for a Theory of Caste By Harald Tambs-Lyche · 2017

I just wonder how more than 15 of the modern sources I provided(which are neither primary nor Raj-era nor mythological texts) don't hold up? Krayon95 (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello @LukeEmily:, can you please check the lead section and comment on the same. Multiple sources have been introduced by Krayon95, who is keen to promote the caste (pinged a number of senior editors earlier). Needless to mention, Krayon95 is inclined to keep their version in the lead section. Would request you to review the current version as well as their version.

Krayon95, don't discuss on your talk page; rather, you may mention your concerns here, if any. And no edit warring please during the ongoing discussion regarding the dispute. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Ekdalian LukeEmily. I am not here for any "edit warring" or "promote the caste", which is why we have been discussing this issue. How can it be termed promoting when I have tried to give a complete view by providing various diverse occupations in the introduction itself? It shouldn't be termed as a dispute either but as a disagreement on the order & sentence structure of the introduction.

This is the introduction Ekdalian has provided on the article introduction:

"Historically, Charans have been engaged in diverse occupations like bards, poets, literateurs, pastoralists, agriculturalists and also jagirdars and warriors and some even as traders."

While this is what I believe is a better one in terms of sentence structure as well as the order of occupations:

"Historically, Charans were poets & literateurs, as well as warriors and jagirdars. They specialised in diverse occupations as literateurs, soldiers, pastoralists, agriculturalists, traders, and merchants."

Also, LukeEmily and maybe others users are ones who you are already familiar with which leads to more chances of him/her agreeing with your view.

Ekdalian, can you please move the discussion from my talk page to here?Thanks.Krayon95 (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ekdalian, Krayon95, what was their main traditional occupation? That should be mentioned first in my opinion. Then we can also add other occupations.LukeEmily (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, LukeEmily. There is no one main occupation in case of Charans. However, their role as court poets & historians is what they are most prominently known for. As you can see from the sources provided in the intro, they were involved in various occupations such as traders, soldiers, and agriculturalists.

As explained in source 8- Hastings, James M. (2002). Poets, Sants, and Warriors: The Dadu Panth, Religious Change and Identity Formation in Jaipur State Circa 1562-1860 Ce. University of Wisconsin--Madison.

"In Rajasthan, the Charans are a highly esteemed caste seen as occupying a social position slightly lower than that of Brahmins but above that of Rajputs, with whom they maintain a symbiotic relationship...Like Rajputs, with whom they often shared company, Charans would eat meat, drink liquor and engage in martial activities...Although, in a way, poetic composition and recitation was for them a “pastime” subordinate to the primary income producing occupations of military service, agriculture, and horse and cattle trading."

@Ekdalian. @RegentsPark. What were the issues about the recent edits? The below text was added in the intro:

"References to the Charans are found in ancient texts including Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Ramayana, Mahabharata, and Bhagavad Gita as well as in Jain Prabandha.^[1][2] In the Puranas, the Charans have been described as chanting hymns eulogizing the gods and as priests worshipping temple icons.^[3][4]

Perceived of being associated with a divine origin, the Charans were considered a sacred people, killing whom was a sin comparable to brahmahatya.^[5] Because of the institutionalized and religiously sanctioned protection which the Charans enjoyed, they could fearlessly criticize and admonish the rulers and their actions, however bitter it might appear to the latter.^[6][7][8]" Krayon95 (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey Krayon95, please note that mythology, even if well sourced doesn't quality for lead section as per convention. Also, this is a classic example of WP:UNDUE as far as lead is concerned. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ekdalian. I searched for a parallel example, found this on Kayastha:

"In the Sanskrit literature and inscriptions, it was used to denote the holders of a particular category of offices in the government service.^[9] In this context, the term possibly derived from kaya- ('principal, capital, treasury') and -stha ('to stay') and perhaps originally stood for an officer of the royal treasury, or revenue department.^[10][11]"

Here, without naming the mythological texts, it uses the term 'Sanskrit literature' instead and goes on to state the position or occupation associated with the term. That is exactly what I added in the first para. Krayon95 (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I believe these are not at all similar! And most importantly, you need to achieve consensus here before incorporating such content. Anyway, I shall check if any part from the content (added by you) can be incorporated in the lead. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ekdalian. Replace a few words and its essentially same. About the 2nd para:

"Perceived of being associated with a divine origin, the Charans were considered a sacred people, killing whom was a sin comparable to brahmahatya. Because of the institutionalized and religiously sanctioned protection which the Charans enjoyed, they could fearlessly criticize and admonish the rulers and their actions, however bitter it might appear to the latter."

This is something that's already mentioned multiple times in the article, also explaining their favorable position such as non-taxation of Charan lands or any business they were involved in. Krayon95 (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The article on Kayastha mentions Sanskrit literature in the context of their actual profession, nothing related to mythology! Your proposed changes are all related to mythology including the words 'divine' & 'sacred', hence do not qualify for the lead section IMHO. You may request for other opinions from experienced editors on caste & social groups. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ekdalian "The article on Kayastha mentions Sanskrit literature in the context of their actual profession"

Same was my intention. The role/profession of Charans as priests & 'eulogizing gods' in ancient era (pre-medieval times) has been true also for medieval era for which we have reliable sources available.

"Your proposed changes are all related to mythology including the words 'divine' & 'sacred', hence do not qualify for the lead section"

If you are talking about the 2nd para which includes words 'divine' & 'sacred', it is not at all related to mythology. Read the sources, they are talking about medieval and modern times which is historically correct.

For the first para, I suggest something like: "In the Sanskrit literature, the Charans have been depicted eulogizing gods and as temple priests." Krayon95 (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Pinging LukeEmily, Kautilya3 for their opinion. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian, LukeEmily, Kautilya3. I have provided a reasonable argument in my view. I believe this part should be reinstated in the lead. Krayon95 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

?? Krayon95 (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

First, can we narrow down on the sources and quotes? Are all sources mentioned reliable?LukeEmily (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ekdalian. @LukeEmily. Have you checked the sources yet? Again pasting the statement here:-

"

References to the Charans are found in ancient texts including Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Ramayana, Mahabharata, and Bhagavad Gita as well as in Jain Prabandha.^[12][13] In the Puranas, the Charans have been described as chanting hymns eulogizing the gods and as priests worshipping temple icons.^[14][4]

Perceived of being associated with a divine origin, the Charans were considered a sacred people, killing whom was a sin comparable to brahmahatya.^[5] Because of the institutionalized and religiously sanctioned protection which the Charans enjoyed, they could fearlessly criticize and admonish the rulers and their actions, however bitter it might appear to the latter.^[15][16][8]

"

The souces are fine and alternatives are available if there's any problem. The argument is over whether it should be included in the lead or in other sections. I agree that rewording may be needed and have suggested a better one above. Please read above comments and replies. Thanks. Krayon95 (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I have already expressed my views. I have clearly mentioned above, "Your proposed changes are all related to mythology including the words 'divine' & 'sacred', hence do not qualify for the lead section". Please note that the above statement doesn't mean, all your proposed statements may be incorporated in the article body; such statements need to be analyzed first. As far as I can remember, you were first reverted by RegentsPark when you added such content, and was advised to approach experienced editors on caste. You have to wait for other opinions! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

"I have already expressed my views. I have clearly mentioned above". So have I.

"proposed changes are all related to mythology"

You are wrong. The second para is striclty related to the medieval era.

And for the first part, i have already suggested using 'Sanskrit literature' instead as done on Kayastha page. Krayon95 (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Your last statement is equivalent to WP:OR/WP:SYN. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

How so? Krayon95 (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey Krayon95; the term 'Sanskrit literature' is used in the source itself in the other article mentioned above, while you are saying, "Replace a few words and its essentially same." The sources you have cited do not mention the term 'Sanskrit literature', but you are applying your own logic in order to arrive at this acceptable term; that's the reason, it would be considered as WP:OR/WP:SYN. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Although, it seems far fetched to really call it WP:OR, just for compressing the various sources as 'Sanskrit literature'. Anyway, there are multiple sources using 'sanskrit lit' term and we can use that.

The Position of Charans in Medieval Rajasthan by Rashmi Upadhyaya (2010) [RAJASTHAN HISTORY CONGRESS PROCEEDING VOLUME XXVI]:

"In social hierarchy their status was equal to the brahmins owing to their sacred character as prescribed to them in Ancient Sanskrit sources like the Ramayana, Mahabharata etc." Krayon95 (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

RegentsPark, LukeEmily, Ekdalian. After above discussion, the proposed addition to the lead is this:

"In ancient Sanskrit literature texts, the Cāraṇas are depicted chanting hymns eulogizing the gods and as priests worshipping temple icons.^[1][2]

Historically perceived of being associated with a divine origin, the sacrility of the Cāraṇas was corollary to their inviolability; harming whom was considered a sin comparable to brahmahatya.^[3][4] Because of the institutionalized and religiously sanctioned protection which they enjoyed, they could fearlessly criticize and admonish the kings and their actions,^[5][6] act as mediators in political disputes among the rulers,^[4] and serve as protectors of mercantile activity throughout the conflict-ridden regions of western India.^[7][8]"

If there's any issue regarding the above proposed para, whether about the sources used, the sentence wording or structure, please inform here. The proposed addition to the lead is not something new, most of this is already explained in the later sections, with high quality sources. This is a summarisation of sort. Again, please feel free to suggest any improvements in the wording or structure. Thank you. Krayon95 (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Krayon95 and Ekdalian:, it is well sourced. The only dispute is whether it should be in the lead or not. I have not done enough academic reading on the community to give an opinion on consensus. My suggeston is to use RFC to resolve the dispute amicably. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily. Not familiar with RFC. Can you link to it? Thanks. Krayon95 (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Krayon95, WP:RFC. ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The proposed addition to the lead is this : Diff. The content of the proposed addition to the lead is already explained in the later sections, and this is a summarisation of sort. Suggestions for improvement in the sentence wording or structure are welcome. Thank you. Krayon95 (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

====== Diff ======

In ancient Sanskrit literature texts, the Cāraṇas are depicted chanting hymns eulogizing the gods and as priests worshipping temple icons.^[1][2]

Historically perceived of being associated with a divine origin, the sacrility of the Cāraṇas was corollary to their inviolability; harming whom was considered a sin comparable to brahmahatya.^[3][4] Because of the institutionalized and religiously sanctioned protection which they enjoyed, they could fearlessly criticize and admonish the kings and their actions,^[5][6] act as mediators in political disputes among the rulers,^[4] and serve as protectors of mercantile activity throughout the conflict-ridden regions of western India.^[7][8]" Krayon95 (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Charan Were Considered As Great Warriors Had Love For Poetry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:5B86:CEB4:3481:66FF:FEED:C7F0 (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ekdalian. The previous lead and Rfc issue hasn't yet resolved thanks to you. And now again this "POV" issue which you might never specify.

Please suggest alterations now that all the citations are added.

Rajpurohits were never under your patronage. They are the real jagirdars as they were given jagirs in the Rajput era. Rajpurohits and other purohits are not of the same culture. Charans were not real jagirdars. Charans don't follow the traditions that can be called both brahmins and rajputs. In ancient times they lived a nomadic life. They are only a bards and bhat. Still in many villages their work is only in singing the praises of the great warriors. Charans are called "Bhat ji" in our villages.

 This paragraph is completely biased which has been written for the purpose of personal enmity. Rahul singh (om) (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Rajpurohit name hata do bhai galat information mat dalo 150.129.168.76 (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add a section of notable people of this community as there are many who are well known figures in Gujarat and Rajasthan with 8 padmashri awardess and other great man and the godess that are born in this community. Goodfaiths01 (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Please add a section of notable people of this community as there are many who are well known figures in Gujarat and Rajasthan with 8 padmashri awardess and other great man and the godess that are born in this community.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 08:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

remove word Islam from religion of Charan.

Charan were Hindu are Hindu and will Hindu.

I request you to edit that. Vishal12345sharma (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Charan should correctly be spelled as چارڻ in Urdu (as well as Sindhi). Since the article is blocked from editing, I offer this information here for anyone who'd like to correct it once it is open again. (Insert it instead of the present Urdu letter sequence, which does not read "Charan" at all) Yak-indolog (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. Krayon95 (talk) 07:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2409:40D4:200D:E401:141D:70FF:FED4:8C96 (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Charans were not Bards as Bards is an European term used to describe A Group Of People in their society. Whereas Bards Did Not Fight And Charans Did Bards Changed Their Loyalty But The Charans Never Did. Source:- Col.James Tod So Please Edit Charans Were Poets, Warriors, Administrator's, Agriculturalists And Traders.

 Not done: The word bard is used in multiple existing sources, including peer reviewed journals. This term is not limited to a single group. Jamedeus (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove islam from the religion part 2409:40D4:107C:35FA:4CDC:DA3F:DB54:9DB9 (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2402:A00:400:B11:80F1:BFF0:501:25A (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Show limbdi kaviraj shankardan ji detha in names of charan kavi and dula bhaya kag

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Religions Hinduism • Islam" TO "Religions Hinduism" Pravin Singh Charan (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: no reason given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the religions part of this page,Islam is mentioned.This is absolutely wrong and outrageous as Charanas are considered divine in the Hindu religion and there are no Charanas who follow Islam.Please remove it as soon as possible as this really hurts the religious sentiments of Charan community. Matangsinh Zula (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done There appears to be a source (number 12) that says that there are Muslim Charan's. RegentsPark (comment) 16:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see a source for the infobox or a mention in the prose, so I removed it from the infobox. I'm going to take a look at that source. —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That "Muslim" is mentioned separately in the quotation from source 12 tells me that Charans are separate. I'm not willing to reinstate my edit on that weak source alone. —C.Fred (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm if the initial consonant is a [c], a voiceless palatal plosive and not somekind of affricate? TheCosmos999 (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

X: (current version) This section of doesn't contain any photographs of charans in culture and ethos section . Y: (change version) So can you upload this picture in this section as it is already uploaded in wikimedia common File:Rare photos of charan(caste) Thakurs of antri thikana mewar.jpg Reason: I want to add an authentic historical photo to the Charan community page to show the traditional attire and culture. This photo is from the 1920s (over 100 years old), so it is in the public domain. I have uploaded it to Commons myself. Please accept this as it adds factual visual history to the section. ( I don't know very much about wikipedia how to write for an edits , so i request you to understand) Thanks Himatdan78 (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC) Himatdan78 (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The photo can't be used since the licensing information on Commons is incorrect. You described the photo as your own work, when it is clear that you did not take the photo. Day Creature (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

"Hello Day Creature, thank you for the guidance. I have corrected the licensing on Commons. I changed 'own work' to 'Unknown photographer' and added the

This Indian work is in the public domain in India because its copyright has expired for one of the following reasons:

1. In case of a photograph, work of cinema, sound recording, anonymous work, posthumous work, governmental work, or copyright owned by a corporation, it was published more than 60 years ago (that is before 1 January 1966), or
2. In case of an artistic work, the creator died more than 60 years ago (that is before 1 January 1966), or
3. In case of the text of laws, judicial opinions, and other government reports, these are free from copyright.

See this page for further explanation

This file may not be in the public domain outside India. The creator and year of publication are essential information and must be provided. See Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details.

This file is NOT necessarily in the public domain in the United States because a non-simple image can only be in the public domain in the U.S.:

• if it entered the public domain in India prior to 1996 (i.e., the author died before 1941 for most works or it was published prior to 1941 for photographs - see Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights), or
• when, after that date, its copyright term expires in accordance with U.S. law.

Information about the creation date and creator should be provided.

If the image is not in the public domain in the United States, in addition to the license tag for its status in India an appropriate fair use license and rationale should be provided, or the image should be proposed for deletion.

If the media is in the public domain in both India and the United States, it may be transferred to the Wikimedia Commons.

Note: If this image is in the public domain in the U.S., modify the end of the copyright tag from }} to |commons}}.
This will replace the preceding U.S. copyright notification with a nomination for this image to be moved to the Wikimedia Commons.

tag since the photo is over 100 years old (from the 1920s). Could you please take another look?"

File:Rare photos of charan(caste) Thakurs of antri thikana mewar.jpg Himatdan78 (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Also if you can upload this picture File:Rare photo of Kaviraja durgadan ji charan sahib of thikana kotdi kota.jpg. in Poets and historians section as this image is of 19 th century charan kaviraj (poet laureate). Himatdan78 (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)