Talk:Chamar/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Confusion over Ramdasia and Ramdasi

Ramdasia and Ramdasi are not same. Ramdasi are Ravidasi and can be used interchangeably. Due to similar sounding words ambiguity often occurs. A famous case on this ambiguity arose few years back that had to be handled by Court which clarified the issue. Here is a News cutting from Tribune Newspapper :-

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010220/main4.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.223.34 (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This is very interesting. Are there any other sources for this?

Bal537 (talk)bal537 —Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC).

Ramdasi is a surname used by Ravidasis who are non Sikhs and there is no such thing as 'Ramdasi Sikh' but Ramdasia Sikh.If you search for 'Ramdasi' you will find loads of names and profiles of people with surname Ramdasi and all of them non Sikhs. Both Ramdasi(chamars) and Ramdasia(Jualahas) both come under schedule caste list and is added under same section because of confusion of 'a' and without 'a'.

Indian Govt Link : http://india.gov.in/howdo/service_detail.php?formid=19

Jatt people are fighting case against Ramdasia as they say they have been added to the schedule caste list fraudulently using Ramdasi and Ramdasia consufion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyissunny (talk • contribs) 08:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ramdasia/Ramdasi are a common name for punjabi Chamars and is generally accepted by the Indian government, media and general public. I see no reason why Ramdasia should NOT be included in the Chamar wikipedia page.

History of the Chamar Dynasty : From Sixth Century A.D. to Twelfth Century A.D. by Raj Kumar 2008, ISBN-13: 978-8178356358

The author states on page 634: "Ramdasia means a follower of Guru Ram Das or indeed any Guru: ut it is more usually applied to a Chamar or Julaha who has taken Phullpura from the Master".

On the same page the author also writes: "The census gives us no idea of the numbers of the followers of Ravidas, because there are Ramdasia or Ramdasia Chamar as well as Ravidasi or Raidassi Chamars and the two have become hopelessly mixed in the returns".

On page 645 the author writes: "The Ramdasi are only Namakpanthis and do not take the pahil of phull"........Hindu Chamars are really Rahdasis, being called after Bhagat Rahdas. The name appears to have been corrupted into Ramdasi. The Sikh Chamars are also called Ramdasis, but in their case the name may imply a connection to Guru Ramdas".

The University of California, Santa Barbara [Global & International Studies" deparment] published the following article http://www.global.ucsb.edu/punjab/journal_14_2/in_remembrance.pdf in which they wrote on the first page: "Born to a low-caste Ramdasia Chamar (tanner) family".

Bal537 (talk)bal537

The above link is a book link and is based on confusion of Ramdasi and Ramdasia which I explained above. A Govt Website and News Website Link that I gave is far more authentic than a author book link.I hope you agree on this.Sunnyissunny (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The same govt links show that Ramdasia are classified as Chamars. Since Chamars are also known as Ramdasia by the govt, media and general public. It makes no sense to not show this in the Wikipedia page of Chamars.

Chamars known as Jat

I undid deletions by Information-Line. He has not provided any reason for his deletions.

The line he is deleting comes from this source:

Briggs, Geo(1920). The Religious Life of India - The Chamars, Page 20, ISBN-10: 1406757624

http://books.google.com/books?id=PTgsR0xjG4MC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=Baluch+Mochis+and+Chamars&source=bl&ots=2YCBAq3PVs&sig=3t2gF90vAhuU0DFPAlMZ0B7YQ2o&hl=en&ei=ZoS1SqLgIMaf8AbS1bGTDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=Baluch%20Mochis%20and%20Chamars&f=false

Bal537 (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)bal537

Jat is a Sindhi word which means camel rider or horse rider. There is nothing special about it.---By user Odinel

Sorry but why does it have to be given in the opening paragraph? it is to misguide readers obviously,if you wish to place it somewhere put it somewhere more relevant to the topic in hand Information-Line 11:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Comments

I undid Fabonian's comments dated 6-9-2009 as his comments seemed to be objectionable and could result in dragging of Wikepedia in court case. Following para is inserted in the para on background and origin. The contents of this para seems to reveal the real facts and any attempt to delete the same would tantamount to unauthorised deletion of the real facts. The revised para reads as follows;

[edit] Background and origin

Chamar were basically engaged in manufacturing, processing and trading in leather and leather goods. Apart that farming is also their most important occupational stay either in their full ownership or on share cropping basis in which they used to get 1/3rd or 1/4th part of the farm produce. They do not belong to any one particular group, clan or area, but are those people from various castes and tribes who joined Chamar community from time to time for various reasons and purposes such as employment, political, and spiritual etc. The spiritual enlightenment of Saint Guru Ravidass attaracted many people toward Ravidassia Sect. Saint Ravidass was one of those few saints who were directly linked to God witout being stuck to false and hoaxful rites. It was due to such top graded spiritual enlightenment of Saint Ravidass that many people became his disciple. Tanning being profession of Chamars in past, they could be both from the original tribes who were living in India even before the Aryan Invasion and they were also Aryans who came from the Central Asia. Historians believe they are true Hindus. India being shut out from the rest of the world by the mountains and the sea, there grew up a division of labor which gradually crystallized into the caste system, elaborate schemes of religious philosophy were built up by the sages; the trades were fenced round with religious sanctions, so that for a man to follow his fathers calling was made sacred duty, a thing to which he was born, and which, as his fate, he must perforce accept.--Nivilot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nivlilot (talk • contribs) 07:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

**Please do not use the word "Low" caste. Use the word Dalit or Scheduled castes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.182.80.222 (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this page reserved for chamars from Punjab only?

To the person who stated that Chandragupta Maurya was of the Chamar caste, please could you specify a reference to prove this statement true. Thank you.

---

I saw this in a book. I will try to locate that book.

Wrapping the situation of Chamars and other dalits in euphemisms makes this article difficult to understand outside India. Of course no Indian needs to be told that dalit is more or less the same as untouchable, but this same understanding does not necessarily hold throughout the English-speaking world. LADave (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

IT IS WRONG TO ASSUME THAT CHAMARS IMPERSONATE OTHER CASTES AND USE THEIR GOTRAS. CHAMARS GOTRAS ARE THERE SINCE ANCIENT TIMES AND IT IS NOT ANYTHING NEW COPIED FROM OTHER CASTES.GOTRA IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR CHAMARS AS IT IS THE BASIS FOR SOLEMNISING MARRIAGES. CHAMARS, ESPECIALLY IN HARYANA, WESTERN U.P ETC. AVOID GOTRAS OF SELF, THE MOTHER, AND THE GRAND MOTHER AND CAN NOT MARRY IN THESE THREE GOTRAS ON WHATSOEVER BE THE GROUND OR COMPULSION. IF OTHER CASTES WANT CHAMARS TO FORGET THEIR GOTRAS, IT WOULD BE A GREAT SIN AS BY DOING SO THEY WILL NOT KNOW WHTHER THEY ARE MARRYING IN THEIR GOTRA OR OTHERS. FOR CHAMARS GOTI NAATI BHAI BHAI,' AND BAAKI SAB COULD BE ASHNAI.' SOME CHAMARS SEEMS TO BE USING IMPROVED BUT SIMILIAR SYNNONYMOUS GOTRA NAMES SUCH AS MEHRA IN PLACE OF MEHARIA OR MEHARDIA WHICH ALSO CONVEY THE SAME MEANING. AS SUCH THERE IS NO DEVIATION AND THIS COULD BE LITTLE BIT CHANGE FROM ORIGINAL LOCAL DILECT WORDS TO IMPROVED HINDI OR SOME OTHER LANGUAGE. THIS IS A KIND OF SHIFT FROM LOCAL LANGUAGE E.G FROM HARYANAVI OR RAJASTHANI TO POPULAR HINDI OR PUNJABI NAMES. BUT ONLY VERY FEW PEOPLE HAVE IMPROVED THAT MANNER WHILE MOST OF OTHERS USE THEIR ORIGINAL GOTRA NAMES ONLY. BUT AT THE TIME OF COMPARING GOTRAS FOR MARRIAGE PURPOSE THEY TAKE UTMOST CARE AND INSIST FOR ORIGINAL GOTRA NAMES IF THERE IS A CONFUSION.------comments by Odinel

== Reservation topic ==

To state that chamar have taken advantage of reservation is a bit offensive(like chamar's have over exploited it).this is a not a fact and shouldbe changed.Many others such as Marasi's,Nai etc have used reservation too so pls change these lines.

Yes Maurya is one more name of Madiga or Chamar. It is well known fact Chamar collected animal skins. They also collected Peacock feathers and feathers of other birds. A group of chamar who collect this peacock feathers are known as Maurya ( those who collect peacock feather). Hence Chandra Guptha belonged to this group. Chanakya who was against Kshtriya found these group strong enough to fight kshtriya. Simillar thing was done by Shivaji maharaj. He used local dalit to build Maharashtra. It is said that one of the main reason Ashok Maurya was not accepted as Emperor by Kalinga was Kalinga Kshtriya could not tolerate Dalit being their emporer. There still set of Maurya people in north. This caste conflict is one main reason for Chandra Gupta Maurya to convert to Jain and Ashok Maurya to convert to Buddhism

Every body who lives in the world who take breath, have skin,blood,and mass (meat) is chamar. Because cha for chamdi (Skin),Ma for mass Meat and ra for rakt (Blood). Actually the every person is chamar who worked or doing buisiness of leather (Chamda).But in India every body who says themselves brahmin, vaish jain etc. hate the chamar but they don't hate chamda's (leather) buisiness they make Chamda (leather) goods.

VALMIKI

Oi lembher is not a chamar, he is 100% Valmiki! YOU NEED TO GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.8.139.100 (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC). GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT KAILSH KHER IS A BRAHMIN AND HANS RAJ HANS IS A VALMIKI !!!

Maharshi Valmiki is not chamar. wheteher he was a brahaman or a valmiki, it is a matter of debate. But for sure he was not chamar.

Part of original text Chamars are mainly labourers and peasants, some of them are traditionally engaged in professions such as Leatherworking. However, many Chamars living in rural areas have branched out into other occupations such as Weaving. Because of their Dalit status, which was considered to be the lowest in the Indian Caste System, over the centuries, the Chamars have been subjected to discrimination, as a result of which many of them remain poor and backward to this day. Many Chamar families share the same names as families from other castes, this is because they had belonged to those other castes in the past but had fallen down the hierarchy due to poverty or exclusion from the family.

Most of the Chamars in states like Haryana have given up their traditional leather working profession and have now changed their profession to small business, govt. service, medical and engineering services, defence services, and excellence in all walks of life. It is one of the most hard working, honest and progressive caste group.

One example of discrimination against Chamars is cited in an Amar Chitra Katha book concerning Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar. According to this source, Vidyasagar and several assistants of his, offered food and provisions to victims of a famine in Bengal. Vidyasagar asked his assistants to distribute oil to Chamar victims with parched skin. However, he noticed that one assistant did his bidding only from a distance. When asked why he could not move closer to the Chamars, the assistant replied, "How can I touch a Chamar?" (Vidyasagar then touched one Chamar and said, "What makes you think you can't?")

Today in India, Chamars are politically organised for their status in the society and these changes really helped them to improve their status. Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and other states of India are examples where this caste is very much more conscious.

CHAMARS IN states like HARYANA, U.P, Rajasthan etc.

Chamars have diffrent gotras at diffrent places. Almost all gotras of chamars in states like Haryana are same to those of Rajputs, Gujjars etc.

Chamars seems to belong to original Kshatriya class which was reduced to lowest status with ill impact of Kaliyuga. As per one theory Chamars belong to the same race as that of Telgu Brahmanas/kshatriyas who established very good empires in ancient India. The leather and weaving busines, however, seems to have attracted a number of people in pursuit of a livelihood.

CHAMARS are spiritually better than most of others. Saint Ravidass (one of famous chamar guru) proved relative superiority of a noble hearted Chamar to that of a Brahmin. The teachings of Saint Ravidass attracted many Rajput Kings, Jats and others who become disciple of His Holiness. Famous Meera Bai is also stated to be the disciple of Chamar Saint Guru Ravidass.

LEATHER BUSINESS AND CHAMARS

The lucrative leather business attracted many people toward it. This probably made the leather industry one of the most important industry alongside cotton textile industry. Chamars were very good experts in making beutiful designs of shoes and cotton cloth. They were known as julaha, chamar-julaha, raigar, jatia etc. etc. Chamars are very good at farming as well as weaving, shoemaking etc. etc. Chamars are one of the most intelligent castes in India but they are not given due importance becouse of their poverty and low social status. Chamars rarely kill any living animal despite being engaged in skinning of dead animals. Chamars can never resort to begging due to which they find it very difficult to demand even their own legitimate wages for their labour in most of the cases. Chamar has never been understood by anyone due to which this talented caste has always been neglected and subjected to a number of prejudices and discriminations. But this only in India, but in countries like France A person like LUIS PASTEUR, who's father was also engaged in leather dyeing job, could become a good researcher.

Of the four varnas, (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra), the Chamars belong to the last category - the Shudras.

They are not Vaishya as stated in the article at present.

CHAMAR IS NOT A CASTE

chamar is not a caste, its totally related to profession. like farmer is not a caste but a profession there are many kshatriya,brahmin,baniyia doing farming. they are not of same caste and called as farmer caste . so same as this case they are called as different name as jatav,and ravidassia etc. so we people have to stop mentioning calling chamar as caste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.69.198 (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Farming is not very relevant to someone's ritual status within Hinduism, but leatherworking is very relevant. This is because its practitioners dispose of dead animals by removing and processing the skin and may even consume the flesh. These practices make them ritually polluting in the eyes of orthodox Hindus.

Of course anyone is free to complain that this is a silly prejudice, but the fact remains that it is thoroughly institutionalised. LADave (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr LADave perhaps doesnot know that very few chamars used to do the kind of job mentioned by him. More than 99 percent chamars are doing no leather related job atleast since past 50 years i.e a half known century. Almost all Chamars' children donot know anything about leather etc. Many other lower as well as upper caste are doing boot polishing and repairing jobs in big cities and many of them are not at all from the traditional stock of chamars. No chamar dispose of dead animals today for your kind information.Therefore it is unwise to make fictious stories based upon some past halucinations from the black past......Neobie

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Neobie (talk • contribs) 14:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

MANY MYTHS AND FALSE PRESUMPTIONS HAVE BEEN CREATED AGAINST CHAMARS SINCE MANY PAST CENTURIES. MANY PEOPLE USE THE WORD CHAMAR AS AN ABUSE BECOUSE EACH CHILD IN INDIA HAVE BEEN TOUGHT BY PARENTS OR OTHERS THAT CHAMAR IS THE SINISTER AND UGLISET GROUP OF PEOPLE. tHIS IS FAR FROM REALITY BECOUSE CHAMAR IS NOT AT ALL SINISTER AS HE DOESNOT COMMIT ANY SIN THROUGH OUT HIS LIFE. A TRUE CHAMAR DOES NOT KILL ANY LIVING ANIMAL, DONOT BEG, DONBOT STEAL, DONOT CHEAT AND POSSESS ALL ATTRIBUTES OF A NOBLE HUMAN BEING. tHE PROCESSING OF LEATHER WAS CONSIDERED BAD BECOUSE THE POOR CHAMAR COULD NOT MAKE USE OF COSTLY MACHINES AND CHEMICALS AND HAD TO DO EVERYTHING BY THEMSELVES. EVERYBODY NEEDED LEATHER GOOS AS IT WAS PROBABLY THE BEST OR SECOND BEST ITEM FOR USE BY HUMANS IN THE UNSCIENTIFIC ERAS. IT IS REALLY SHOCKING THAT CHAMARS ARE/WERE ERRONEOUSLY BEING CONSIDERED MUCH POLLUTED PEOPLE DESPITE THE CONTRARY FACT THAT THEY ARE ONE OF THE HIGHELLY SPIRITUAL AND PURE HEARTED AND MORALLY GOOD PEOPLE.PEOPLE HAVE TO COME OUT OF THE FALSE PRESUMPTIONS AND BELIEFS AND STOP FEEDING THE MINDS OF THE CHILDREN WITH RACIST COCEPTS AND THOUGHTS. ...............Neobie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neobie (talk • contribs) 15:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

B.R. Ambedkar...

...as far as I know, was not a Chamar. Didn't he belong to another community/caste called the Mahars? --Kuaichik (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking the liberty of removing that claim. It has no reliable sources and was inserted by someone who seems to have done this deliberately. Or am I assuming bad faith due to the edits I've been trying to deal with lately?! Geez, I hope not! --Kuaichik (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes Dr B R Ambedkar belonged to Mahar caste of Maharastra . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.224.73 (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A simple google search of "Ramdasia Chamar" will show countless links that Ramdasia are Chamars who have taken to weaving. http://www.google.com/search?q=ramdasia+chamar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that this is not true, discuss here. Provide proofs, links, verifiable links. Otherwise, I will keep on reverting the edits and report you (Ravinder121) as doing vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Ambedkar

Hello; I don't think was a Chamar. He was from Maharashtra and from Mahar caste not Chamar caste. He was a great man and one of the most influential men of India. Chamars have deep respect for him but he is not from our caste. Go to www.ambedkar.org for complete info. SandeepSingh1980 (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)sandeepsingh1980

You are right. Dr B.R Ambedkar was not from the Chamar caste, he was from the Mahar caste. Bal537 (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)bal537

Music Section & Sport section

Hello Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedakar bassicaly from Mahar Cast Equal to Chamar ,Mahar is doing same work in Maharstra , for leather work Hello; There are some names listed in these sections that I am pretty sure are not from Chamar caste such as Gurmeet Kaur Bawa is from Brahmin caste, PT USHA is definelty not Chamar caste, Akshay Kumar is from Khatri caste and Manmohan Waris is from jatt caste. SandeepSingh1980 (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)sandeepsingh1980

To Sandeep Singh, Why cant they be Chamars? Every second or third person around you could be a chamar, take it for sure. They are present in all walks of life and many of them have excellent exceptional qualities, but they hide their identities at most of the occasions. That is why credit for all excellence finally goes to non chamars.....posted by neobie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neobie (talk • contribs) 04:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some these people are most likely not from the Chamar caste, but not 100% sure Bal537 (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)bal537.

Sir Mangoo Ram

Sir Mangoo Ram - Was one of the most important personalities of the Chamar caste. He was a freedom fighter for Indian Independence and member of the Gadar movement.

Most important, he organized the Chamar from Doaba region into the Ad-Dharmi religion and created the new Adharmi caste. Today, there are more than 1 million people who are people who are members of the Ad-Dharmi caste.

He is a very important Chamar personality.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This article only includes names of people who have Wikipedia articles of their own. Please do not revert again. GlassCobra 04:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Population Table

The table displaying the population distributions of the Chamars is quite unclear and potentially misleading. Having glanced through the website referenced to each State/Union Territory, I've noticed that "State Population %" should be changed to "Population % of Total Scheduled Castes within that State". At the moment for example, it suggests to the uninformed reader that 38.1% of Delhi consists of Chamars (as well as that Delhi's total population is around 2 Crore). The problem with the name that I proposed above is its lengthiness. I will see what I can do to make the heading more precise such that it doesn't take an unwieldy amount of space within the table. Gizza^Discuss ^© 13:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Notable Chamars

The section was unsourced for six months. Per WP:NLIST an inline source is required for every member of the list. I moved all unsourced members here, feel free to reinstate any of them with proper reliable sources.

Notable historical Chamars

Guru Ravidas, religious leader and Satguru of the Ravidasi
Jhalkari Bai, fought in place of Rani Lakshmibai

Notable Chamars in politics

Mayawati Kumari, President of Bahujan Samaj Party and Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh
Meira Kumar, Lok Sabha Speaker and Member of Parliament
Kumari Selja, Minister of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation and Minister of Tourism
Sushil Kumar Shinde, former Minister of Power and Former Chief Minister of Maharashtra
K.H. Muniyappa, Union Minister of State for Railways
Ashok Tanwar, former President of National Youth Congress and M.P from Sirsa, Haryana
Chand Ram, Central Minister of India and Deputy Chief Minister of Haryana

Notable Chamars in sports

Palwankar Baloo - First Dalit Cricketer and Social Activist, member of Hindu Mahasabha
Amarjit Kaypee - Cricketer and Record Holder for most runs in the Ranji Trophy

Notable Chamars in music

--Muhandes (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Chamar in Gujarat State

Sir, In this section of wikimapia, there is no details of Chamars in Gujarat State. In the Gujarat State, There is also a major population of Chamar caste. Here, Chamar caste is holding the surnames as : Makwana, Rohit, Parmar, Rathod, Chamar, Solanki, Vaghela. In the Gujarat, The Chamar are also in progressive position. from: V. D. Makwana, Gandhinagar, Gujarat ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.13.79 (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Promotion of caste system and inequality in society by such articles

This article which enlists the surnames used by the underprivileged castes, promotes caste system and keep it surviving in the society. The educated urban people who are slowly forgetting caste divisions,are reminded of their caste and others castes , they start identifying different people on the basis of surnames used by them. Also by linking the caste and its occupation this article develops in reader's mind of reader, a lowly image of people of that caste. Such references to the surnames of people should not be made and information should be given for general awareness without promoting castiesm. Caste system is a menace and has caused thousands years of misery to our people, even today it is responsible for harassment and insecurity, and unequal treatment of people. Lets help them to live their life with dignity and pride. Like minded people please support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raasbihari (talk • contribs) 14:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

GUJARATI CHAMAR

chamar means people who working with "charm(leather)". . .so that they called as chamar. . .its not necessary that all chamar must work with leather.but still called chamar. . .nd i m proud to be chamar the oldest caste nd mullnivasi people of india nd also second largest caste of india . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.202.39.37 (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

List of people

Caste is a touchy subject. There have been several discussions at WT:INB that determined it should not be mentioned in relation to living people unless they self-identified, and some background info for this can be found via User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. That situation has prevailed for some time but is currently being discussed yet again at WP:VPP. Until some real change in policy occurs, we need to err on the side of caution and thus unless there is self-identification, people should not be added to the list in this article. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Side of caution is ok, but before reverting, please actually take the trouble of reviewing the cited links and verifying if they are authentic or not. One person's belief what is safe or not does not make it wikipedia policy. Please discuss why you feel that the linked sources are not valid. ~bal537 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed them. You can throw as many newspapers as you want at this thing but it is pointless unless they clearly show that the people self-identify. Kaypee & KumAr are not self-identifying, and Shinde seems not to be (not 100% because I can't even see where it might be mentioned in one of the two sources). If you want to retain Chamkila then that's fine, but Mayawati needs to go. Now please fix these before you are blocked for edit warring. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying that reputed Indian newspapers are not considered to be valid sources? Is this your personal beliefs or is this a wikipedia policy? I will add sources for Mayawati, there are plenty in the Mayawati wiki page. If you can get other people input that these sources are not valid, then I will glady remove them ~bal537 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Right now, it is effectively policy. Have you read the info that I linked above? WP:CONSENSUS is policy and the consensus is that self-identification is necessary. As I also explained above, there is a discussion currently ongoing regarding this issue but until things actually change (and it looks like it might be made tougher, not easier) we go off the existing consensus. That is the end of this particular story, and you will find that it is a methodology that has been applied across countless caste articles. See, for example, the ongoing clean up at List of Iyengars and List of Ezhavas. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed WP:CONSENSUS and it makes no mention that caste self-identification is necessary. You yourself have mentioned that consensus regarding this has not been reached. Please provide the link where caste self-identification consensus was reached, otherwise I will have to revert your edits. bal537 18:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)

I reviewed the caste self-identification section on your page and there is hardly any consensus reached on this approach. I disagree with this because reputable sources are valid and can be used to identify someone. For example: using your approach we cannot even say North Korean Dictator is not Korean unless we find some source where he explicitly says he is african-american. bal537 18:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)bal537 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)

You misunderstand me. The consensus is that they have to self-identify for caste. What happens for anything else is a completely different issue. The discussions that are linked at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists include a formal Request for Comment that was closed thus. - Sitush (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the two links and it seems clear that NO consensus has been reached regarding whether to include or exclude caste. I will continue to add caste as long as there are valid reputable sources. bal537 19:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)bal537 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)

If that is your conclusion then you clearly do not understand the concept of consensus. The methodology has been used for a long time now, based on discussions at WT:INB (the India project talk page). You cannot just say "there is no consensus" just because you do not like it. And acting on that is a very quick way to find yourself being blocked from contributing. I strongly suggest that you go look around the various major caste articles and that you remember consensus is based on policy, not heart. We are getting into I didn't hear that territory now. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand the concept on consensus, however it is clear from your links that half the posters disagreed with what you proposed and thus there was no clear consensus. bal537 20:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)

No, that shows you do not understand consensus. It is not a vote, so you cannot use a count. However, even if you did, you've got your sums wrong. - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Koli Chamar

From the book: THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF INDIA Publisher: Association Press (1920) ASIN: B001AS1UEQ

"The KORI or KOLI Chamar is found almost exclusively in the Gorakhpur and Lucknow Divisions. About 100,000 are found in the Sultanpur District alone, while more than 50,000 are found in the District of Basti, and more than 80,000 in the two Districts of Fyzabad and Partabgarh. He is a shoe-maker, a field-labourer, a groom, and a weaver. 1 He will not touch dead camels or horses. In the Punjab, where he does not work in leather, and where he does not perform menial tasks, he is called a Chamar-Julaha, i.e., Chamar weaver. The Kori (Weaver) often lives alongside of him, and was undoubtedly formerly a Chamar. In some places people still remember when the Kori and the Kori Chamar ate together and intermarried. In Mirzapur the Kori is known as Chamar-Kori. "

~bal537 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

We have problems. Firstly, we have breached copyright by using the text that you have reinstated in our article in the manner that we have, since you say it is a quote. Secondly, Briggs was a source from the British Raj and they are generally considered not to be reliable. Thirdly, he was a primarily missionary and his viewpoint was coloured. Finally, it seems that we are misleading people because the text above refers to "Koli Chamar", which is not the same as Koli.

I am going to be absolutely ripping into this article over the next few weeks because it is clearly at best a misleading construction. Obviously, I have a lot of experience of this sort of stuff on Wikipedia: I generally know what I'm talking about and can often spot problems before I've even read the sources. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

And I will be watching your edits very carefully and make sure your biases not showing. bal537 18:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)

What bias? Please read WP:NPA. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Background/origin

I have just removed the entire section on background/origin because I strongly suspect that it is a copyright violation or, at the very least, an unattributed copy/paste. The style of writing is of a type that is well beyond all but a few Wikipedians dealing with Indic articles, and the edit summary here is telling.

I do not have access to the Briggs work and it would be appreciated if someone who does could provide the relevant pages (the cites that are there say page 20 but I rather suspect it is 20-21 or something like that). - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I will add back this section in one week if you are not able to justify your belief that this is a copyright violation or authorized copy/paste.

Please note that this book was published in 1920, so it is over 90 years old and any copyrights have long since expired.

bal537 18:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)bal537 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)

Please can you start signing your posts and indenting the things? Others have advised you about this in the past. You also need to read WP:COPYRIGHT. Unless you or someone else comes up with that source, I'm not prepared to accept it. I know that we are supposed to assume good faith but there is clearly something not right here. - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This book is not copyrighted. According to Unites States law on copyrights: No book published before 1923 has copyright and this book was published in 1920: See link http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

Also, I have read WP:COPYRIGHT It clearly states the following regarding quotes:

Text

Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. In all cases, a citation is required. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. Please see both WP:QUOTE for use and formatting issues in using quotations, and WP:MOSQUOTE for style guidelines related to quoting.

So it is ok to quote from this book.

So the book is considered to be a valid source and the Background section can be added back.

You also need to clarify what you mean by "something is just not right", this is a personal opinion and a personal bias of yours against the source. bal537 19:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)bal537

No. We still need to make clear that we are quoting by using a decent attribution. That is our policy. As the section stood, most of it was not even cited and none of it was obviously a quote. "Something is not right" is not bias but experience: as I've already said, there are very few people capable of writing to that standard on India-related articles. I'm one of them, Fowler&fowler is another, and there are perhaps a further dozen or so known names, none of whom added the stuff. It rings alarm bells and Moonriddengirl, who is probably our best arbiter of copyright issues, says frequently that experienced editors using gut instinct to flag copyright issues makes absolute sense. - Sitush (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry I cannot take your gut instinct as a standard and your self-claim of being an expert on India related issues. My gut instinct and expertise (plus research) tell me that the source is valid and will have to remain until someone puts valid reasons why the source is not valid. bal537 19:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)bal537

Hm, but you have already admitted that my gut instinct is valid because your edit summary said that I had somehow changed a quote. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your gut instinct was wrong because you had written something about Kolis being related to Rajputs but then I posted a source on Koli Chamars.

http://socialjustice.nic.in/scorder1950.php?pageid=4 http://books.google.com/books?id=1QmrSwFYe60C&pg=PA554&lpg=PA554&dq=koli+chamars&source=bl&ots=qLZ8b_hf19&sig=paI6yLhDtUnGfZz9EDecSrA4Cxo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LhXvUPPVDoXn0QHPxYCwBw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=koli%20chamars&f=false bal537 19:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)bal537

Your edit summary said that it was a quote. Are you now saying that it is not a quote? Have you got a copy of Briggs to hand? - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually you can view and download the entire book here: http://archive.org/details/chamarscalcutta00briguoft

bal537 20:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)

Thanks.I did search archive.org but it came up with no result (the search engine there is weird). What is immediately obvious is that the content - even the cited content - is not supported by page 20. You've still not answered my query about the alleged quote: am I going to have to read the entire book just to confirm that one way or the other? - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Since I did not create the original paragaph or section, I cannot say which text belongs to which page. However, if you open the book in PDF format and on page 19 it has the quote. You can also open it in text format and do searches.

bal537 20:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)

Caste is still a very important part of Indian society and a person is still known by his caste. It is the same as religious identity or tribal identity. Having a caste self identification standard makes no sense because we currently do not have a religion, tribe or ethnicity self identification standard. TimesGerman (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC) TimesGerman

Actually, we do. See, for example, WP:BLPCAT.- Sitush (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

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

The demographics table is sourced to various documents from the 2001 census of India. Thus, the heading should note that these are 2001 figures. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sitush. That sounds reasonable enough, but how would you like the heading worded? "2001 demographics"? "Demographics as of 2001"? Let me know what your preference is and I'll go ahead and change it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I've deactivated the edit request for now - please activate it again when you reply. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ravidassia Chamars

Can anyone see page 291 of this. The article currently cites page 290 as the source for the paragraph but that page does not support any of the statements in the Ravidassia Chamars section. I think the cite has been formatted using the tool at AppSpot, which appends a "-" to the page numbers even when only one page is specified, but we need to check what is going on here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It is easily viewable in Firefox. http://books.google.com/books?id=Y3v3t9bjPAcC&pg=PA290#v=onepage&q&f=false bal537 18:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)bal537 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)

Page 290 is here, yes, but it doesn't support our statements. That's why I would like to see the subsequent pages, which are not viewable here. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Which statement is in question? bal537 18:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)bal537 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)

The entire paragraph, as I have already said twice. - Sitush (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Then the reference should state Page 289 - 295. Pages that are viewable support the written paragraph. We have the assume that original author of the paragraph has access to the complete source. We cannot assume that it is an invalid source just because we can't go to the library and view the book. I have also found several other papers that support the entire paragraph: http://www.global.ucsb.edu/punjab/journal/v16_1/articles/RonkiRam16_1.pdf http://www.apnaorg.com/research-papers-pdf/kathryn.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the extra sources you have linked. I cannot see pages 291-294, so there is no way I can verify the content using the extant source. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Just because one person cannot verify a source, does not make it invalid. See the wikipedia on goodfaith editing. If you are insistent, you can always buy the book and then verify. Otherwise, we have to assume author goodfaith bal537 19:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)bal537 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)

No, again. Please see WP:V - I want to check this out. Misrepresentation of sources is very common in India-related articles. Of course, sometimes the misrepresentation is a good faith one - eg: someone misunderstanding because English is not their first language - but if I have any doubts then I'll either find the source or ask if someone else can do so. Sometimes it means going to WP:RX but that is a last resort because the good people there do enough already. And please will you sign your posts. - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I've read the paper hosted by apna, which is a notorious violator of copyrighted content. It was copyrighted in 2009 by the anthropologist Kathryn Lum. At that time, she had not obtained her PhD, there is no indication that this is peer-reviewed etc and, most importantly, it does not in fact seem to support the entire paragraph. It goes a long way towards it, yes, but it is not a reliable source even if it did contain all the info. I'll check out the other one soon.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken a look at your Ronki Ram link. I am struggling to see where it supports the entire paragraph. Could you perhaps guide me with some page numbers? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Background section

That section was non-neutral, and the way it was written (particularly the use of "we") makes me strongly believe that it was directly copied from somewhere—possibly the source listed. Speaking of which, that source is almost certainly not a reliable source. First, it's a copy of a 1920s book, and seems to be essentially self-published. The original author was Geo W. Briggs, and the publisher is Briggs Press; this makes me think it's basically a vanity press devoted to preserving works by this author. Worse, the blurb about the book says that it's basically just based on other, older colonialist works, like Rose, Ibbetson, etc., many of whom we now know to be unreliable. As such, we need better sources. It is always better to have no information than to have unsourced or poorly sourced information. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see that the exact same matter was discussed above. Well, I'm not willing to just let the information stand. At best, the information is partially copied from a probably unreliable book, at worst, it's a copyright violation (please note that US copyright law is not the guiding rule here, since the book was not originally published in the US). As Sitush points out, even if it isn't copyrighted, we still cannot just copy it word for word (we'd have to at least say something like "The following comes from the 1920s book....". To do otherwise is WP:Plagiarism. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Maps

I've just removed two maps from the article. They were pretty poor to look at and claimed the 2010 census as their source. To the best of my knowledge, there was no census in 2010 and if it was a typo for 2001 then, really, it makes me worry about what errors may have crept into the data itself.

The population data that is shown in the table would appear (from a random check) to be from 2001 and so I've added that to the heading. I have no idea why only 50% or so of the states and UTs of India are shown: I would presume that it is because there is no population in the other places but it really does need to be clarified.

Finally, the article is absolutely swamped with demographic information to a degree that is not only overweighting but also extremely trivial in my opinion. Thoughts?--2.219.218.79 (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have any thoughts regarding this table? I am considering deleting it in favour of a more brief section that just notes in prose form a few of the areas where the Chamar are most numerous, either in terms of pure numbers or as a percentage of the total population. - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason for deleting the table and it is very informative and I don't see how your changes are beneficial. bal537 14:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)

To which of my changes are you referring? And what is very informative about the table? You might wish to read the other stuff exists essay and then consider why it is that details such as this are not included in almost articles concerning specific castes, or at least not the 900 or so that are on my watchlist and hundreds of others that I have seen but not (yet) watchlisted. You might also care to explain why the table appears to be incomplete, as per my opening message in this section. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This information does not exist for other castes because the Indian govt. only had caste based census for the scheduled castes. The new census will have caste based demographic information for all castes, and I am sure that these types of tables will start to be included soon enough. The table is incomplete because someone has to read through each source for each state and add in the information. The users of wikipedia who belong to this caste and are from this state have added the information for their state and this information is very informative. Especially since this caste is so huge, widespread and politically important.

You may not find this information important but the population information on this wikipedia site has been used countless times in other websites forums and facebook groups. bal537 19:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I am aware that the census of 2001 did its stuff only for STs ad SCs. That does not explain why - to the best of my knowledge - this is the only ST/SC article to have such a table. The government have also not made a decision regarding whether to publish the 2011 caste data, which was a late-decision exercise undertaken purely to examine the claims of OBCs on a statistical basis for internal use, so you claim of what will probably happen is based on a large assumption.

As far as I can see, the table is an unfair depiction unless someone goes to the effort of including the data for all states and UTs. Perhaps you would like to do that? It seems to be untrue to claim that the Chamars are "politically important" throughout the country: just looking at the distribution suggests that and, for example, they are certainly not important in southern states such as Kerala and TN. Your final point of reference to it by others is valid, although the idea that it is validated by Facebook glorification messages etc rather sticks in my craw! However, since the information is freely available elsewhere, are you sure that it originates from this article? Basically, we are showing a public domain primary source and it swamps the article. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason why this is the only SC/ST article with a population table is because the reality is the Chamar caste is the only SC caste that has significantly progressed so that there is an educated middle class/upper class and NRI's. They have the members who have internet connections to go on to Wikipedia and add these changes. Unfortunately, other SC castes have not progressed so far.

Once the latest caste based census results are published, you will find that other caste based articles will also start including these population numbers. This table is very useful because it answers the question that informs people how big and widespread this caste is. Before this table, nobody knew that the Chamar caste formed 10% of population of Punjab and so on. I have found from personal experience on facebook groups and other forums, members discussing the information on this table. For your information, I have created painstaking created this table and this table has been on this article for years. This information is not widely available, I had to search for months until I stumbled upon the Indian Census website which is not user friendly at all. To find this information, you have to search the Indian Census website for the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe section. In that section, you have to navigate through countless PDF's and tables to find these PDF's. Then you have to read each PDF and find out the information for this caste. It is very time consuming and I stopped doing this when I heard about the 2012 census. I will update table based on the new census whenever the results get published. Also, the Chamars are dominant in North India and that is what the table is intended to show However, South Indian chamars are known by different names such as Madiga and that information needs to be researched and added to the table. So this table is very important for this article and cannot be removed. bal537 13:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)

Well, it took me less than two minutes to find the pdfs yesterday - easy. Your comments about who added the data contradicts your earlier statement, and since you have been working on it for years I am a little surprised that you did not finish it. But, of course, you've now also said that there is litle likelihood of it being completed - you cannot include Madigas etc unless you can find reliable sources saying that they are Chamars. I think that you are blinded by your closeness to this subject matter and the fact that you contributed the information: it is incomplete, undue weight, not what we do elsewhere, and your justifications seem mostly to rely on original research. The weighting issues are the biggest concern and we are going to have to amend the thing even if we do not delete it: it needs a sourced explanation regarding why all the other states are omitted etc, just as it needed a date that had (strangely) been left out. We could, of course, fork the thing but I suspect that it might not survive a deletion discussion as a standalone article. - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I find your arguments without merits. I did not add Madiga's as Chamars even though there are plenty of reliable sources for this. I work full time and don't have much time to spend on Wikipedia. I think you have an agenda, so you should leave this table as it is until you propose a better format to display this data. bal537 20:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)

Some sources that show Madigas as the same community as Chamars: http://www.indiarightsonline.com/Sabrang/dalit.nsf/2841d2c977218f8fe5257713005cbbf0/14746d2ddad5c6fce5256b950047e2f7?OpenDocument

http://www.hindu.com/2008/10/27/stories/2008102752280300.htm bal537 20:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC) bal537

We need to leave the table as it is, as it will be a controversial change. I think we should revisit this discussion after the latest caste based census results are released and see if that information is included in other caste articles. I strongly believe they will be since it was due to strong public pressure that the caste based census was conducted and the population numbers will have a strong socio-political impact in India. TimesGerman (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent revert

I have recently reverted a reinstatement of information by TimesGerman. The rationale includes, starting from the top of the diff:

montages of people in infoboxes for caste/community articles are deprecated by the India project - details can be found via this link
Ram Narayan Rawat is not a professor, plus WP:HONORIFIC
George Briggs is a highly dubious source and the presentation breaches WP:Plagiarism. Written in 1920, outdated from the 1960s onwards. The issues with this source have been discussed on three recent occasions - here, here and here, as well as on some earlier occasions
there are grammar/spelling problems, eg: capitalisation of "Population" in the demographics table
there is imprecision, eg: the date of the data used in the aforesaid table
the demographic images look to be wrong etc, per this recent new section
valid cite requests were removed and unsourced statements reintroduced
the population is not "more than 2,079,132" but rather was that figure in 2001. To say "more than" is to engage in original research, although I suspect the basis was that, well, the population will surely have increased since then
it is "Mayawati", not "Ms. Mayawati"; and it is "four", not "4" - see WP:HONORIFIC and WP:MOSNUM
various inappropriate entries were reinstated to the list of notable people - see User:Sitush/Common#Castelists for some background

Hope this helps.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I should clarify that I am Sitush, who has contributed to various threads above. Not able to log in at the moment, sorry.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I agree cleanup was needed on this article. Was worried that an anonymous IP address was making mass deletions this page TimesGerman (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC) TimesGerman

Ah, I see. No problem, although I think that the big deletion was done by Qwyrxian rather than me. I bought a second-hand copy of Rawat's Reconsidering Untouchability book today online. It should turn up before too long and once I've read it and delved around JSTOR etc then I'll probably make a concerted effort to improve this article. Hopefully, I'll be back using my username by then.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've got the book. Now I have to find the time to read it thoroughly. Mine is a long reading list. - Sitush (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Koli and Chamar

There are really big issues surrounding the linkage of the Koli and Chamar nomenclature, which has resulted in a recent edit war. I have a copy of the book that is cited and the first - relatively minor - issue is that the barelink citation is inappropriate. More significantly, the author neither calls this groups the Koli Chamar nor the Chamar Koli. He does refer to them as a Chamar subcaste but then that gives us a further problem because the relationship of Koli people as a classification is a minefield, as is evident from pages such as Talk:Koli people and Talk:Kharvi. "Koli" appears to be a rather generic term used to refer to fisherpeople. Given that Uttar Pradesh is an inland state, whether the linkage is correct is open to question. Furthermore, the page cited seems not to refer to Uttar Pradesh. And still furthermore, it seems highly likely that there may be a conflict of interest situation here. My suspicion is that resolving this mess of nomenclature etc across umpteen articles could drag on for months but, in the spirit of good faith, what we need to do here is find some wording that accurately reflects the source and the concerns regarding the wider issue can be dealt with in due course. - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There is not much distance betweek Uttar Pradesh and other places where the Koli are found. And there is no reason for the Koli not to be in Uttar Pradesh.

Here are some matrimonial profiles of people showing the caste as Koli Chamar: http://www.bandhan.com/male/hindi/koli/id--b2e8ce74d56e4420 http://www.bandhan.com/female/hindi/koli/mba/id--4d2b4938b7e1478e

bal537 02:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC) bal537 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:OR, please start signing your posts, please start formatting your talk page comments correctly. And please self-revert otherwise the WP:3RR warning on your talk page is likely to become fact. You cannot keep making assumptions and I am convinced that you have a conflict of interest here, so talk is vital. - Sitush (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)