Jump to content

Talk:Kushwaha: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Removing protection template from an unprotected page) (bot
Line 5: Line 5:
}}
}}


== Contested deletion ==
== Please Discuss ==


It s regarding reference no 2 ((Inclusive value chains: a pathway out of poverty)) EDA Rural system started in 1999- 2000, then, then how come Kushwaha Community is known as beekeeping Community Traditionally. That was not the only cast which was given this opportunity so every cast which was benefited by that program must be treated traditional beekeepers.
This page should not be speedy deleted because... --[[Special:Contributions/1.23.211.253|1.23.211.253]] ([[User talk:1.23.211.253|talk]]) 18:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC) inadequate information

Kindly explain.

Thanks,
HistoryofKushwaha 21:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


== Protection ==
== Protection ==

Revision as of 21:28, 26 March 2012

Template:Castewarningtalk

WikiProject iconIndia Stub‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please Discuss

It s regarding reference no 2 ((Inclusive value chains: a pathway out of poverty)) EDA Rural system started in 1999- 2000, then, then how come Kushwaha Community is known as beekeeping Community Traditionally. That was not the only cast which was given this opportunity so every cast which was benefited by that program must be treated traditional beekeepers.

Kindly explain.

Thanks, HistoryofKushwaha 21:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Protection

This article is being vandalised on an almost daily basis by some persons. Can we take some steps to protect it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthalwaystriumphs (talkcontribs) 11:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Population estimate

The population estimate of 5.00 crore for kushwaha appears grossly exaggerated. It may be close to 1.5 crore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.92.26 (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Is this community also known as the Kachwaha? - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

as per my knowlegde separate.they are listed as a obc caste evidence here just like lodhi who also claim rajput origin but are obc and not part of the rajput community.i can give you further examples of such groups like Rajput Mali etc.Pernoctator (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That source does not say that they are different from Kachwaha. In fact, it does not even appear to mention Kachwaha. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it shows that they (the kushwaha) are a separate obc group not the rajput clan Kachwaha.Pernoctator (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does it show that they are not the clan? OBC has regard to social groups, some of which are not necessarily castes. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you mean to say the rajputs or atleast one of their clan is obc.i don't think so alteast not in uttar pradesh,rajasthan,delhi.the central government also does not list rajput as obc if my facts are correct.Pernoctator (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance that you could indent your replies? I am not saying that you are wrong about the subject matter here. What I am saying is we need sources, not personal knowledge and synthesis. These OBC lists are always a complete mess. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
obc list mess yes maybe.what do you propose then redirect ?.Pernoctator (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not proposing anything yet. I want to work out what the heck is going on. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

look here what this says [1] koeri and kacchi caste have merged to become kushwaha.Pernoctator (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See [2] - numerous sources saying Kushwaha and Kachwaha. Dougweller (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's true.Kushwaha comes under OBC Category. As per Hindu varna systems not only Kushwaha but some other casts also falls under Kshtriya Varna. (Like Yadav,Kurmi,etc.) Get confirm with your resources.Historically and Mythological that varna system in Hinduism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryofKushwaha (talkcontribs) 23:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And your source for that is? Bearing in mind that you misrepresent the varna situation of Kurmis and Yadavs, I am not massively confident here. - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like I was correct. The varna situation is the common, messy sanskritisation issue, as per my recent edits, and including a change in their belief regarding from whom they claim descent. It also appears likely that Kushwaha is akin to Yadav, ie: a name used by various castes that form a loose grouping based on a common traditional occupation. It needs more work, though. - Sitush (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

but it is a separate caste no ? not the same as kachwaha clan.Pernoctator (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the sources that I have found, it is can refer to one of three or four "subcastes", and some think that includes the Kachwaha. That is what the article now says because we have to reflect the reliable sources. I am reasonably sure that this lot could all be rolled into one article but need to do more work on that. - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

editing

well there is no edit war, I am going to add here. I request people with a little knowledge to please refrain from writing. Further to clarify, Kachwaha (of Rajasthan) and Kushwaha are two different groups.

You are joking, aren't you? Please read about consensus, verifiability, reliable sources and citing sources. You are welcome to participate in discussions and sensible edits to the article but you must not be disruptive. What you are doing amounts to vandalism, since it removes sourced content to such a degree that it completely misrepresents the subject matter in so far as any of us have managed to work out what the heck it is. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have read all, that's why my edit. I dont want to repeat again and again that only people knowledgeable about subject write about it. Pls stop parroting accusations (vandalism lah...). let's constructively write about the article and dont write if you dont know about the subject. Truth always triumphs 17:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthalwaystriumphs (talkcontribs)