Talk:Kurmi

Kurmi is common umbrella for different castes in India

I want to say that kurmi is common umbrella under which different castes from different states comes like Kapus,Naidus and Reddys from Andhra Pradesh, Kunbi and Patels from Gujrat , Kunbis from Maharashtra, Kurmis from Bihar , UP , MP etc. Although there are some basic differences not many between these groups but they are together in there caste activities. So I request you to start a content based on statewise discription of this caste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.32.40 (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Shudra

Jaychandra, Please stop pushing the "shudra" characterization on Kurmi. Just because one, two, or even three sources say something doesn't make that thing relevant for the lead of a sensitive article. I have written most of the Kurmi page. I've read all the references including the ones you are repetitively citing to promote your ends. The traditional caste status of the Kurmi is disputed by some of the best-known anthropologists and sociologists working in the field. It has been discussed endlessly in this talk page. Please read the archives before adding poorly written incomprehensible edits. You have already been served a warning in the template posted on your talk page. If you obsessively keep making your edits, you stand in danger of being blocked or banned. Let the template below, which I am reproducing for your edification, serve as a second warning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions.

F&F, if its disputed, why don't we explain both positions? Is there something specifically wrong w/Jaychandra's sources? Unless they're so non-standard that they qualify as WP:FRINGE, then I'm unclear as to why you're opposing them entirely. I agree that the sources currently in the article clearly argue that the issue is to unclear to provides a definitive answer, but I'm wondering if there is some part of what Jaychandra has added that deserves at least partial inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

In the main body of the article, yes, but not in the lead, where I believe we reached consensus in previous discussions to state only that the varna classification is disputed. The varna classification is already being discussed in much greater detail (than Jaychandras shabby edit) at the end of the 18th and 19th century sections, where the historical context is provided as well.

The varna classification is simply not such an important feature of the history of the Kurmis to merit mention in the lead. There are a myriad other things in the article that we don't mention in the lead. For example, we don't mention the Kurmi's acumen in farming because of which they were charged twice the rental rates, as every one knew they could get twice the normal output. Similarly, the active role played by the Kurmi women goes unmentioned in the lead. Unlike women of other Hindu castes, the Kurmi females joined their husbands or menfolk in the field, helping with the tilling. Now, in comes Jaychandra, who is unwilling to read the earlier discussions, unwilling the read the detailed historical context provided in the article, just goes about finding a couple of Google hits (the kind you get when you search for "Kurmi" and "Shudra") and keeps inserting his trash right in the lead. I believe this is in part a case of WP:Lead fixation. I suspect he might have caste prejudice against the Kurmis as well, because he mentions something or other about "lowly castes." This is Wikipedia for you. One step forward, two steps back. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur with the idea of taking it out of the lead. Do you think, though, that any of the info might be usable in the body of the article? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Susan Bayly and William Pinch (and Chris Jaffrelot for the 20th century) are books that discuss the Kurmi in detail (i.e. have dozens of pages devoted to them). Their discussions and conclusions are already summarized in the article. The sources that Jaychandra brings to the table are books about other topics, that perfunctorily mention the Kurmis. For example, Nandini Gooptu's book on the urban poor that refers to the Kurmi as "shudra" on one page, but cites Pinch—who for his part never really says that they were shudra, only that some people attempted to classify them as shudra, demands that they largely resisted! (Here by the way is Chris Jaffrelot on Pinch: "William Pinch emphasises that the Kurmis 'thought of themselves not as cosmically created servants (shudra) devoid of any history, but as the descendants of divine warrior clans (kshatriya) firmly rooted in the Indian past' (see Jaffrelot's book, footnote) Ditto with the Jassle Tawari reference, where too there is casual mention, and which too cites Pinch. In the past people have tried to use the very same references to insert "shudra" in the lead. Not surprising since they all Google search for "Kurmi" "Shudra" and guess what they get? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have found the same as Fowler&fowler regarding the relative weight of the sources and, of course, the "varna in the lead" point is pretty much fixed nowadays. I'll try to find the link to the discussion at WT:INB for that & will post it here. - Sitush (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is here. - Sitush (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

allegation of caste prejudice!!!!!

"The varna classification is simply not such an important feature of the history of the Kurmis to merit mention in the lead." who is deciding it. If varna classification is not so imp to b mentioned in lede why do i see so many number of wiki articles mentioning that classification in lede. moreover, i have not introduced varna in lede i have just clarified preexisting vague unref sentence with proper references. is that a crime. if legitimacy of given ref is questioned i would b more than pleased to pass on that opinion of urs to authors/publishers/title holders and also give more ref on that. how many sentences do you see on wiki having 3 standard ref. Regarding, "I suspect he might have caste prejudice against the Kurmis as well, because he mentions something or other about "lowly castes."" this is ridiculous, i have no personal interest in varna status of kurmis but curiously, some people seems to have keen interest in not mentioning it. this is a forum for facts and not for hailing or in dignifying communities. also, about "lowly horticulturist" NOT "lowly castes", i must clarify that its not what i m saying its what the ref says.Jaychandra (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If it is a quote, then you should have put "lowly horticulturists" within quotes. We can't paraphrase and keep the same wording. That is plagiarism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Jaychandra, please read the discussion Sitush links to above. We're not trying to avoid mentioning varna in the lead of this caste article--rather, we generally don't include in most caste-article leads, except when there's really no debate about it. Since, in this case, it is clear that their varna status is in debate, we should mention nothing more than that in the lead. Also, please address the concerns in the section above about the quality of those sources, particularly in comparison to those already in the article. Finally, to everyone else, given my experience with POV tags, can I recommend that we do leave them up, for a little while? There's no real harm done to the article. So long as Jaychandra is willing to discuss the issue (using DR if necessary), it's alright to keep the tags up for now. Of course, that does not mean that they can stay up forever; unless there is some movement by other editors indicating that the POV concern is shared, it will eventually need to come down. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If you really think that the POV tags were not instated as a form of coatracking, then feel free. I think that they were placed for a point-y reason. Jaychandra is currently blocked for 24 hours, although they are appealing - I lost patience, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

kurmi varna status

William Pinch emphasises that the Kurmis 'thought of themselves not as cosmically created servants (shudra) devoid of any history, but as the descendants of divine warrior clans (kshatriya) firmly rooted in the Indian past'. i have read this and i agree with u. if u read my version carefully u will find exactly thats what its reflecting. we need to mention facts on status. this is certainly not the forum to decide or judge 'kurmi's varna status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaychandra (talk • contribs) 10:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the article? We quote Pinch extensively, and we used to use that particular quote but don't have it because there are more specific Pinch quotes that give better detail. All the quote says is "Kurmis think they are Kshatriya", and clearly some other Indian groups quite disagree. Since we can't devote paragraphs of the lede to "maybe they are and here's why - maybe they aren't and here's why" we instead say "it's a matter of debate" and explain much more extensively in the body of the article. What do you find objectionable about this? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe that if something more needs to be said in the lead, one could add "traditionally non-elite" to "tillers." This, for example, has been done in the Jat people article and there's plenty of citations that would support this usage in the case of the Kurmi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Qwyrxian, MattthewVanitas, and every one for ur valuable feedback. I have already read EVERYTHING at link mentioned by Sitush and agree with most of it. Pertinent to our, article i believe, we all are in agreement to following: "There are differences of opinion regarding the group's classification in the traditional varna system." preexisted in lede. 'kurmis are traditionally classified as shudras and they are not happy with it.' 'they think they are kshatriya.' these is implied in almost all the available references and even kurmi's stand on the issue. in light of this, my concern is, the article is talking about dispute and kurmis stand on that but material, content or root of difference is, maybe unintentionally, overlooked. which is making article slightly imbalanced. i have no personal interest in varna status of kurmis, my humble view is that when a reader refers to wiki he should be presented with plain facts and plz remember that by doing so we are not supporting or confronting any side involved. also, mere mention of this already existing, widely-known dispute does not insult or discount Kurmis social stature in anyway. hence i would prefer that dispute be summarized properly in lede. i do not insist on MY version ditto. only addition of one or two words in already existing sentence in lede should suffice. eg "There are differences of opinion/dispute/dissent/unhappiness/reservations/whatever regarding the group's shudra classification in traditional varna system and they think they are kshatriya" would be more balanced and near to facts. Regarding Etymology section i am afraid that "Kurma a tortoise avatar of the god Vishnu" is not what ref suggest its only half of the sentence referring to observations and inference or conclusive remarks are given by author at the end of para which is more relevant to etymology. if at all we want to quote it, would b better to quote full sentence, or inference else, it would not be conveying properly. or may be omiting this half sentence would not harm etymology section.Jaychandra (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would be inclined simply to delete the tortoise bit. Even Russell/Lal - who we would generally consider to be outdated/poor scholarship by modern standards - discount it. Their phrasing makes me think that it was a fringe theory even then, and they even say "one writer" in relation to an aspect of it. If someone can find a more modern discussion to support then it could always be reinstated.

As far as varna goes, sorry but I disagree. It is almost impossible to put a more detailed summary of those things in lead sections without either tying ourselves in knots or adding undue weight to it. Best simply to leave it as a single sentence. Such things are POV magnets without even taking it further. - Sitush (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that adding "they think they are..." would violate WP:UNDUE--it basically gives prominence to their own personal opinion over and above all of the disputed positions, which won't be described until the article. I also think that the best we can do on any caste/group article is include no details on varna in the lead unless it is nearly universally agreed upon in sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont mind deletion of tortoise bit in etymology if its agreed upon. I also agree with Qwyrxian as far as "they think they are..." and i share his concern that would violate WP:UNDUE--it basically gives prominence to their own personal opinion over and above all of the disputed positions, which won't be described until the article. And in light of my shared concern with Qwyrxian, i also think that well balanced clear info/sentence regarding the difference of opinion/dispute/whatever, clarifying all of the disputed positions, should be included either in History or Separate Section Jaychandra (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Some articles do have separate varna sections but it is probably best to avoid them unless they form an area that has been extensively studied etc. For example, the ritual & social position of Nairs (& indeed many aspects of that particular community) have received detailed study by numerous anthropologists, sociologists, historians etc. More usually, the varna issue is related to social upliftment and therefore flows naturally within an existing History section. The primary concern, once again, is weight. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sitush. I think we may concur on followings: Leave lead unchanged. Readers willing to know details about diff of opinion to varna may refer a 'varna controversy/dispute/whatever' subsection somewhere in history section where well-balanced clear info/para/sentence regarding the difference of opinion/dispute/whatever, clarifying all of the disputed positions shall be available. Delete tortoise bit from etymology.Jaychandra (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Are agriculturists shudra's? or are servants shudras? how can a servant be a shudra when brahmins and kshatriyas did not ever drink water from a shudra hand in history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitwiki1982 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Amitwiki1982 is beyond encyclopedic scope and does not qualify for discussion here. This is not the forum to take stand, support, confront, judge any social issue. Discussions should b limited to available facts and article content. At the same time we do have references that clearly mentions that Kurmis were considered upper shudras or shuddh shudras from whom water and food could b accepted.Jaychandra (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Some contributors here seems to have particular bias for certain point of view, are adamantly promoting/protecting it and seems to be doing every thing they can to keep other points of views away from the article. Interestingly, some of them agree with each other almost every where on wiki and they seem to be particularly active on certain social groups or castes. This may raise concerns regarding organized bias and close association thereby questioning wiki neutrality, undue weight and balance issues Thakurta (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, there's a cabal of us that run around Indian caste articles pushing some POV. (<---sarcasm) If you have reliable sources that state things not currently covered in the article, please discuss them here. I removed your tags because it's impossible to have COI on a caste (even a member of a particular caste would not have a COI, because COI is for things like employees editing their company's website or someone editing the page of a family member), and because "unbalanced" is basically the same as the "POV" tag, so having both is inappropriate per the template docs. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Qwyrxian for ur valuable edit. i m removing POV from etymology section. i await valuable feedback on other aspects. I also agree with Qwyrxian on his response to edit by Thakurta. I do not agree completely with Thakurta's view, though i share his concern, i think its always better and fruitful to discuss views objectively and be patient when resolution is under process rather than hastily putting allegations on other editors.Jaychandra (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

while appreciating sharing of my concerns by Jaychandra, i also wish to clarify that i am just trying to contribute and i m not here to agree with or please Jaychandra. i m not putting alligations on anybody i m just giving my observation from the page discussions so far. regarding WP:COI by Qwyrxian, it may b your interpretation in my opinion it is clearly mentioned as "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest" which is not as narrow or limited as suggested by u. looking at the discussion so far i think this is fit case for COI. though its not my primary concern at this time. i might agree with ur opinion on POV to unbalanced, but looking at the issue under consideration, i feel here unbalanced would b more appropriate tag to POV. regarding Varna status my opinion is that all positions must be clearly mentioned to balance weight in article WP:UNDUE, i just dont understand whats wrong with that?Thakurta (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If you really believe that Qwyrxian should not be doing that which they have to this article then you could always raise the matter at WP:ANI. However, I would advise you against that because I can absolutely guarantee you that they do not have a conflict of interest here. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thakurta, please read the rest of WP:COI, specifically, WP:COI#What is a conflict of interest?. Please identify which specific examples there you believe apply in this case. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC):::

Lets not loose track here. I think we should focus on resolution process and only issue left here is "Leave lead unchanged. Readers willing to know details about 'diff of opinion' to varna may refer a 'varna controversy/dispute/whatever' subsection included somewhere in history section where well-balanced clear info/para/sentence regarding the difference of opinion/dispute/whatever, clarifying all of the disputed positions shall be available."Jaychandra (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought we were already done with that part--the article does discuss their varna status in detail. What are you suggesting is missing? Maybe start a new section here to provide the specific text/sources you think should be added to the history section. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I am surprised by your comment. Are we playing back to square one here! What this whole discussion and POV all about? "WE already done with that part" WHO? My only concern here is in all discussion about varna "what they think..." is explicitly provided in the article but other positions are not mentioned clearly. When we mention about difference, we mean difference and that implies there are multiple positions. Why should we shy away from just mentioning all positions clearly. We are not supporting or confronting any side by doing that but just being neutral, balanced and encyclopedic.Jaychandra (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought that we were done with it also. We are not going into detail about varna in the lead. There is consensus among the community that we do not do so, and that consensus has been explained to you previously. - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Kindly refer to my earlier comment, I have already said: "I agree with Sitush. I think we may concur on followings: Leave lead unchanged. Readers willing to know details about diff of opinion to varna may refer a 'varna controversy/dispute/whatever' subsection somewhere in history section where well-balanced clear info/para/sentence regarding the difference of opinion/dispute/whatever, clarifying all of the disputed positions shall be available."Jaychandra (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

We already discuss the varna situation within the article. Having it as a separate section seems to be inappropriate, as has also been explained to you previously. As Qwyrxian says, it probably would be best if you started a separate section here and set out clearly your reasons for wanting a separate subsection and why the current treatment is inferior to that. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This section here refers to discussion on POV regarding kurmi varna status, i think this is flowing well why another section? Regarding seperate subsection I have already stated earlier "My only concern here is in all discussion about varna "what they think..." is explicitly provided in the article but other positions are not mentioned clearly. When we mention about difference, we mean difference and that implies there are multiple positions. Why should we shy away from just mentioning all positions clearly. We are not supporting or confronting any side by doing that but just being neutral, balanced and encyclopedic."Jaychandra (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You are becoming repetitive and it is difficult even for those familiar with the subject to wade through long threads, especially when they are in fact mostly repetition & thus they have to search for the odd, slight additional reasoning or whatever it may be. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

i have already read WP:COI and also link provided by Qwyrxian, 'Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest.There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs.If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party, independent published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discussing your intentions with the community. In particular, consider whether you are editing tendentiously.' when all the editors and references indicate difference of opinion regarding varna status of kurmi, also, it is indicated so in the article and then this adamant refusal/prevention to clarify all positions, at least somewhere in the article, is not at all understandable. It is clearly unbalanced when all positions in difference of opinion are not clarified. And Jaychandra i m not offtrack, in fact i share ur concern on this issue. And Sitush when u r repentantly ignoring valid points raised, Jaychandra will have to reiterate. what else will the poor calm fellow do!(<----Sarcasm)Thakurta (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What positions are not currently noted in the article? This is precisely what I mean when I say that we are going round in circles here: you are not being specific about anything at all. And you misunderstand WP:COI - take Qwyrxian to WP:ANI regarding that, or keep your peace because it is starting to assume the proportions of someone who is failing to assume good faith. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Position 1: 'Kurmis are traditionally classified as Shudra under Hindu Varna system.' Position 2: 'By the early twentieth century Kurmis defined for themselves Similar Kshatriya identities. Kurmis think that they belong to kshatriya varna.' i fail to find both this positions clarified in the article which is certainly 'unbalanced' and Sitush y r u repentantly daring me to take Qwyrxian to ANI i have nothing personal against him or anybody. personally, i dont mind kurmis being classified even as 'Caucasians' as long as there are ref available for that. i m just putting forward my point of view. And i dont understand what u mean by failing to assume good faith here, is merely requesting for balanced view in article against good faith!!! what good faith are we talking about? and for whom? r we involving and taking stands here on social issues? is this a platform for confronting, judging, hailing or defending social statures? come on, this is just an encyclopedia, people refer to it for balanced factual info, and for God sake, let it b that way.Thakurta (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Both of those positions are already in the article, although the shudra one is far more complex than you summarise above & the article reflects that complexity.

I am not "daring" you to do anything: I am pointing out where you can obtain satisfaction regarding alleged COI of an administrator, but if you choose not to take the matter there then continuing to carp about it here is indeed a sign of someone not assuming good faith. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

i donot find position 1 anywhere in the article. what complexity are we talking about. y not just simply mention the positions, period. and as far as COI i have never specified any one. i just gave my general observation and i have also mentioned 'its not my primary concern at this time.'Thakurta (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, can I suggest that perhaps you read the article again. And perhaps also this thread, where you will find this allegation amongst other stuff. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, thanks for ur valuable suggestion but i have already read the article and my primary concern is 'i donot find position 1 anywhere in the article. what complexity are we talking about in merely mentioning positions?. y not just simply mention the positions'Thakurta (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

How about "During much of this time, non-elite tillers and pastoralists, such as the Kurmi or Ahirs, were part of a social spectrum that blended only indistinctly into the elite landowning classes at one end, and the menial or ritually polluting classes at the other", taken straight from the article. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

well, this does not clearly depict position 1 but in fact, only reiterates/strengthens position 2. more over that is not exactly what adjoining ref says (this may b found at places in article which may even raise issues like paraphrasing, proper interpretation, original research, etc.). also, interestingly, some editors of this article prefer to quote British ref extensively and ignoring other ref here, where as they seem to be outright rejecting British ref in some other caste articles by terming them to b prejudicial. if they could b prejudicial some where can't they be favorable here in light of this: 'As the economic pressures on the patrician landed groups continued through the remainder of the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth, there were increasing demands for unpaid labour directed at the Kurmi and other non-elite cultivators...... At times encouraged by sympathetic British officials and at other times carried by the groundswell of egalitarian sentiment being espoused then by the devotional Vaishnavamovements, especially those based on Tulsidas's Ramcharitmanas, the Kurmi largely resisted these demands.' Also, there are lot of competitive remarks viz a viz 'Rajputs' in the article, is that properly placed? There is a lot clearly and explicitely mentioned about 'varna' in the article as far as 'kshatriya' bit is concerned but varna issue suddenly becomes complex when position 1 needs to be clarified! all this weighs undue and unbalanced to Position 2 and thus arise a need to balance by clarifying Position 1Thakurta (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am saying no more for now other than to suggest that you take a look at WP:OSE. We are not making any progress here, I find some of your comments difficult to understand, and you have requested comments from other people. Let's see what that RfC process comes up with. - Sitush (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

i do not understand y exactly u want me to refer to WP:OSE. and what do u call progress? valid points raised regarding and requesting merely about just clearly mentioning all positions on difference/dispute related to varna issue (which is well accepted and already indicated in the article) cant be ignored or rejected just like that! its all very clearly stated, whats so difficult to understand here if u really want to?!Thakurta (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Just cool it guys! Frankly, right now, i dont want to get involved in all this issues/allegations/observations/whatever brought up by Thakurta. At this time, my only point is: Universal fact agreed by us all, references and even kurmis is that "kurmis are traditionally classified as shudras under traditional hindu varna system and they are not happy with it, they think they are kshatriya." or "There are differences of opinion/dispute/dissent/unhappiness/reservations/whatever regarding the group's shudra classification in traditional varna system and they think they are kshatriya" lets just put something of this effect clearly somewhere in the article and nothing more. lets end this here. i will b satisfied, will remove my POV tag voluntarily.Jaychandra (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither the commenters here nor the sources in the article universally support either of those positions. There is all sorts of evidence that they were not universally classified as anything. I don't know why you think there's either a consensus here or support in the sources for that position. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thakurta (talk · contribs), I'm sure there is a Wikipedia guideline somewhere that requests people to write in English, not in a private shorthand that prepubescents use in text messages to their dearest friends. I have no idea what you are attempting to say. It is best too that you make just one point at a time, not points 1(a), 2(b), and 3(c); such a hierarchy of disaffection makes your usually poorly written posts unusually and exasperatingly incomprehensible. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

PS If your edits on Wikipedia, which are yet to reach double digits, had wandered just once off the Kurmi page, I would have taken your remarks more seriously and assessed your purpose less perverse. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, i do not disagree with you fully on this one but my concern only is that by just clarifying positions, which are at least referenced, we are only balancing the article which is at present tilted overweight towards "they think they are". if none of the positions are universal why be explicit about one and shy away from even mentioning or just clarifying another? we are certainly not supporting or confronting any side by doing that but if we do not we certainly tilting overweight towards one.Jaychandra (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I really think that you need now to drop this, Jaychandra. It is heading towards being tendentious editing because the article quite clearly covers all of the points that you raise. I am wondering whether a part of the problem might be related to you not appreciating the subtleties of the language, which are necessary here precisely because the situation is a complex one. We cannot turn shades of grey into black-and-white if the most accurate colour is indeed grey. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, thats exactly what i mean to convey we should present in the article the same shade as it is and not 'lots of white and outright refusal to accept that black plus white is what makes grey' and i really do not understand what u r trying to convey by "subtleties of language and complex situation" y cant we just b simple enough to at least convey it clearly that "there is a diff of opinion/dispute/controversy/whatever and these are the positions as per ref" thats all!Jaychandra (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

But surely the article already does that, in a manner that reflects the complexities? This has been my point from the outset. Either something is getting lost or we actually agree, and if we agree then there is no reason for any change. I am completely confused now. - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thats what i am conveying here, article does reflect complexities, also indicates difference/dispute/whatever but only missing thing is that all positions on said difference/dispute/whatever are not clearly mentioned or clarified. If we just simply do that, we are only balancing the article which is at present tilted overweight towards "they think they are". if none of the positions are universal why be explicit about one and shy away from even mentioning or just clarifying another? we are certainly not supporting or confronting any side by doing that but if we do not we certainly tilting overweight towards one.Jaychandra (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)