Talk:Chamar/Archive 2
 | 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 |
Ramdasia are Chamars - Links and sources provided by BAL537
Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province by H.A Rose, IBBETSON, Maclagan (http://www.archive.org/stream/glossaryoftribes03rose#page/n5/mode/2up)
On page page 148 of the book (Page 311 of online book), the author writes "Just as the Muhammadan Chamar is styled Mochi so that Sikh Chamar is called Ramdasia"
Panjab castes by Sir Denzil Ibbetson (http://www.archive.org/stream/panjabcastes00ibbe#page/n7/mode/2up)
On Page 269, the author writes: "Similarly, if the Ramdasias do not follow the occupation of Chamars, it is no reason to separate them from that castes. So if a Ramdasia is Julaha, that is a weaver, and if he is 'Bazzaz' that is a draper, his caste remains unchanged. If a Chamar, a leather-worker becomes a Sikh and receives 'pahul' to-day, he at once joins the Ramdasias. The Ramdasias do receive the daughters in marriage of ordinary Chamars, but give them 'pahul' before associating with them"........."The the Ramdasi is still a Chamar".
On page 300, the author writes: "The Sikh Chamar or Ramdasia. — It will be seen from Table VIII A that in the north and centre of the Eastern Plains a very considerable number of Chamiirs have embraced the Sikh religion. These men are called Ramdasia after Gui-u Ram Das, though what connection they have with him I have been unable to discover. Perhaps he was the first Guru to admit Chamars to the religion. Many, perhaps most of the Ramdasia Chamars have abandoned leather-work for the loom ; they do not eat carrion, and they occupy a much higher position than the Hindu Chamars, though they are not admitted to religious equality by the other Sikhs. The Ramdasia are often confused with the Raidiisi oi Rabdasi Chamars. The former are true Sikhs, and take the pdhul. The latter are Hindus, or if Sikhs, only Nanakpanthi Sikhs and do not take the pcikul ; and are followers of Bhagat Rav Das or Rab Das, himself a Chamar. They are apparently as true Hindus as any Chamars can be, and are wrongly called Sikhs by confusion with the Ranidasias".
The Religious Life of India - The Chamars by G.W Briggs ISBN: 8175361840 (http://books.google.com/books?id=PTgsR0xjG4MC&dq=The+Religious+Life+of+India+-+The+Chamars&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=2YBHFq1QVx&sig=xxt0ynAhjQrOkuASylmaGWYNqx0&hl=en&ei=HxWASquUHpWMtgfq17T3AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=ramdasi&f=false)
On page page 28, the author writes: "the various subcastes of chamars originated due to different occupations. Quote: "The Chandar does not tanning and is the highest of the subcastes"....."The Ramdasi is a weaver"..."The Bonas are weavers of blankets who are Sikhs".
According to the Constitution of Indian (1950 Amendment,)the Official Census of India (Source: THE CONSTITUTION (SCHEDULED CASTES) ORDER, 1950](C.O.19) (http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/subord/rule3a.htm) (Source:List of notified Scheduled Castes: http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/SC%20Lists.pdf In the state of Punjab, the Chamar is known as Adharmi, Chamar, Jatia Chamar, Rehgar, Raigar, Ramdasia, Ravidasi
In the state of Jammmu and Kashmir, the Chamar is known as Chamar or Ramdasia
Many other states also list the Chamar & Ramdasia as the same (See links)
According to the Official Delhi Government website; the following are the Chamar Castes of Delhi (Source:LIST OF SC/ST UNDER GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) http://dcnorth.delhigovt.nic.in/SC%20List.pdf
In Delhi, the chamar is known as CHAMAR, CHANWAR, CHAMAR, JATYA OR JATAV,CHAMAR MOCHI, RAMDASIA, RAVIDASI, RAIDASI,REHGARH OR RAIGAR
Dalits and the Emancipatory Sikh Religion by Raj Kumar Hans from History department of MS University of Baroda (Based on a Draft Paper presented at University of Pennsylvania at the Conference on Dalit Challenges to Academic Knowledge: The Great Paradoxes) http://punjabpanorama.blogspot.com/2009/06/dalits-and-emancipatory-sikh-religion.html
The author writes that "Another dalit Naxalite poet Lal Singh Dil was born in a Ramdasia Sikh (Chamar) family in 1943."
Academy of the Punjab in North America on the poet Lal Singh Dilhttp://apnaorg.com/articles/nirpuma-4/
Born to a low-caste Ramdasia Chamar (tanner) family, Dil was the first of his clan to pass Class X, while doing his daily labour, and go to college.
The well known newspaper columnist, Harish K Puri, writes in his research paper Scheduled Castes in Sikh Community A Historical Perspective http://www.sikhspectrum.com/112007/scheduled.pdf
In the customary scheme, outcastes such as mazhabis (Churah Sikh), balmikis and ramdasias (chamar Sikh)/ravidasias were not allowed to own land.
Perspectives on Sikh Studies by Jagjit Singh (1985, published by Guru Nanak Foundation, Near J.N.U and Qutab Hotal New Delhi 110 067) http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/per-sikh-studies.pdf
on Page 75 the author writes that "The Ramdasia's or the Sikh Chamars occupt a much higher position than the Hindu Chamars".
On page 77 the author writes that "By changing their name to Ramdasias, the Chamar Sikhs could alter positon in the Sikh case hierarchy, becoming Sikhs and refusing to marry or interdine with Chamar Hindus.
Punjab Government Website, Listing steps for getting a scheduled caste certificate.
In this website, the have listed: "Chamar, Jatia Chamar,Rehgar, Raigar,Ramdasi of Ravidasi, Ramdasia, Ramdasia Sikh, Ravidasia, Ravidasia Sikh" under the same bullet point indicating that all members belong to these castes are the same. http://india.gov.in/howdo/service_detail.php?formid=19
The website http://www.sikhlink.com/Glossary.htm lists the following: "Ramdasia- The Sikh section of the Chamar caste, an outcaste Sikh"
In the website http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?showtopic=44491&st=156, In the forum post 161, a member writes
"Sikhs who were formerly Hindu chamars but converted to Sikhism are referred to as RAMDASIA Sikhs. This is because Sikhism under Guru Ram Das saw the maximum conversion of Hindu Chamars to Sikhism"
In the website http://www.ambedkartimes.com/page14.html on Kanshi Ram
"Mr. Kanshi Ram was born in a Ramdasia ( Chamar ) low scheduled caste, dalit family on 15 March 1934 in village Khawaspur of Ropar district , Punjab, India."
belated signing - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)
Demographic section
Any changes to this section needs to be discussed here. You will need to explain why the changes are better than the information already in place in the table. bal537 02:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)bal537 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)
- It is already being discussed and you are involved in it - see, for example, Talk:Chamar#Maps above. Nothing has been added to the section that did not previously exist and nothing was removed that was not repeated elsewhere. You really, really need to let go of your ownership of the demographics table and related content. And you really should know how to sign your posts by now - that is getting to be ridiculous. - Sitush (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- That section is labeled Maps and it is getting unreadable. You really need to take a step back and see that your changes are not providing any benefits to this section. Note, I have not reverted the other changes you have made to this article. --bal537 03:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)
- You have indeed reverted. And the section titled "Maps" now has no maps, for the reason that they were uncertainly generated, presumably mislabelled and poorly-rendered images. We generally prefer prose style over lists, by the way. I'll find the guidance, given enough time! For this reasonm, I have just reverted your removal of my prose-style introduction to the section, which did not affect the content of the table even though I still think that table should not exist in this article. - Sitush (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- The article is locked for a week while we try yet again to sort all this out. I asked for that to be done. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- You have indeed reverted. And the section titled "Maps" now has no maps, for the reason that they were uncertainly generated, presumably mislabelled and poorly-rendered images. We generally prefer prose style over lists, by the way. I'll find the guidance, given enough time! For this reasonm, I have just reverted your removal of my prose-style introduction to the section, which did not affect the content of the table even though I still think that table should not exist in this article. - Sitush (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- That section is labeled Maps and it is getting unreadable. You really need to take a step back and see that your changes are not providing any benefits to this section. Note, I have not reverted the other changes you have made to this article. --bal537 03:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)
- The prose text that you have reverted is not beneficial at all. It is does explain the significance of the actual numbers. For example 12% and 14% makes it seems that the population is the same in both states but in reality it the difference of 2.8 million vs 19 million. The table is intended to show how populous the caste is in different states, which explains why this caste is the most politically powerful scheduled caste in India and why the political party like BSP is relevent. Again, the prose style is your personal preference and not a Wikipedia standard. bal537 16:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)
- Yes, I sort of see your point. However, it is ratio of population that seems to determine influence, not sheer numbers. For example, if there are 100 million people in a total population and 5 million of them are supporters of group A then they are surely no more influential in statistical terms than 10 million people of group A in a population of 200 million. The actual numbers, in millions, convey nothing but the ratio might convey something. Having said which, the table as presented does not in fact aid your argument and indeed your argument using it is based on original research. You need sources that link those numbers to the notion that they are the most politically powerful scheduled caste in India and that their power is is because of their numbers. My bet is that this can be found in Rawat's book but I've yet to get beyond the first couple of chapters. Certainly, it is possible to be powerful without large numbers and, equally, to lack power despite them. Does this make any sense? - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please could you also take a look at our Manual of Style guidance here. Prose style is not my personal preference but rather is supported by consensus. You need to justify why this large yet incomplete table adds value that could not be presented in prose form. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I sort of see your point. However, it is ratio of population that seems to determine influence, not sheer numbers. For example, if there are 100 million people in a total population and 5 million of them are supporters of group A then they are surely no more influential in statistical terms than 10 million people of group A in a population of 200 million. The actual numbers, in millions, convey nothing but the ratio might convey something. Having said which, the table as presented does not in fact aid your argument and indeed your argument using it is based on original research. You need sources that link those numbers to the notion that they are the most politically powerful scheduled caste in India and that their power is is because of their numbers. My bet is that this can be found in Rawat's book but I've yet to get beyond the first couple of chapters. Certainly, it is possible to be powerful without large numbers and, equally, to lack power despite them. Does this make any sense? - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- The prose text that you have reverted is not beneficial at all. It is does explain the significance of the actual numbers. For example 12% and 14% makes it seems that the population is the same in both states but in reality it the difference of 2.8 million vs 19 million. The table is intended to show how populous the caste is in different states, which explains why this caste is the most politically powerful scheduled caste in India and why the political party like BSP is relevent. Again, the prose style is your personal preference and not a Wikipedia standard. bal537 16:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs)
- I have read the entire manual of style page and I found nothing that suggests that use of a table is not appropriate in this page. The table is intended to quickly provide the reader the understanding where states where this caste is found in large numbers, both number wise and as a percentage as well as brief descriptions for each state. The prose style for this is not user friendly format and there is loss of significant important information. The percentages only does not convey the importance of the actual numbers.Please read the Manual of Style page again and try to understand where prose use is appropriate and where it is not bal537 21:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)--bal537 21:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for formatting your message - it makes life much easier.
Hopefully, we can agree that a table is a list. You still have not addressed the incompleteness of it, bearing in mind that your judgement of what constitutes "large numbers" is entirely your POV and in any event skews the data because some people might be interested in the opposite, ie: where they are not numerous. There is no loss of information in the prose style, although that attempt to improve was not completed because I asked for this article to be locked when warring started. I have explained why physical numbers have no bearing on what you are attempting to achieve and you have not responded to that in any meaningful way. And, by the way, most of the notes in the table merely repeated what the statistics presented there already said.
You are verging on being a single-purpose account and this is worrying when it comes to discussion. It would be to everyone's advantage if you could demonstrate a less Chamar-centric approach, although of course no-one can force you to do so. SPAs often get into difficulties because they cannot see the wood for the trees, and this looks to be a classic example. I really do not see a way forward unless you can actually address the issues raised rather than repeating yourself, sorry. Perhaps we will need to use dispute resolution. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for formatting your message - it makes life much easier.
- I have read the entire manual of style page and I found nothing that suggests that use of a table is not appropriate in this page. The table is intended to quickly provide the reader the understanding where states where this caste is found in large numbers, both number wise and as a percentage as well as brief descriptions for each state. The prose style for this is not user friendly format and there is loss of significant important information. The percentages only does not convey the importance of the actual numbers.Please read the Manual of Style page again and try to understand where prose use is appropriate and where it is not bal537 21:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)--bal537 21:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Sikh Light Infantary
The link between Sikh Chamars and Rmadasia has already been established on the ramdasia page. The section on Sikh LI in this page is to show that this community has special preference in this regiment along with the Mazbhi/valmiki/chura. Read this article to further understand. http://www.apnaorg.com/research-papers/harish-puri/ --TimesGerman (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- The link https://archive.org/stream/MRARegimentalHistory/MR_djvu.txt is a history of the Sikh Light infantry. It talks about the "lower class" Sikhs who make up this regiment. It just refers to them as Mazabhi and Ramdasia. We know from the ramdasia page and the above link that they are referring to Sikh Chamars and that the Mazabhi are Sikhs from the Chura/Valmiki/Balmiki caste. Also, this link does not justify that deletion of the entire section. I have added a new reference for the dead link. --TimesGerman (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- The Sikh LI don't take Chamars and your references are lack WP:RELIABLE. Your google research is WP:OR and tenous. The above paper that talks about recruiting does not recruit Chamars into the SIKH LI. The "link" as you talk about is like saying Jatt regiments take Lohar recruits as well, because Lohars who are Dhiman were originally Jatt. It's WP:OR all the way. Possibly WP:Pettifog as well. Thanks SH 20:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Again Sikh History castiest agenda has come forward. I have more than 4 relatives who are in Sikh Light Infantary. the Sikh Light Infantary is a caste based regiment which recruits only Sikh from the Chura and Chamar caste. The links are reliable and it has been proven on the Ramdasia page that Ramdasia are Sikh Chamars. I have provided plenty of sources already on that page that Ramdasia are Sikh Chamars. TimesGerman (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- TimesGerman, I may be misunderstanding you but it seems as if you are trying to synthesise another article and a source. You cannot do that. In fact, you cannot even synth two reliable sources, let alone one and a circular reference. - Sitush (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- The Sikh LI don't take Chamars and your references are lack WP:RELIABLE. Your google research is WP:OR and tenous. The above paper that talks about recruiting does not recruit Chamars into the SIKH LI. The "link" as you talk about is like saying Jatt regiments take Lohar recruits as well, because Lohars who are Dhiman were originally Jatt. It's WP:OR all the way. Possibly WP:Pettifog as well. Thanks SH 20:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- my first source clearly shows that Sikh Chamars are in Sikh Light Infantary.TimesGerman (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Even then, the Ramdasia page contains many sources showing the Ramdasia = Sikh Chamar connection. The editor SH cannot just delete the entire section and claim that Chamars have no connection with Sikh LI. This is pure personal bias and agenda driven editing that borders on vandalism. TimesGerman (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have already told you that you cannot synthesise in this way - read the policy, please. - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Even then, the Ramdasia page contains many sources showing the Ramdasia = Sikh Chamar connection. The editor SH cannot just delete the entire section and claim that Chamars have no connection with Sikh LI. This is pure personal bias and agenda driven editing that borders on vandalism. TimesGerman (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am not trying to synthesis. What I wanted to do was state that in Punjab, men from the Chamar caste are recuited into this regiment and I know personally that this is a source of pride for the Chamar community in Punjab and this is a big source of employment for men of the community. The same way as the Mahar dalits are recruited exclusively into the Mahar regiment. There needs to be some way to state that the Ramdasia Chamar Sikhs are recruited into the Sikh Light Infantry (which is also called the Mazabhi and Ramdasia regiment). TimesGerman (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- I understand. The way to do it is to find a reliable source (preferably, more than one since this is disputed) that unambiguously states what you want to say and makes it clear that it is Chamars who are recruited. If you want to say that it is Ramdasias who are recruited then you are going to have to find sources that support Chamar = Ramdasia also, and you are already aware that the latter issue is proving to be pretty contentious. Sometimes, we have to "make haste slowly": sort out one thing, however long it takes, and then from that we can develop something else that is connected to it. In the Wikipedia case, that would be by re-using citations from one article in another article but it is obvious that at present there is a dispute at Ramdasia which prevents that. - Sitush (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- I am not trying to synthesis. What I wanted to do was state that in Punjab, men from the Chamar caste are recuited into this regiment and I know personally that this is a source of pride for the Chamar community in Punjab and this is a big source of employment for men of the community. The same way as the Mahar dalits are recruited exclusively into the Mahar regiment. There needs to be some way to state that the Ramdasia Chamar Sikhs are recruited into the Sikh Light Infantry (which is also called the Mazabhi and Ramdasia regiment). TimesGerman (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- I understand but I believe that until the dispute on the Ramdasia is resolved, this section should remain especially since on the other page the other editor has already admitted that some Ramadasia are from the Chamar caste and his own sources support this. TimesGerman (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- If you can unambiguously source that then ok. That seems not to be the case at the moment, however, and our basic premise is to say nothing unless the sourcing is right. It is always better to omit asserting something that is not verifiable - maybe not in the real world but certainly in the Wikipedia world. We cannot be wrong if we do not say it. And, frankly, community pride is completely irrelevant to this because Wikipedia is not here to serve any particular partisan interest, be it national, caste, religious or whatever. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- I understand but I believe that until the dispute on the Ramdasia is resolved, this section should remain especially since on the other page the other editor has already admitted that some Ramadasia are from the Chamar caste and his own sources support this. TimesGerman (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Chamars in Gujarat, Maharastra, Assam
In state like Gujarat, Chamar groups Bhambi and Meghwal are listed as Schedule caste(SCs) while other Chamars are listed as Other Backward Classes (OBCs - http://www.tn.gov.in/bcmbcmw/obc/faq/gujarat.pdf - serial number 72- gov official source). Same is the case of Maharastra, Bhambi Chamars are listed in Schedule Caste while other Chamars group Jatiya/Jatia(also known as Jatav-Jatava-Jatia Chamars in north)are listed as Other Backward Caste(OBCs - http://www.tn.gov.in/bcmbcmw/obc/faq/maharashtra.pdf - serial number 45 and 211- gov official source). Same is the case of North-eastern state like Assam where Chamars are listed in Other Backward Castes(OBCs - http://www.ncbc.nic.in/Pdf/assam.pdf - serial number 26(24 in further serialization of 26)- gov official source). It can be stated that all sub-groups of Chamar community are not essentially a part of Schedule Castes all across India. It is only north where all most all sub-groups of Chamar caste have Schedule Castes status. -- Indiancj (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is an example of why we should not be using primary sources. The confusion of the scheduled listings is rampant: there is much uncertainty regarding whether the groups named (and the grouping of them) represent synonyms, relationships or whatever. This is particularly evident when it comes to OBCs because the NCBC has admitted to the problem, but it applies also to SCs and STs. We simply should not be using the things because they require interpretation and we are not qualified to do that. - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Addition of a New Map
Can we add the following map to the wiki? http://www.worldgeodatasets.com/peoples/samples/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimesGerman (talk • contribs) 16:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- No. They are copyrighted. Even if they were not, we'd need to ensure also that the site is reliable. - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Chamars in Rajasthan
However the linked report shows that Chamars form 25.4% population of total SCs in Rajasthan but in reality Meghwal, Bairwa and Balai are also part of Chamars. Chamars form in reality form around 64% population of total SCs in Rajasthan and 11-12% population of total Rajasthan. Even report to trust then Chamars and Adi-Dharmi are also listed separately. Will you consider that chamar population is only 26.2% of SCs in Punjab ? In reality Chamars in Punjab = Chamars+ Adi Dharmi. Adi Dharmi was a religious group formed by initially Chamars of Jatav/Jatia Chamars and Meghwal Chamars mainly. Meghwals have been completely absorbed within Adi-Dharm in punjab almost century back. This is the reason Meghwal are disappeared in mid region of Jammu and north Rajasthan. When national reports mentions Chamar then they usually include Jatavs/Jatias in Jammu, Rajasthan, Haryana and Punjab. While in UP includes more than Jatav with Jaiswar, Dohre, Shankhwar, Dhusia, etc. UP and Punjab has been region where all Chamars have organized themselves for their rights from 19th century. Which is something didn't happen in Rajasthan(specifically western Rajasthan) mainly because it was princely state during British era ruled by Rajputs and they didn't allow anyone to organize even they killed hundreds of Jats in Sekhawati Kisan Andolan in 1935 when Jats asserted against exploitation.
- I know that Meghwals are part of the Chamar community, never heard of the Bairwa and Balai. However, there are several editors on Wiki that refuse to allow to add this without providing countless sources that they deem reliable. I don't have much time in the next few weeks but will be updating this page and other associated community pages also when I have the time. If you can provide sources etc, it will be helpful. TimesGerman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well I personally know Bairwas and Balais are chamars. I am a Jatav Chamar from Rajasthan and this is the reason I know reality of Rajasthan. Chamar is not just a caste, it must have been a historical religion which have been twisted by traitors during medieval period. Well if matrimonial links may be considered as a source then this may be a useful one where some have declared self as jatav and bairwa altogether and India knows Jatav is a die hard section of Chamars. http://www.bandhan.com/search?location=rajasthan&keyword=bairwa&gender=female&maxage=29&minage=23&from=30 and another official link of rajasthan government proves that Bairwas are Chamars http://jodhpurruralpolice.rajasthan.gov.in/SWPOReportForPublicView.aspx?Pol_Stn_Code=626&StateCode=23&State=MADHYA%20PRADESH&policedist=34&row=2 – Indiancj (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- I am originally from Punjab and am a Ad-harmi Chamar, but I have been born and brought up in USA. I am not familiar with other Chamar caste groups from the other states but I will research the Bairwas and Balais also and add them to this page as well as the associated Chamar groups such as Meghwals, Raigars, Ramdasia, Koli, Jatav, Madigas etc. TimesGerman (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Who is this guy Sitush ? In the Wikipedia "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" section,there is one line "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.". Biggest Indian news group like 'Times' and 'The Hindu' are not considered as high-quality source by him. I am not sure what he talks. Not every things can be added but it is not something that nothing can be trusted at all. Well coming on the topic, Indian marriage websites can be considered as a source as this is where people claim their original identity. However Sitush would assert it as dubious. If sources from any book is added then he will be eager to remove by asserting it as an unauthorized source. If govt document says then he might declare it as a corrupted source. Well official Rajasthan govt source http://jodhpurruralpolice.rajasthan.gov.in/SWPOReportForPublicView.aspx?Pol_Stn_Code=626&StateCode=23&State=MADHYA%20PRADESH&policedist=34&row=2 shows that Bairwas are Chamars. I guess this is more reliable than any other thing. - Indiancj (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Better link
- India's Communities A-Z (People of India Series, Volumes 4,5,6)
- Kumar Suresh Singh, Anthropological Survey of India, Oxford University Press, 1998 - Social Science - 4146 pages
- http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/indias-communities-a-z-k-suresh-singh/1002916667?ean=9780195633542
- BAIRWA / BERWA (SC) Notified as Bairwa in Rajasthan, the Berwa are mainly concentrated in Jaipur district. It is said that the section of the Chamar who relinquished their traditional occupation adopted the name Berwa about forty years ago, .. TimesGerman (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- That is typical blather from Kumar Suresh Singh. The states series of The People of India is not considered to be reliable, although the national series is generally ok. Your source seems likely to be part of the latter but It is said (by who) the section of the Chamar (what about the other sections in Rajasthan?). We could probably use it somewhere in the article but using it in the demographics section would be tricky, especially if we then aggregate some census data based on it. Can you give me a page number, please? - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- The link http://socialjustice.nic.in/scorder1950.php?pageid=4 is an authentic and valid link possibly. Balai/Balahi is mentioned with list of Chamar subcaste, so there should not be any confusion. Adding balai popualtion along with Chamars in Rajasthan section. Not addding Kolis as this is still need to be discussed. — Indiancj (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- That is a link to the constitution. We are not qualified to interpret legal documents. See WP:PRIMARY. - Sitush (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Definitely agree with you. I greatly admire your efforts to bring many valuable points. But I am not interpreting anything, but it is already defined in the link that Balahis are same as Chamars. Separating Balahis from Chamars is itself an act of questioning Indian Constitution. I was just making correction in the list. I hope you get my point. – Indiancj (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. These listing are notoriously ambiguous. It is for that reason we see the NCBC qualify their adjudications with phrases such as "castes/subcastes/communities/synonyms" (see here for an example). I know that the NCBC is for OBCs and not ST/SCs but the principle is the same and sources have commented on it. There is ambiguity. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Then what about matrimonial sites where people claim the same ? World is ambiguous, everything can be declared ambiguous. Even you will agree that there is a at least a connection between them. – Indiancj (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've never yet seen anyone accept a matrimonial website as a reliable source for anything. In fact, they usually get deleted as linkspam However, if you want to find one and take it to WP:RSN then by all means do so. I'd appreciate a link to the RSN thread here. - Sitush (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you regarding spam things. But let's forget this. Balahis are socially considered a part of Chamars and treated as the same caste. And Constitution also approve the same. Though, there may be ambiguity, but when constitution, which is basic foundation of any country, agrees with same, then we have a point to accept. When Constitution will reject this, then we can remove the same. It is a very simple thing. Courts give their justice in accordance with constitution, though many people don't agree but they have to compromise with that. Remember, Constitutional acceptance is a very big thing in any part of world and this is my point. For audience, we can simply add like this " There is ambiguity over Balahis as same as Chamars but Balahi caste is constitutionally accepted a sub-group of Chamars.". It is reasonable. − Indiancj (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Wait, are you saying that the words "Chamar" and "Balahi" appear in the Indian constitution? Or are you saying there are court cases that explicitly state "Balahi" are part of "Chamar"? If so, please provide reliable secondary sources (i.e., not the court cases themselves, as those can't be used as sources, but rather newspaper articles (etc.) reporting on them. If not, we can't just proceed on some notion that something is true per your analysis/opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- This is the link http://socialjustice.nic.in/scorder1950.php?pageid=4 . And, this is not created by me. This is the official and legal link which has a proper listing of Scheduled Castes and this is possibly the most reliable link. "Chamar, Jatia Chamar, Rehgar, Raigar, Ramdasi, Ravidasi, Balahi, Batoi, Bhatoi, Bhambi, Chamar- Rohidas, Jatav, Jatava, Mochi, Ramdasia". I hope you are not confused now. –Indiancj (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- This is another link from a book which defines Balahi http://books.google.co.in/books?id=nqvloPNdEZgC&pg=PA83&dq=balahi+rajasthan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vVRIUuChN8n3rQeOuoCIDw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=balahi%20rajasthan&f=false. –Indiancj (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- The "States" series of People of India is a mess and generally not thought to be a reliable source (the "National" series, which was published by Oxford University Press, is apparently ok). This has been discussed at WP:RSN and elsewhere but I'll try to take a look at the link you have just given later today - I might be able to see it using a proxy server. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Wait, are you saying that the words "Chamar" and "Balahi" appear in the Indian constitution? Or are you saying there are court cases that explicitly state "Balahi" are part of "Chamar"? If so, please provide reliable secondary sources (i.e., not the court cases themselves, as those can't be used as sources, but rather newspaper articles (etc.) reporting on them. If not, we can't just proceed on some notion that something is true per your analysis/opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you regarding spam things. But let's forget this. Balahis are socially considered a part of Chamars and treated as the same caste. And Constitution also approve the same. Though, there may be ambiguity, but when constitution, which is basic foundation of any country, agrees with same, then we have a point to accept. When Constitution will reject this, then we can remove the same. It is a very simple thing. Courts give their justice in accordance with constitution, though many people don't agree but they have to compromise with that. Remember, Constitutional acceptance is a very big thing in any part of world and this is my point. For audience, we can simply add like this " There is ambiguity over Balahis as same as Chamars but Balahi caste is constitutionally accepted a sub-group of Chamars.". It is reasonable. − Indiancj (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've never yet seen anyone accept a matrimonial website as a reliable source for anything. In fact, they usually get deleted as linkspam However, if you want to find one and take it to WP:RSN then by all means do so. I'd appreciate a link to the RSN thread here. - Sitush (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Then what about matrimonial sites where people claim the same ? World is ambiguous, everything can be declared ambiguous. Even you will agree that there is a at least a connection between them. – Indiancj (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. These listing are notoriously ambiguous. It is for that reason we see the NCBC qualify their adjudications with phrases such as "castes/subcastes/communities/synonyms" (see here for an example). I know that the NCBC is for OBCs and not ST/SCs but the principle is the same and sources have commented on it. There is ambiguity. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Definitely agree with you. I greatly admire your efforts to bring many valuable points. But I am not interpreting anything, but it is already defined in the link that Balahis are same as Chamars. Separating Balahis from Chamars is itself an act of questioning Indian Constitution. I was just making correction in the list. I hope you get my point. – Indiancj (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- That is a link to the constitution. We are not qualified to interpret legal documents. See WP:PRIMARY. - Sitush (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The People of India source that you linked earlier today seems fine for this point, although whether we can say "are a Scheduled Caste" or "were reported as a Scheduled Caste in YYYY" might be moot given that the various lists do change. Unlike much that is in those volumes, the chapter is clearly not regurgitating Raj sources. Not only does it refer to the 1981 census and a 1961 report but the very phrasing of it is untypical of Raj stuff. The phrasing issue is significant because the series as a whole often reprinted big chunks of Raj sources without actually citing them, partly I think because the project was taking far too long and costing too much money. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- On second thoughts, the PoI will not do. This is because it doesn't mention Chamar as a synonym for Balai. What it does say is that they are also known as Megh/Meghwal. The whole thing is a mess and I'd really like to see the table of demographics removed because sources cannot agree on fundamental definitions. I've said this before somewhere. For example, the 2001 census that is cited shows both the Megh and the Balai as separate groups, both from each other and from the Chamar. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Because the Chamar population is over 50 millions and is divided into countless subgroups that overlap with other caste groups, I think the demographic table is best and most concise way to show this information. Visually, a table allows a user to quickly see the entire context that will be much harder if it is in paragraph form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimesGerman (talk • contribs) 15:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well Sitush, I am not sure whether you know but word Chamar has also been used in a abusive manner for centuries. Chamars have different sub caste within for long. In past century, initially in which ever region Chamars raised their level they try to live with a new identity to gain some social respect and avoiding identity of Chamars. In parts of Punjab where chamars started doing well, then they compose a new identity of Adi Dharmi to bring sense of pride to their people. Same happened in Agra region of Uttar Pradesh where Jatia/Jatav Chamars asserted themselves simply as Jatavs with a warrior idenity and avoiding Chamar suffix. Same happened in Rajasthan, Rajasthan is a big state and in different parts Chamars adopted different identity like Meghwal Chamars adopting only Meghwal word and as Bairwas and in some part as Balais. Situation is like this that pure Chamar identity is existing only parts where Chamars are extremely backward and illiterate like in states like Bihar. You will not see much subcaste issue related to Chamars in Bihar. While in Rajasthan, Chamars were not sort of extremely backward and had a relative social awareness in comparison to Bihar so they were able to negotiate with govts regarding a separate identity. People attempted to gain some social respect as they were made invisible in history books and cursed socially. I hope you get my point. Others can put their views on this too. –Indiancj (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Indiancj, none of that helps us for writing this article at all, because it's all just based on your own personal opinion; we make decisions based on what reliable sources say. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well "Reliable Sources" is something bone of contention here. Indian legal listing is not acceptable by "some contributor(s)". Top Indian news papers are neither acceptable as source by "some contributor(s)". Books written by British historian during British rule has been declared "unreliable" by citing those historian as missionary people by "some contributor(s)". Indian writers books have been rejected as they have been considered a low class academicians by "some contributor(s)". So surely there is a lot of confusion over definition of "Reliable Sources" which is defined by "some contributor(s)". Well in this way, there is possibly no absolute reliable source for any existing article in the eyes of "some contributor(s)". And my point here is Wikipedia is a online reference work on the internet as defined given by Wikipedia itself not by me. Mr Qwyrxian, I already shown you the Indian legal Scheduled Castes listing but you are still fix with term "your own personal opinion". Even if you are given more links then your opinion won't change. Wikipedia intends to convey only knowledge that is already established and recognized - Wikipedia. What I am talking about has been recognized well by Indian legal documents for decades. And this is not my personal opinion but a realistic fact. –Indiancj (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I'm sorry that you don't like our rules on reliable sources. I do know that there are a lot of places on the internet that you can post content based on sources of the type you suggest, but Wikipedia does hold sources to an exceptionally high standard. The legal documents issue isn't so much that they aren't reliable, but that they are only reliable for the exact, plain-text reading of what they say. If there is any interpretation whatsoever required, then we can't attempt to use them. So if you have a government document that says "Chamars adopted the name Meghwal and Bairwa", then we could use the source for that. But if you're inferring what the document actually means, that's where you've crossed Wikipedia's lines. Of course, should you or someone else get that interpretation published in a reliable source (best would be a peer-reviewed academic journal, though some newspapers and similar sources may be okay), then we would likely include that. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, you posted a wrong link for your "Reliable Sources". I know about rules on reliable sources but I was asking for the definition given by some contributors like you. You are more or less contradicting yourself. And then you want your personal "Specific Words" on govt documents so that govt documents can be considered as reliable. Are you serious ? I am just curious to know what made you to think that govt officials would be willing to borrow words from you ? Please see, 2 bold lines I mentioned in my last reply are from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia. You specific guys should follow the rules of Wikipedia 1st and stop using it to misguide other contributors. Very 1st line of your reply Well, I'm sorry that you don't like our rules on reliable sources., the use of our only gives an impression that you are one of the guys who have started thinking of Wikipedia as something like personal property. Better write blogs if you are willing to see articles only with your words/knowledge/contributions online so that you can have 100% authority. I am sorry to say but Wikipedia is not a right place for it. Thanks. –Indiancj (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- The only definition of "reliable sources" is in WP:RS. There is no other link that I can give you. And I don't know what you're talking about, when you say "government officials borrow words from you." What I am saying is that government documents almost always fall under WP:PRIMARY, a part of WP:RS, and are not useable except when 1) they don't require any interpretation, and 2) they aren't trying to verify info about living people. In this case, you want to use a government document, but you want to interpret it's meaning, and we aren't allowed to do that. As for my use of the word "our", I always do that, because I am a member of the Wikipedia community; I'm also quite experienced at this, and your comments make it clear that you are not. Thus, I was trying to show you that "our" (Wikipedia's) rules are not the same as rules found in other places, so that way you would start to learn how "our" (Wikipedia's) rules work, since your requests do not follow those rules. Of course, it is possible that I could be wrong; we have ways to get a wider consensus of editors if you think my interpretation of WP:RS is not correct here. We could, for example, ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, you are getting wrong here. I am only saying that this has been given in the list within the same serial number 9. Separate social/cultural groups are given separately with different serial numbers. I am not even mixing castes of different serial numbers. I am just quoting what is there and not interpreting. Interpreting is a complete different thing. –Indiancj (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please provide a reliable secondary source which states what you just stated. Otherwise, there's really nothing to discuss. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is another link which is stating that Chamars are called Balai. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=eKGhCWZs59oC&pg=PA65&dq=balai+bikaner&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oLJ5UpauIMjDrAeynYD4CQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=balai%20bikaner&f=false Indiancj (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please provide a reliable secondary source which states what you just stated. Otherwise, there's really nothing to discuss. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, you are getting wrong here. I am only saying that this has been given in the list within the same serial number 9. Separate social/cultural groups are given separately with different serial numbers. I am not even mixing castes of different serial numbers. I am just quoting what is there and not interpreting. Interpreting is a complete different thing. –Indiancj (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- The only definition of "reliable sources" is in WP:RS. There is no other link that I can give you. And I don't know what you're talking about, when you say "government officials borrow words from you." What I am saying is that government documents almost always fall under WP:PRIMARY, a part of WP:RS, and are not useable except when 1) they don't require any interpretation, and 2) they aren't trying to verify info about living people. In this case, you want to use a government document, but you want to interpret it's meaning, and we aren't allowed to do that. As for my use of the word "our", I always do that, because I am a member of the Wikipedia community; I'm also quite experienced at this, and your comments make it clear that you are not. Thus, I was trying to show you that "our" (Wikipedia's) rules are not the same as rules found in other places, so that way you would start to learn how "our" (Wikipedia's) rules work, since your requests do not follow those rules. Of course, it is possible that I could be wrong; we have ways to get a wider consensus of editors if you think my interpretation of WP:RS is not correct here. We could, for example, ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, you posted a wrong link for your "Reliable Sources". I know about rules on reliable sources but I was asking for the definition given by some contributors like you. You are more or less contradicting yourself. And then you want your personal "Specific Words" on govt documents so that govt documents can be considered as reliable. Are you serious ? I am just curious to know what made you to think that govt officials would be willing to borrow words from you ? Please see, 2 bold lines I mentioned in my last reply are from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia. You specific guys should follow the rules of Wikipedia 1st and stop using it to misguide other contributors. Very 1st line of your reply Well, I'm sorry that you don't like our rules on reliable sources., the use of our only gives an impression that you are one of the guys who have started thinking of Wikipedia as something like personal property. Better write blogs if you are willing to see articles only with your words/knowledge/contributions online so that you can have 100% authority. I am sorry to say but Wikipedia is not a right place for it. Thanks. –Indiancj (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I'm sorry that you don't like our rules on reliable sources. I do know that there are a lot of places on the internet that you can post content based on sources of the type you suggest, but Wikipedia does hold sources to an exceptionally high standard. The legal documents issue isn't so much that they aren't reliable, but that they are only reliable for the exact, plain-text reading of what they say. If there is any interpretation whatsoever required, then we can't attempt to use them. So if you have a government document that says "Chamars adopted the name Meghwal and Bairwa", then we could use the source for that. But if you're inferring what the document actually means, that's where you've crossed Wikipedia's lines. Of course, should you or someone else get that interpretation published in a reliable source (best would be a peer-reviewed academic journal, though some newspapers and similar sources may be okay), then we would likely include that. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like a reliable source to me TimesGerman (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- It has been culled from old Raj sources but is ok for a statement about Bikaner. It is not ok for a statement about Rajasthan as a whole. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- https://www.google.co.in/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=Chamar+is+a+caste%2C+which+has+a+number+of+sub-castes.+Some+of+the+important+sub-castes+are%3A+Balai%2C+Bharatpuria+Chamar%2C+Bola%2C+Meghwal%2C+Mehar%2C+Mehtar%2C+etc. Though unable to browse book as it is in snippet view instead of preview. Stating "Chamar is a caste, which has a number of sub-castes. Some of the important sub-castes are: Balai, Bharatpuria Chamar, Bola, Meghwal, Mehar, Mehtar, etc" . And book name is "Social Life in Rajasthan". Indiancj (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- A snippet view of a book by a seemingly obscure writer and produced by a seemingly obscure publisher is not going to suffice, sorry. For example, in the very next paragraph it might say "Of those groups, the Balai are found in Bikaner". - Sitush (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- It is mentioning Balai as 1 of the important subcastes of Chamars, that is something we were discussing here for long. Even if your assumption about Bikaner is considered then I have a very simple question here "Is Bikaner not in Rajasthan ? " In my knowledge, Bikaner is in Rajasthan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiancj (talk • contribs) 06:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- A snippet view of a book by a seemingly obscure writer and produced by a seemingly obscure publisher is not going to suffice, sorry. For example, in the very next paragraph it might say "Of those groups, the Balai are found in Bikaner". - Sitush (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- https://www.google.co.in/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=Chamar+is+a+caste%2C+which+has+a+number+of+sub-castes.+Some+of+the+important+sub-castes+are%3A+Balai%2C+Bharatpuria+Chamar%2C+Bola%2C+Meghwal%2C+Mehar%2C+Mehtar%2C+etc. Though unable to browse book as it is in snippet view instead of preview. Stating "Chamar is a caste, which has a number of sub-castes. Some of the important sub-castes are: Balai, Bharatpuria Chamar, Bola, Meghwal, Mehar, Mehtar, etc" . And book name is "Social Life in Rajasthan". Indiancj (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- It has been culled from old Raj sources but is ok for a statement about Bikaner. It is not ok for a statement about Rajasthan as a whole. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like a reliable source to me TimesGerman (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Mochis of Pakistan and Chamars of India
I have heard that muslims converted Chamars in Pakistan are known as Mochi. Need a discussion on this. Anyone ? –Indiancj (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Mochi (Muslim)? - Sitush (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Edits by User:Kingchamar
Please read WP:V andc WP:RS. Your edits are insufficepiently sourced. Do not revert again, and instead discuss the problems with your edits here. If yiu do not, you will be blocked. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2015
 | This edit request to Chamar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Basically, They are belonging from Rajputana but by the time they are recognize as Chamar. HD98799 (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Removing the word "positive discrimination" from the first line - Reg.
In context to the ending of the first sentence, I like to flag a systematic undermining of the prinicples of affirmative action in the form of: under modern India's system of "positive discrimination." I request the community to change the word positve discrimination into either as "Affiramtive action" or "Reservation policy".There is no such thing as "positive discrimination" put forth by any official gazette or notifications instead it is used to undermine the ill effects of the caste system and the purpose of affirmative system. I request the community to look into this issue and kindly do the needful.
Consmuthu (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Affirmative action is an Americanism. The equivalent British term is positive discrimination. Indian English tends to follow British English, probably because of the legacy of colonial times. - Sitush (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
to remove a word "untouchable" in the article "chamar".
Dear sir/madam, Most humble i want your attention to a particular word "untouchable" which is used in article "chamar". i request to you to remove that word by the their work because almost all people under this category are now well developed,educated in their life and as we know that "all human being are equal" and it is also said by united nation. so i request you to remove that word.Yogendra1211 (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
That thing is write.i agree with you.please I also requested delete this word. Didar-germany (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Untouchable is the word most recognised/commonly used. Wikipedia is not censored but rather reflects the sources. - Sitush (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Done
ShivRanaji (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Outsider India
Why people outside of india doing any change on this page even they don't no about anything of india. Stop doing this. SirjiIndia (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Sikh Light Infantry
In the military paragraph there is mentioned that Sikh Light Infantry belongs to chamar caste and there is also nentioned sikh chamars ramdasia , which is totally wrong information as Sikh Light Infantry Belongs to Ramdasiasikhs which belongs to Julahacaste snd Mazhbi Sikhs and it does not belongs to chamar caste .this thing is hurting feelings of many people So please remove the column of Sikh Light Infantry.There is a big confusion between Ramdasia(julaha) and Ravidasia(chamar).Ramdasias are not chamar .
- Agreed and removed. The source refers to the Chamar Regiment and the Sikh Light Infantry but someone appears to have conjoined the two, presumably due to mis-reading what is said. - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Sitush, NitinMlk this is not correct and the above comment that you responded was poster that was banned for caste brigading at the Ramdasia wiki page. The Ramdasia wiki itself mentions that the Chamar caste is also known as Ramdasias.
- The references that can be used to link Chamar, Ramdasia and Sikh Light Infantry are here.
- "The Sikh Light Infantry, composed of untouchable Sikhs, was formerly called the Mazbhi and Ramadasias Sikhs", The Untouchable Soldier: Caste, Politics, and the Indian Army", Stephen P. Cohen, The Journal of Asian Studies Vol. 28, No. 3 (May, 1969), pp. 453-468
- M & R: A Regimental History of the Sikh Light Infantry, 1941-1947 Paperback: 121 pages, Publisher: J D Hookway (April 1999), Language: English ISBN-10: 0953465608, ISBN-13: 978-0953465606
- Please review the above books. If no feedback, I will add to the main article page in a few weeks. 16:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- TimesGerman, I guess you copy-pasted the first quote from here. It's always good to provide the link if possible. Anyway, the quote given by you supports the claims of the original poster: it doesn't mention chamar anywhere, and we can only mention what the source says. BTW, how does the second source support the chamar claims? Please provide the relevant quote(s) and the page number(s). - NitinMlk (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Please review the above books. If no feedback, I will add to the main article page in a few weeks. 16:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
NitinMlk - Sikh Chamars are known as Ramdasia or Ravidassia in Punjab. The Ramdasia wiki link has plenty of sources showing this and I can add it here as well in the next few days. The Sikh Light Infantry is only composed of Mazhabi (Chura/Balmiki/Valmiki) and Chamar (Ramdasia) sikhs.
Adding references to show Chamar is the same as Ramdasia.
- 1
"Both the Ramdasia and the Ravidassia are converts from the Chamar caste", Untouchability in India with a Difference: Ad Dharm, Dalit Assertion, and Caste Conflicts in Punjab, Ronki Ram, Asian Survey, Vol. 44 No. 6, November/December 2004; (pp. 895-912) DOI: 10.1525/as.2004.44.6.895,
- 2
"balmikis and ramdasias (chamar Sikh)/ravidasias were not allowed to own land.", https://www.jstor.org/stable/4413731?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents, Scheduled Castes in Sikh Community: A Historical Perspective, Harish K. Puri, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 38, No. 26 (Jun. 28 - Jul. 4, 2003), pp. 2693-2701
- 3
http://socialjustice.nic.in/writereaddata/UploadFile/scorder1951636011777921451566.pdf, The list of scheduled castes lists the following as Chamar castes: "10. Chamar, Chanwar Chamar, Jatava or Jatav, Chamar, Mochi, Ramdasia, Ravidasi, Raidasi, Rehgarh or Raigar".'
- 4
www.censusindia.gov.in/datagov/SC14/SC_01_00_14_DDW-2011.xls, This list from Census of India shows the Chamar castes in shows that in J&K state: "'Chamar or Ramdasia, Chamar-Ravidas, Chamar-Rohidas".
- 5
Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development & finance Corporation, Undertaking of Punjab Government, List the scheduled castes of Punjab and the Chamar castes as "Chamar, Jatia Chamar, Rehgar, Raigar, Ramdasia or Ravidasia", http://www.pbscfc.gov.in/?q=node/21,
- 6
https://books.google.com/books?id=-XrRH157jPAC&pg=PT21&lpg=PT21&dq=ramdasia+chamar&source=bl&ots=P4RJ9rLAJr&sig=ACfU3U1yKmchARF8o3DDVIIXDsbfUlgdyA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZ0oLlo7nhAhVQIKwKHRsLAsA4HhDoATAEegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=ramdasia%20chamar&f=false, "Born to a low caste Ramdasia Chamar family", Poet of the Revolution: The Memoirs of Lal Singh Dil, By Nirupama Dutt, Page Numbers Source ISBN: 067008655X, Publisher: Viking (October 5, 2012), Sold by: Random House India
- 7
"Born in a Ramdasia Chamar family in a village of Punjab", Kanshiram: Leader of the Dalits, Penguin India, New Delhi, 2014, pp. xxi, Publisher: Penguin Books Limited (21 April 2014), Language: English, ISBN-10: 067008509X, ISBN-13: 978-0670085095
- 8
https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/wp2016-85.pdf, Page 37, Affirmative action and long-run changes in group inequality in India, by Hemanshu Kumari and Rohini Somanathan. List of all Chamar castes, listing Ramdasia in this list.
- 9
"The Mahar Regiment, for instance, recruits only Mahars, who are SCs, as jawans. The Sikh Light infantry is meant for Scheduled Caste Sikhs.", https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/caste-quota-cry-in-army/cid/846149
TimesGerman (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- TimesGerman, please see WP:Synthesis, which states that
do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
But that's what you are trying to do here. As I've already commented in this thread, "we can only mention what the source says". BTW, the sources explicitly state that the Sikh Light Infantry recruits from the Mazhabi and Ramdasia Sikhs – e.g. see here – and we can mention just that. But you are trying to suggest that the infantry recruits from Chuhras and Chamars, which would be WP:OR. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)- NitinMlk what I am saying that Sikh Churas are officially called Mazhabi Sikhs or Sikh Chamars are called Ramdasia. Both castes are heavily recruited into the Sikh Light Infantry which is also previously called Mazabhi and Ramdasia Sikh regiment. This is why Sikh light Infantry can be mentioned in the Chamar wiki page. TimesGerman (talk)
- TimesGerman, the recruitment-related details of the Sikh Light Infantry belong to Mazhabi Sikh and Ramdasia articles. The former already has the relevant details, and similar details can be added to the latter. As far as their connections with Chuhras, Chamars, Julahas, Valmikis, etc. are concerned, readers would know that after going through the respective articles. Having said that, if any source directly discusses the connection between the Chamars and the Sikh Light Infantry then we can cover that here, but for that to happen you must provide the relevant reliable source(s). Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- NitinMlk what I am saying that Sikh Churas are officially called Mazhabi Sikhs or Sikh Chamars are called Ramdasia. Both castes are heavily recruited into the Sikh Light Infantry which is also previously called Mazabhi and Ramdasia Sikh regiment. This is why Sikh light Infantry can be mentioned in the Chamar wiki page. TimesGerman (talk)
TimesGerman, you have reinstated the list of Chamar subcastes inspite of my clear edit summary and the relevant comment on your talk page. Anyway, as you cited this and this source in support of your added content, please give the relevant quotes from the sources which mention that the "Chamar, Jatia Chamar, Rehgar, Raigar," etc. are the subcastes of Chamar. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- NitinMlk (talk), Please see the following - http://socialjustice.nic.in/writereaddata/UploadFile/Scan-0015.jpg, http://socialjustice.nic.in/writereaddata/UploadFile/Scan-0005636052298648822263.jpg, In both documents from the "Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment ; "Department of Social Justice and Empowerment"; "Government of India" ; List of Scheduled Castes" they have listed all the scheduled castes in the respective states. They have listed in row 9 in brackets: "[9.Chamar, Jatia Chamar, Reghar, Raigar, Ramdasi, Ravidasi, Ramdasia, Ramdasia Sikh, Ravidasia, Ravidasia Sikh]".
- NitinMlk Publisher = Government of India Press, Minto Road, New Delhi and Published by the Controller of of Publications, Delhi 2002. In the constitution of India, Order Amendment Act 25 of 2002, published by the "Gazette of India", Part II - Section 1, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs (legislative Department), New Delhi, the 27th May 2002, Page 2, "for entry 9, substitute - 9.Chamar, Jatia Chamar, Reghar, Raigar, Ramdasi, Ravidasi, Ramdasia, Ramdasia Sikh, Ravidasia, Ravidasia Sikh". http://socialjustice.nic.in/writereaddata/UploadFile/CONSTITUTION%20(SC)%20ORDER%20(AMDT)%20ACT%202002-1.pdf
- TimesGerman, I guess you didn't read my relevant edit summary & two comments, so I will repeat my comment: "please give the relevant quotes from the sources which mention that the "Chamar, Jatia Chamar, Rehgar, Raigar," etc. are the subcastes of Chamar." The government notification just shows that they are all scheduled castes. It lists them together without mentioning any reason for it. And we cannot speculate on their behalf, as that will be in contravention of WP:OR. If you have a source which states that so-and-so are the subcastes of Chamars in Haryana & Himachal Pradesh, then we can add that in the article. Otherwise we cannot do that. - NitinMlk (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- NitinMlk Publisher = Government of India Press, Minto Road, New Delhi and Published by the Controller of of Publications, Delhi 2002. In the constitution of India, Order Amendment Act 25 of 2002, published by the "Gazette of India", Part II - Section 1, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs (legislative Department), New Delhi, the 27th May 2002, Page 2, "for entry 9, substitute - 9.Chamar, Jatia Chamar, Reghar, Raigar, Ramdasi, Ravidasi, Ramdasia, Ramdasia Sikh, Ravidasia, Ravidasia Sikh". http://socialjustice.nic.in/writereaddata/UploadFile/CONSTITUTION%20(SC)%20ORDER%20(AMDT)%20ACT%202002-1.pdf
- NitinMlk (talk), Please see this source: "The caste whose collective actions could be justifiably put under the category of “change in the caste hierarchy” leading to political implications is Chamar/Ad-dharmi. For the sake of clarification and to avoid nomenclatural confusion we may add Ramdasia and Ravidasia also. Since they are all Chamars, the subsequent reference to all these caste names would be covered under the umbrella term, ‘Chamar’.", Page 24, CHANGING CASTE RELATIONS AND EMERGING CONTESTATIONS IN PUNJAB, PARAMJIT S. JUDGE, https://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/5650/1/AHRC_2,_PS_Judge,_Caste_Hierarchy_Revised.pdf TimesGerman (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Here you've provided a new source, but how does it support your this edit? In short, which of the above sources mentions that "the Chamar sub-castes are known as Chamar, Jatia Chamar, Rehgar, Raigar, Ramdasi, Ravidasi, Balahi, Batoi, Bhambi, Chamar-Rohidas, Jatav, Jatava, Ramdasia" in Haryana and Himachal Pradesh? - NitinMlk (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- NitinMlk (talk), Please see the following - http://socialjustice.nic.in/writereaddata/UploadFile/Scan-0015.jpg, http://socialjustice.nic.in/writereaddata/UploadFile/Scan-0005636052298648822263.jpg, In both documents from the "Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment ; "Department of Social Justice and Empowerment"; "Government of India" ; List of Scheduled Castes" they have listed all the scheduled castes in the respective states. They have listed in row 9 in brackets: "[9.Chamar, Jatia Chamar, Reghar, Raigar, Ramdasi, Ravidasi, Ramdasia, Ramdasia Sikh, Ravidasia, Ravidasia Sikh]".
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2019
| This edit request to Chamar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Chamar are the people who are living in India before 5000 years ago during Indus Valley Civilization. DNA reports of fossils found in Rakhigiri, Hisar, Haryana proves that. The leader of chamar then was a post called Shiva. During the scarcity in Eurasian places, people from there came to India and tried to breach into the country. they were called Aryans. They faught with native Indian people and lost the war. The leader of Aryans was Brahma. Aryans were 5000 Men with 9 Women. Amongst those 9 Girls Parvati was most beautiful. After losing the war Aryans made a deal with Shiva to give them stay for months until the scarcity ends and in turn they will send there 9 girls to serve Shiva. The girls took Shiva from Pakistan border to China border where they made him drug addict (Bhaang addict). where on the other side Aryans had a meeting and they started to cover the land with bad intentions. Aryans DNA matches more with European peole ( Gene R1a1 ). There head Brahma then wrote vedas and first of them was "Rig Veda" and made the native Indians to follow the book in which most of the privilages were given to Brahmin( Aryans). They created Verna in which they sat at the top and native Native Indian people at the bottom calling "Shudras". They made native Indians Shudras and called themselves Native Indians. They wrote in the book that Shudras are not allowed to have Education, Weapon and Land and will always serve to Brahmin all there lives. They made them do all possible Inhumane works and performed atrocities on them. Then three more Vedas were also written by them named "Yajur Veda", "Atharva Veda" and "Sam Veda". After that they created Caste system and created "Chamar" caste from "Shudras" and called them "Untouchables". 868584cbd (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- You need sources for that. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)