Talk:Kharvi

grammar; Christrian Kharvi

The article currently includes ungrammatical/unclear sentence: "Some are Christians, among whom are Roman Catholics, while others are Hindus." Surely none of the Christian ones are Hindu, right? And "among whom are Roman Catholics" is unclear and, if it is meant to be an assertion that the Christian ones are all/mostly/some Roman Catholic, that needs to be sourced. There exist two sources, one is linked (the mention of the existence of Christran Kharvi in the OBC listing). The other source is offline. Could someone fix this sentence and/or comment here. --doncram 19:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The source is not offline here, although I know GBooks can do funny things. Page 47, for example: "The Hindu and Roman Catholic Kharvi are the significant communities found in the fishing activity." My suspicion is that all of the Christian Kharvi are RC (most Indian Christians are) but that is unverified. If there is a problem with the grammar then I cannot see it: parenthetical commas are just fine in English English. - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The grammar problem here is that the appositive phrase "among whom..." attaches to the noun just prior to the appositive, and the confused status of the appositive here makes the Hindu part of the sentence extremely awkward. So what you have now basically says "Some are Christians. Among all Christians, there exist Roman Catholics. Next to these Roman Catholics that exist among Christians, there are also some Hindus (who may or may not be Christians, who knows, the grammar doesn't make it clear)", rather than what I assume you intend, which is "Some are Christians; among those Christians are Roman Catholics, while among the non-Christians are Hindus." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That is completely beyond me, sorry. If there is some technical problem of grammar then I have no issue with that being fixed but, honestly, I cannot see it. Clearly, I had a crap education ;) Basically, some Kharvis are Hindus, other Kharvis are Christians. Of the Christian Kharvis, we know that some are Roman Catholic but we have nothing to verify that all are such. Tbh, I'd be astonished if there are not some agnostics and atheists in the mix but there are no sources for that, either.- Sitush (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, although thinking again, there might be a bit of synthesis here. The first source refers to Christian Kharvis and the second is the more specific "Roman Catholic Kharvis". It might be synthesis to suggest that there may be some Christian Kharvis who are not RC. - Sitush (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. The sourcing issues make it a bit harder to rephrase this in a strong manner. Here's a couple of possibilities - note that I have no access to the offline sources, and am only concerning myself with trying to represent what you guys have come up with in a more comprehensible manner. Some of the options I'm suggesting may still contain synthesis or overreaching, since I don't know exactly what the sources say:

• "Some Kharvi are Christians;[1] among those Christians are Roman Catholics, while among the non-Christians are Hindus.[2]"
• "Christianity is the declared religion of some Kharvi,[1] with Roman Catholicism represented as a sub-denomination;[2] Hinduism is also represented among Kharvi.[2]"
• "Some Kharvi are Hindus,[2] but Christianity,[1], particularly Roman Catholicism,[2], is also represented in the group".

Do any of these work, sourcing/synthesis-wise? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, The first is probably the most useful of the bunch but I'll have a think. Doubtless, doncram will also have an opinion. I did see a newspaper report referring to the "Roman Catholic Kharvis" being the group that had gained acceptance for listing as OBC in Goa but that was in The Times of India, which is even worse than me when it comes to the niceties of grammar and is also often factually and/or terminologically inconsistent. - Sitush (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I shared that I thought the wording is bad and should be fixed, and there is some agreement here. I don't have to be in on the exact wording change, please someone proceed to just fix it. Also, I don't have the source that some apparently do. I don't see any Googlebook linked from the article that sources the statement. It appears to be an offline book source (the ISBN is bluelinked but does not lead me to a Google book). Google book urls can be linked from articles; is there a url someone could add into the reference? Go ahead, add it please. --doncram 23:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Added the url. As far as the wording goes, you are pointy and in a minority. See User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Ungrammatical.2Funclear. I will be reinstating it, with additional sources. - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

clarification about OBC designation

I edited the article in this edit to clarify that Kharvi are designated OBC in Goa (and by implication not necessarily elsewhere). At Talk:List of Other Backward Classes and/or the corresponding AFD (ongoing), it has been much emphasized by editor Sitush that exact statements are needed (else warfare will ensue?), and that OBCs are designated state by state. I am sorta dumbfounded by editor Sitush, then, reverting with edit summary suggesting it is "unnecessary pedantry" to state the designation exactly. I'll pause for comments, otherwise expect to restore the edit in the article. --doncram 23:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It is bloody obvious, surely? The phrase to which the footnote is attached has the word "Goa" right before it and the entire article is based on the Kharvi in Goa. But feel free: go revert me if you think someone will be confused. They'd be far more confused with your more usual output. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)