Talk:Kurmi/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Why has so much time been spent on Shudra status?

I hadn't paid any attention to this debate, which is presumably also taking place on other pages. I don't see why whether academics think the Kurmis have Shudra status, Kshatriya status, or neither, belongs to the lead of this article. I believe there is no reason to mention the conventional "graded inequality" of the four-fold caste system in the lead. The views of people like Susan Bayly or Christophe Jaffrelot, in any case, are more sophisticated than that. It is enough to say that the Kurmis are a middle agriculture caste. The lead makes no mention of there numbers, of their geographical distribution, and other things that are more relevant. A much bigger problem is that the page is shabbily written. I'd say, here Matthew Vanitas and Sitush are as much to blame as Mango Wong and Thisthat2011. You all are barking up the wrong tree. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have more put in the article, and in my defence I'd argue that the "Caste politics" section is one of the better ones and was largely my work and footnoting. General improvement of the article has been held up by the above-noted people who created 50-some Talk page sections doing nothing but griping about the Shudra classification. Whether it belongs in the lede or no is up for debate, but I will note that nobody had any complaints about the following being the very first sentence for quite a long time before I came by: "Kurmi (Hindi: कुर्मी) or Kunbi is the name of one of the Vedik Kshatriya Jātis (castes) of the Hindus in India." You may have noticed that in plenty of other jati articles, the absolute first thing they want to say is "Foo is a Kshatriya caste". I didn't want to make the Shudra debate the first sentence, clearly, but given how hot the issue is I assume it's of great interest to the readership, and that's why I keep it in the lede. Much of the little uncited choppy bits in the current article are remnants of older versions, and I'm fine cutting them if nobody steps up and cites/expands them. For reference, here's the article before I came in: [1]. I'm not at all claiming Kurmi is a great piece of work for me, but there are precious few caste articles where I've really had a chance to dig in and make improvements without provoking an endless wave of yammering IPs messing with my work, so I end up spending more time goaltending than actually cleaning up more jati articles. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Fowler&Fowler . I too have been saying all this time that the caste articles focus too much on the Varna status thing. There is no need for this. At least not in the lead. In the present context, it is irrelevant in my opinion too.-MangoWong (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong, your opinion would be more credible if you'd ever done a single thing to improve this article. In the merest fraction of the time you've spent complaining about one word, you could have added however many new sections on linguistics, assimilation of other related groups, political position, economic issues, etc. But you don't ever seem to do so. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we simply take out any mention of Shudra or Kshatriya from the lead and move it to the main body? That way, the controversial stuff won't be highlighted and therefore not subject to drive-by attacks. Instead, let us include some information about the caste, its numbers, occupations etc in the lead. Let me look for some references. They should be in Crooke's Tribes and Castes of the North-West Provinces and Oudh among the older 19th century descriptions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I might have more of an impulse to add things if I had not had the impression that any edit which I make in this article would be reverted--simply for the sake of reverting. If that trend goes away, you can expect me to modify the article in some productive and meaningful looking way. We are simply wasting time by having a fixation with highlighting one word and doing things like edit warring on cn tags (only to prevent others from getting a toe in).-MangoWong (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong, I've added a bunch of references and have changed a few of the footnotes (Bhattacharya, Pinch etc) to the Harvnb format. Why don't you move the other cited books to the reference section and change their footnotes to the harvnb format? It will tidy up the article a little. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Before you do that last bit, please see the section below. Changing reference styles unilaterally is an explicit no-no.

Regarding the varna status...how can we not include it in the lead. The complex arguments about what varna status they occupy have been covered (as we've demonstrated here) in many books, with many arguments on all sides. Not including it in the lead seems to me like we would be failing to summarize a key part of the subject matter of this topic.

Having said that, so long as all of the information is retained, if it will make all of the arguing stop, I could live with a sentence in the lead that simply said, uncited, something like "Their varna class in various historical periods is the subject of dispute" and putting all of the rest into the main body. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The views of this or that source may be more sophisticated overall. The views as expressed in relation to Kurmi are as stated. Fixing this article has drawn to a stalemate precisely because of the attitude of certain contributors to this talk page: we are drained and for much of the time the article has been protected in various forms.

Moving the varna issue out of the lede when it is clearly a point of much interest and is discussed quite deeply is nonsensical and practically amounts to censoring the lead. Furthermore, MangoWong actually wants varna taking out of the article entirely (because "it is a lie"), and so I guarantee you that the arguing is not going to stop just by moving it from the lead.

The only population figures we could show are inherently unreliable, and therefore their geographical distribution is also inherently unreliable.. I am not saying do not show them, but you would have to seriously qualify any statement. There has been no caste census since 1931, no Raj census was reliable in itself, and the 1961 projection was based census data + a sample. And what do you do about the diaspora? - Sitush (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I am not too keen on the drive-by "shabbily written" description either, true though it may be. If you look at Paravar and Nair then you will see examples of pretty stable caste articles that cover their subjects in significant depth and are the outcome of a vast amount of time input by a small number of people. Effectively, they are complete rewrites. The same could, doubtless, happen here if only we did not spend so much time firefighting. However, please note that there was a lot of such firefighting at those two articles before they pretty much settled down. The only recent flare-up at those articles was when Thisthat & Co. turned up recently. They appear to have gone away again. I am sure that this will be the outcome here because there simply is no logical support for their contentions. It is just taking a long time for them to realise this. - Sitush (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Fowler&Fowler made excellent suggestions. Only thing is that you want to keep this area as a war zone.-MangoWong (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

How is "It [shudra/varna] is irrelevant in my opinion too", as you say above, a statement of reconciliation? As I said, you will continue to argue about inclusion of shudra even if it is removed from the lead. because, in your contrary opinion, "it is a lie". Like Qwyrxian, I can see some room for manoeuvre but not a complete absence of the varna issue from the lead.; you are the one digging your heels in. Ball is in your court. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

IMO, there should not be a single instance of that word in the article. Nevertheless, if all instances of that word are moved lower down into a historical section, as per Fowler&Fowler's suggestion, I would accept it as a good solution.-MangoWong (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It won't be in a historical section. It can stay where it is, in a varna discussion section. But we'll use some of the sources noted in the thread above because there have been comments about Pandey. I know that you say that you have not checked those sources for reliability but it doesn't matter much, since others appear to be satisfied with all or some of them.

The reason for the varna discussion section separated from any other aspects of their history is because, like it or not, present-day Kurmis still appear to claim kshatriya status and we cannot discuss that without also discussing shudra: the two are linked. I say "appear to" because it is the one thing that various people contributing here have been consistent in wanting to see even though it has been shown to be a claim rather than a reality. Those people include Thisthat2011. For reasons that I cannot understand, one rank of varna is ok to show but another is deemed suitable for censorship, which is cherry-picking a ritualised system in a quite blatant manner. Furthermore, at least until more history appears in the article (get contributing!), there pretty much isn't enough info to justify a History section: varna would be undue weight there. - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, letting them stay in the present section (i.e. varna section) is acceptable. The reasons which you show for letting them stay in the Varna discussion section look good to me. Presently, there are three instances of that word. The number of occurances should not be increased, and it should be used in a historical way only. OK?-MangoWong (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that I will be editing it - no idea how many uses it would take. Let's get some other people involved on that issue. As far as I know, it is only used in a historical way now and certainly that seems to be how it should be. The real sticking point is the lead. Something will have to be said but, as Qwyrxian suggests, it could be toned down. We cannot ignore in the lead something that at present takes up a fair proportion of the article, and probably should not ignore it anyway because I think Fowler is being optimistic in believing that complete removal will fix the issue: the drive-bys will still drive-by, not check here first etc: this is a pattern across caste articles and please bear in mind that it all started long before either myself or MV got involved and is usually phrased as if it currently applies rather than is a historic thing. What we can do is use the FAQ that I set up + have a notification box on the edit page as happens as, for eg, the RSS article. Sure, some people will ignore both of those but it will stop some in their tracks.

You might want to check out the discussion at the template for the infobox, by the way: I am proposing that a large number of fields are removed right across the board.

I am pleased that some sort of peace appears to be breaking out. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

When I read the article last night, what troubled me the most was that the word "Shudra" is mentioned in the lead, but nowhere else in the article. The Kurmis are known for many things. The British, for example, found them to be the most hardworking of the agricultural castes. They found the Kurmi fields to be superbly maintained. The Kurmi women would work in the fields alongside their husbands, unlike the Brahmin farmers, whose women were secluded and whose fields, according to British observers, were usually in poor shape. Nothing about the Kurmi's enterprise, work ethic, or gender relations is mentioned in the lead. As such, the Shudra mention begins to look like a case of WP:Lead fixation. I'm not suggesting that the word "Shudra" shouldn't be in the article at all, only not in the lead, especially when it is nowhere else in the article. I'd be happy with Qwyrxian's suggestion, "The varna status in various historical periods is the subject of dispute." I read through all the lists of citations for and against "Shudra" status upstairs. The Kurmi are a complicated example and are regarded as an anomaly. I'm troubled that many of the examples (links) above are the results of Google searches for: Kurmi Shudra. That is a biased method of searching. You need to search for: Kurmi caste. I'm troubled that after three months of arguing, you guys hadn't found Crooke's seminal Tribes and castes of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh (four volumes) in your 19th century list. Examine what volume III (now added to References) says about the Kurmi. It has long description (pages 346 to 359) replete with anthropometry which was in vogue then, and which you can disregard. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Like we have said, the problem with development has been that we have been stuck with one very time-consuming issue. I do know how to use google, btw, and I had seen the book (which, to be frank, I did not particularly rate: it is an Edgar Thurston for the NW, & Crooke has a reputation for editorialising etc, as he did big time when he edited the 1920 version of Tod's Annals). The reason why "shudra" is nowhere else in the article is because someone removed it and, around that time, the whole thing blew up. Well, that's how I recall matters to have been - I am not trawling through the history to prove it. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Source for Shudra

I have asked several times now for people to comment regarding which sources they would prefer to be cited for the shudra point. No-one other than MatthewVanitas has bothered to respond, although there was some initial agreement that the Pandey source currently used is not ideal.

Since MangoWong has asked for a citation & knows full well that there has been a list of them at the head of this page for some time now, I am proposing just to insert one of those. MW has had plenty of opportunities to respond and has consistently failed to do so. I feel that the cite request is bad faith given (a) there are sources and (b) the reason why the recent protection was removed was because there was agreement that a cite could be put there. I know that BsZ's unprotection note was ambiguous & said so in my edit summary but I feel sure that this is what he intended would be the result. To think otherwise makes little sense, unless one is being vexatious.

I had copied the Pandey source to the infobox pending consensus in the discussion regarding alternative sources but a certain group of people are just ignoring the entire issue and I know exactly why they are doing so. So, I think that we need to resolve this now. I am going to use one of the alternatives unless someone has a very good reason why I should not. - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that I have been through this page? This is a long page and makes no sense to assume that anyone would read it through and through. Bsz does not get to define what I think and you seem to see something which he does not seem to say. Its absurd. I never agreed to Pande. If you have some other source, it is for you to choose and show. Why should I choose a source for something which I say is a lie? Please show a source in this thread and we will discuss it, and quit your accusationavalanche.-MangoWong (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Which thread has the 10 sources? Are the quotes also shown?-MangoWong (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ten sources? Who said 10 sources? Have you counted them even though you have not seen the list? ? Anyway, Talk:Kurmi#Reliable_sources_supporting_Kurmi_as_Shudra. I have a backup list of at least another 40-50. Take your pick. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I see the thread now. But there are no quotes in there. And if you want to keep some material, it is on you to pick a source and show some quote which could support it properly. Why should I pick a source?-MangoWong (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not have to quote anything, but the page numbers are there. You are welcome to check any of them. It may be educational for you, since you believe it to be a "lie". Indeed, it may be worth you checking a few. Have a read if you want but if you do not then obviously you cannot really pass a valid comment in this discussion because you are not informed. - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A list of reliable sources that mention that Kurmi are Shudra should be compiled. Quotes should be included too, because, although not usually needed, the wording at WP:V, "When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. Do not violate the source's copyright when doing so", seems to allow people to demand them. Then add the sources and the quotes to the article, as it's done for "antisemitic" and "conspiracy theory" at Holocaust denial, for example. That article has a FAQ on the talk page designed to "save editors from repeatedly answering questions which have already been asked, as well saving you the time from asking them". It may be a good idea to have a FAQ here too, if you can get consensus. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a list, which is linked to above. The issue is not controversial except in so far as there are at present some POV pushers here who want to rewrite history. They have an agenda and no number of quotes will change that, which is why I am not bothering. They can look it up, although if there are any in the list that they cannot see then I will sort something out for them. That is unlikely to be the case, however, as they have been able to locate books at GBooks and read them when it suits them, across numerous articles. The FAQ is a good idea and has been talked about but as a general thing for all Indian caste articles; it makes no odds for this article which unfortunately is simply being targeted.

If someone else wants to compile a full set of quotes then feel free. I have better things to do with my time than pander to this request. AGF has gone out of the window. - Sitush (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, sod it. Here's two quotes from books listed above, typed the hard way so forgive any typos:

• 1. Dalit activists and intellectuals in North India have consistently challenged Dalitbahujan formulations on the grounds that Shudras, lower castes like Yadavs and Kurmis, are staunch defenders of Hindu religion and identity. - Reconsidering Untouchability: Chamars and Dalit History in North India, Ramnarayan S. Rawat, Indiana University Press, 2011
• 2. Those involved were primarily land-hungry or landless rural groups with such titles as Kurmi or Ahir ... Yet far from dissolving the importance of jati and varna, both the organisation and the rhetoric of these movements built directly on heightened awareness of caste, identifying the tiller's enemies as 'twice-born' oppressors who espoused false Brahmanical values, and exalting the kisan as a worthy 'caste reformer' whose heritage as a Kurmi, Ahir or Yadav (Goala) was that of the noble Kshatriya and not the inglorious Shudra. - Caste, Society & Politics in India, Susan Bayly, Cambridge University Press, 2001. This is her comment on the movement seeking to claim Kshatriya status when they were classed as shudra.

Honestly, this is pointless because context is everything: you need to read entire chapters, not selected quotes. - Sitush (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Two more - complete waste of my time.

• 3. Broadly, the agrarian hierarchy corresponded with the caste hierarchy so that the Brahmins and Kshatriyas held the proprietary rights in land while the bulk of tenants, both occupancy and tenants-at-will, were Shudra jatis such as Yadavas, Koeris, Kurmis and Kahars - Daughters of the earth ..., Smita Tewari Jassal, Technical Publications, 2001
• 4. A large number of those who came to the towns in this period were agricultural labourers and poorer cultivators, mainly belonging to lower shudra agricultural and pastoral castes, such as ahirs or yadavs, kurmis, gujars, pasis and khatiks - Encyclopedia of gender equality ..., Maya Majumdar, Sarup & Sons, 2005

sigh. - Sitush (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, even if you have cites, people are going to use the wording at V to justify removing stuff that hasn't got quotes (wikilawyering). They may well be able to see the material online--could be looking at it as they're saying they can't--but nobody knows that. This is probably how the big refs and quotes at Holocaust denial evolved, because kept challenging and asking for more. I think it'll save time in the long run if quotes are added. As for context, that isn't easily solved but there must be some refs that are explicit on the subject and aren't too long. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Above at 22:14 from Christopher Connor noted. Still more (I haven't even bothered finishing the linked list above) -

• 5. The educated elite from the other backward classes, especially from the upper shudra castes, sought to federate themselves to claim elevation in their traditional social status by taking resort to Sanskritisation. The Kurmis andd the Yadavas, especially t hose who turned out to be prosperous and conscious, formed caste associations to usher from within and exert pressure outward for improvement in their condition. - Social exclusion: essays in honour of Dr Bindeshwar Pathak, Vol 1, A. K. Lal & Bindeshwar Pathak, p. 157, Concept Publishing Company, 2003, here. This chapter is about Bihar.
• 6. Members of shudra groups such as kalwars (distillers), yadavs or ahirs, kurmis and khatiks were often ... - The politics of the urban poor in early twentieth century India, Nandini Gooptu, p. 203, Cambridge University Press, 2001, here

this looks authentic - reference mentions specifically as Shudras. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• 7. Castes in the Shudra varna ... Ahirs, Kurmis and Koeris occupied the next most important level in the agrarian hierarchy after the twice-born castesm Banias and some Muslim castes. - The limited Raj: agrarian relations in colonial India, Saran District, 1793-1920, Anad A. Yang, p. 47, University of California Press, 1989, here.
• 8. ... a behaviour now also adopted by such backward shudra castes as the yadavs and kurmis ... - Development & Democracy in India, Shalendra D. Sharma, p. 173, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1999, here

OK? - Sitush (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• 9. Among the clean Shudra castes, Kahndait (quasi-militia), Mahanayak, chasa, Paika, Oda, Kalinji, Kolta and Kurmi are basically farming castes and occupy, more or less, equivalent position in the local social order - Tribal situation in India, Deepak Kumar Behera, Georg Pfeffer, p. 191, Concept Publishing Company, 2005, here. Talking about Orissa.
• 10. Besides these there were the Ahir, Kachi, Kori, Dhimar, Lodhi, Kurmi etc. who were also considered shudras but not untouchables. - Between history and legend: status and power in Bundelkhand, Ravindra K. Jain, p. 136, Orient Blackswan, 2002, here
• 11. Tobacco is shared by Kurmi, Nauwa (both Sudra) and Dusadh among themselves (untouchable) but they do not share it with Bhuinya (Sudra) and Mahra (untouchable) - Anthropology of weaker sections, Ranjit Kumar Bhattacharya, Nava Kishor Das, Anthropological Survey of India, p. 180, here
• 12. ... in several non twice-born castes, for example Jat, Kurmi and Kalwar ... - Bharatiya samajik chintan: Volume 4 , Indian Academy of Social Sciences, 2005, p. 29 (broke my own rule here: this is snippet view for me - I would not use it in an article etc.

-Sitush (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• 13. Ram Sarup is a Kurmi, a Shudra caste of farmers which does not have the taboos of the higher castes - Studies in Indian Agriculture, Gilbert Etienne, University of California Press, 1968, p. 159. here. Chapter on Nahiyan & the Benares district.
• 14. And in the middle, a new caste has displaced the Rajputs in our considerations; they are the Kurmis, another Shudra agricultural caste, ranking approximately the same as the Yadavs in status. - Voting, caste, community, society: explorations in aggregate data in India and Bangladesh, Harry W. Blair, Young Asia, 1979, p. 11
• 15. About 20 per cent of people were from the fairly low castes such as Kurmi andYadav - castes which Omji identified as "touchable Shudras" - Dying the good death: the pilgrimage to die in India's Holy City, Christopher Justice, SUNY Press, 1997, p. 114 here.

-Sitush (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about the subject, but the above looks good to me. They seem to confirm what has been requested. How it's worded in the article is a matter of editorial judgement. Once the refs and quotes are in the article, that should put an end to this business. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You should have omitted the first phrase of your first sentence. They will likely pick up on that and say that you are wrong because you are ignorant of the subject etc. Well, that is if recent past dealings are anything to go by. I have a load more refs here but not many more that I have yet read through properly. After this, there are of course the academic journals via WP:RX. - Sitush (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Out of those provided, Sitush, I think that I prefer the Justice book, since SUNY Press has an excellent reputation as an academic publisher, plus the quote is clear; "Anthropology of weaker sections", because the fact that the classification is a side note makes it clear that the author is treating this as an established point, not one of contention; the Smita Tewari Jassal, because there is no question that it explicitly places them into the Sudra category; and the Pathak, since it includes the distinction of "upper Sudra" and "educated elite from other backwards classes". However, if MangoWong or anyone else prefers other sources, I'm not that picky. So, will those suffice to cover the problem? Do y'all (those wanting the cn tag) want quotations in the article itself, or was having them here on the talk page good enough? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Point 4 above is inconclusive - it talks about pastoral castes and lower Shudra castes :- No classification given as to which caste falls into what classification. So it can't be taken as a proof. This can be read as lower Shudra (agricultural and pastoral castes) or it can be read as (lower Shudra agricultural) and (pastoral castes) -- Not a good proof. Better not to mention it. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Pt 5 above - Not conclusive. The text reads as :- The educated elites from the other backward classes, especially from the upper shudra castes, sought to federate.... The term shudra is parenthetical and is not a qualifier for any of the castes. Furthermore, in the entire book, these are the only lines that talk about kurmis and shudra in close enough context. Not a valid proof Nameisnotimportant (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, Nameisnotimportant. Since we have so many to choose from, I concur that we might as well choose the best; on #4 all we can conclude for certain is that Kurmi (& Yadav) are from the "educated elite" from the OBC, not certainly that the were classified as upper Shudra. I'm happy with picking another. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Various theories that need special attention 1. Buddhism angle and Sanskritisarion - All the sources that mention Sanskritisarion mention the term twice born as well. This theory seems plausible as Kurmis are concentrated in the regions which were once the center of Buddhism. Note that modern state of Bihar was once the capital of Great Buddhist kings. Gautam Buddha Aka Siddhartha or Buddha was from Shakya Kshatriyas clan. This Shakya clan was later termed as Shudra by the Brahmins. Their offense :- most of the Kshatriyas of that time converted to Buddhism and Jainism.Therefore, the term twice born is of special significance. Kurmis, as they claim, may be ancient vedic Kshatriyas too, who converted to Buddhism and thus were termed as outcast by the Brahmins. This outcast phenomenon still exists. If one marries outside the permitted sects, the person can be outcast. I found out some references to this theory. Will add it soon Nameisnotimportant (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no point in providing references for that theory unless it specifically mentions Kurmi. And, in any event, it will not prevent the shudra word appearing in the article because use of that word in connection with Kurmis can be found in numerous reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

2. Original inhabitants of India Aka Dravadians :- stumbled on a research paper based on genetical research. This study was done by an Indian Agency.

There are some more angles that need special attention. More on this later. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that this paper will matter. Genetics are a relatively new field and the shudra concept goes back far longer & is a socio-religious-economic-political thing. Even if a paper on genetics proved that Kurmi were related to Brahmins, Carla Bruni, J F Kennedy or Attila the Hun, it does not alter the fact that they have been considered as shudra. Furthermore, papers on India-related genetics are notoriously disputed, particularly in the Aryan-Dravidian context. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

“Claim Kshatriya status, but generally recognised as Shudra” This is a claim of consensus. I see no source which is defining a consensus. What these sources are saying is their own view only. A source defining a consensus would be saying something like “Most people think Kurmis are S*****”. There is no such source. Besides that, the sentence in the article is immensely confusing. It does not spell out who regards Kurmis as S*****. That should be clear. Who? Indians? Certinly not. Martians? Are you serious? Americans? Most of them won’t happen to know what is “Kurmi”. Who else? Academics? Where do we have a source saying that? Showing ten sources that talk about Kurmis as S***** and concluding on our own that they are generally regarded as X won’t do. That is synthesis/OR. Then we have to guard against cherry picking too (as Nameisnotimportant has been indicating)(cherry picking is one of the major pitfalls of using GBooks). Even if we do find a non cherry picked clear statement, we will have to see if the statement is encyclopedic enough. That would mean, we need to find the same statement in another encyclopedia to say the same thing in the same way, i.e. near the top of the article. I don’t really think this can be done by these sources (or any other sources). IMO the statement is best scrapped and replaced by something like “Recognition:Recognized by GOI as OBC”. It makes no sense to say “Claim Kshatriya status, but generally recognised as Shudra” because they are not S*****. ASAT. I am glad that we now have some fresh users on the talk page and agree that their presence and their suggestions have helped let the discussion take a positive and meaningful turn. We have quotes on the page now, some degree of willingness to discuss things in a meaningful manner. As I have been saying, if we want to keep the present sentence, we have to come up with a clear, non cherry picked, encyclopedic quote defining a consensus. We don’t have it IMO. There may be other considerations too, and I may bring them up if necessary. I would suggest that the sentence be changed.-MangoWong (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Folks, it seems to me that part of the problem here is that it is very hard to sum it up in one short statement in the infobox when it actually appears to be quite a complex issue. I note that somewhere (can't remember exactly where) there was a suggestion to simply not use that line in the infobox and leave it to a fuller explanation in the body of the article. So might it not be better for you folks to revisit that idea and see if there's a consensus to be had there? (Oh, and just a thought - I can't help feeling that this might have been a lot less fraught if people had actually explained here on the Talk page exactly why they objected to/supported specific statements, rather than simply edit-warring over tags) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's worth exploring.-MangoWong (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Myself and Qwyrxian have both mentioned the infobox solution, more than once and as recently as two days ago, and been ignored. Quotes have been brought up previously, and ignored. I have around another hundred quotes here: I just took the first 15 without going to mad working out whether they were the best ones or not, because this entire exercise is just quibbling by those who have admitted from the outset that they are determined not to see the word "shudra" in this article. It is ridiculous when MangoWong says (above) regarding the classification that, "I say is a lie". This is an ideological POV & we need to stop pandering to it. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, let's turn it on its head. MangoWong, please provide quotes as per the usual palaver that support your "lie" position. You will need quite a few of them, and they will need to be of a high quality because of the quality evidenced in university presses publishing works which de facto say the opposite. In other words, not political pamphlets etc. I am happy to see the line in the box go but this is not going to resolve the major issue which, as I have said all along, is that MW wants this word whitewashed from history. - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The two most recent examples where it was suggested that the infobox be altered to eliminate the complexity that cannot be covered in it:

• Talk:Kurmi#Changing_shudra_stuff_now_we.27re_off_protection
• Talk:Kurmi#Alternative_proposal_for_infobox

There have been other occasions also since this recent spate of actvity. -Sitush (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And, voila! The line in the infobox is no more! Can we move on to something more productive--specifically, looking at which of the above 15 sources are best for use in the lead and/or article body? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding MangoWong's points: sources don't need to refer to a consensus before they can be used; they can simply say what they think and that will do. If there are multiple sources saying something is X and few or no sources saying otherwise, it is usually okay to say that the something is considered X; the sources don't need to specifically refer to a consensus and say "most people think ...". As for attribution, if there are only a few sources that mention something, in-text attribution may be required; if there are many (and no/few opposing views), it's usually okay to state it as a fact in Wikipedia's voice (or something similar like "considered to be"). Indeed, in-text attribution of a widely accepted fact may be an NPOV violation. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I would agree with most of what you have said. However, what I was saying was about the specific line--“Claim Kshatriya status, but generally recognised as Shudra”. This line was in the infobox and it has been deleted now. So, discussing this any further may be redundant. I agree that in-text attribution is needed only if there be some sources which show a difference of opinion on a point, or in a few other special circumstances only.-MangoWong (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

How the heck can it be a "redundant" discussion? You have spent days and days criticising the sources for shudra and now you say it may be "redundant"? Bearing in mind that you have only just commented below regarding the possible issues with Pandey as a source, I find this quite remarkable. However, since you now appear to agree that there is no problem with sourcing what was said in the infobox & that there was no need for a citation there, do not be surprised if it reappears. I won't be adding it but someone else might. You have waste hours of my time hunting down stuff to prove something that you now realise was not necessary. You might at least have the courtesy of apologising. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Quit claiming agreements where none exists. If you want to put the line back, show proper source for it. I had said further discussion is redundant only because the line was taken off by Qwirixian. Why would we need to discuss it if we did not have the line there and nobody objected to Qwirixian taking it off.-MangoWong (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Furthermore, I would like a response from you regarding the sources listed above. Please let us know which of them you have issues with, and why. Since you have been involved in this thread and indeed were instrumental in causing it, if you do not respond then I will assume that you are happy with all of them. No way am I going to let this slide having got this far, given that on too many occasions in the recent past you have seemingly adopted a strategy of ignoring points that do no appeal to you and when you cannot reasonably contest. We are going to get a consensus here, even if it is by default. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

In reply to MW @ 19:51, you originally said "I agree that in-text attribution is needed only if there be some sources which show a difference of opinion on a point, or in a few other special circumstances only". There is no difference of opinion in the sources, and this is not a special circumstance, therefore you effectively agree that the cite requests etc you added were inappropriate. - Sitush (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting me and claiming an agreement even when I agreed to no such thing. The line in the infobox would require a proper cite if it is to come back.-MangoWong (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Forget the infobox. I specifically said that I would not be adding that line back, although I would like an apology for you wasting my time since you seem now to accept that you were wrong. What I am really concerned about is a response to the wider point that was the cause of this thread being started, ie: what sources are ok to use for the shudra terminology that you seem to think never existed. You can reply or not bother, but if you do not bother then I will assume that you have no objections to any of them. Like I said, we're going to nail this now, and for good. It is not a redundant thread. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't wrong on anything. I had demanded a proper citation for the line in the infobox and I would still demand it if anyone wants it back. Your demand for apology stands on fabricated grounds. If you want to use these sources for some other sentence, I can very well object to it if the sentence appears to be unsupported by the citation.-MangoWong (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop your blustering, please. Let's get this sorted. If, say, I wanted to add "Kurmi were generally thought to be Shudra, but made claims to be kshatriya." then which of the above sources would you object to for the first part of that statement. I am not going to let you wriggle out of this. - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

To all of them. I have already explained in my comment 07:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC), why they are unsuitable.-MangoWong (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Now we know where you stand on these sources. If we get consensus that some or all of them are ok, you will be stuck with them. Is that clear? - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that is clear is that you do not have a consensus on the proposed sentence. If you use any of those for the sentence you propose, I am liable to take it down as misleading info. Those sources could be use for some other sentence though.-MangoWong (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No, You are being silly. I deliberately phrased the sentence as I did. You have objected to all the sources for the subphrase "Kurmi were generally thought to be Shudra". If others say that they are ok for that then the shudra stuff can stay in the article despite your comment of 07:17 25 July, and for more stuff also because the sources will have been deemed by consensus to be reliable. This is not about consensus "on the proposed sentence". I made that clear at the outset: this is about consensus for the sources as cites for shudra. - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to see an undue amount of value in consensus. Consensus does not trump policies like WP:V and WP:OR. If I can show some policy based reason to show that the material or source is faulty, it would need modification or scrapping. Consensus notwithstanding.-MangoWong (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

We have plenty of refs, we've had outsiders drop in and approve of our refs, and all you can muster is abstract and vague claims about it being somehow impossible that they be Shudra, all the while blushing at the very mention of the word "S*****", which itself calls into question your ability to approach this objectively. You talk a smooth game and wikilawyer well, but fundamentally you're simply supporting legendary claims widely doubted by academics, and rejecting concrete statements by academics that this group of agricultural workers is linked to a traditional labouring social demarcation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You again assuming that I want to press some Kshatriya claims? If you oppose Kshatriya claims as being legendary, why do you think that S***** assertions are non legendary? They are also equally legendary.-MangoWong (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have already made clear that you do not consider these sources to be reliable, That is fine. If a consensus forms that they are reliable then we are at the end of the process. That is my point & why I said that we are going to get this sorted now. You are not dealing with an idiot here & I can do strategy as well as you can, if not better. You have had your say, and that is it. It really doesn't matter now unless consensus fails to coalesce, which I think is unlikely to be the case. - Sitush (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As you were informed above, it is indeed legitimate to say "are generally..." when we have a bunch of sources, and also when the RSs themselves state/imply it's a general designation as opposed to some tiny slice of the pie. Your assertion that a source explicitly needs to say that all othe sources agree has been contradicted above, and your assertions that we need a) another encyclopedia to say so is wrong (see WP:Tertiary source) and your argument that to put it in the lede it must appear in ledes in other sources is similarly silly. Again, I'll grant you're slick, but you're wikilawyering to waste our time and play little games. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I was not saying anything about the reliability. I was only saying that these sources do not support the proposed sentence. Which of these sources are reliable/unreliable is a different issue.-MangoWong (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No. I have made it explicit that this is about reliability for use of "shudra" in the article. You have said that none are reliable. Your ridiculous reference to WP:V and WP:OR just shows how desperate you are. The proposed sentence does not matter - it was introduced by me just to get you to make your statement that these are not, in your opinion, reliable for mentioning shudra. You have had your say. So far, there has been an objection to #4 and #5. For the others, the only objector is you and those with no objection are:

• Qwyrxian
• Nameisnotimportant : I think Sitush misunderstood me. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Christopher Connor
• Sitush
• MatthewVanitas

I think that it may well be game over, and what a game it has been. - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is again a misrepresentation. I have never said that none are reliable. I have not even investigated their reliability as yet.-MangoWong (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Subsidiary point, quoting Mango at 20:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC): "Why should I choose a source for something which I say is a lie? Please show a source in this thread and we will discuss it". The above are the sources. You have discussed it in this thread. So have some other people. - Sitush (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Mango, you do not get it. It does not matter now whether or not you consider them to be reliable, since even if you do consider them to be reliable you have said that you object to them all. Your investigations could only turn things in favour of using the shudra term and discussing the subject in the article, since anything you add to this discussion can be no worse (in those terms) than your current position. - Sitush (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What I was saying is that the above sources are unusable for the proposed sentence because they could not support it. This is mey view of the discussion so far. I have already clarified the reasons in an earlier post. I am against the proposed sentence because it is in complete contradiction with the reality in India. I see no reason why we should insist on making unreal, silly looking claims. It would be misleading info. Why would we want misleading or irrelevant info? The Kurmis are not S*****. Nobody in India calls them S*****. The S*****/not S***** thing has lost relevance. I don't see any need for the article to concentrate on this point. There are many other important points related to Kurmi reality which are relevant in their present context. I see the S*****/Kshatriya etc. debate being irrelevant in the context of present Kurmi reality in India. As such, the article should move away from this and concentrate on other issues. The article is concentrating too much on S*****/Kshatriya thing.-MangoWong (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, MW:

• I think you will find that they do support the sub-phrase that they were shudra, and so do umpteen other people
• The shudra concept is a historical fact: stop trying to whitewash, please. It may be irrelevant to modern India but it is not irrelevant to the history. You and yours are quick to denounce the Raj (often rightly), and that is an equally historic issue. You cannot have it both ways.
• Regarding "concentrate on this point", I think that you are naive. Across numerous caste articles the only thing that keeps getting moved around is the shudra/kshatriya issue. This includes articles that I have not yet got round to looking at in detail but where I have nonetheless spotted the back-and-forth. It could be that the editors are not Indian but their usernames suggest otherwise & when they are IP editors it is a near certainty (unless they are obscuring with a proxy).
• It would be nice to have more information about the Kurmi community as it exists today - social/political groups. changes in religious belief (if any), community media etc. Feel free to add that information if you can find it and support it per the usual policies. The problem is that, like so many things in this world, the entire concept of a cohesive, identifiable community is becoming diluted. There is an argument for setting a cut-off point for every single caste article on these grounds, which means basically treat them as articles about history rather than a modern community ... and make that distinction absolutely clear. - Sitush (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am still waiting for the meatpuppets to arrive ... ;) - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You trying to blackball me?-MangoWong (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mention you. Not sure what you mean by "blackball" but since you were not mentioned, I was not doing whatever it is you do mean. It is a certainty that meatpuppets and off-wiki canvassing has gone on & is continuing but that does not allow me to accuse you of co-ordinating such stuff, and I did not. - Sitush (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

MatthweVanitas, you have said that Kshatriya claims are doubted because they are legendary. But you happily do google searches for “kurmi+S*****”, etc. and keep pouring S*****, S*****, S*****, S***** on anyone and everyone in India even when the designation “S*****” is also based on equally legendary things. You don't seem to see S***** assertions as legendary. Do you not see a remarkable level of HYPOCRISY in what you do? Don’t run away from this. Do you think that the assertion X$ are S***** is only factual, but Kshatriya claims are not? If so, please show the factual basis for denoting human beings as S*****. Otherwise, if you cannot, S***** assertions would also be unusable according to YOUR logic. If you cannot show the factual basis (a basis which is more factual than Kshatriya claims) for denoting human beings as S*****, you should reject all S****** assertions in the same way as you pooh pooh Kshatriya claims. If you won’t do that , accept that you are behaving in an immensely hypocritical way and stop pouring S*****, S*****, S*****, S***** on anyone and everyone. Don’t run away from this too. You say that you became involved with these articles because 90% of castes seemed to be calling themselves Kshatriya. Taking down rubbish Kshatriya claims is OK. But then, beginning to pour in an alternate form of rubbish claims is not OK. You seem to have developed a fixation with S***** and think that pouring as many instances of this word as possible is the best and NPOV way of improving caste articles. How is pouring in S*****, S*****, S*****, S***** better than pouring in Kshatriya Kshatriya Kshatriya Kshatriya.-MangoWong (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The contradictions here are indeed of Wikipedia proportions. Ably aided by admins, both MV and Sitush has gone on 'clean up' of pages regarding Hindu Jatis. Though Sitush is straightforward to say on talk page on Christian Saint, Thomas the Apostle, that I specifically pointed out that I have no idea how RS works in this area. To my mind, for example, the Bible is not RS but I know for a fact that I would struggle to get through without major trouble. and that The only reason why I am not saying it should stay or go here is precisely because of the sourcing issue & my lack of experience regarding how articles on religious subjects deal with these. I do strongly suspect that there is a lot of leeway given, despite the five pillars., he has not extended the same courtesy to pages on Hindu Jatis, nor has informed admins or MV about the same on these pages. The admins have ignored this too, and are backing actions of Sitush and MV, on the topics/pages where Hindus just might have to prove God, and more on how/what it mean to Wikipedia, to include legends, social acceptance, etc. etc. Everyone else is termed as 'tendentious', 'ignorant', 'not adhering to Wikipedia standards' and so on.

MV, on the other hand, is self-declared guy-who-doesn't-know-anything-and-is-therefore-neutral. Along with Sitush, he has rolled over pages like a Juggernaut, enforcing Wikipedia standards, without even bothering himself why the legends are to be ignored( but not ones related to Shudra), that caste system is fluid unlike anthropological statistics based on genealogy( incidentally, Max Muller did insist that the word Aryan is not racial but I guess no one cared, and no one still cares because everyone is 'neutral' by default, but perhaps there are no standards on Wikipedia that such don't-know-anything-therefore-neutral-attitude s are encouraged over topics on Hinduism) and therefore anything related is not to be considered as per 'Wikipedia standards', etc.; while at the same time giving value judgements on Kshatriyas, Hindu Jatis, and so on and on.

What a tremendous waste of everyone's time.

I think the blame goes to the admins, whose job it is as well to point out, the pages are about Hindu Jatis in the first place. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What I said on the saint page was in connection with the Bible which I would consider to be a primary source but I do not know if it is generally considered to be such on Wikipedia. Please do not misrepresent me and quit these POV accusations. If you do not like what various admins have done or what various non-admins such as myself have done then take it to WP:ANI, WP:DR, WP:NPOVN etc. Oh, sorry, that has already been tried, hasn't it? So perhaps it is time for you to drop the bone on this particular issue, as it is on numerous others. - Sitush (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

So much for ignoring a simple fact that the pages are about Hindu Jatis. I guess technology, including the internet, is just a tool. Can't blame the tools. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

For example, "I am sorry but I cannot make sense of what you are saying above. Could you perhaps rephrase it? Unless you are saying that we should use the puranas etc, in which case the answer is that we should not because they are primary sources, as discussed previously. - Sitush (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)" . That is one quote. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Can a passing admin please close this thread: consensus seems to be clear to me that shudra is a valid term for use in this article. It is well-documented, as proven by the sources listed, and the only dissenters are unable to provide valid objections. Once it is closed, it can be added to the FAQ and we can all move on to something more productive. Any future commentators about shudra can simply be referred to the FAQ. - Sitush (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the consensus is not determined yet. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The topic is on "Source for Shudra", and the insistence on 'academic sources' and ignorance of legends on a Hindu Jati should be explained very well. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

About "If you do not like what various admins have done or what various non-admins such as myself have done then take it to WP:ANI, WP:DR, WP:NPOVN etc. Oh, sorry, that has already been tried, hasn't it? So perhaps it is time for you to drop the bone on this particular issue, as it is on numerous others.", I already pointed out how admins are aiding Sitush and MV on topics/pages related to Hindu Jatis, without bothering to point out that the topics are related to Hinduism. I see no point going to the ANI, DR, NPOVN when admins allow insistence on reliable sources selectively on topic on Hinduisn in the first place, and let people roll all over pages on Hindu Jatis by people who-are-enforcing-standards and likes of neutral-because-not-aware-that-Hindu-Jatis-are-not-about-Hinds. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

ThisThat2011. I have also explained already that I am against the present proposed sentence because it is in sharp contradiction with the Kurmi reality in India. That nobody, absolutely nobody in India calls them S*****. Sitush too seems to accept this point IMO. He can clarify though. The current views of Nameisnotimportant is not clear. Sitush says Nameisnotimportant is on their side. I doubt this claim seriously. Christopher Connor may also want to amplify his view. The consensus is far from established. And consensus does not trump policies like WP:V and WP:NOR + WP is not a democracy. WP:NOT. There is no need to get worried by Sitush's request that this thread be closed by some admin. I very much doubt if any admin would do it. Your worries are likely unfounded. As such, I would urge that you may reconsider your references to admins and delete them. That Sitush requests admins to do something does not necessarily mean that they would do it too. I see your worries as unfounded. Will post a fuller reply to other issues later.-MangoWong (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. Though I would like to point out that Wikipedia standards are strictly enforced on pages related to Hindu Jatis. It has been going on since long, perhaps many months. The admins I have seen are with views of Sitush & MV, everytime someone comes to the pages and is shown RS policy, without even bothering to note that these pages are about varna in Hinduism. This has perhaps happened so much that perhaps many contributors have been banned, not to mention that many new users who come here to point out, are shown RS, just how I have learnt to point it out to new users, rather than allowed to participate. The admins are watching all this with indifference, and are active only to enforce standards like RS.

How long will this continue till someone will stand up and point out significance of applying RS on varna pages? This is perhaps job of admins who don't even know this( applying RS strictly on varna pages). Or is it that Wikipedia is short of admins with zero understanding of all this and are therefore apply RS and other standards, just like how user MV & Sitush is doing on substance since when. That there exist systemic bias is acknowledged is true, though this looks like a doctor who examines patients only, without curing. Someone has to point out how exactly, and tell that gangrene has to be cut off before it spreads. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I was not clear enough. I don't see any cause for worry. What I was saying is that you may delete all the things in your comments which you were saying about admins etc. I would urge you to consider this as my humble request. Secondly, Sitush puts up some request to admins is not a cause for worry at all. You seem to have become worried about this. Please delete your concerns here and bring them to my talk page. I think it may be better to discuss them there.-MangoWong (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted comments against admins. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 11:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong, please stop rabbiting on about WP:V, WP:OR etc. The sources provided confirm that shudra is a recognised term used historically in relation to the Kurmi community, as corroborated by reliable sources. V, OR etc are out of the window - forget them. You can also forget my sample sentence as I did this merely to stop Mongo wikilawyering, as s/he seems to do everywhere. The sentence did not matter: the point of this was to determine whether there are RS for shudra, and there are. And even Nameisnotimportant has agreed that, specifically in at least one instance.

Both of you (ie:Thistthat2011 also), I suggest that you re-visit WP:Consensus because you are misunderstanding it. You cannot use WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You need to come up with decent policy based reasons for excluding shudra here and I guarantee you that there are none. In particular, Wikipedia is not censored. - Sitush (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You have just put some standards here exactly as per pointed out from my side about ignoring everything other than what you decided as RS on Hindu Jatis, which does not make you more correct and does not make my side any less confusing. You also have ignored standards pointed to by others like MW above, and that is a reflection of the attitude here, regardless of your views on consensus.

About not being censored, why are you ignoring substance on Hindu Jatis and treating it as no more than legends that do not fit into strict RS standards on Wikipedia? There is no point to give random excuses at random times when your own quotes are contradictory to your other quotes. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. As you have been told before - WP:OSE. I've never been involved in the Hindu Jatis article, IIRC. Are you going to take this matter to WP:DR or drop it? Those are your two choices. - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read the topics you are rolling your RS arguments. For example, this very page - "The Kurmi (Hindi: कुर्मी) are a Hindu agricutural Jāti (community) in India.". ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't got a clue what you mean by the phrase "rolling your RS arguments." - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

How can you have a consensus on reliability when you have not even discussed it with me? You may say whatever you want about the proposed sentence. Proposing something you are not really serious about and going to great length arguing about it is uncivil. By saying that you were not serious about it, you have only proven that you just keep saying irrelevant things and wasting other peoples time. And you cannot much have anyone's consent if you are behaving in a deceptive way. And your proposed sentence is unusable. About reliability, you cannot expect me to give an opinion on reliability when we are discussing whether the sources can support the wording of your proposed sentence. It is clear that you just want to waste other peoples time and keep making ad hominem attacks. Making policy based arguments is not Wikilawyering. Policies need to be shown to people from time to time in order to ensure adherence to policy. That is not Wikilawyering at all. You are making ad hominem attacks again. And you may claim Nameisnotimportant's support as much as you want. But you don't have it. Your claim of Nameisnotimportant's support is untrue.-MangoWong (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Because you have previously said that the shudra thing "is a lie", therefore in your opinion all sources mentioning shudra will be unreliable on that point. Nameisnotimportant has specifically ok'd one of the sources as being reliable, and queried two. We can drop those two. You and yours are the ones wasting everyone's time, and don't I know it. I have had enough & am going to compile another ANI report for tendentiousness. This is ludicrous behaviour in the face of clear policy-driven statements. - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You can take it to the ANI. I don't see myself as having done anything wrong.-MangoWong (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The productivity of this debate is low. What is this debate about? Ostensibly sources for the Shudra claim, but a lot of the above doesn't touch on this and looks like irrelevant stuff, in violation of talk page guidelines. Is the Shudra claim still being challenged and by whom? Are people saying the sources listed above are unreliable? If so, why? What are people proposing, etc.? Any irrelevant debates should take place elsewhere, eg on user talk pages. Admins should enforce the TPG strictly here. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

CC, the problem is that MangoWong and Thisthat2011 hold, generally speaking, that Kurmi are not Shudra, or have only ocassionally been called that, or were called that in the past but not anymore, that the term is offensive and no longer acceptable, that it was only the colonial occupiers who used the term, etc., etc. They (and others) believe that either we have to explicitly state "Source X says they were Shudra" or we can't state anything at all. If there were only 1 or 2 sources making that claim, MW & TT would be right. Since there are dozens that establish that they are Shudra, we can make a broad claim saying that, though they themselves claim Kshatriya status, the broad consensus is that they have historically been considered Shudra. Most recently, MW has been insisting that we produce a reference which explicitly says, "They are generally considered to be Shudra". This, of course, is not required, for the same reason that we can say, "The Seagull (Russian: Чайка, Chayka) is the first of what are generally considered to be the four major plays by the Russian dramatist Anton Chekhov" in The Seagull (I just searched for a decent article containing the phrase "generally considered"). In cases where there is a true contesting found in reliable sources, we have to provide clarification; however, we do that here, even though the sources for Kshatriya status aren't all that hot. In any event, though, I think Sitush sums it up well by saying that MW has basically made xyr stance clear--no source will be acceptable unless it makes that explicit claim. As such, it seems to me that the burden now falls on MangoWong or others if they wish to pursue some form of dispute resolution. Maybe Sitush, MatthewVanitas, myself, and others are all wrong. I don't know about them, but I've been wrong before, and I've had consensus go against me on many an occasion. At this point though, consensus seems at least slightly in favor of the current wording, so it's up to those opposing the current wording to demonstrate that consensus is wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation format

Because this article doesn't already have enough controversy...Fowler&fowler, why are you changing some of the refs to harvnb reference format? Besides the fact that I personally can't stand them, it doesn't seem to be the format that the rest of the article is in, and thus the change goes against sthe standard practice of not changing ref styles w/o consensus. Couldn't we all agree to use ref named Cite X templates? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This is plain wrong. Changing the established cite format without consensus for an article is against policy and they are now mixed formats, which is also not ok. Harvardnb is also relatively little known here - you may as well go the whole hog & change to the WP:CITESHORT <ref>Name (year), p. X.</ref> format beloved at WP:FAC if you are going to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitush (talk • contribs) - d'oh (sorry - not done that in months) - Sitush (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I made a mistake in my last post to MangoWong. I didn't mean all the references, but only ones that are cited more than once. If the article is going to have any length, the current method of citing will become an unholy mess. How will you manage when the same reference is cited to, say, page 77, 89, 139, and 241? Repeat the reference again and again? Harvnb is used all the time, especially in FAs, and especially for references that are cited many times to difference page numbers. See for example, India (history section). Of course, you have the option of reverting my edits. I won't edit war. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The reference is repeated which ever method is adopted. All methods are used for references that are cited many times. There are pros and cons to all of them, but the real "pro" of Harvnb is that it reduces clutter in the edit window. The real cons are (a) far too many people do not understand it and (b) you can achieve the same using the citeshort method without having the overhead of a template. However, this is perhaps not the place for this discussion! I think that Malleus Fatuorum had such a discussion going on at his talk page recently but I'd guess that it is done with now. The certainties are that it should not be changed without consensus and that it should be internally consistent. - Sitush (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid Citeshort is not the same thing. It doesn't, upon clicking, take you straight to the full reference, as Harvnb does. And how hard is typing {{Harvnb|Name|year|p=X}} contrasted with Name (year), p. X.? Best not to be too clever, Sitush. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have looked into some of your edits in which you changed the referencing system to harvnb method. It looks simple enough to me. However, I will study the documentation tonight and should get the hang of it by tomorrow. I too have no intention of edit warring over it though.-MangoWong (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Why the snide finish, F&f? I was not trying to be too clever. I am sure that you know that there are several ways to achieve the ends that you seek, including the current cite format and a variation using reflink/anchor. You have come barrelling in here making constructive comments but possibly due to a lack of knowledge of the history you are also teaching us to suck eggs. Let's just move things forward, eh? - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush. This is WP. The encyclopedia which anyone can edit. Right? Anybody can come in here and edit this page. It is unreasonable to think that this is not so. Not allowing folks to do so is unreasonable. And Fowler&Fowler is eminently qualified.-MangoWong (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That anyone can edit if they abide by the policies etc. I have no idea of Fowler's qualifications, nor do I think it likely that they are any more relevant than my qualifications. One could be Stephen Hawking or Homer Simpson for all it matters here. I don't appreciate snide remarks either here or at ANI, where Fowler has grossly misrepresented what has been going on at this talk page. Now, can we get back to building the article, please? I do not have web access to Crooke and am not in a fit state to go back to the library for it, so if anyone wants to jump in and believes that the guy is actually reliable then feel free. I am just pleased that you are coming round to the idea that we have to compromise on some things. - Sitush (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I have now found Crooke at archive.org - Sitush (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about his or your personal qualifications. I was only talking about things we know about each other as anonymous Wikipedians.-MangoWong (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Following up on the "abide by policies" part--Sitush is correct that there is a relevant guideline here. WP:CITEVAR says that citations should be consistent in style within an article. Further, it says that, when it's already a mess, we either need to come to an agreement, or simply default to using the style of the first major contributor. As I said above, I can't stand harvnb format; in fact, I think the only logical format for a wiki is inline, reference defined citations. Maintaining a separate reference section is more difficult to edit, more cumbersome, etc. Plus, inline ref-named citations are the easiest, because that's the format the advanced editing tools puts references in. I don't know about anyone else, but I almost never hand type a reference given that the pop-up handles it far far more easily. Is there no chance that others would consider using that format? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would support inline citations for this article. The tools point is particularly relevant on an article which gets edited by a lot of newcomers (or, rather, did until the protection started going off and on). There is also the tool used by MatthewVanitas for dealings with GBooks sources, so it is not only the ones built into the wiki software. The fact that MangoWong has had to read up on Harvnb rather says it all, given that s/he have been been around here for a while. - Sitush (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The newcomer angle does not hold much water when even old hands are being made unwelcome. I have read up on the harvnb thing and I think I can do it now. Wasn't much.-MangoWong (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, even though I hate harvnb, I don't hate it enough to fight about it. I do, however, dislike the direct contravention of WP:CITEVAR, which tells us not to go around changing cite formats without getting consensus first. Especially when the change is to one of the most obscure formats (toolserver shows less than 12,000 pages use harvnb, and that includes talk, user and archive pages with draft text). This type of suggestion--making or suggesting making a big change (but not actually discussing it first) that is likely to be controversial is the standard problem with this page.

But, whatever. The process followed was wrong, but no need to get stuck on that. Is there a consensus to use harvnb? As I said, I hate it, but not enough to make this into another massive fight. I can handle the change, assuming that those desiring the change to harvnb will 1) be the ones to make all of the changes (and it needs to be all of the cites, not just some), and also, in the future, convert any new cites left in the more common formats by other editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this is the first chance I've had all day to log into Wikipedia. I would echo Qwyrxian's general sentiment. I'm sorry about changing the citation format. I didn't realize it would be a problem. I do think the Harvnb format is a tidier system, especially as an article gains size. However, I'm flexible. I'm not wedded to Harvnb, at least not enough to get worked up about it. Whatever you guys decide is fine with me. If you do choose to stay with Harvnb, I'd be happy to change all the cites to the Harv format. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

PS Btw, everything can't be changed to the harvnb format. Only books and journal articles can. Web citations cannot, since they often don't have an author or even year of publication. Such mixed formats are fine. See FA India for example. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

PPS See also Richard Nixon, currently an FAC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

PPPS Often what people do is to put references cited more than once (especially to different page numbers) in harvnb; and the rest in the usual inline. See Messiah (Handel), soon to be an FA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is better to take a mixed approach. Preference for using harvnb for the refs which are being used multiple times and the usual citation methods for those refs which are used once only. But without taking any of these approaches as a hard and fast rule. If someone puts in a citation in the usual citation method, there would be no objection. However, anyone can change them into harvnb system if they so desire. If there be consensus for something like this, I would like to try my hand at changing the cites (which are being used multiple times) into the harvnb format.-MangoWong (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So you're both saying that for some reason the WP:MOS, which specifically tells us to choose a single citation format and stick to it, doesn't apply here? It might not, as guidelines aren't unbreakable rules, but there's usually got to be some reason for not following MOS. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking just the same as Qeyrxian as I read the overnight (here) responses above. Mixing formats is confusing for people who edit and I don't really care how FAC do it because the chances of this article ever getting to FAC are extremely slim. Nor I think is it the only method used for FAC articles, so that is likely a red herring. The chances of it being expanded massively are also pretty slim: it might grow to 3 or 4 times its current size but that is still not huge. It is unlikely ever to be as big as, say, Paravar or Nair because this community simply is not documented to the degree that those communities are documented.

Mixing formats is also confusing for the reader, who will sometimes find the source in one place (Refs/Notes) and sometimes in another (Bib list). The untemplatised citeshort format can get round this issue, although I am not advocating its use here. - Sitush (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, "not enough to get worked up about it." I've reverted all my harvnb edits. We'll stick to the old format. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Footnotes

I have re-jigged the References/Notes etc section of the article. If we are going to use sources that are, erm, dodgy even though official in their time etc then we need to be able to make it clear that these sources are problematic. The 1901 census, while more reliable than the 1872 attempt and presumably more so than those of 1881 and 1891, is nonetheless not a reliable source of stats other than total population (of the country, not a caste). Risley may have "breathed new life" into the varna thing but he did so by redefining the meaning and it was a complete failure. There is no way that his figures for castes etc were reliable.

We cannot let people who read this article go away with the impression either that the census figures are ok or that Risley was some sort of genius regarding classification when in fact he was arguably more than a bit potty on that score & on anthropometry. He was of his time, albeit at the soft end on the scale of what became eugenics etc in the extreme form. I can see similar things having to be noted about Crooke et al but will wait on the paraphrasing. Far better if it can be handled without the need for footnotes.

If anyone has a better suggestion for dealing with this issue of "unreliable reliable sources" (!) then I would be pleased to hear it. Other than just binning them, of course. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Irony is apparently lost on user:Sitush. If you want to keep nipping at my heels, as long as you don't violate Wikipedia rules, its your prerogative. I'll be ignoring your nickel and diming. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This un-reliable sources has gone too far. Please WP:AGF and let's improve the articles. I agree with userFowler&fowler that we need to focus on improving the article. Our personal opinions are best kept out. Left at home sounds better, eh.

I have added mythelogical section for the origins of Kurmi race. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what F&f means with the comment about irony. Is that ironic or what? Not wanting to delve too much into national stereotypes but I rather thought that irony was a known speciality of us Brits. It is not my intention to nip at the heels of any contributor, merely to present matters in a manner which is as NPOV etc as is possible. Irony has no place in an encyclopedia precisely because not everyone "gets it". We should not assume that every reader understands the subtext. In fact, there should not really be any subtext, in an ideal world. I have absolutely no idea what "nickel and diming" means, other than it is clearly a US phrase. Feel free to explain to the ignorant.

Nameisnotimportant, The reliable sources policy is pretty much the key to how Wikipedia operates. It sometimes means that the project actually does not tell the "truth". That is unfortunate and, indeed, frustrating. But it is how it is. The contention often revolves around what constitutes reliability and in that situation there are specific community forums (fora, forae, bleurgh) such as the reliable sources noticeboard which exist to resolve and/or clarify the issues. Those processes are, IMO, imperfect but they do qualify as being consensus. I have not looked at your recent additions - dog walking etc has its routine! I'll get round to it. In principle, if the mythology does not use primary sources then it has may have its place in the article. - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:OWN should be helpful. I hope you have a good time with your dog! My pet tiger needs some food; I will be back after feeding it. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, pet tiger, eh? One-upmanship, and I concede! <g> WP:OWN has its place. It is not necessarily a panacea for situations where other policies etc are, in one person's opinion, being abused or some such. Collaboration is at the core of this project, but the collaboration extends beyond any one article. Hence, if issues cannot be resolved at article level there are higher levels to which said issues can be referred. - Sitush (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I am really sorry, but I am having hard time understanding you today. <g> Nameisnotimportant (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

My Tiger Tiger Moth. I am trying as hard as possible to diffuse the tense environment here. Now I will talk less and do more. Perfectly said, we are all buddies here. You are the king! Let's start working! I am off for some important business; I will catch up later. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Can everyone please hold their horses? I will paraphrase the quotes, as I've already indicated. I don't have much time today. Will attend to it either late tonight or (more likely) tomorrow morning. Meanwhile, please do me the courtesy of not bickering over trivialities. Let me attend to the paraphrasing tomorrow. The article has been a mess for the last three months. One more day is no big deal. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

GBooks vs archive.org

Please see User_talk:Sitush#Crooke_volumes_2.2C_3.2C_4 on my talk page for a rather long discussion regarding why archive.org or something similar is preferable to GBooks. Fowler&fowler was not aware of this despite their five years of editing + work on FACs but did eventually come to accept the point. For that reason, as elsewhere we should use non-GBooks urls where possible on all caste articles and indeed have been doing so as a general rule.

If I entered the wrong url for Crooke then I apologise for that. The principle, however, remains. There is absolutely nothing to justify doing otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs a serious lesson in WP:OWN. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Why? Take it to ANI if you really believe this. Have you actually read the discussion on my talk page? - Sitush (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

;) Nameisnotimportant (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Quotes

I didn't like it before today and now I like the article even less. What is it with the tendency on caste articles to quote huge chunks from (often amateur) ethnologists of the Victorian/Edwardian Raj period? It makes the articles read like a dictionary of quotations, shows little imagination, adds no context and quite often is not even reliable. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There are of course, ones worse than this, eg: Khokhar. Pass the scalpel ... - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I was just coming to say the same thing. Providing long quotes doesn't actually inform the reader, and its simply not what we do. Our job is to summarize encyclopedic info, not just copy what our sources have said. I've pulled long chunks of texts out of many articles; I'd pull them out here if there wasn't so many problems conflicts already with reverting. Fowler&fowler, I'd like to ask you to consider self-reverting while we discuss this. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If you dislike quotes, that could be a reason to request paraphrasing. It is not a proper reason to revert?-MangoWong (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As an aside, WP:BUILD, part of WP:MOS, deprecates wikilinks in quotations. There are loads of such links inside quotes here. Happen I think that sometimes they are unavoidable but, as the guideline suggests, there are often ways round it. One of them involves actually writing some text of our own rather than relying merely on quotes. Ho hum. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong in quotations. No one is saying that the descriptions are accurate by the standards of today, but they give a flavor of the style of late 19th century ethnology. As old pictures do as well, and they are relevant for the same reason. You guys are obviously argumentative. You want to tie down this article for ever, be my guest. I can play hard ball with the best of them. MOS, btw, only says, "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article." They are talking about things that can be put in See also or in a contextual set-up paragraph, obviously "Sitala" or the months of the Hindu calendar can't. I actually don't care if you like something or not, Wikipedia says nowhere that quotes are not valid. Perhaps you are miffed that these quotes don't harp on "Shudra." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:LONGQUOTE. Does this help? - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's talking about overly long quotations or a section entirely composed of quotations. I've merely put the quotations in as place holders for now. I'll paraphrase a couple and leave a couple in, as the article takes shape. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well why didn't you say that, then? At the moment the section is just quotes. It is awful; it was awful even before your input. - Sitush (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Because you guys don't give someone time to even breathe. I'm attending to this in brief snatches of time I find here and there. Please chill. For three months nothing was happening here. I come along and add some quotes that actually gives some information and all you do is jump all over me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry. I meant in your first reply at 14:40. You do not have to respond further, obviously, since you have now explained. This place can be hot; many caste articles are so but eventually settle down and are much better for the period of heat. When I am doing something that I know is initially contrary to policy or controversial etc then I draft it elsewhere first, try to ensure that it does comply etc and then place it in the article. - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching this article and its talkpage for a while now, and wanted to offer a relative outsiders perspective. At first glance, the space dedicated to quotes from Crooke seems excessive. It's true that Crooke was a notable write from the period in question, and his work in some areas is broadly considered reliable. But in the 21st century we might well consider that he is an RS mostly for his own views, but not Reliable in the same sense that a trained anthropologist is when it comes to cultural observations. I'm not suggesting that Crooke be removed entirely, there is value in his work as long as the context is understood; but 4 very long direct quotes seems undue weight under the circumstances. I would recommend trimming his section down to a couple of paragraphs covering the most relevant material. Doc Tropics 16:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

As a rule, those of us who have been working across several of the caste articles of late tend to discount these old sources where ever possible and, oddly, in a discussion about Crooke on my own page recently a stalker pretty much said "I prefer modern sources". Fowler was a party to that discussion, although the point was a bit of a sideline to it. These old sources can have some relevance here on WP but usually do not. They add colour, certainly, but I am not convinced that is a primary function of an encyclopedia. The quotes are often more of a comment on the cited source than on the subject of the article (eg: changing attitudes to ethonography). Like Doc, I wouldn't necessarily bin Crooke but a great deal of care needs to be taken and a decent amount of context provided. Indeed, as a researcher himself there might be an argument for calling him a primary source (I'm not going to go down that road, merely floating the point) - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

In reference to Fowler's point above, I believe that if you know that you're not going to be able to complete an edit, you shouldn't start it, especially on an obviously high paced, contentious article like this. Why do you need a placeholder? Why can't you work on the issue on the talk page, in your sandbox, or off wiki, and then bring in the actual work? Or, alternatively, if you wrote something here like "I'm putting up a bunch of Crooke quotes, but I want to trim them and transform most of it into neutral prose, can someone have a go at it?" I'm sure we could have done that to. On that point, do you mind if one of us does that? I mean, technically we don't have to ask permission, but I'm trying to tread lightly. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

He's probabably put it there so that I could take a shot at paraphrasing it. If Fowler&Fowler does not mind, I would like to go on doing it.-MangoWong (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Have a go, of course, but it is not why they said it was put there. Be aware that I may cut it back massively in due course: Crooke was an amateur and is outmoded; he does not deserve this extent of coverage. - Sitush (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Crooke is an oft cited source. He is a well regarded source.-MangoWong (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is he often cited in a well-regarding manner? Please do not say on other articles here: James Tod is cited frequently in Wikipedia articles and is not at all well regarded outside of certain groups and areas of India.

On a point more connected with the title of this section, why are you adding quotes to so many citations? They are not usually necessary, regardless of what the WP:OFFLINE essay may say. Books that are available online are not "offline sources". The quotes are mostly just bulking up the Refs section unnecessarily, although they can sometimes have their uses. I used one for the "much merriment" regarding accuracy of census data but I think this is probably one of perhaps a dozen that I have ever used in this way, and I did so because sometimes the quirky sentence is just plain fun. You can remove it if you want or, better still, incorporate it into the text of the note. - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The whole "Colonial descriptions" section looks a lot better now. In particular, the way it ends with Blunt's comments, which relate directly to the next section, presents a very smooth transition from one subject to another. Nicely done! Doc Tropics 16:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Why revert so fast ?

Sitush. Why couldn't you discuss the Kshatriya mention before reverting it? That Crooke is talking of them as Kshatriya becomes obvious by reading some immediately preceding paragraphs. What's the difficulty with calling them Kshatriya if Crooke refers to them as such?-MangoWong (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You are paraphrasing; I was correcting your paraphrase. I have no idea whether it was fast or not: I did a history diff from your first to last edits so far today and checked against the quote - whether the kshatriya bit was done 10 minutes ago or four hours ago is not something that I looked into. I have not yet read the source and am merely following your edit summary; the kshatriya statement clearly extended what Risley said in the quote provided - synthesis, given the quote provided. I'll look at the book over the weekend. The section is still way too long but I do appreciate what you are trying to do in terms of reducing the quote. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

My idea of synthesis is that it occurs when we put together two sources and say something which neither of them says. This does not appear to be the case here. Is it? I have no objection if you check it. I assure you that I am very much in favor of checking. But material can stay without anyone else confirming that it is correct. That's AGF. AFTER checking, if you still have issues with it, you have the option of discussing it or taking it down. Discussion is preferable. But taking down things just because you have not checked them is not OK. Deal?-MangoWong (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, you said that you were paraphrasing the quotes that F&f inserted. Those quotes do not say anywhere that Kurmi are Kshatriya & to achieve that statement required synthesis of what Crooke does say and what you think to be the definition of kshatriya. If it turns out that Crooke specifically says this somewhere else in his book then you may have a point (for the area that he was writing about) but I haven't read it and your paraphrasing was incorrect. If you want to speed things up then by all means let me know the page number where the guy does say what you wrote. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

When you reverted it the last time, I had already said that you can see it by reading some of the preceding paragraphs. Why couldn't you WP:AGF on that? Why would I need to get things vetted by you before I put them up? You have asked for quotes, you will get to see them. I will put them up by tomorrow or so. Please AGF for that time. I am going to put it back now. Alternatively, you can check the document yourself also. The document is easily available and I have already described which part of the document contains that stuff. Thanks.-MangoWong (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I am AGF'ing, otherwise I would have just removed the quotes in the first place because they are unreasonable in length etc. Why not let F7F sort it out, as they have requested? Reverting as you have done is wrong and you know it - you have been told several times that you can be bold, someone can revert and then you should discuss. You were, I was, we are discussing: you should not restore your unsubstantiated edit without at least providing the page number. Honestly, your are just stacking up problems & appear to be deliberately making life awkward even when people have explained to you how things work. - Sitush (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now read pp 199 - 215 and nowhere does it say that Kurmi = Kshatriya. I am removing it and you can provide the information here as originally requested. I am also removing the Russell citation you have tagged on to the Legendary quotation. We cannot have two different sources for one quotation, regardless of whether you say "shucks" or anything else! - Sitush (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Legendary origins

Call me stupid but the huge quote from Hewitt about legendary origins makes little sense to me at all. Can it not be simplified? I vaguely recall that there was a simple one- or two-line statement there previously and that this referred to the tortoise issue. Something between that minimal content and the big chunk that now exists would be preferable, but I simply cannot understand Hewitt's stuff out of context: all the different names are just assemblies of letters to someone who knows nothing about Indian mythology etc. - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Most people don't live on WP. For example, I contribute only as a way of relaxing myself. You can AGF that it will get done. I see no cause for worry.-MangoWong (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This "most people do not live on WP" seems to be the new angle for criticism of me. It holds no water. I asked a perfectly reasonable question and you come in with a (mild) attack. I am not bothered about the attack but I am bothered that this big chunk of gobbledegook is sitting right near to the top of the article and is yet another quote with no context etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not a criticism. I could hardly criticize you for making more contributions. I was only explaining that you should not expect other folks to give lightning fast responses. I see no cause for such hurry. I find it easy to AGF that it will get done within a reasonable timeframe.-MangoWong (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

While it is true that there is no deadline, Qwyrxian has pointed out the problem and a solution above. I admit that I am a major cause of that problem but my reason for being so is that as far as I am concerned this article is getting read regularly by various people all over the world, somewhere. I have not checked the stats for this one but some caste articles get a really quite incredible number of views per month even when the editing side of things has quietened down. I would rather see no information than incorrect or poorly phrased information, since the latter two add nothing to the integrity of the project & we lose the moral high ground when SPAs etc appear and start fiddling with things. Sure, there are articles where it probably does not matter all that much whether something is worked on over a few hours but there are others where I feel it does matter. Basically, as Q says, if you cannot finish the edit in a manner that is appropriate then do not start it in article space: work on it elsewhere. I have created entire articles using that method, and so have countless other people.

I do not have an issue with the legends as content but India-related articles have a tendency to be as India-centric as many US articles are US-centric. You cannot assume that people worldwide are familiar with all of the legendary characters etc who are named in the quote, although they may perhaps be well known to many people of Indian origin. My thoughts about lengthy quotes have already been given & I am not going to repeat them again - in this instance it is a clear breach of the WP:LONGQUOTE guideline as the entire section is just one, erm, long quote. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There are no terms, these are simple mythological names. If you want, I can insert links where applicable so that people can understand the history. The problem in changing the quote is that certain people will start objecting that I am twisting the facts and introducing my bias. Promise me that you won't bite back, and I will rewrite this in simple terms. The other thing is I want to rewrite the 'Varna debate' - tell me whether you have any issues. I need not ask, but consider this my respect towards you and others here. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, see what other people think about the quote before rushing to do anything - it is nonsense to me but perhaps other folks from outside India can make sense of it, in which case it would clearly be my problem. As for the varna debate rewrite, the short answer is that you would probably be better off drafting something and getting the ok here before amending the article, unless your changes are pretty minor or you just want to add something. You are aware that it is a contentious section & so I'd guess that it would be wise to avoid yet more unnecessary back-and-forth on the article proper. - Sitush (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Some general knowledge: Discussions on this page are (in)famous for continuing through aeons with zero progress.-MangoWong (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

And your point is? - Sitush (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

All the shabby Shudra stuff is sickening for me, but it's ok as you do seem to have a lot of backup. :) Anyways, I think it depends upon the context. If I write 10 - any dumb guy can say ten, but it does take someone initiated to understand it can be 2 or a lot of other things. The beauty is to understand that there is a lot what we don't know. I can simplify it for the average non-knowledgeable guy, but MIND it, it is not nonsense. This is what ThisThat2011 and Yogesh Khandke have been trying to tell you about Vedas and Puranas. You don't know and them you keep on bringing senseless arguments. I have no time to waste on such petty disputes, don't 'nickel and dime me'. :) Nameisnotimportant (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

So what are you proposing? Anything? Nothing? I am afraid that I only understand some parts of your comment, but the first sentence in particular seems pretty straightforward. What bit do you think needs simplifying? And can it be done without using primary sources etc? Further, what are the "senseless arguments".

I have explained this so many times recently that I forget whether you are one of those people who has heard it before: Wikipedia does not necessarily contain "truth" (if there is such a thing). It contains information that is verifiable by use of reliable sources and there will be occasions when the two concepts fail to correspond. That is unfortunate but it is how it is. If you go to WikiAlpha or one of the other similar wikis then you are allowed to do stuff in the manner that Yogesh & TT desired; but not here, not now. - Sitush (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Like other sections, it appears that this one needs to be rewritten and paraphrased rather than quoted at length. It's not generally considered appropriate to have an entire section devoted to a single lengthy quote. Also, being entirely mythical, it seems to be only marginally relevant to the main subject of the article. It may be interesting background material but shouldn't there be more focus on "real" history (which at this point is just a single sentence)? Doc Tropics 16:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I am half-minded to move some of the stuff in Colonial Descriptions to History, and certainly the bit about different farming methods cf Brahmins because that ties in with the landholding idea. I am waiting for F&f to do what ever it is they had in mind regarding those quotes. Some of Mango's paraphrasing is very good indeed; some of it is less so but I dare not touch it. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It might be appropriate for "Legendary origins" and "Colonial views" to both appear as subsections of a main "History" section. That seems like a logical format, unless someone pictures a different but equally effective arrangement? Doc Tropics 23:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just removed the long Hewitt quote. Doc Tropics and Sitush are both correct that we cannot have just a big huge quote as a section. That gives way too much creedence to one person's words, it fails to provide any context, and is simply bad writing. Also, the idea of using WP:DEADLINE as a defense for this cuts both ways. If you read WP:DEADLINE, there's a second interpretation of that principle, which basically says, "If there is no deadline, then figure out what you want the article to say before you add it to the article--there's no rush to get something into the article." If you found an interesting source but don't know how to use it, raise it on the talk page for others to look at. There's no reason to add something that obviously can't stay in the article and say that you're working on it and will come back to it later. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't bite the newcomers

Sitush. A new user had made this [2] edit. It was the newcomer's first edit on WP. You reverted it here [3]. In your edit summary, you are already airing suspicions that the newcomer may be an SPA. I don't think it is proper to call a newcomer an SPA just by looking at the first edit. One has to have much more data to do that. Your behavior may be against WP:BITE. I suggest that you feel less free with accusations, particularly with newcomers, and consider the point that incivility with newcomers is already an issue at the WP:ANI.-MangoWong (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. I know an SPA when I see one. Let me worry about me, please. Or take it to ANI. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

May be it's time for some eye checkup. Oh! I remembered all the good doctors in UK are from India. I hope you don't get a doctor who is hooked onto Wiki. Peace. :)) Nameisnotimportant (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is totally hijacked by sitush nothing else...lets come another users and give them time to show there edits and proof. why you people are stucked with only showing shudras. Aditya gentle (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If I see something as incivility with newcomers, I am likely to object and tell them about WP:BITE and show them the WP:ANI link. If you think there is some issue with this behavior, you can take it to the WP:ANI.-MangoWong (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Take it there yourself. If they are newcomers then there are unlikely to be familiar with the process. You have a lot of experience of it, albeit without much success so far. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Your recent ANI against me was also not successful. Nor was your SPI against half a dozen or so folks. I am only going to show the links to newcomers (if is see them as becoming targets of incivility). Taking it/not to the WP:ANI is up to them. If I see any incivilities with newcomers, I am going to continue doing this. If you have problems, you can take it to the WP:ANI. It is not necessary for me to take it to the ANI just because your sayso.-MangoWong (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, in the future, it is better if you revert such an edit with a phrase like "revert unexplained removal of sourced content". That way there's no problems here. That being said, the revert itself was entirely correct. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Importance of Legendary Origins/ Mythological Section

Agree with User:Doc_Tropics that this needs to be rewritten to a certain extent, but disagree that this quote is marginally relevant to the topic. This is what I propose:

• The text was written in 19th century and english writing style has changed a lot since then. I will give it a try in a few days.
• This text is very important as it shows the relationship of Kurmis with other races in Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece, etc.
• The other important aspect is that the book talks about the 'ruling races or prehistoric times in these ancient lands', and the book describes Kurmis in details. I hope someone else can make the connection.
• Kurmis are described in details in Vedas and Puranas - the ancient sacred Hindu texts. Right now, I find it difficult to quote them here as they may be called as 'Primary Sources'. I will start a discussion on the 'Help Desk' and see if Bible is termed as primary source. If yes, then we can call Vedas as primary source. In my opinion Vedas, etc are not primary sources, but I don't want to get into any dispute about them.
• These 'ruling races' went on to establish great kingdoms. Therefore, in my mind I have no doubt that these races are the original kshatriyas.
• Present day Rajputs or the neo-kshatriyas were converted into Kshatriyahood somewhere in the 7th and 8th century. What happened to the 'ancient hindu kshatriyas'?
• Gautam Buddha belonged to the 'Shakya' tribe. These were the 'ancient kshatriyas', and if you search for shakya they were termed as 'Shudra' by the brahmins. So why did the brahmins need the new Kshatriya? This needs to be considered.
• Ancient authority on India are Vedas, and if the vedas call these Kurmis as Kshatriyas, then these guys are so. But the difficulty is in quoting Vedas as such.
• I agree that there may be a shudra angle to Kurmi history, but it looks certain that these are ancient Kshatriyas. How, when and for how long they became shudra has not been investigated fully in the varna debate. Also, it seems mostly Kurmis of Bihar, ancient holy center of Buddhism, were termed as Shudra. So we need to look more into this. Were they termed Shudra as they converted to Buddhism? In one of the books I do find a description that Kurmi armies were defeated in the present day Bihar by the Brahmin armies of the king of Varanasi

I hope this gives you some more context as to why this quote is so important, at least for me. I do agree that in the present form it is difficult to digest. Please wait for a simplified version, but it's very important that this text remains as is at least till we have a consensus on the new simplified version.

Nameisnotimportant 22:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The text is useless for connecting to Egypt etc. You will never convince reasonable people that it is a reliable source for that, any more than you would by quoting an abstract from a genetic study. Vedas and Puranas, as you already know, are not acceptable sources either - forget the Bible and those prompting you behind the scenes, as I suspect that they might be doing. The Bible is good as a source about itself but not as a source for anything else, and if you do not mention at the help desk that you are asking because of an issue regarding the vedas etc then you are being disingenuous. If you do not want to get into a dispute then why on earth are you raising a point that has been discussed ad infinitum and of which you are clearly aware?

What happened to the Rajputs has no bearing on the Kurmis: it is a speculative question and is completely irrelevant in the Wikipedia sense, I am afraid. I have noticed the recent return of an obsession regarding kshatriya - notably from Mango despite him saying that the whole varna caboodle is a lie - but it is not going to work unless you find modern sources to support it. Not Victorian mumbo-jumbo written by amateur "gentlemen scholars", based on half-truths and a poor game of connections using dodgy philology, discredited anthropometry etc.

The quote should be removed now. Work on it away from the article and then bring it back. This is not intended to put pressure on you but when even the person who contributed the thing admits that it is not acceptable then something has to give. It would not be so bad if it were supported as a paraphrase by other sources etc - as has happened with a section at Yadav - but it is something that you can work on in a sandbox etc. Indeed, that is the purpose for which sandboxes and the like are intended. MangoWong knows how to set one up in your own userspace if you do not. - Sitush (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could agree more, but these British authors are the best neutral sources as they were not influenced by the sick Indian politics. Anything written by an India or an Indian origin author on caste related topics need to be taken with a 'pound of salt', specially if the authors are Brahmins writing about how they considered the entire world Shudra. :)) Even in Indian Universaties of some repute, they hardly teach Indian books. :) Anyways, that's a separate issue. Did any of the esteemed authors explain why Kurmis were Shudras? Do I hear none? It's not going away for the reasons above. I can simplify it for general good, but That doesn't mean it is going now. As you said you are unable to understand the text, were you able to understand it later? I guess that's the reason you are unable to make the connection. Read the book, my dear friend. It's in Victorian English.

Please stop this free flow of baseless non-sense of behind the scenes. Do you indulge in such a practice? If not, then WP:AGF. Work more on improving the article, rather than wasting time on baseless things. I find it amusing, but it's interesting. I usually like adrenalin rush, but this is getting boring now. Try something else. ;) Nameisnotimportant (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have removed it for you. It can be retrieved from the history in order to work on it in a sandbox. Check your own talk page history for the deleted "behind the scenes" reference. There is nothing wrong with doing that: I merely said that I think you are misguided if it is going on and you are dancing to that tune. If you think that the British authors are reliable or neutral then perhaps you need to consider what biases they would have had because, believe me, they were considerable; they were also influenced by the undetected misinformation given to them by the locals, by a sense of being "on a mission", by fear, by being too involved etc. Many of them, such as Crooke, are borderline primary sources for much of what they say. Put simply: if there is a more modern source then we use it - find a recent source that uses these old ones without criticism and you are ok. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I find this reasoning very Islamic that we use a more modern source, if there are any. A recent verse in Islam may abrogate the earlier one, but that doesn't happen in history, my friend. Indian authors have a lot of reasons - political, etc. Anyways Max Muller came with this Aryan mumbo jumbo due to his readings of India. Was it accurate? Well, the entire world believes it. I offered changing the text as a compromise to keep you happy. Please accept that we are all in one team, and I do respect you and everyone else here. But this respect won't come in the way of putting correct info. I am in your and everyone else's team -wikipedia. So please get over with this conspiracy theory. The sooner the better. I respect your language skills, but please do understand that it is upto you to keep the respect. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue what Islam has to do with this. It is basic Wikipedia stuff, that is all. I can set up a page in your userspace if you want & dump the quote there. As Doc said, it is not that nothing should be included of this nature but rather that there has to be a sense of proportion. What Doc may not have realised (but I did) was where this was likely to go, and that is basically down a slippery slope of OR, SYNTH, PRIMARY and so on. I have seen it before and in this particular article it is the key to including a POV that simply has not been shown to be sustainable. Construct a section in userspace that gets rounds these issues and, honestly, I will have no problem with it. - Sitush (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

And, better still, if you can resolve the "unsustainable POV" issue then that would be fantastic. If you can find a legitimate way to get across the point that Kurmi were definitely kshatriya and that this has been widely accepted then brilliant. Similarly, if you can do that for the links to Egyptians or what ever then great. I do not mind being proven wrong and, in fact, I sympathise to some extent with the issues here but we are tied down by the consensus of a wider community than just those people involved with this article. You may think that makes me a pedant but it is in fact pretty much the moral contract that allows us to contribute to this project. - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Kunbi merger discussion

As someone who hadn't heard of either the Kurmi or Kunbi a mere two weeks ago, I can't pretend that I know either groups' history, but I have been reading up. It seems to me that regardless of what the Indian government says about them, they have largely been treated as different groups in the literature. The Kurmis live in the north central region; the Kunbis live in the west. They are separated by the Vindhya mountains. Do we really need that merger tag? It was slapped on by some editor who seemed to be urging greater unity among the divided brethren. But there has been no discussion. Whatsoever. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It can go as far as I am concerned. It was instigated for socio-political reasons, as you say, and has not been taken up by anyone. I vaguely recall that the issue has cropped up periodically but there has never been sufficient RS support for it. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The two groups, Kunbi- Maratha from Maharashtra and the northern Kurmi from Bengal, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh are quite different. In my opinion, even the Kurmi article should be split into three sections because appearance wise and even culturally, the three northern groups are quite distinct.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, then. I'll be removing the merger tag. (Jonathansammy, Let's worry about splitting the Kurmi article when it has some heft and stability.) Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignorance of Ancient Indian Civilisation and History.

The article is on right path.I appreciate the work of Fowler&fowler,now it looks neutral except the Category:"Shudra castes".The "Shudra castes" category should be removed,till we don't get reliable sources to prove Kurmis as Shudra. And reliable sources doesn't mean, sources from 18th or 19th century.During British rule Kurmis were like Shudra as other Indians were, we can't expect Royal weddings or Funerals from poor and hungry people, we can't expect written history from those people, but they had oral tradition for their history. When millions of Kurmis are following the Kshatriya traditions,rituals and customs across India,it would be wrong to put them in the "Shudra caste" category. Kurmi is a Hindu caste,so the story of Kurmis should start from the beginning of Hinduism. India was the economic,religious and knowledge hub of the world before muslim invasion.Hinduism is not merely a religion but a great civilisation of the world,it's contributions could not be ignored. It is true that India had seen that dark period but it's equaly true that it had a golden period a golden past. When we're writing Kurmi History, we need to understand that Kurmis are also the same Indians, who suffered during that dark period. If Kurmis believe they are Kshatriya, then they are Kshatriya because religion is all about beliefs. we are not working on some scientific theory. Science and Religion are different, we need to understand the difference. --Ajneesh Katiyar (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The shudra issue was recently referred to WP:DRN. The outcome there was that there are indeed reliable sources for using the term etc. What the Kurmis think of themselves is in fact also addressed in the article. The article is therefore both neutral and reliably sourced. These issues have been explained to you previously & continual reference to them without some sort of evidence is unlikely to change anything, sorry. The various IPs that have been getting involved of late are at present unable to edit the article due to semi-protection having been put in place. This is intended to stop further disruption. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the only thing that people said was not neutral in the earlier version was indeed the shudra point ... and you are still saying that is wrong. Fowler&fowler has done much work in expanding various areas but the neutrality is no different now to what it was previously. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

STOP right now and stop misrepresenting! When was Kurmi article subject to DRN? That was related to Yadav. So stop promoting false consensus or DRN. I will remove it. You have reverted my edits without any consensus. I usually don't fight on senseless issues, but you are just not understanding.

Salvio Giuliano: why did you PP'ed the article? Which sock puppet was caught? Don't you think you need to be more accommodative and careful in using your tools. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologise. The DRN was indeed regarding Yadav. It is no wonder I get confused sometimes about who said what on which article when the same group of contributors keep following me & MatthewVanitas around. Nonetheless, the same scenario applies here and the contributor (AK), who has arrived pretty much just immediately after the semi-protection came into force & without having edited for a month, has indeed been told about these issues previously. Fortuitous timing, that. The semi-protection applied due to socking by IPs, which a quick glance of the edit history would show to be highly likely. If you disagree with Salvio Giuliano's actions & the report by Qwyrxian which led to them, then your best recourse may well be to take it to WP:ANI, although I would suggest that you ask SG on their talk page first. Nameisnotimportant, as of now you have made 163 contributions, of which a mere 4 are to articles & at least one of those was unconstructive. There are many ways to contribute positively to this project but jumping up and down with indignation on a frequent basis is probably not one of them. - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The last time that the issue was explained to Ajneesh Katiyar, which was also the last time they edited, I think. - Sitush (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

For people who may indeed be new to this article, Talk:Kurmi/Archive_3#Source for Shudra is a fairly recent discussion of the sources for shudra status. They are plentiful. - Sitush (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

kurmis in bihar

kurmis are dominant and are most numbered cast in magadh region of bihar particurly in nalanda and patna district . kurmis subcast include here are awadhiya , ghamayla , kochaisa , barganiya . magahi is their language . kindly add these subcast and magahi language in the box as well . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.4.97 (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

We would need sources and even then it probably would not appear in the infobox because it would represent undue weight to the communities whom you mention. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Un-semi protect the article

Unprotect the article. The article history is here [4]. There is no legitimate reason for a protection.117.195.71.191 (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure there is. A user, who was clearly a regular user editing while logged out (note that this may have been a mistake, but it still happened) assisted in edit warring over the Shudra info. Furthermore, looking over the last 500 history entries, I don't see a single edit by an IP that wasn't reverted as a non-consensus change. Since there has been disruptive non-confirmed editing, unless there is some clear evidence that this is harming productive editing of the article, the semi-protection should stay. Furthermore, if there is something specific in the article that you or any other IP editor believe should be changed, simply explain it here on the talk page, and add the template {{edit semi-protected}}. Note, of course, that any change suggested here is subject to the same rules as a registered editor making a change directly: it must be supported by reliable sources, if previously discussed it must either match consensus or first convince us to change consensus, etc. Note, though, that if all you're going to say is that Shudra is SYN/OR/meaningless/etc., then you're not going to get very far, since consensus right now is very firm that it is not, and you'll probably need to raise the issue on a noticeboard first. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A RF/C has been put up on the Sock puppet talk page[5], regarding whether a registered editor editing as an anon is sock puppetry. The consensus as this is written is it isn't. The protecting editor should not imagine policies. On this article the anon was removing uncited material the registered user placing it. A registered editor is placing the uncited material and thus harming the project. Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Anyways you are not an uninvolved party either.117.195.71.191 (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify the above IP's point, the query has been raised at Talk:Sock puppetry. The query unfortunately avoids the specific instance and furthermore ignores the input at Wikipedia:Ani#Kurmi_page_protection regarding the specific instance. Whether socking, meatpuppetting or just simple disruption, the semi-pp is valid. That an IP from a particular location, ISP etc should have raised this as an issue so soon after the raising at ANI is itself, in my opinion, somewhat unusual. This is not to deny the assumption of good faith, merely a comment based on past observations of peculiar goings-on. It could be a total coincidence. In any event, if you read the ANI thread then you can see the recourses open to anyone who objects. The obvious first step is WP:RFPP & the issue of whether it was correct to semi-pp as sockpuppetting is a sideshow. - Sitush (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoopss I was just going to repeat Sitush's comments...note that the protecting admin explicitly said that xe could change the protection log, but that wouldn't make the protection itself change. Again, I have to ask the more valid question: specifically what edits do you (IP) wish to make that you are unable to make right now? We have a very good system for IPs/new users to request changes to a semi-protected page, and you are more than welcome to do so. You are not welcome, whether you are an IP, new, or very old user, to edit war to get a preferred version of the article. One final note: no specific editor was accused of sockpuppetry, nor is anyone intending to do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Where did he say that, what is meant by "he could change the protection log, but that wouldn't make the protection itself change"117.195.71.191 (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The closing admin's edit summary was "Protected Kurmi: Persistent sock puppetry", he has protected this article against SP. I don't understand the rest of the summary. 117.195.71.191 (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, the log records the reason why protection was put in place. It is possible to amend the log (the history of the amendment would be kept) in order to reflect a different reason. The protecting admin suggested the option of doing this in the ANI thread which is linked to above but pointed out that it would not in itself cause the semi-protection to be removed. In other words, it would just be admin "overhead" with no practical difference. - Sitush (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And the place where he wrote it is Wikipedia:Ani#Kurmi_page_protection. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

(od)The protecting admin wrote Ditto. If you wish, I can amend the protection log, so that it reads "disruptive edits by IPs" instead of sockpuppetry, but, as far as I'm concerned, I'm not going to lift semi-protection[6][7], which is I do not like it logic. The recent disruption has been by a registered user, conveniently overlooked. Uncited text is inserted and its removal undone. What will the said admin do about that? Don't find excuses and unprotect the article, which is as well or as badly vulnerable to anon vandals as any other Wikipedia article. 117.195.71.191 (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You're misreading the history: If you look at the last 500 edits, every single IP edit has been reverted (I think, it's always possible I missed one or two somewhere); in almost all cases it is because the IP is removing sourced information, or adding unsourced information. Again, if you would please point out what edit you want to make in a new section here on talk, we can begin discussing it instead of wasting time on the protection issue. If you want to refute my claim that all IP edits have been non-constructive, do it at WP:RFPP. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: Admin EdJohnston has declined the unprotection request. Furthermore, no uninvolved editor has supported removing the protection at the ANI discussion. I think it's time to drop the issue and move forward with actual article improvement. IP(s), if you want to suggest a change, please make a new section, explain what you want changed, why, and, of course, provide any necessary reliable sources. If you aren't satisified with the answers, I will help you open up whatever form of dispute resolution is appropriate (discussion at a noticeboard, RfC, etc.). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Include Patidar and Kunbi under the sub-article "kurmi in Gujrat-Patidar" And "kurmi in Maharashtra -kunbi" respetively

patidar community which is basically originated from kurmi community should be included under the sub-article 'Kurmis in Gujrat'.The books like 'Economic and Politcal Integration in Immigrant Neighborhoods Trejectories' By Laurette Conklin Frederking and 'Kacchi Leva Patel-Our Journey To The Prosperity' by S.P.Gorasia(2nd Edition 2007) and so many others links related to leva patidar and kadva patidar claim that they emerged out from kurmi community.You will also find many text claiming that kurmi who migrated from punjab in early times to gujrat via sindh known as 'kanbi'(basically gujrati version of 'kurmi')and later on 'Kunbi'(Marathi version of 'kanbi'-see http://www.maharashtra.gov.in/pdf/gazeetter_reprint/Maharashtra-%20Land%20and%20its%20people/chapter_2.pdf).If any caste is being known as different name in another part of india that does not mean they are different caste.Merging kunbi under kurmi page is not the idea of making a big community on the hypothetical facts but on ground realties.The intellectuals and many scholars recognise these facts.I can provide many other sources and books name proving these facts.Also,Indian government takes any final decision on caste based issues only after going through a rigerous process by setting a panel who gives final decision after hearing all arguments in favor and against of the claim,no matter how much time this process takes, because in India caste related wrong fact can hurt feelings of a large section of people.After going through all the facts Indian government has been accepted that Kurmi,Kunbi and Patidar are same caste only known as with different name in their vernacular(must see ^ "Central List of Other Backward Classes". National Commission for Backward Classes Retrieved 2007-05-31.) see also for patidar's kurmi claim

^ Pocock, David Francis (1972). Kanbi and Patidar: A Study of the Patidar Community of Gujarat. Clarendon Press. ISBN 019823175X.

^ "Culture and Traditions". Patidar Samaj. Retrieved 2007-05-3

^ "Leuva Connextion Issue 2 May 2006". Leuva Patidar Samaj USA. Retrieved 2007-09-16

^ "PRIDE OF OUR HISTORY". Sree Kadwa Patidar Samaj UK. Archived from the original on 2007-07-06. Retrieved 2007-09-16.

^ "HISTORY OF THE MATIYA PATIDAR SAMAJ". Matiya Patidar Samaj. Retrieved 2007-09-16.

^ "The Patidars: A Golden Page in History" (PDF). Patidar Samaj. Retrieved 2007-09-16. rajesh patel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.53.171 (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, the origin of the idea that Pattidar = Kurmi can be traced exactly. It was an idea proposed by the Kurmi Sabha that was created soon after the 1894 founding of the first Kurmi association in Lucknow. The Sabha also made claims that the Kapus, Vokkaligas, Reddys, Naidus & Marathas were Kurmi ... and it went on to persuade Kurmis to claim kshatriya status in the 1901 census. In other words, this was all a part of the strategy of sanskritisation. Of course, a lot of the "history" was invented in order to achieve this. For sure, we cannot rely on anything written by a Pattidar for such a suggestion, & the government is absolutely hopeless when it comes to categorising (it commonly says one thing in one document, another elsewhere, and many of the documents that I have seen have not even been dated & thus we do not know which is the latest govt. view). - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, basically what you are saying is that the Kurmi sabha in 1894 wanted all the Hindu landholding agricultural communities across India to be under the Kurmi umbrella. Is this mentioned in the body of the article ?Jonathansammy (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that. It may or may not be correct. I am saying that the groups listed above were declared as Kurmi by a Kurmi association (possibly with a self-interest in having a larger constituency as it would give them more "clout" in pursuance of their aims). For reasons that I am not going to re-hash but which are available earlier threads above, at present Fowler&fowler is making some big additions to this article. As a courtesy, I am not editing until those additions etc are complete. Nor am I at present reading up any further on Kurmi, although I will be doing so. - Sitush (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I already know that kurmi sabha tried to unite all rich cultivator caste and was assisted actively by many patidar members at that time because they believed that they descended from kurmi caste.Here,first I am giving name of some books which clearly states that kunbi and kurmi are one caste(not synonymous or equivalent as is written in introduction part of this page).Though some writers who claimed these two caste names are only synonymous never gave any proof of origin of kunbi or kurmi.This simply means they wrote these caste names as it is known in that particular region.Please go through the relevent part of these books

^ An ethnographical hand-book for the N.-W. provinces and Oudh, Author-William Crooke,Publish- North-Western provinces and Oudh government press, 1890, Original from the New York Public Library --consider kurmi and kunbi as same caste and give all description of kunbi under kurmi title(see page 110-111).

^ Social life in medieval Rajasthan, 1500-1800 A.D.: with special reference to the impact of Mughal influence,Author- Gopi Nath Sharma Publisher- Lakshmi Narain Agarwal, 1968, Original from-the University of Michigan --says in Rajasthan near Aravali(south of aravali) kurmi or kunbi is found.page no 97

^ Hindu tribes and castes, Hindu tribes and castes, Matthew Atmore Sherring, Author- Matthew Atmore Sherring. Published 1872 Original from Oxford University --on page 323,under the title 'Kumbhi' it clearly says kumbhi otherwise called kunbi or kurmi.

^ On the original inhabitants of Bharatavarṣa or India, Mythology Series, Author- Gustav Salomon Oppert, Edition reprint,Publisher Arno Press, 1978, Original from Indiana University --from page 261 to 263,while giving large description of this community the author express his view that kurmis,kumbis or kunbis are well spread and well-known tribe.

^ Caste system: myths, reality, challenge, Author- Sachchidanand Sinha. Publisher Intellectual Pub. House, 1982, Original from the University of Michigan --see page 129.

^ The Land Systems of British India: book 4. The raiyatwérf and allied systems, volume 3 of The Land Systems of British India, Author- Baden Henry Baden-Powell, Publisher- Clarendon Press, 1892 ,Original from the University of Michigan --clearly writes "the kunbis are the same as the kurmis of other parts.Mr. Hewitt thinks them as mixed race connected with Aryan kauravyii or descendant of kuru...".

^ Martial races of undivided India, Author- Vidya Prakash Tyagi, Publisher- Gyan Publishing House, 2009 ISBN 8178357755, 9788178357751 --this books also gives good description about their descendants,sub-castes and cultural activities but you earlier not considered it as reliable source(so I will not give sress on it).

^ The History, Antiquities, Topography, and Statistics of Eastern India ...: Bhagulpoor, Goruckpoor, and Dinajepoor Volume 2 of The History, Antiquities, Topography, and Statistics of Eastern India, Robert Montgomery Martin Author Robert Montgomery Martin Publisher W. H. Allen and Co., 1838 Original from the New York Public Library --on page 468-69, it says kurmi and kunbis are same caste and it also through some light on upward mobilization of kurmi sub-caste sainthwar and patanwar(these two sub-caste claimed to be of rajput origin which was regected by Allahabad high court).He also says that Scindhiyas are kurmis.

^ People of India, Volume 16, Part 2, Authors- Kumar Suresh Singh, Anthropological Survey of India, Publisher-Anthropological Survey of India, 2008 --says kurmis are found practically all over India,though in western India especially in maharashtra,they are known by the name of kunbis.they have 1488 divisions.In bihar main branches are awadhiya,chandel,ghamaila,jaswar,deswal.........etc.(see page 600).

^ Kuramī cetanā ke sau varsha: rāshṭrīya pariprekshya meṃ, 1894-1994, Authors-Dilāvara Siṃha Jayasavāra, Akhila Bhāratīya Kūrmi Kshatriya Mahāsabhā, Publisher Gītāñjali Prakāśana, 1994, Original from- the University of California ISBN 8170463033, 9788170463030 --on many pages it says that kurmi,kunbi and patidar are same caste.

^ Descriptive ethnology of Bengal, Indian studies, past & present, Author Edward Tuite Dalton, Publisher K. L. Mukhopadhyaya, 1960 Original from Pennsylvania State University --It clearly mention that scindhiya is descendant of kurmi patel.(page 328) as well as kurmi and kunbi are same caste(page 327)

^ Encyclopaedia Britannica: a new survey of universal knowledge, Volume 13 of Encyclopædia Britannica, Walter Yust, Editor- Walter Yust Publisher- Encyclopædia Britannica, 1954, Original from the University of Michigan --define the term KUNBI-the name becomes kurmi in the north where the caste is numerous along the ganges.

^ The races of man and their distribution, Author - Alfred Cort Haddon, Publisher F.A. Stokes Co., Original from the University of California --writes that the modern element of modern maratha is that known as kunbi or kurmi of drividian origin,numerous throughout the northern plains as far as east of bengal.

^ Natives of northern India. (Native races of the Brit. empire)., Author William Crooke,Published 1907, Original from Oxford University --consider both caste in each article.

^ The castes and tribes of H.E.H. the Nizam's dominions, Volume 1, Author- Syed Siraj ul Hassan, Edition reprint, Publisher Asian Educational Services, 1989 ISBN 8120604881, 9788120604889 --says kurmi are spread upto deccan where they known as kunbi,kanbi.also gives names of kurmi Gotra and 100 kuls described in mahabharata.(page 370-79).

^ The racial history of India, Author- Chandra Chakraberty, Publisher-Vijaya Krishna Brothers,Original from- the University of California --consider kurmi and kunbi as same caste and gives some idea about kanva(who now known as kurmi,kunbi or kanbi)rullings who overthrown the Sunga empire(ruled nearly 112 years around 185-73 BC).

^ Brief view of the caste system of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, Authors John Collinson Nesfield, United Provinces of Agra and Oudh (India). Education Dept, Publisher North-Western Provinces and Oudh Government Press, 1885, Original from the New York Public Library --on page 15 ,it is clearly written "kurmi also called kunbi".

^ Madhya Pradesh District Gazetteers: Indore,Gazetteer of India, Volume 17 of Madhya Pradesh District Gazetteers, Madhya Pradesh (India) Author Madhya Pradesh (India), Publisher Govt. Central Press, 1827, Original from the University of California --says kulmi.kurmi and kunbi appears to be one caste.

^ Hindu castes and sects: an exposition of the origin of the Hindu caste system and the bearing of the sects towards each other and towards other religious systems / Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya Author Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya, Publisher Thacker, Spink, 1896, Original from the University of Michigan --writes article on the page 270 "The Kurmis And The Kunbis" under which he mentions the kurmi population of india more than ten million of which more than five millions are in Bombay(where they known as kunbi)

^ The people of India, Authors- Herbert Risley, W. Crooke, Editor- W. Crooke, Edition 2, reprint, Publisher Asian Educational Services, 1999 ISBN 8120612655, 9788120612655 --says on the introduction page XX itself that maratha are closely connected with mixed race of cultivators extending over a wide area fro deccan to the valley of the Ganges and known as kunbi or kurmi.

^ The Dravidian Origin of The Kunbi-Kurmi Farming Community In Gujrat, Author- Amrit Pandya --though I couldn't find this book but it is used in many research to prove that kurmi and kunbi are one caste who only due to migration from punjab to another part of country known as diffirent name.

^ Ethnology of India .Authors Sir George Campbell, Edward Tuite Dalton, Publisher Lewis, 1866 --campbell considers kurmi and kunbi identical caste(also Mr. tod).Campbell also says Shivaji was kurmi.

all the above books provide enough theory to prove that kunbis and kurmi are same caste.

Now I provide some books name which say that patidars are also kurmi(or originated from kurmi).

^ Economic and political integration in immigrant neighborhoods: trajectories of virtuous and vicious cycles, Author- Lauretta Conklin Frederking, Edition illustrated, Publisher Susquehanna University Press, 2007 ISBN 1575911116, 9781575911113 --here author gives her view after reading history of Charotar Leva Patel that patidar's ancestors after migration from punjab nearabout 400 to 700 AD sub-divided into patidar(initially kanbi) and kurmi kshtriya.(page 80)

^ Patels: a Gujarati community history in the United States. Author- Govind B. Bhakta ,Publisher UCLA Asian American Studies Center Press, 2002, Original from the University of Wisconsin - Madison ISBN 0934052395, 9780934052399 --provides detailed history of patidar samaj and clearly says that patidars are kurmis.

^ The Hindu nationalist movement and Indian politics: 1925 to the 1990s : strategies of identity-building, implantation and mobilisation (with special reference to Central India),Author- Christophe Jaffrelot, Edition illustrated, Publisher C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 1996 ISBN 1850651701, 9781850651703 --tells about recent event in which a kurmi farmer,Bherulal Patidar, was nominated by party for deputy speaker post but he was hesitant to say that he is kurmi and feeling proud to say he is patidar(patel).This is because patidar are rich and having high social status than it parent caste.This behavior was just like sainthwar sub-caste people of gorakhpur region of U.P..

^ Gujarat, Part 3, Volume 22 of People of India, Kumar Suresh Singh, Gujarat, Anthropological Survey of India Authors Kumar Suresh Singh, Rajendra Behari Lal, Anthropological Survey of India, Publisher Popular Prakashan, 2003 ISBN 8179911063, 9788179911068 --see page 1099-2000.

^ Kuramī cetanā ke sau varsha: rāshṭrīya pariprekshya meṃ, 1894-1994, Authors-Dilāvara Siṃha Jayasavāra, Akhila Bhāratīya Kūrmi Kshatriya Mahāsabhā, Publisher Gītāñjali Prakāśana, 1994, Original from- the University of California ISBN 8170463033, 9788170463030 --on many pages it says that kurmi,kunbi and patidar are same caste.

^ Capital, interrupted: agrarian development and the politics of work in India, G - Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series, Author Vinay K. Gidwani,Edition illustrated, Publisher U of Minnesota Press, 2008 ISBN 0816649596, 9780816649594 --see page no. 37

^ Milkman from Anand: the story of Verghese Kurien ,Author- M. V. Kamath,Edition 2, Publisher Konark Publishers, 1996 Original from the University of Michigan --see page 16.

^ Kacchi Leva patel-Our Journey TO The Prosperity, Author S.P.Gorasia, Edition 2,Publisher Cutch Social And Cultural Society London,2007 --this book gives well description and genealogy of patidar caste from kurmi origin to 2006.

^ Peasant nationalists of Gujarat: Kheda District, 1917-1934 ,Author David Hardiman Publisher Oxford University Press, 1981 --this the most valuable book for research paper and used frequently by many writers.It clearly states that patidars are originated from Kurmi caste(via kanbi).

^ www.indianexpress.com/news/kadva-patels-forge-alliances.../0 - Cached

The above article published in Indian Express on Feb 11,2011 mention that now kadva patidar people want to establish marriage tie-up with their community member who are not gujrati i.e kurmi of U.P.,bihar,M,P..

Here I tried to give direct relationship between kurmi and patidar which is little bit difficult due to unavailability of genuine material.Historian other than the caste members didn't tried in this area(i.e to establish direct relationship between kurmis and patidars) but following the descendant path KURMI to KUNBI/KANBI to PATIDAR we have a lot of materials to prove that patidar are descendant of kurmi samaj.

I have already been included enough genuine materials for proving kunbis are kurmi, later on I will provide materials regarding emergence of patidar from kunbi which is easier as many books have much facts about that.Thank You.Rajesh785 (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Rajesh785, I am afraid that we cannot use original research nor can we synthesise sources, ie: if one source says A and another says B then we cannot say A + B = C. On the other hand, you have included some useful information above. I for one will take a look at it later today, if you can provide some page numbers. I won't be looking at anything from Gyan Publishing because they are not a reliable publishing company. - Sitush (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Kurmi is a Sanskrit word , while Kanbi/Kunbi Patidar are the Gujarati/Marathi version of the same caste.There language and culture is different but separating them on language or cultural background would be a mistake. Patels are already included in the article, inclusion of Patidars will improve the article. When Patidars and Kunbis relate themselves with Kurmis and believe they are same group,then where is the objection.Refference to one Kurmi Sabha and ignoring other facts is not right.And I don't think the motive of that Kurmi Sabha was to spread rumours.--Ajneesh Katiyar (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ajneesh Katiyar, please will you start adding sources for all these random statements that you make. Until you do, they are unlikely to make an appearance in the article and probably you'll end up finding that you are talking to yourself here - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi,Sitush I couldn't understand where I have written my original research or tried to synthesize new theory.If you want to say to prove patidar as kurmi caste through kunbi caste i.e. kurmi(A)+kunbi(B)=patidar(C) is synthesize and C is original research then you are perhaps wrong.I already have mentioned reliable sources in favor of fact that patidars are kurmi caste then where is original research.Here A=B(kurmi=kunbi as I provided reliable sources in favor of that) and A=C (kurmi=patidar also supported by reliable sources above) and below I am giving reliable sources for proving kunbi=patidar(i.e. B=C) then where is question of A+B=C,it is simply A=B=C.I have gone through rules of Wiki regarding OR and SYNTH and I am right,perhaps, according to those rules.Also,in many books name, given above, I already have mentioned the page number where the concerned facts are given.

Here I am giving some books name in favor of fact that kunbi and patidar are also same caste.

^ Social change in modern India, Rabindranath Tagore memorial lectureship, Author- Mysore Narasimhachar Srinivas, Publisher University of California Press, 1971(see page no. 38)

^ The emergence of Indian nationalism: competition and collaboration in the later nineteenth century, Political change in modern South Asia Author Anil Seal, Edition illustrated, reprint, Publisher CUP Archive, 1971, ISBN 0521096529, 9780521096522 (see page no. 77)

^ Gandhi's Rise to Power: Indian Politics 1915-1922, Volume 11 of Cambridge South Asian Studies, Author Judith M. Brown, Edition reissue, illustrated, reprint, Publisher CUP Archive, 1974, ISBN 0521098734, 9780521098731 (see page no. 88)

^ State politics and panchayats in India, Authors Buddhadeb Ghosh, Girish Kumar, France. Ambassade (India). Centre for Human Sciences Publisher Manohar, 2003, Original from the University of Michigan, ISBN 173044872, 9788173044878 (see page no. 140)

^ Caste in Indian politics, Author Rajni Kothari, Editor Rajni Kothari, Edition reprint, Publisher Orient Blackswan, 1995 ISBN 8125006370, 9788125006374 (see page no. 301-302)

^ The other Gujarat, Author Takashi Shinoda, Publisher Popular Prakashan, 2002,ISBN 8171548741, 9788171548743 (see page no. 30 )

^ Reservation, action for social equality, Author Ishwari Prasad, Publisher Criterion Publications, 1986, Original from the University of Michigan(see page no. 30)

^ Society in India, Volumes 1-2, Society in India, David Goodman Mandelbaum, Author David Goodman Mandelbaum, Publisher University of California Press, 1970, ISBN 0520016238, 9780520016231 (see page no. 20)

^ Inclusion and exclusion in local governance: field studies from rural Indiam, Authors Baburao Shravan Baviskar, George Mathew, Editors Baburao Shravan Baviskar, George Mathew, Publisher SAGE Publications Ltd, 2008, ISBN 8178298600, 9788178298603 (see page no. 40)

^ Dairy Aid and Development: India's Operation Flood, Volume 3 of Indo-Dutch studies on development alternatives Volume 3 of Indo-Dutch Programme on Alternatives in Development Series, Authors Martin Doornbos, Frank Van Dorsten Contributors Martin R. Doornbos, Frank Van Dorsten Edition illustrated, Publisher Sage Publications, 1990, Original from the University of Wisconsin - Madison (see page no. 219)

^ Life in the Indian civil service, Author Sir Evan Maconochie, Publisher Chapman and Hall, 1926, Original from the University of Michigan (see page no. 63)

^ The Peasant and the Raj: Studies in Agrarian Society and Peasant Rebellion in Colonial India, Volume 23 of Cambridge South Asian Studies Author Eric Stokes, Publisher CUP Archive, 1980,ISBN 0521297702, 9780521297707 (see page no. 27)

^ Annals of human genetics, Volume 22, Author Galton Laboratory, Publisher Published for the Galton Laboratory by Cambridge University Press., 1958, Original from the University of Michigan (see page no. )

^ Milkman from Anand: the story of Verghese Kurien , Author M. V. Kamath, Edition 2, Publisher Konark Publishers, 1996 Original from the University of Michigan (see page no. 20-25)

^ Diversity and dominance in Indian politics, Volume 2, Diversity and Dominance in Indian Politics, Ramashray Roy, Authors Ramashray Roy, Richard Sisson, Editors Ramashray Roy, Richard Sisson, Publisher Sage Publications, 1990, Original from the University of Michigan ISBN 8170362040, 9788170362043 (see page no. 113)

^ Peasant nationalists of Gujarat: Kheda District, 1917-1934, Author David Hardiman, Publisher Oxford University Press, 1981 (contains original field work and well-known book for researchers)

^ Cities and towns of India, Author Ramesh Chandra, Editor Ramesh Chandra, Publisher Commonwealth Publishers, 2004, Original from the University of Michigan (see page no. 22)

^ Sons of the soil: studies of the Indian cultivator, Editor William Burns,Edition 2, reprint,Publisher Manager of publications, Civil lines, 1944 (see page no. 11-12)

^ The City in Indian politics, Editor Donald B. Rosenthal, Publisher Thomson Press (India), 1976, Original from the University of Michigan (see page no. 40)

^ The evolution of a tidewater settlement system: All Hallow's Parish, Maryland, 1650-1783, Issue 170 of Research paper, University of Chicago. Dept. of Geography, Author Carville Earle, Edition illustrated,Publisher University of Chicago, Dept. of Geography, 1975 Original from the University of California, ISBN 0890650772, 9780890650776

^ Imperial gazetteer of India ..., Volume 5, Imperial Gazetteer of India, Sir William Wilson Hunter Authors Sir William Wilson Hunter, James Sutherland Cotton, Sir Richard Burn, Great Britain. India Office, Sir William Stevenson Meyer Publisher Clarendon press, 1908, Original from the New York Public Library (see page no. 98)

Many of the books mentioned by me itself say that kurmi,kunbi/kanbi and patidar are same caste,so I am not trying to manipulate anything new,only reiterating the fact which are well-spread and well-accepted in our present society.You can check any website link established by diffirent groups of kurmi,kunbi/kanbi or patidars. Though you haven't accepted the patidar links for the fact that patidars are kurmis,the same links are present in Wiki page of gurjar for the reference that patidars are kurmi.Can I know why this double standard steps are being taken by you? Also,The Wiki page for 'Karamsad' itself has same history of patidar as it is found in many patidar links and books(i.e. from kurmi origin to kunbi/kanbi and then finally converting into patidar).So,please accept them as sub-division of kurmi and start sub-article for them on this page itself as suggested by me.Thanks again.Rajesh785 (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)122.179.49.182 (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Other contributors of late have adopted this "wall of text" approach with sources. It is overwhelming & thus counter-productive. I realise that as a newly registered contributor it may be that you do not appreciate how much work is involved in checking lists of this size. There is no way that I am reading all of those sources. Please can you select, say, ten or so for each of the various theories you are stating (one of which was indeed synthesis until your most recent reading list above). Preferably, select modern sources (not Crooke etc). And can you clarify what it is you are wanting to achieve here - I have no idea what you mean by "sub-article". Are you suggesting a merge of articles or what? Is there any need to mention something here that has its own article, except perhaps in the See Also section? Is there any reason at all for a Pattidar article, for example, if they are actually Kurmi? It seems unlikely to me if you are correct. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional point, if I cannot see the selected sources in full view then I may have to ask for copies of the relevant pages. To speed things up, it would be useful if you only listed those that you can see in full view & therefore for which you can supply copies. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I want to say the page 'Kunbi' and 'Patidar' should be merged under the sub-article mentioned above.Also.those pages are not containing additional information except they are the part of kurmi samaj and sub-castes of respective groups.You can see no one has opposed the merger of kurmi and kunbi pages.Rajesh785 (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What sub-article mentioned above? The statement that no-one has opposed the merger could equally be countered by "no-one has supported the merger", other than the proposer (who seemed to have disappeared) and seemingly yourself after the proposal was rejected. We only recently removed the merger tag because there was no support and the proposal appeared to be primarily a socio-political thing rather than grounded in any Wikipedian logic. In any event, until you provide that list, I really cannot see anything happening here. I doubt that there is a policy-based reason for merging without some strong evidential support. The ball is in your court, I am afraid. I appreciate that you have provided a long list but it really is way too long and even someone like me, who quite enjoys analysing sources, is not going to wade through it all. - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about sub-article "kurmi in Gujrat-Patidar" And "kurmi in Maharashtra -kunbi" ,for the inclusion of which I am arguing so far.

You are only countering my statements,not bothered about going through the materials mentioned above.At least one person(me) has supported the merger request with so many reliable sources,is it not enough(it doesn't matter that time has passed,it will not change the fact)?.You can't expect a group of people will provide here RS as evidence.I think whatever I am doing here is policy-based reason for merging those pages. Rajesh785 (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to work with you, with is why I asked you to select a few from your extensive list.

As far as the merger proposal goes, well, it has gone. You could re-propose it but just having one person in support is not likely to sway things. I am fairly sure that this has been proposed at least twice this year.

By "sub-article", do you mean a section in this article for each of Kunbi & Pattidar? If a merge happens then it becomes a redundant request - the Kunbi and Pattidar articles would effectively be deleted (probably redirect, actually) and their content would be included here as and where appropriate. Sorry, but I am genuinely confused regarding what it is you are desirous of seeing and why. - Sitush (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)