Talk:Kurmi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Steady improvements to article

I got tired of the poor referencing and POV of this article, so went and dug up some references. Turns out earlier edits appear quite deliberate about leaving out the great body of referencing which connects the case to the Shudra varna, and even the quotation used omitted (without ellipsis) less-than-favourable comparisons with other castes. This sort of pick-and-choose to promote a given subject is exactly the sort of thing we should be on the lookout for on WP. This article gets 2500 hits per month, so definitely worth cleaning up, and there are simply scads of sources available on GoogleBooks, both historical/colonial as well as contemporary. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Grave error regarding "KURMI KHASTRIYA" caste from India, being wrongly placed under "SHUDRA

Hello Mr. Matthew Vanitas , i would like to point out a grave error regarding description of "KURMI KHASTRIYA" caste from India, being wrongly placed under "SHUDRA" on the relevant Wikipedia page , which is putting up a question mark on the authenticity and correctness of data available on Wikipedia.

It is well known fact that Kurmis are Kshatriya, if Kurmis are not khsatriyas & they ae Shudras, then why isnt Kurmi as a caste is placed under the group Sheduled Caste(under which all Shudras are placed)by the Govt. of India with accompanying reservation facility to them.

Hence kindly review the matter at your end and purge this grave error at the earliest, so that a good site like Wikipedia doesnt loose its authenticity in the eyes of billions of KURMI KHASTRIYAS, whose sensibilities are being hurt by this grave error

Thanking you

A Well wisher of Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawksachan (talk • contribs) 07:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding wrong information about Kurmi placed in sudra whenever it belong to Backword

Dear sir, I would like to say that Kurmi caste of India belongs to Backword Class not Sudra.Your minar error hearts to all community. So I requested to you to rectify the error asap.

With Regards D K Sachan'Kurmi' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.203.66 (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read above references, and add any new citations to either one side or the other of the issue

Greetings, writing "you are wrong" is not a convincing argument. If you want us to reach a consenus that the Kurmi should be described in this article as Kshatriya, vice Shudra, then rather than emotion you need to provide clear academic, reputable works to back that argument. Again, note above I have found passages on GoogleBooks referring to a Shudra origin, I have auto-formatted them using http://reftag.appspot.com (automatically makes nice clean citations), and added them for you to read. If you want to counter those arguments, or at least ensure the article notes it's a debated topic, you need to provide such references here on the Talk page.

For what it's worth, from what I'm seeing of academic works, the Kurmi appear to be Shudra (like the Kunbi, Kapu, Reddy, etc.), but in the 19th century pushed the British to recognise them as Kshatriya, which caused a significant amount of political animosity amongst various caste groups. It seems to be a fascinating history, and we do a disservice to the history of the Kurmi if we simply "whitewash" away their historical association with the Shudra in order to soothe hurt feelings. I'd submit that a history of caste struggle, political agitation, and attempted "revival" of a previous caste is far more interesting than just typing "Kurmis are warriors."

In short, nobody will get anywhere without providing extensive references, so please let your research do the talking, as I have done above with my list of citations. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Objections to "Shudra"

Who is the owner of this page and protected for edit? Who has given your permission to declare Kurmis as Shudra? We don't have to take certification you someone for being Kshatriya. Can you tell me who are Vedic Kshatriyas and Kshatriyas converted to Budhism during Budha and Ashoka? There are so many example in history for Kshatriyas being declared Shudra once they lost their empire or did not follow Vedic religion and Non Kshatriyas declared as Kshatriyas. Earlier Huns and Shakas were declared Kshatriyas. Lately Shivaji Maharaj who was certified as Kshatriya after paying lot of money to Gaga Bhatt.

And Google books are not absolute truth. There written by people and they express their opinion. I can give you example of several Google books that clearly tells that Kurmis are Kshatriya. So my friend, don't protect this article and remove Shudra declaration from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virsingh1968 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the owner, neither did I apply the protection. The protection was applied since the people removing "Shudra" were generally not providing any justification in the Edit Summary, and were removing multiple, quality citations without adding any rebuttals. So since I am actually providing footnotes and explaining my actions, that edit persists. If you want to debate the Shudra issue, please any reputable references to the list above. And we're not involved in arguments about what Marathas or whoever else did, or what the Laws of Manu say. Find us an actual PhD or other proper historian who says "Kurmis are Kshatriya" and add it to the above list. Note that plenty of scholars note that the Kurmi believe themselves to be Kshatriya, and that it's a contested issue, but the bulk of scholarship seems to agree they're Shudra.

So far as what is or is not truth: the goal of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you can't produce plentiful, reliable sourcing, we have no way of verifying your claims.

I do find it a rather odd coincidence that until I started working on caste articles, almost no caste article anywhere on wiki identified the cast as Shudra. How odd that an entire country would have only warriors and priests, but not a single working man... MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What is your problem dude? Which authentic book tells that Kurmis are Shudras? When Manuamiti was created there was no castes. There only four classes. How can someone say for sure which caste is Kshatriyas or Shudra. Even Rajput caste was not there when Manusmriti was written. So who certifies who belongs to which class? Is there any scientific process for that? I gave example of Shivaji. He was certified Kshatriya and was from Kurmi/kurbi caste. Kshatriyas of Mallas republic were Kurmis. They are still part of Kurmi. Community.

Take example of Chandragupta Maurya. All Buddhist and Jain literatures have written that he was Kshatriyas. But all Hindu literatures declare him Shdura. So what would you certify him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.107.239.233 (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

IRT: "Which authentic book tells that Kurmis are Shudras?" Fortunately, I provide a whole list of books earlier up on this talk page, fully formatted citations, with links you can click to go search the book. For, as you mention, cases where there are several theories recorded by academics, we can definitely "teach the controversy" and explain the different sides of the story. However, it has to be done from neutral sources, so if a PhD history scholar at a university in Calcutta or New York writes that the Kurmi claimed to be Kshatriya, we can put that down in the "Debate" section, but we don't put it in there simply because www.kurmisareawesome.com makes the claim. Footnoting has to come from WP:Reliable sources. Before you go asking "which book", please read the rest of the earlier conversations on this page, which probably cover your questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Question is not whether Kurmi caste is shudra or khatriya ?

the question is not whether Kurmi caste is so called shudra or kshatriya? But the question is that who has made this so called brahmins, khatriya, vaishyas and Shudras, sc /st etc. It is all made by we people. It is just a mind set. Even the christians, muslims etc have caste segments within themselves. Almost all the religions have got segmentation/division within.

Lets not worry and get moved by these divisions, it is all a mind game! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.38.143 (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Kurmi are Arayans and so they are Kshatriya.

It's shame from the part of Wikipedia as with some fake articles in books, had removed Kshatriya from Kurmi. Where as there is article stating that Kurmi are descendent's of Lord Rama on Wikipedia itself. Rajput(son of kings) are small part of Kshatriyas and in wars only son of kings are not there to win it. Time after the caste system came into existence and Arayans were growing exceptionally well in harmony they tried a new system of caste, that point of time Kurmi were considered as Kshatriya because of there work and lineage. But as time passed and people from other caste from Shudra and Vaishyas started to change there profession and too there castes and call themselves as Kurmi and thus creating confusion of Kurmis of not being Kshatriyas. Anyhow in a well developed democracy one is free to opt for any profession as well as any caste. But as more and more non Kshatriya's started joining and being called Kurmi places where they are being dominated(still in remote areas people have the mentality of being inferior or superior based on caste)by other castes.This conversion is also good as to keep Hindu's intact.So the hue and cry started over Kurmi's being Kshatriya and dominated by others.Where as places where opulent and strong Kurmis are reside they have started considering themselves a Rajput as in Rajsthan,Marathas,Bihar,Central U.P.,M.P.,A.P. and in Punjab and Haryana. Well good for Hinduism and very rich Hindu culture and diminishing the system that was being misused for the sake of one's importance and again become mighty Aryans as one. Kurmi is a big varied caste of people and thus can easily be divided with various names. But they genetically are Kshatriyas and there temperament too is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.129.165.146 (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You raise some very interesting points, but on Wikipedia we must have WP:Verifiability for all such statements; can you go on GoogleBooks and track down some references validating the points you make here? MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

How can you declare an ancient Warrior clan as Sudra ?

You have very little information about the kurmi community.For reference read "Martial Races of Undivided India". Your source of information are not at all reliable. You are talking about an ancient Hindu community, So first you need to consult the community in question. The community is still alive and can give you answers. You're referring books, which are mostly written by Brahmins. The knowledge of Britishers was also very limited, How only in two hundred years of their rule, they became masters of our history? The rivalry between Brahmins and Kurmis is well known. It's mentioned in puranas that a Brahmin avatar of lord Vishnu,Parasuram killed all Kshatriyas of the world,and not once, seventeen times. How is that possible ? Brahmins edited our ancient scriptures several times for their convenience. We don't maintain records like Brahmins, But we have oral tradition for our history, We were told by our ancestors, who we are, nor we need certificates from rival communities. If you deeply study rural India, it's not easy for a Sudra to declare himself as Kshatriya, He might be killed for that. And about your view that, now nobody seems to be Sudra in India. You are again misinformed. Sudra is an ancient word, Now Sudras are known as Dalits in modern India. Sudra and Dalit are synonyms. Now you know Sudra as Dalits, which are a significant part of our Hindu society. They are categorized as SC/ST in modern India.So don't publish wrong information about any community, and if you don't have reliable information, it would be better not to publish anything about it. I hope, the debate would have reached on some positive conclusion. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajneesh Katiyar (talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above several times: Martial Races of Undivided India is a discredited book which appears to be largely copied from Wikipedia. Next, as mentioned many times above: if you want to make an assertion, you have to provide evidence from written sources, not just give your opinion. I completely agree with you that due to "the winners write the history books" there are likely British and Brahmin biases in the academic histories which need untangling. However, untangling them is the work of academics, not encylopedists/Wikipedians. At any point that you are able to find a good academic critique of these theories, wherein a PhD scholar in India, Australia, Argentina, wherever writes "In actuality, Crooke was misled by the Brahmins, and according to the X document of 1743, the Kurmis were listed as Kshatriya..." then that would be an outstanding addition to this article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 115.241.122.140, 17 June 2011

SOme of the refrences

http://www.geocities.com/srigurugranthsahib/RAMANAND.htm

• http://46.1911encyclopedia.org/C/CH/CHANDRAGUPTA_MAURYA.htm
• http://www.rajasthantravelguide.com/rajasthan_tourism/rajasthan_history.html
• http://www.patidarsamaj.org/culture-traditions.htm
• http://www.lps-london-snv.co.uk/about.html
• http://www.matiyapatidar.org/index2.htm
•  Done http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/07/stories/2006010706381200.htm
• http://ncbc.nic.in/backward-classes/mp.html
• http://www.umasagpan.com/AboutusText_History.html
• http://www.poduru.com/gothramulu.htm
• http://www.123exp-culture.com/t/03604527140/
•  Done http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/young-india-votes/news/Mighty-Kurmis-of-Bihar/articleshow/555124.cms

Some of the editorials:-

• Vishnu Purana
• Agni Purana
• Tripitaka
• http://www.bavisgam.com/Gams.php

115.241.122.140 (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you want added? This isn't very specific. TNXMan 18:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Both the The Hindu article and the Times of India article are interesting, so I'll try to add those in. A lot of the other links don't appear to be WP:Reliable sources though. And, like Tnxman notes, if you want specific changes to be made, you need to tell us specifically what you want added or subtracted, along with your citation link. EDIT: used two of the reliable refs, checked them off the list. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Per the above - Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. ^Avic_ennasis @ 17:26, 16 Sivan 5771 / 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 115.184.116.24, 21 June 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

• Please tell us what you want to change specifically. —GFOLEY FOUR— 04:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

We need to understand the word 'Kurmi' first. Kurmi is a Sanskrit word and is synonymous to 'Kurma' or 'lord' 'Master' 'Powerful' 'Noble' etc. so please change Kurmi with the following- The Kurmi (Hindi: कुर्मी) Kurmis are the direct descendants of the famous Suryavanshi Kshatriya dynasties of Lord Rama and one of the sects of Hindus in India. Kurmis are known as chief agricultural caste of India. Kurmi and their descendants residing all over the world and especially India are compassionate, industrious and very resourceful people. The term "Kurmi" was borne,as a title, by the princes Vivasvan (son of manu) and Sharyati of the Sun Dynasty and by the lunar Kings Yadu and Kuntibhoja. It was the designattion of a son of the solar king Sumitra and of the son of Gritsamad, author of several hymns of the Rigveda, The group is often associated with the Kunbi, though scholars differ as to whether the terms are synonymous. Change Etymology with the following-

 Not done Your key reference, Martial Races of Undivided India, is a discredited work which appears largely to be copied from Wikipedia itself. The other refs are WP:Primary sources, and their use would be WP:Original research, so not admissible. While it would indeed be valuable to add info on the group's legendary claims to Kshatriya status, this does not overrule their recognition as Shudra in academic works. Your etymology section below does raise a very valid reference regarding Kurma, and has been added per your input. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The piece from The castes and tribes of H.E.H. the Nizam's dominions can probably be used to establish a legendary history; I'm just unclear as to what is mean by "The Kurmis of this State" midway-down on page 370. Can you clarify to us what state (and/or its modern equivalent) is being referred to? Again, this will not impact the Shudra designation, but will be used to augment a "Legendary origin" section. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

The Kurmis derive their name from the word "Kurma" occurring in the Rigveda. and Shatapath Brahman. and meaning 'Lord, Master ,Powerful,' etc. The term Kurmi may has origin from the word Kurmanchal or Kumaon region of Uttarakhand. These Kurmi clans (Kulas) should be added to the article- Brahma Vamshi, Nidar, Bhargava, Manwaha, Virat Vamshi, Marichivamshi, Dikshi, Gaharvaliya, Gautamiya, Sukalanki, Udavatiya, Maharamya, Meruiha, Gaunaha, Bhruwar, Pathari, Chanderi, Lohthamba, Gohalauta, Baghela, Nikumbha, Pailawar, Sumitravamshi, Rathore, Sachan, Avadhya, Ramavamshi, Kushavamshi, Ikshavakuvamshi, Kashyapiya, Vishen, Kachwaha, Rana, Chauhan, Bhojaka, Gorakha (Raghuvanshi), Gaura, Hajari, Rishal, Sharduliha, Adharanda, . These Kurmi Surnames will be added to the article Bhosle Gaikwad Chauhan Kushwaha Chandra Scindia Scinde Chavan Vaghela Baghel Koppikar Patil Sinha Gaharwar Rathore

I've incorporated the portion you note regarding Kurma. Note that even your source offers it as one of several etymologies, so I have not removed other theories, but have added Kurma. The cites to the Rig Veda, etc. are WP:Primary sources, so not needed or applicable. I will look into your cite regarding the list of clans later, thanks for providing it. Your work is a good example of how those who give a clear edit request and, most importantly, proper sourcing are those most likely to achieve results, so well done. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Gyan Publishing House sources

I see that Martial Races ... keeps getting mentioned here. To clarify the situation, all original works published by Gyan Publishing House should be deemed to be unreliable sources and unsuitable to support any statement on Wikipedia. There have been numerous discussions regarding this "pirate" outfit, spread over many articles and also at central discussion areas, such as here.

Basically, either they do not check the work of their authors or they are actually encouraging copyright violations and plagiarism on a major scale. It is extremely well documented.

Gyan do also issue some reprints of old books, in a similar manner to Asian Educational Services. In these instances, it would be preferable to find the original book rather than use the Gyan version. Most of these can be found at www.archive.org or www.hathitrust.org. The reasons for this is that even though they are supposedly reprints there have been examples where certain sections have been mangled/omitted/changed.

I hope that this goes some way to explaining once and for all why MatthewVanitas is correct to discard any citation of Tyagi's Martial Races etc. In many other countries, Gyan would probably have been shut down by now. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Add Kurmi clans and update History.

These Kurmi clans (Kulas) should be added to the article- Brahma Vamshi, Nidar, Bhargava, Manwaha, Virat Vamshi, Marichivamshi, Dikshi, Gaharvaliya, Gautamiya, Sukalanki, Udavatiya, Maharamya, Meruiha, Gaunaha, Bhruwar, Pathari, Chanderi, Lohthamba, Gohalauta, Baghela, Nikumbha, Pailawar, Sumitravamshi, Rathore, Sachan, Avadhya, Ramavamshi, Kushavamshi, Ikshavakuvamshi, Kashyapiya, Vishen, Kachwaha, Rana, Chauhan, Bhojaka, Gorakha (Raghuvanshi), Gaura, Hajari, Rishal, Sharduliha, Adharanda,..

The term "this State" in the book refers to Deccan region or Modern states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh (The Adil Shahi or Adilshahi dynasty ruled the Sultanate of Bijapur in the Western area of the Deccan region of Southern India from 1490 to 1686. Bijapur had been a province of the Bahmani Sultanate (1347–1518), before its political decline in the last quarter of the 15th century and eventual break-up in 1518. The Bijapur Sultanate was absorbed into the Mughal Empire on 12 September 1686, after its conquest by the Emperor Aurangzeb.Golkonda, a ruined city of south-central India and capital of ancient Kingdom of Golkonda (c. 1364–1512), is situated 11 km west of Hyderabad.) Kurmi, Kurmi Kshatriya,Kunbi-a large landholding and cultivating caste of northern India supposed to have come to Deccan as soldiers early in the seventeenth century. During the wars of Aurangzeb with the Bijapur and Golconda kindoms,and subsequently with the Marathas, they enlisted in the Mughal army and held posts of honour as hajaris,subedars and as commandants of the different forts and districts which were conquered and annexed by the Moghals. since their disbandment, after the death of Aurangzeb, they have settled down as peaceful cultivators,their ranks being recrruited by fresh immigrants from upper India.

Parihar Bhoja Deo was ruling over Kannauj in 880 AD At the same time the Kurmi Kshatriya of Kalinjar being driven out by the Chandel, resided at Shardulpur by the side of the Tedhi lake. Ill-feeling arose between the Ghuren Kurmi Kshatriya and the Gohalauta of the vicinity. In 1019 Raja Rajyapal Parihar fled away to Shardulpur where he was killed by the Gohalauta and the Raja of Gwalior. a general massacre took place and all the claims of the Ghuren were confiscated. Of these, Birkarma Ghuren went to the Tomar Raja of Delhi, and describing his ill- fate begged for the Kannauj Shahi troop. Being successful in his attempt, he returned to Shardulpur and defeating the Gohalauta regained his property and inhabited a new village by the side of the Tedhi lake which is now called Tedha. Kachwaha is a Kurmi Clan- The Kachchwaha (also spelled as Kachavāhā,Kachawaha,Kacchavahas, Kachhawa, Kuchhwaha,Kachhawaha,Kushwaha & Keshwala & including Kacchapghata,Kush Bhawani, Kakutstha, and Kurma) are a Suryavanshi Kshatriya clan who ruled a number of kingdoms and princely states in India such as Alwar, Maihar, Talcher, while the largest kingdom was Jaipur (Jainagara) which was founded by Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh II in 1727. The Maharaja of Jaipur is regarded as the head of the extended Kachwaha clan. Rathore is a Kurmi clan- The Rathore (or Rathor / Rathur / Rathod / Rathour) Rathore's are originally from Kannauj in Uttar Pradesh. Gahadvala,Gaharwar or Gangwar are Kurmi clans- The founder of the Kannauj Gahadvala dynasty was Chandradeva, who took control of Kannauj at the end of the 11th century (1090A.D.), filling the political vacuum that had been created after that city was sacked by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1018. Chandradeva soon expanded the kingdom to include Delhi, Ayodhya, and Varanasi (Benares). During the rule of his successor Govindachandra (1114–1154), the Gahadvala state reached the pinnacle of its power, occupying much of present-day Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Govindachandra moved his capital from Kannauj to Varanasi. His queen Kumaradevi was a devout Buddhist, and Govindachandra was a patron of both Hindu temples and Buddhist monasteries. Bhosle is a Kurmi Clan- Shivaji Bhosle a great Kunbi/Kurmi ruler, achieved the re-establishment of Hindu rule on his homeland after being ruled and dominated by various Muslim dynasties for a few hundred years. He established a competent and progressive civil rule with the help of a well-regulated and disciplined military and well-structured administrative organizations.The Patidar are a large Hindu ethnic group found primarily in the state of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh in India and known to be part of the "Kurmi" or "Kanbi" caste. The Patidars were among the upper class in some Indian communities. Through ownership of land, and later through their role as tax agents under British administration, the Patidars rose to a position of respectability. Though some Patidars in Charotar came to claim descent from Lava and Kusa, legendary sons of Lord Rama, this argument was controverted by academics. Patidars are also known as Patel, a common surname in the Kurmi community.

Vallabhbhai Patel was prominent leader from Kurmi community. He was called as "Iron Man Of India" In India and across the world, he was often addressed as Sardar, which means Chief in many languages of India. Scindia or Shinde, Gaikwad are Kurmi clans-

References:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.205.150 (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There is hundred kulas of the Kurmi Kshatriya according to the Mahabharata.

Some of them are:- 1 Brahma Vamshi ♦ 2 Nidar ♦ 3 Bhargava ♦ 4 Manwaha ♦ 5 Virat Vamshi ♦ 6 Marichivamshi ♦ 7 Dikshi Kurmi ♦ 8 Gaharvaliya Kurmi ♦ 9 Gautamiya Kurmi ♦ 10 Sukalanki Kurmi ♦ 11 Udavatiya Kurmi ♦ 12 Maharamya Kurmi ♦ 13 Meruiha Kurmi ♦ 14 Gaunaha Kurmi ♦ 15 Bhruwar Kurmi ♦ 16 Pathari Kurmi ♦ 17 Chanderi kurmi ♦ 18 Lohthamba Kurmi ♦ 19 Gohalauta Kurmi ♦ 20 Baghela Kurmi ♦ 21 Nikumbha Kurmi ♦ 22 Pailawar Kurmi ♦ 23 Sumitravamshi Kurmi ♦ 24 Rathaur kurmi ♦ 25 Sachan Kurmi ♦ 26 Avadhya Kurmi ♦ 27 Ramavamshi Kurmi ♦ 28 Kushavamshi Kurmi ♦ 29 Ikshavakuvamshi Kurmi ♦ 30 Kashyapiya Kurmi ♦ 31 Vishen Kurmi ♦ 32 Kachvaha Kurmi ♦ 33 Rana Kurmi ♦ 34 Chauhan Kurmi ♦ 35 Bhojaka Kurmi ♦ 36 Gorakha (Raghuvamshi) Kurmi ♦ 37 Gaura Kurmi ♦ 38 Hajari Kurmi ♦ 39 Rishal kurmi ♦ 40 Sharduliha Kurmi ♦ 41 Adharanda Kurmi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.244.23 (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Please remove Gyan Publishing House source and add articles related to other parts of the country as well.

Please remove Author Aditya Pandey's book, "South Asia: Politics of South Asia" from Gyan Publishing House. pp. 150–. ISBN 9788182053038 for citation,as it's not a reliable source of information, as per your view.Please cite some reliable sources like some newspaper,Govt. or from some good publishers,so it will become clear that Kurmis are Sudra. The article seems to be limited to some tribe of 19th century Bihar, while Kurmi is a pan India caste. There are about 15 million Kurmis in Uttar Pradesh alone,and they are highly concentrated in the regions of Ancient capitals like Kannauj and Varanasi.Some of the tribes of Bihar were added by the Kurmi community,to give more teeth to the political movement because number matters in democracy. People forming groups and coming closer is a good sign of Democracy. Kurmis are politically one entity,across India but socially they are divided in different clans and regions, so you could not define one culture,food habit or customs by citing one example, so please add only common things,which can represent the real picture of community. "over time the priests were called brahmans, the rulers were called kshatriyas,agriculturalists were called vaishyas,and the stupid who could not learn were given the name shudra". Peasants and monks in British India By William R. Pinch pages-107/108 , according to this statement kurmis should be described as Vaisya because they are agriculturalists, but I can't understand the basis of Sudra status,niether academic nor Ancient Vedic sources can prove Kurmis as Sudra,By citing Vedic sources you can declare them as Vaisya,but Kurmis believe they are Kshatriya and they can mention Vedas for that.Since the concept of Varna is Vedic, So we can only trust Vedas not some British records.So cite some Vedic scriptures to prove Kurmis as Sudra,Now you don't accept Vedic sources but, you're talking about some Ancient caste, which evolved in Vedic period and not in British period. So the argument continues... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.220.205 (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Give me a bit to find a better publisher for Aditya Pandey; I believe she's an actual academic, so I'll go look into how reputable her work is, if the Gyan is a reprint and can be replaced, etc. Again, we don't do Vedic research here, we are not PhD scholars. Neither you nor we are qualified to make academic findings about Vedic issues. I will look for more reputable academic references regarding the Shudra issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that the publisher seems actually to be Isha Books, not Gyan. Google appears to have got its metadata wrong. I've taken this info from the opening pages of Pandey, which is where I always check for detailed info precisely because GBooks often gets it screwed up. - Sitush (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Please include some original research work of authors from Andhra University

The authors are part of a study by Andhra University to research a community, which has lost it's identity in the past. Please quote pages 5 and 6. Shivaji was a kurmi and the Rajas of Gwalior and Satara are said to be of the same race. The Historian Karneejee's lines are given below to support the above lines: Sindhia of Gwalior, the ex-Raja of Satara and the ex-Bhosle of Nagpur were Kurmis or of the class as a kin to them. Mr Campbell has pointed out that the Kurmi element was the foundation of the Maharastra power and that Shivaji and many of his chiefs were Kurmis. There are also Kurmi Rajas in Gorakhpur and Gujarat. Darshan Singh of Atraulia who is of this caste, earned the title of Ghalibjang for his brave services to the kings of Oudh, and his son jailed acquired the title of Raja during rebellion.

Eh? Sorry, but I cannot make sense of this at all. What are you wanting to say? And how does the footnote "prove" whatever you want, given that it is actually itself a citation to something else? - Sitush (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

His footnote isn't displaying right due to reflist layout; he's citing this GoogleBook pageA. Vijaya Kumari; Sepuri Bhaskar (1 March 1998). Social change among Balijas: majority community of Andhra Pradesh. M.D. Publications Pvt. Ltd. pp. 6–. ISBN 9788175330726. Retrieved 23 June 2011. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

In any case, it is not because some (just a minor section i suppose) Kurmis managed to become rulers, nobles & got Kshatriya status that the entire Kurmis caste can be called Kshatriya.Rajkris (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the story of Shivaji was "found" to be Kshatriya to enable his coronation, which I think is a pretty cool story and neat illustration of the flexibilities in the system. But what we're looking for at the moment is some really specific support for very specific claims. The section highlighted mainly appears to argue that Shivaji was a Kurmi (according to some academics). I'm totally fine adding that, though since it's a little edgy it'd be nice to get another really solid academic cite to back it up. I'm not seeing that particular page, however, as having anything to do with Kshatriya, "kings and warriors", etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Corrrection in classification section,please mention "Claimed Suryavanshi Kshatriya, otherwise classified as Shudra"

Since the status of caste is disputed, and by neutral nature of Wikipedia, It will be good to classify the caste as "Claimed Suryavanshi Kshatriya, otherwise classified as Shudra",till the debate comes to an end and it will be proved by reliable sources,whether Kurmis are Sudra or Kshatriya. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.209.63 (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That's what I've been commonly doing. I do doubt that the debate will ever "come to an end", and indeed I doubt that there even is one single "right" answer to the issue. If we have a few good cites indicating that the Kurmi consider themselves Kshatriya (ideally it'd be nice to have some cites other than those already used to cover the political organisations) I could certainly see adding that in. Can you go on GoogleBooks and find a couple good cites explaining how the Kurmis view their own legendary history and social level? MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Matthew Vanitas , Please explain.

"Some of the Kurmis ate fowls and field rats; but they did not eat pork or beef.[3]" Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya (1896). 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. Thacker, Spink. pp. 270–. http://books.google.com/books?id=xlpLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA270. Retrieved 13 May 2011.

• Why you used false citation with back date,while you were aware that book had no preview ?
• Why you created a duplicate page of this page ?
• http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Koiry
• http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Koeri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.158.214 (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The book does indeed have a preview; I looked at it not one minute ago. The cite in question is on page 272, so I can expand the link to say "270-272". How is it a "false citation"? So far as your other point, if Koiry and Koeri are the same thing, feel free to put up a merge proposal, and after an appropriate period of time, merge them. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Corrrection in classification section,please mention "Claimed Suryavanshi Kshatriya, otherwise classified as Shudra"

These are some of the citations,which confirm Kurmis claim of "Suryavanshi Kshatriya", Please classify them as "Claimed Suryavanshi Kshatriya, otherwise classified as Shudra" till further research.

1. "Awadhia Kurmi who now claims to be Suryavanshi Kshatriya"
2. "From the social point of view also the Kurmis are emerging with definite claims as belonging to one of the Kshatriya stocks. They generally use Singh, Chaudhury, Mahto, Rai and Patel, etc. as surnames."
3. "The Mahatos had attained Kshatriya status by identifying themselves with the Kurmis."
4. "Putting even tradition aside and looking,on the one hand, to the physical type of the Kurmis and, on the other,to their internal organisation, it would appear that their claim to a Kshatriya descent cannot be wholly rejected."

Social change in village is not an acceptable source: one village a caste does not make. I will go through the rest. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Rm reflist - more trouble than it is worth. Why people cannot cite properly is beyond me. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of numbering your list. #4 does not say that they were kshatriya but rather that they claimed to be kshatriya and that their internal organisation + their physical appearance means that it is possible. It is useless, in other words. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Your #2 - can you see it in full view? I cannot comment without that &, judging by the link you have provided, you also cannot. It is a snippet view link and, as such, has no context. Without context it is useless. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Your #3 looks more promising. Will do some digging about the author etc. Also, the quoted bit doesn't say that the Kurmis were kshatriya, although possibly it does imply it. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Please check the Yadav page and the citations, which only mention the Kshatriya link,Kshatriya status was not proved by the cites,so their status shows "Claimed Chandravanshi Kshatriya, otherwise classified as Shudra". So Please do the same with the kurmi article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.204.120 (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done The article does indeed have (in the Politics section) statements that they claim Kshatriya status, so I have added that "debate" to the infobox as you recommend, so that both Shudra and Kshatriya are mentioned. The current cites don't appear to specify "Chandravanshi", so I have written simply "Kshatriya" for the time being. I don't know, in the long run, what is the most fair way to say in the infobox "they claim themselves to be Kshatriya but others deny this and consider them Shudra", but you are correct that the new phrasing (which I think I initially made for another page's consensus) is the temporary "standard" compromise. Thanks for bringing it up. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Add Shivaji as Great Kurmi Ruler in the History section.

1. "The marathas have a distinct national individuality. They are an active,energetic race,liable to religious enthusiasm, and full of military ardour. In their native mountains of the Deccan, they never submitted to the Muhammadan yoke; and,under the leadership of Shivaji, they not only asserted their independence,but laid the greater part of India under tribute. The chief tribe is the agricultural Kunbis,a name identical with the Kurmis of Hindustan."
2. "In the same grade are included the Kurmi, or Kunbi, and the Mali. The Kunbis are seen at their best in the Deccan, where they sometimes take the title of Maratha, which is more respectable than that of Kunbi, because it was identified with the great national movement under the leadership of the famous Shivaji, which led to the rule of the Peshwas at Poona."
3. "The Kurmis are considered to be the descendants of Chatrapati Shivaji"
4. "Shivaji was a Kurmi and the Rajas of Gwalior and Satara are said to be of the same race."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.217.73 (talk) 06:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Please Add Image of Nitish Kumar in the Article

File:Nitish Kumar1.jpg

Please add image of Nitish Kumar, current Chief Minister of Bihar and Most respected Kurmi leader of Modern India. He deserves place on the community page.His image will inspire future Kurmi leaders. His name is already mentioned on the webpage.--Ajneesh Katiyar (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, the full article, including photos, of Kumar are accessible by simply clicking his name where it appears in the Politics section: Nitish Kumar. Though that section could use a photo overall, I submit that group photos of members of any of the political parties involved might make for a more comprehensive photo. Might you know where we can find older photos of the initial Lucknow Kurmi organisations, for example? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"Suryavanshi" is missing in the classification section

Thanks for mentioning Kshatriya in the classification section,Although it's incomplete Kurmis claim descent from the Ikshavakuvamsh, Please add "Kurmis claim to be descendants of the Suryavanshi Kshatriya dynasty of Lord Rama" Ikshavakuvanshi,Raghuvanshi,Ramvanshi,Awadhia,Kushvanshi, these clans signify there Suryavanshi lineage, King Ikshavaku was a Suryavanshi King, So according to there belief, they are Suryavanshi Kshatriya.

1. The Kanbis or the Patidars in Charotar claim descent from Lava and Kusa, legendary sons of Lord Rama, this argument was controverted by academics.
2. "Awadhia Kurmi who now claims to be Suryavanshi Kshatriya"

Is it really necessary to list every "claim"? Claims that have no substance in reality? Given the complexities of Indian legends, and also the problems of transliteration, you could create entire articles just listing claims and counter-claims. It seems pointless to me. From our position it would make more sense to say something like, "There have been numerous unsubstantiated claims made regarding the status and origins of X, based usually on ancient texts and mythology. These include, but are not limited to, Y and Z". - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Questioning Shudra designation #2

CENTRAL LIST OF OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES http://ncbc.nic.in/Centrallistifobc.html Kurmi is in OBC (Other Backward Classes) list not in SC/ST(Shudras). it proves that Govt Of India doesn't classify Kurmis as Shudras. --Guddu56 (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

All the list proves is that the government classifies Kurmi as OBC, and perhaps even then only some of them. Making the leap from OBC to not being shudra is synthesis. You need a specific source, not a tangential one. - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

TRUTH IS NOT ONLY WHAT WIKI SAYS.

WIKI IS as common English terminology and geopolitical definitions as THEIR sources, regardless of any personal point of view .it mean not enyones view except their.Who care what victorian scholar says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkatyan (talk • contribs) 06:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Add "Sindia" in the subdivision section.

"In Malwa, it(Kurmi) has risen to great power by the elevation of Sindhya, who was a Kurmi, to the government of Ujjain, and at his capital the Kurmis are reckoned Rajpoots."

Interesting point, thanks for bringing it. I'll try to get it added in in the next couple days; please drop in here and remind us if we don't either add it or give a counter-explanation in the next few days. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge - has been proposed several times in the past and rejected

Merge proposer: please see the discussion at WP:INDIA: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_45#Any_reason_not_to_merge_Kurmi_and_Kunbi.3F. Do you have any objections not raised there? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Kurmis are Kshtriyas

I am a Kurmi Kshatriya and all my ancestors have been landlords. Let me know anyone whose ancestors were "Zamindars" and they were Sudras. There is no offence in being termed as Sudras, but the motive of this writer is questionable. Can you reveal your true identity and motive? Government of India doesn't term Kurmis as Sudras, then how can you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashantv79 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, who I am and my "motives" are immaterial. Feel free to look over my Contribution history though if you want to see the scope of my work over the last three years. I submit I don't have any "motive" in caste articles other than ensuring accuracy, a large part of which is removing glorification and biased portrayals, which frequently include inflated Kshatriya claims in many, many castes.

If you want to know why the article says "Shudra", please refer to the footnotes provided in the texts, which are linked online. So far as "the Indian government doesn't term Kurmis as Shudra", that's a fallacious argument, as the Indian gov't doesn't term anyone as Shudra, nor Kshatriya, etc. Instead, various communities are labeled OBC, SC/ST, etc. based on economic discrimination, etc. There are groups previously classified as Shudra who are not OBC/SC/ST because they are financially sucessful and not in need of preferential quotas to advance their social group. Likewise, there are groups which may originate in "higher" varnas who are OBC due to their community being socially kept down. For example, Rajputs claim Kshatriya origin, but there have been political attempts to gain OBC status for Rajputs in some areas due to localised economic conditions.

Please review the lengthy explanations given on this page, as you're re-treading ground we've covered many times before. If, having read the footnotes on the article page, and the discussions above, you still have comments and citations from WP:Reliable sources to support them, we'd be happy to address those. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Matthews: By editing this article so much, you prove my point. You are not a party of no-interest. You are totally partial in your reasoning. I fail to treat you as a reliable source. To all Kurmi Brothers: Let's report this user as someone who is propogating false claims. Prashantv79

help in improving the page 'Kurmi' is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guddu56 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Kurmi and Kunbi are same, so we have to come on same page.

Kurmi/Kunbi are geographically separated castes, due to distance their language and culture seems to be different. But I believe they are same because, they refer to same History. Kurmis are dominant in North India and Kunbis in Western India. Politically, Government of India recognise them as same caste. Socially, they are different entity, but they believe, they are Kshatriya. Sainthwar Kurmis tried to merge with the Rajut community and declared they were Kshatriya. Rajputs were willing to accept them,just to improve their political position. These desparate attempts by Kurmi subcastes can harm the Community. So if Kurmis and Kunbis believe, they are not Sudra, they hava to come closer and fight as one group. Kurmi is a Sanskrit word, the term "Kurmi" implies their Aryan origin and Kunbi is just a Marathi or Gujarati derivative of Kurmi. Kurmis allowed to add some Tribal communities to its fold just to get political mileage. Kurmis are Aryan and their claim for Kshatriya status is legitimate. I believe, now is the time for both Kurmis and Kunbis to come close and fight for their rights, they have common History, they can have common future. --Ajneesh Katiyar (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, your argument is not convincing because you are focusing on what they should do to unite politically, while recognising that they are socially different groups. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for political causes, we just seek to reflect documented reality. We already recognise in the lede that the Indian government classifies them together (in some areas, cites to support whether this is more widespread would be great), but we still appear to be dealing with at least somewhat separate histories, regions, and cultural practices, and thus two articles. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Provide links for the Kurmi Kshatriya and Kurmi History.

We can't close eyes from the reality.Kurmi Kshatriya is a reality, an organisation is working with the same name for more than hundred years. we need a dedicated page for Kurmi History, provide a link to Kurmi History — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.202.44.175 (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Please note this page already has a "Politics" section which gets into detail about the All India Kurmi Kshatriya Association and its predecessors; have you read over that section? I would definitely like to expand that section more if you have any good WP:Reliable sources to footnote, but that section is nowhere near long enough to warrant being its own article. The separate article Kurmi Kshatryia which was created has just been deleted as providing no information of value not already covered in this article, so it was redundant. Before we look into creating any spin-off articles, let us continue to build this article first, and should this article become too long we can always split off material for supporting arguments. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Blunder mistakes regarding "KURMI KHASTRIYA" caste from India, being wrongly placed under "SHUDRA"

Respected sir, I would like to say that Kurmi caste of India belongs to Backword Class from kshatriya not from Sudra.Your minar error hearts to all community. So I requested to you to rectify the error asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tata niraj (talk • contribs) 08:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Kurmi Rulers were ignored in the article.

Names of great kurmi rulers are missing in the article, without them Kurmi History is incomplete, Kings like shivaji, Chatrapati shahuji Maharaj,Sindias should be mentioned in the article. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati renamed a University of Kanpur,a Medical college Of Lucknow, a district of UP as Chatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Nagar by the name of famous Kurmi ruler Chatrapati shahuji Maharaj, just to impress the second largest OBC population of State.But the article has ignored all the Kurmi Rulers.Kurmi one of the largest community of India,one of the largest landholding castes of India,had no History, How is that possible?

• "You all know how Chhatrapati Shivaji, the glory of the Kurmis, roamed about in hills and dales and brought the Kurmis under a common banner to fight against the Mughals This is the way of life led by the great Kurmi sons."Man in India :Volume 42Sarat Chandra Roy (Rai Bahadur) - 1962
• "Swamji SB Saraswati is also of the opinion that Kammas are ancient Kshatriyas descended from the Kurmi, Kumbi Maharatta dynasties of the North . He adds that Emperor Sivaji, Gwalior Kings, Satara Kings and Ayodhya Kings, all belong to Kurmi caste."Census of India, 1961: Volume 22, Part 6,Issue 21
• "They(Kurmi) are found in very large numbers in the Tributary Mehals of Orissa, and many amongst the Mahrattas call themselves Kurmis. Sivaji was a Kurmi, and the Rajahs of Gwalior and Satara are said to be of the same race." Various census of India

These facts could not be ignored for long. The article seeems to be concentrating on proving that Kurmis were Sudra, other aspects of Kurmi community were ignored or attempted to hide. If the article is purely acedemic in nature,it should be nutral in context. Adding Kurmi caste in Sudra Category with castes like Chamars and Bhangis is regrettable and senseless. They shuoud be Categorised as Kshatriya, since we don't have any reliable source to prove that Kurmis were Sudra, we have to accept, what Kurmis believe. The History of Kurmi begins from the Rigvedic period, so it's not easy to trace the History of caste,but we Know that they were Aryans, they were large land owners, The word 'Kurmi' is a Sanskrit word and it's synonmous to Kurma, which is a auspicious word. How 'Kurmi' became an unauspicious Sudra. please take note of these aspects and publish a clear picture of Kurmi community. --Ajneesh Katiyar (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be repeating yourself. Which of your points above have not previously had a response? - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Kurmis are not shudra but kshatriya.

Sir, As we heard and know from our childhood told from our father/grandfather that we from kurmi caste belongs to kshatriya clan. I shocked after reading your article that which mistakenly regard kurmi as shudra. It may be a silly mistake from your part, but for us its like stigma. I request you to kindly change the sentence in article which says that kurmi belongs to shudra. I'm providing you with some link which prove my veracity.

Martial races of undivided India By Vidya Prakash Tyagi. Page no. 265 , its clearly mentioned that kurmi is kshatriya.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=vRwS6FmS2g0C&pg=PA265&dq=kurmi+are+kshatriya&hl=en&ei=TQYaToLAO4zrrQelpenPAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=kurmi%20are%20kshatriya&f=false

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirajkumar.cool (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hopelessly unreliable source. It has been discussed here before. Tyagi is incredibly bad and how he has avoided being sued is beyond me. - Sitush (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I will give you more links about this, I started working on this, First link - On the original inhabitants of Bharatavarṣa or India. By Gustav Salomon Oppert, Arno Press, 1978 page 261-264 Though this book is not fully visible in google book, but i read this in my library.. On the original inhabitants of Bharatavarṣa or India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirajkumar.cool (talk • contribs) 21:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. If you can get back to the library & photocopy or scan it then it would be worth the effort. I'll see if I can find it at my end but have my doubts as I am not very mobile at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Amazing to see the Kurmis of India listed as a servant class. After reading a multitude of books on Indian history, I am yet to come across some book that calls Kurmis as Sudras. Sitush can you quote some reliable sources on this matter.(TomPaul67 (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

It's beyond my understanding why someone would comment on Vidya Prakash Tyagi's book as being an unreliable source. I have read that book and it is quite a reliable book. (TomPaul67 (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

Have you not noticed that it's largely taken from Wikipedia, sometimes including spelling errors directly from Wiki, referring to sections or images which aren't actually in the book, etc? Its ties to Wikipedia aren't as obvious since I and others have been hacking-and-slashing in caste articles over the last year, but if you look at, say Rajput from a time period shortly before the book was published, you'll see large chunks of it in the book verbatim. I just don't see how you can possibly find him accurate: he accepts at face value practically every claim to Kshatriya status out there, which is one reason's he's so popular on Wikipedia. If someone is from the XYZ caste, they're of course thrilled to have Tyagi writing "The XYZs are of the Kshatriya class", often completely contrary to academic sources.

After reading a multitude of books on Indian history, I am yet to come across some book that calls Kurmis as Sudras. -- Have you read the books footnoted to that statement in the article, or the books listed at the top of this article as referring the Kurmi as Shudra? If you have any realiable (not ancient Victorian, not non-professional hobby writers being published in the back of a bus station in Delhi, actual PhD academics) sources indicating Kurmis are Kshatriya? If so, please add them to the list at the top of this article. Note, not sources which say "the Kurmis believe themselves to be..." as we already cover that in the article. We're looking for serious academics who define the Kurmi as Kshatriya. I'm not seeing it, so Shudra does seem to be the correct answer. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I replied to this. Look at the next link. So what I am getting to understand it that unless some PHD doesn't write in the book, however truth might be there in the claim, the claim is not valid. Interesting!

Something that is written in the Vedas is the ultimate truth about India, and not what some British visitors wrote. I would consider an American author's opinion more reflective of the ground realities as I would consider them unbiased. Can you - MatthewVanitas- explain why "Being landlords does not mean that they cannot be Shudra"? In ancient India it was not possible. Though, now there are no such class distinctions in modern India. Unless this argument comes to a proper conclusion, I would request you to remove this "Sudras" from Kurmis. This page, when it was created, had Kurmis listed as Kshtriyas, and apart from you there is one other user who seems to doubt this. So it would be fair to request that the original text be reinstalled. If there are disputes, then let's wait till the final verdict is out. (TomPaul67 (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

(TomPaul67 (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

Kurmis are not agriculural labourers or Sudra, they are one of the largest landholding caste of India

Your comment "(remove "farming"; source seems to say they were "service farmers" (which I think mean agricultural laborers), rather than farmers proper (who wld be vaishya, not shudra)". You removed "farming" word from the article,since you realised that farmers are categorised as Vaisya and not Sudra, according to Vedic Tradition.Kurmis are one of the largest landholding caste of India.These are few links which clearly shows that Kurmis are Landlords and not agricultural laborers or Sudra.Landlords were always Kshatriya, since ancient ages,Although I'm not a supporter of voilence but truth should be revealed, so I've provided some links which proves that Kurmis were landlords.

• "It is possible but by no means certain on the public evidence that the Chamars of Pipra killed the two Kurmi landlords. But the question of just who performed the murders is not strictly pertinent here."
• "As the Harijans were insisting wage rise, a Kurmi landlord Hira Chaudhari killed labourers. Before this he shot dead four poor workers and a Brahmin."
• "The Kurmi landlords with their marauding gang descended on the village and set fire to Harija n houses and shot at Harijans indiscriminately. Many died on the spot. Some of the injured were burnt alive."
• "For instance, in Bishrampur where several landless agricultural labourers were burnt alive by the Kurmis in 1978, rich peasantry is comprised of the Kurmis. Some of the Kurmi landlords possess more than 100 bighas of land". Caste ,caste conflict,and reservations.Ishwarlal Pragji Desai

--Ajneesh Katiyar (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Being landlords does not mean that they cannot be Shudra. Using a variety of facts to prove a theory is part of research, but it is not part of Wikipedia writing. Encyclopedias are not a place to put forth research, they are a place to summarise the conclusions of experts in the field. Of the academic references we've seen covering Kurmis, the bulk explicitly list them among the Shudra castes. Unless you have something similarly credible (actual academic works, not personal ponderings on the Vedas, records of British explorers who believed everything they were told, etc) the fact remains that academics agree the Kurmi are a Shudra caste. Please do read the references footnoted in the currently article, and let us know your thoughts. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Something that is written in the Vedas is the ultimate truth about India, and not what some British visitors wrote. I would consider an American author's opinion more reflective of the ground realities as I would consider them unbiased. Can you - MatthewVanitas- explain why "Being landlords does not mean that they cannot be Shudra"? In ancient India it was not possible. Though, now there are no such class distinctions in modern India. Unless this argument comes to a proper conclusion, I would request you to remove this "Sudras" from Kurmis. This page, when it was created, had Kurmis listed as Kshtriyas, and apart from you there is one other user who seems to doubt this. So it would be fair to request that the original text be reinstalled. If there are disputes, then let's wait till the final verdict is out. (TomPaul67 (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

Sudra, yet again

I am a Kurmi Kshatriya and all my ancestors have been landlords. Let me know anyone whose ancestors were "Zamindars" and they were Sudras. There is no offence in being termed as Sudras, but the motive of this writer is questionable. Can you reveal your true identity and motive? Government of India doesn't term Kurmis as Sudras, then how can you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashantv79 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, who I am and my "motives" are immaterial. Feel free to look over my Contribution history though if you want to see the scope of my work over the last three years. I submit I don't have any "motive" in caste articles other than ensuring accuracy, a large part of which is removing glorification and biased portrayals, which frequently include inflated Kshatriya claims in many, many castes.

If you want to know why the article says "Shudra", please refer to the footnotes provided in the texts, which are linked online. So far as "the Indian government doesn't term Kurmis as Shudra", that's a fallacious argument, as the Indian gov't doesn't term anyone as Shudra, nor Kshatriya, etc. Instead, various communities are labeled OBC, SC/ST, etc. based on economic discrimination, etc. There are groups previously classified as Shudra who are not OBC/SC/ST because they are financially sucessful and not in need of preferential quotas to advance their social group. Likewise, there are groups which may originate in "higher" varnas who are OBC due to their community being socially kept down. For example, Rajputs claim Kshatriya origin, but there have been political attempts to gain OBC status for Rajputs in some areas due to localised economic conditions.

Please review the lengthy explanations given on this page, as you're re-treading ground we've covered many times before. If, having read the footnotes on the article page, and the discussions above, you still have comments and citations from WP:Reliable sources to support them, we'd be happy to address those. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Kurmis Kshtriyas of India

I fail to understand why certain users have changed Kurmis from Kshtriyas to Sudras. As policies of WikiPedia require users to cite reliable sources, here you go: Peasants and Monks in British India, William R. Pinch, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS, Berkeley · Los Angeles, London. © 1996 The Regents of the University of California

A lot of unreliable sources are being posted above to support unverifiable claims that Kurmis are not Kshtriyas. (TomPaul67 (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

Please reinstate the original text, listing Kurmis as Kshtriyas. Or else, please remove the Sudras classification

There seems to be disagreement about the status of Kurmis. On one hand we have multitude of users who believe that Kurmis are Kshtriyas, while on the other hand I see only a couple of users who have a difference of opinion. Till the dispute comes to a final resolution, I would request all the editors to remove the "Sudras" classification. Please let me know your opinion on this. (TomPaul67 (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

If your cause is valid, you will be doing damage to it if you cannot follow basic Wikipedia rules and are indulging in sockpuppetry as is being alleged here Zuggernaut (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear editors and Admin of WikiLeaks: I am very sorry to see that I am being alleged to be a socketpuppet(to be honest, I will have to pickup a dictionary to even understand this term). I don't agree with this accusations, and I would like to see how we can address it. It amazes me that any user who has a difference of opinion is being reported for vandalism. Can you provide me with steps how we can resolve this dispute?

- Paul  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomPaul67 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC) 

(TomPaul67 (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)) Sorry, forgot to add my comments. I am new to this site. Please bear with me till then. I will pick it up soon. (TomPaul67 (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

Thanks to Japser for providing me insights into what socketpuppet is. I politely disagree with the above editor who cited my that I am part of some group which is contesting the contents of this page. The user should have made this claim due to proper reasons. Just because I happen to cite some reliable sources, and I asked for the disputed contents to be removed should not be the cause of my being cited. As the contents of page are still disputed, it would be very helpful if the disputed portions can be removed. I would request admins to investigate the conduct of the person who reported me to be a socketpuppet as it seems he/she has been reporting users, and has been taking precious time of the Admin group. - Paul TomPaul67 (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreement of all authors on this topic

I think we have three editors that agree to a point of view. I think any changes made now to the page, without consulting the authors, would constitute a breach of policy. TomPaul67 (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear, all. It would be great if we all make edits after consensus. This page is very important for a lot of people, and as such we should not make frequent edits to this page. In case you made an edit by mistake, please consult all the concerned authors before making such an edit. TomPaul67 (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you are only applying policy when it suits you to do so, in this instance apparently a belated recognition of what WP:CONSENSUS acutally says. That this page is important to a lot of people is not, however, a policy; nor is that any restriction on how many times a page can be edited. I have started an SPI and will notify the relevant accounts shortly. Sorry that it has come to this & I do hope that my suspicions are wrong. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Consensus isn't a vote, it is an evaluation of arguments in the light of policy including validity of sources etc. So 100 people wanting things one way because something offends them would not overturn 1 person making well-sourced edits. So if anyone wants to make a change or dispute someone else's change, they should do it by discussing reliable sources, not by demanding it needs the permission of the "majority". And the claimed "majority" here are very likely sockpuppets anyway -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Malicious intentions of MatthewsVanitas, Sitush, and Katieh5584

These users are putting disputed contents and are providing wrong information about Kurmi caste. See this book about Kurmis: Martial races of undivided India (Prashantv79 (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

If you read this page before you wrote, you would know that Tyagi is not an acceptable source, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. (talk) Please don't state opinions. It would have been better to substantiate your opinions with some valid proofs. (TomPaul67 (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

I would like to know by what means can some user decide what is an acceptable source and what is not. If it were up to individual users to decide, then I would find it very very interesting. Is there a committee about this? (TomPaul67 (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

How is South Asia: Politics of South Asia, Aditya Pandey with words like 'Shudra', a book on politics considered a proper source over the book presented above(Martial races of undivided India) for races(communities) in India? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 21:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea whether the former is reliable because I have not looked at it yet. However, the latter is totally unreliable, as has been explained umpteen times. If all sources are unreliable then statements have to be removed as unverifiable. Simple as that. - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have objections to the publisher's standards, or Pandey's credentials (either of which I'm totally open to hearing about), that's one thing, but are you objecting to a book on the grounds that it contains the word Shudra? It's one of the four varnas, it's a legitimate historical term, regardless of whether some modern Indians treat it as a dirty word since folks are in a hurry to disassociate themselves from working-class origins. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not discussion here personal taste of 'some modern Indians' or your views about it at all. I am asking how is the source talking about political India, when the word Shudra is legally not recognized is used, is reliable over the other book that is based on actual communities. Since when are Kurmis considered 'Shudras'? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 21:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, even by your own sources recently added to the article, they were certainly considered shudra up until early part of the 20th C. I guess "since when" goes way back to when the varna system became established. It really does not matter whether the term is legally recognised, eg: there are plenty of countries where no religion is recognised or where no social class is defined in law, but that does not prevent people calling Christians as Christians and aristocrats as aristocrats. Yet again, you are being tendentious with the aim of furthering your POV. It is becoming tedious. - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Where are the sources say that Kurmis are 'Shudras'? Please link the unsubstantiated claim. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you unable to locate these sources? They are explictly marked in the footnotes in the article page, and there's a huge post at the top of this page listing source for each side of the argument. How are you unable to see these listings of citations? It seems very odd you're calling this "unsubstantiated" despite it being clearly footnoted and discussed all over this page. Are you simply not reading the material? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Peasants and Monks

TT2011 has introduced a source called Peasants and Monks which apparently discusses how some part(s) of the Kurmi community campaigned for Kshatriya status in the late 19C/early 20C. I have asked him to add specific page numbers.

My problem will be that big chunks of this are inaccessible, eg: pages 101-109 are not visible on GBooks. If anyone can grab screenshots or some other form of copy then I would be grateful to have a look at them, when the page numbers are provided. Usually I read round the relevant pages - sometimes an entire chapter, and not infrequently the entire book - because a lot can be gained from putting cites into the context that the author intended them. This could be frustrating! - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've used P&M before, it's a pretty interesting book. I'll take a stab at finding those pages when I get home. Ping me on my Talk if you don't hear back from me in a day or two. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Just click on the link please, see what they open upto. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 21:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

TT, I've done that but several things are relevant here:

1. there should still be page numbers in the cite because, it may surprise you to know, not everyone reads Wikipedia online
2. even if they do read online, GBooks does not necessarily display the same content that you see wherever you are;
3. I could not find the content that supported the statement, eg: one result gave me three different pages, all of which appeared a bit vague but had no context because the surrounding pages were missing; and
4. using a GBooks url that incorporates a search string is inevitably biased towards the results obtained by that search string rather than any other string - often this does not matter but if the string is especially specific then it can lead to unusual outcomes.

HTH to explain. - Sitush (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The result that gave 3 different pages is relevant for both places mentioned in the article. Usually that does not happen.

If GBooks url with a search string is 'inevitably biased', how is mentioning just page number without anything to see not 'inevitably biased'? This argument is meaningless and can be extended to many other types of references like offline books, offline magazines, etc. Everyone does not have every offline resource so should the practiced be discontinued? I don't think so and especially online GBook citations with search string can be inspected. If you have issues, read the book and comment. One can not remove sources based on grounds that material before/after/somewhere-else in the book can change meaning of the content. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Being your usual unhelpful self, I see. Why don't you provide the page numbers? The numbers are needed, otherwise I'd most likely delete the cites, as I have done for others previously. Search strings are no substitute for page numbers as they do not necessarily return the same result worldwide on GBooks. As for everything else, the point is not that you avoid linking by url but that you remember to be inclusive. You really are not getting this at all, are you? Failure to collaborate can be seen as disruptive, and you know what can happen then. - Sitush (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask someone to provide google links to EBooks with search strings on Wikipedia? Will it be inclusive or exclusive?

I will put page numbers too. These are search strings after all. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It is common sense to provide a link if the book is online, but it does not have to be to GBooks. Indeed, where possible you should avoid GBooks for the reasons I stated earlier, ie: people cannot see the same thing worldwide. Using resources such as www.archive.org and www.hathitrust.org can enable complete access to works in a multitude of formats, so if the book is there then use that instead. Similarly, it is common sense to provide an ISBN/ISSN/DOI if one exists as this enables people to use the book search facility to locate online or hard copies. - Sitush (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the numbers. I was able to find the relevant pages but still do not understand how to draw the conclusion that you. The guy does not say anything remotely like "the Kurmi are (or were) of the kshatriya varna". All he says it what is already noted in the article, ie: they have made claims to it. It seems crystal clear to me. Unless the problem is because of further comments he makes in the pages around 101-110 that I cannot see here. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

List of reliable sources to prove Kurmis as Kshtriyas

To add to the list of verifiable contents: http://www.joshuaproject.net/people-profile.php?peo3=17334&rog3=IN . This is a reliable content due to the following reasons: 1/ Joshua Project is a ministry of the U.S. Center for World Mission (USCWM) which is part of the umbrella organization Frontier Mission Fellowship (FMF). 2/ The USCWM is a member in good standing in both of the two major mission associations CrossGlobal Link (IFMA) and The Mission Exchange (EFMA) 3/ The U.S. Center for World Mission also embraces the Lausanne Covenant. Refer to this link: http://www.lausanne.org/covenant

Strategic partnerships of Joshua project: 1/ Etnopedia : http://www.etnopedia.org/index.htm 2/ World Christian Database, 3/ International Mission Board, 4/ Ethnologue, 5/ Operation World

For endorsements about Joshua project, please refer to : http://www.joshuaproject.net/endorsements.php

To discount such a valid source, which is part of UN initiate should account to blasphemy. Now, it is beyond me to further my claims.

Admins/Editors: Please take a note of the above source.

TomPaul67 (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I am citing text from this site:

Introduction / History "Kurmi is the name given to a Hindu caste in India. The caste system in India is a pattern of social stratification associated with Hinduism. The word “kurmi” literally means the “I cans” or the “I am ables”. The Kurmi are also known as Kunbi. The Kurmi are believed to be descendants of some of the earliest Aryan immigrants to India and come from the Kshatriyas (warrior caste) who became farmers. Kurmi are known in India as the chief agricultural caste."

TomPaul67 (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Are these sources reliable? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Humor. You should trust those who are trusted by millions. I am listing down the World Renowned Organizations that have strategic partnership with The Joshua Project. I have full faith on Etnopedia, World Christian Database, International Missions Board. To not trust the source these organizations trust, should be totally insane.

To get an idea of the type of experts they have, please do visit the endorsements links of this project: http://www.joshuaproject.net/endorsements.php

They have real experts who are appointed for this purpose. They don't seem to rely on hacks.

Strategic partnerships of Joshua project: 1/ Etnopedia : http://www.etnopedia.org/index.htm 2/ World Christian Database, 3/ International Mission Board, 4/ Ethnologue, 5/ Operation World (TomPaul67 (talk) 07:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

Joshuaproject is not reliable & this has been noted on numerous occasions. Similarly, it seems that Ethnopedia is not reliable because it is a user-generated wiki (it says that it is peer-reviewed, but appears not to be in the sense that the word is usually used). - Sitush (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Apart from two users, I don't see anyone who contests this source. Let me know why you think the sources, which themselves are authorities, depend upon these sources are not reliable. By making the above comment, the above author seems to prove that WIkiPedia is itself not reliable as it depends upon reliable people such as us to make edits. Is it not like cutting the same branch you are sitting on. I won't accept straw man comments. Just by stating a source is not reliable doesn't prove a thing. Please back your comments by solid evidence, just like I did. TomPaul67 (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll bite: so you are of the opinion that, rather than trust academic researchers, we should get our information on the ancient origin of a caste group from a website promoting missionary activity? MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight on 'Shudra' varna

Hi,

Why is undue weight given to 'Shudra' status for varna of Kurmis?

Consider other examples present in the different sources from the same page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

All these sources mention Kurmis claiming Kshatriya claim or references to Kshatriya lineage of Kurmis. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please also explain how South Asia: Politics of South Asia is a reliable source for the page Kurmis. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So far as Pandey, I can take her or leave her, we have plenty of other Shudra sources. So far as the other books you link above: did you actually read what they say? Four out of five describe how the Kurmi claim Kshatriya status, and all but one of those go into detail on how dubious this is. Other parts simply use the term "Kshatriya" in the names of organisations, which is in no way endorsing that the names are based on historical fact. Pinch gets into a fair bit of detail about how lower castes attempt to "Sanskritise", and we've already quoted (though someone removed the footnote) the portion of Pinch that says "their Kshatriya claims might not be totally false." There's a similar point in Blunt (a 1931) publication. So for all the refs you posted, they say nothing like "Kurmis are Kshatriya", and quite to the contrary argue that this is a political move. Two refs say "they have this claim... and it might not be totally untrue" which is pretty weak support, and if anything just establishes that there is a debate. I'm baffled how you can read these and think "cool, we can remove the word Shudra".

I hate to accuse, but it's really appearing you're not actually reading these discussions or footnotes, as you keep claiming things are "unsubstantiated", demanding proofs which are already clearly given, etc. Where are we just not clicking here? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed a footnote earlier but I am not sure if it is the one you are referring to above. The fn didn't point to Pinch's book but rather to one by someone else. Due to my issues viewing Pinch, I was unable to locate the quote when I did the GBooks source & so stuck a cite request tag in place of the errant fn. - Sitush (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I am yet to read any substance from reliable source on Kurmis that says Kurmis were 'Shudra' which is present in the first line prominently though the word 'Kshatriya' is absent, which occurs too often. Please mention the Shudra soures you talk of after considering RS authority.

Examples: official government recognition explicite says 'Kshatriya'; Kshatriya identity, 'this caste is of very diverse origin, having assimilated large bodies of persons from several other castes' -- indicating diverse origin, not just low-high caste.

I would like to know why in spite of knowing that Kurmis have assimilated diverse caste and having recognized as Kshatriya at different times as pointed out, the word 'Kshatriya' is absent from the first line and the word 'Shudra' is present(since this edit). I would rather suggest Kshatriya varna(mentioned numerously in reliable sources) rather than Shudra varna which few reliable source explicitly mention. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the eight references near the top of this page which explain the Shudra issue? I can easily find more, but please let me know if you've read those eight first. Secondly I dispute that Kshatriya is "mentioned numerously in reliable sources". Even in the sources you just gave above, they simply note that Kurmis claim Kshatriya status, not that they are. Simply having "Kshatriya" and "Kurmi" appear on the same page, or noting that there is a "Kurmi Kshatriya Organisation" is not a convincing argument. The infobox does state that they claim Kshatriya status, so we are clearly addressing the debate overall. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Which 8 references?

Varnas are thousands of years old and show mobility at different times, which is well noted during colonial and post-independence. Another point is that colonial era itself caused caste movements as many people lost their high caste status because of poverty. The studies mention here are done about this period i.e. 1900 onwards (the word 'caste' itself is Portuguese class-system origin & gained popularity during colonial times) and then to Post-independence caste-based and number-game politics. The backward caste status, mentioned in 2006, was of no use during pre-independence times of no elections, and the status of caste has much to do with politics and reservations too, etc. with numerate symbioses (more votes <=> better reservation equations). In this whole din, one should not forget what <uline>varna</uline>(not caste) it has been. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Here - Talk:Kurmi#Reliable_sources_supporting_Kurmi_as_Shudra. - Sitush (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, Kurmis were considered Shudras or Kshatriyas in different places differently, and are mostly around 1900AD onwards. A statistical account of Bengal, Volume 17, Hindu castes and sects are not readable on gbooks. Maya Majumdar, Smita Tewari Jassal is not an authority on this topic, though this source looks good to me. That's my take.

As I mentioned, there are many source that explicitly put Kurmis as Kshatriyas, too. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So you keep saying, but so far you haven't shown one. This is becoming really tiresome. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we agree on a lot of these points, that varna perceptions vary over time, that there have been movements, claims, rebuttals, etc. OBC status is easier, as a current and government-endorsed label. My frustration at the moment is you keep saying "here, evidence of Kshatriya" and yet all you're posting is "here is a claim", "founded a movement to advance Kshatriya claims..." etc. As said many, many times on this page: yes, they claim Kshatriya status, but modern academics categorise them as Shudra. I fail to see how we're not accomodating this issue on the page.

As an aside, once we clear a few of these issues, I'd really like to archive all the huge mess on this page, except for any ongoing issues, and maybe keeping some summary of the top issues (why Tyagi can't be used, and the lists of pro/con Shudra/Kshatriya refs) at the top, but clearing the rest for any future debates. 90% of this page is the same stuff over and over with no indication the current poster has read a single word above. You can only post "hey guys I saw you calle them Shudra, that's wrong so fix it" so many times on a Talk page... MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What I mention are not just about claims, there are also some social/official recognitions as 1, 2 from religious authority by Radharcharan Goswami, from colonial authority, official government recognition in 1896. These two are already mentioned. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You are simply not getting it, are you? Those two links you provide are just about the claims. They are dealt with in the article, done, finished. - Sitush (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

How are these claims from Kurmis? Please elaborate. Otherwise you are just misinterpreting facts to give WP:UNDUE to Shudra sources. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

1896? The page says "official government recognition in 1896 of Kurmi respectability". "Respectability" does not mean "Kshatriya", and in-context the gov't authority was one governenor of one province, and as noted all he said was that they're not depressed and should be allowed to be police. So far as Radharcharan Goswami, yes, that's very interesting. If you want to add that to "Caste Politics" that could be helpful. But what he illustrates is that the political Kurmi movement was able to sway a Hindu scholar, which is a completely separate issue from "oops, as it turns out the Kurmis are indeed a divinely-ordered warrior caste, good thing we looked into that". Again, you're either simply not reading the texts, or are being willfully obtuse. Per your Talk page, this seems to be an ongoing issue you should be working on. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Look at the arguments. Who is saying that "the political Kurmi movement was able to sway a Hindu scholar". Is this a synthesis? The matter clearly states that Kurmis 'sought backing' from Vrindavan Scholar, who 'presided over' debate of Banarasa scholars or on a debate over viability of a Kurmi-Kshatriya identity, presented facts as evidence of Kshatriya status. Where is it mentioned that "sway a Hindu scholar" in the book - it is a synthesis from your side alone. The other sources say that "Though the official government recognition in 1896 of previous hit Kurmi next hit respectability represented a major, and early, victory" not whether officials were "swayed by Kurmis" of any sense. Please don't add your "swaying authorities" logic without secondary sources. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

@MatthewVanitas where is the 'swaying' authorities logic present in the article? Why should anyone ignore the official recognition? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: just read the Monks... bit you cite as "Kurmi official government recognition] explicite says 'Kshatriya'". Again, it says nothing of the sort. It says that in 1894 a government official called them "depressed" and banned them from police service. They complained and in 1896 the governor declared them respectable and fit for gov't service. That is absolutely nothing like "the Government of India said that Kurmis are Kshatriya." Nothing whatsoever like that. In all honesty, you either are simply not reading anything, or are being willfully obtuse, and this is becoming disruptive. Please carefully read any sources you or others bring, and summarise them in a clear fashion (as I did in this paragraph) rather that a tepid "hey I'm right here's proof" when your source says something incredibly tangential. If you persist in adding great bulk to conversations yet with little content, your utility to WP is going to be pretty minimal. You clearly are interested in the material, and can read academic documents, so please do so. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

See my reply above. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with Humour that the book South Asia: Politics of South Asia seems to be an unreliable book. The books seems to be too generic and has just made few references to Kurmis. It is bit surprising that some users seem to have doubt on reliable projects like Joshua Project, but they believe text books South Asia: Politics of South Asia. I googled this book, and it seems this book has just one review and that too with 1 star. So I can understand how popular this book is.(TomPaul67 (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

See this link for discussion on this. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Need_some_opinions_on_Talk:Kurmi.23Undue_weight_on_.27Shudra.27_varna

I hope this would help Sitush and the other guy.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_lose_the_thread

Keep all the discussion related to Kurmi on this page. 80.84.55.196 (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from TomPaul67, 12 July 2011

Please change: The Kurmi (Hindi: कुर्मी) are a Jāti or community, regarded as Shudra class or a backward caste of Hindus in India.[1][2] The group is often associated with the Kunbi, though scholars differ as to whether the terms are synonymous.[3][4] In 2006, the Indian government announced that Kurmi was considered synonymous with the Kunbi and Yellam castes in Maharashtra.[2]

to: The Kurmi (Hindi: कुर्मी) is the caste that is mainly associated with farming. The word Kurmi originates from Sanskrit word "Karmi", which means the able one. Kurmis claim their ancestry to ancient Aryans, and they belong to Kshtriya or the warrior class.

Source for the above request: http://www.joshuaproject.net/people-profile.php?peo3=17334&rog3=IN TomPaul67 (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC) TomPaul67 (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done not acceptable, unreliable source. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim that this source is unreliable. Please feel free to call this number: Joshua Project PO Box 62614 Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2614 United States Phone: 719.886.4000

(TomPaul67 (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

The basis is community consensus, per WP:RSN. Example: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_80#Reliability_of_the_Joshua_Project_as_source. All you have provided so far as proofs of reliability is content provided by the joshuaproject themselves, which is rather like me writing a website claiming that Kurmis are Eskimos and I know that it is so; and then someone else picking up on that and saying: we can use his website because he says it is true. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because you say that Sun doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that there is no Sun. I am not going to repeat myself thousands of times just to prove to you. Two editors have a consensus, and you don't trust us. I have no other option other than citing you for [WP:NPOV]

Putting the comment made by the above user while reverting the changes made: (cur | prev) 08:14, 12 July 2011 Sitush (talk | contribs) (18,256 bytes) (Undid revision 439047112 by Thisthat2011 (talk) two people agreeing, one of whom alleges to be a new user, does not constitute consensus - WP:BRD applies) TomPaul67 (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I have removed the warning posted here - personal warnings do not go in article Talk pages. Also, should someone claim the Sun doesn't exist and provide a source for it, the validity of the source would need to be discussed and a consensus achieved (where "consensus" does not mean "majority" - see Wikipedia:Consensus). If necessary, it would be discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where it would be evaluated in accordance with Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines, and a consensus decision would be made -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Socking

I have indef blocked User:TomPaul67 as a blatant sock of User:Prashantv79, according to the pretty much irrefutable evidence of the ducks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh well... ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this verifiable? They are regarded as a Shudra (agricultural) class, or a backward caste,[4][3]

Are Kurmis Kshatriya? Where is this mentioned. This looks like a contested POV. Should we remove this Kshatriya mention from this page. Is there a consensus on this?

80.84.55.196 (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a consensus that the government and reliable sources classify them as a Shudra/backwards caste. There also seems to be a developing consensus that the groups themselves claim to be Kshatriya, but that those are simply in-group claims. I think the "Varna Status debate" section treats this in a pretty NPOV fashion, taking care to distinguish who, specifically, is doing the claiming of various points. To me, the current method seems good--it's just like how we might mention that a person was found guilty of a crime, but that they (and possibly others) asserted their own innocence. That section probably shouldn't get longer, though, else it might start to border on WP:UNDUE. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian Now this is where you go wrong. Goverment classfies them as OBC - other backward classes. OBC categorization is merely upon their economic status. It is not due to their belonging to Shudra category. Qwyrxian you should thank me for pointing out this mistake. This shouldn't be classified as WP:UNDUE as a lot has not been cleared. Daily I see discussion about this. Both sides have presented claims and counter-claims, citing verifiable sources. 80.84.55.196 (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian Can you point the Goverment of India sources that classify Kurmi as Shudra?

80.84.55.196 (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I did misread the sentence. Yes, the government classification only classified them as an OBC, not as Shudra. That classification we pulled out of reference #4; but, if you look up at Talk:Kurmi#Reliable sources supporting Kurmi as Shudra, there's a bunch of RS there (and none that are RS in the next section). I am pretty sure that no one has presented reliable sources that Kurmi are Kshatriya; the farthest the sources seem to go is that they assert Kshatriya status, and, usually, that that claim is wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Dude none taken. Apologies for what? It's just a slight error. We are all prone to some. I think there are some RS in the other section too. Till that is resolved let the questions flow. It's just a pain to type that long 'K' name. :)

But why do we think that the other sources are not reliable? Do we have a definitive proof? Or is it just our belief?

80.84.55.196 (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As per my views, there are still 7 references or more on the page that says that the Kurmis are Shudras, which is in utter disregard of what Kurmis themselves say. I am not sure anyways how much weight it carries to call someone Shudra in India and whether it is a punishable offense or not. Perhaps I can find out details later.

As far as "no one has presented reliable sources that Kurmi are Kshatriya", I have given 2 sources here, one is social acceptability and the other is official.

Social acceptability: 1, 2, 3, for which there is little doubt.

Official recognition: from colonial authority, official government recognition in 1896.

Let me know about it please if this needs further clarification. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Apart from what Humour Thisthat2011 wrote, I think one of the admin already accepted that he knows nothing about this topic. The admin Qwyrxian "

There is a consensus that the government and reliable sources classify them as a Shudra/backwards caste." already accepted that he knows nothing about the topic. But still he seems to believe that other sources are unreliable. What could be the reason for such one sided opinion on this topic. It seems someone reported Sitush and Matthews for taking ownership on the article. Wiki is an open forum. Admins should ensure this. 174.139.114.107 (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I take strong offence to this: Diet

Some of the Kurmis ate fowls and field rats; but they did not eat pork or beef.[2]

Some is a wide open range. It varies from 1% to 100%. If only a few handful of Kurmis ate fowls and rats then this material is not an actual representation of facts. It should be removed. Prove it that a significant portion of Kurmis ate what is mentioned above. 174.139.114.107 (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

More on Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya as a "reliable" source -- This author fails to understand that in ancient India Aryans can't be Sudras. Aryans were the victorious race and the Sudras were the race they conquered. Author himself provides contradictory statements on this page:

http://books.google.com/books?id=xlpLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA271#v=onepage&q&f=false

"The Kurmis, Gopas, and Kalibartas are neither non-Aryans nor pure Aryans. But their features clearly shows that they are a mixed race having a very large share of Aryan blood."

Now tell me how can someone who is of Aryan blood be a Shudra. In the next paragraph the author contradicts his earlier position. Now I fail to understand how we can assume the authenticity of this source. This source is not very reliable in his writings and in his understanding of what "Aryan blood" means. 174.139.114.107 (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to cite this source as unreliable. Can one of the admin help us in clearing the page about "Diet" of Kurmis. 174.139.114.107 (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I have rephrase it for now. I'll look more deeply into Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya, although I note straightaway that he has been referred to by much more modern writers & this is usually a good sign that his statement is at least worth recording here. - Sitush (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Shudra

Mathew I wish to share a few statements with you, they are not all being provided sources but, they are based on what I have read and can be sourced. (1)The Shudra categorisation is not water-tight. (2)Since caste is man-made and not anotomical like skin tone, castes moved up or down the varna scale. (3)In contemporary India, everyone wants to be classified as lower class as that opens flood gates of affirmative action programmes called reservation. (4)Historically many castes have moved up or down in the official classification. (5)In one taluka Kunbis as the farmering caste is called in Maharashtra, are considered Marathas and so Open (not backward), where as in another taluka they are Other Backward Class. (6)Earlier everyone wanted to rise up to be considered Brahmin, now everyone aspires to be considered oppressed caste or backward caste officially. (7)This Shudra lable is unnecessary, inaccurate and offensive. (8)Example: a caste calls itself Brahmin and has a backward class category Sonar or Daivadnya Brahman[1], another vaishya caste is also categorised as backward.[2] (9) So there is lot of unnecessary caste fuss, and Shudra fuss.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

We need sources, period. You can write a really long essay but it will be totally irrelevant (and probably ignored) without sources. - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well take it or leave it, I am not debating what to add, delete, if you are interested you can look up yourself, I just wished to convey that there was unnecessary fuss. The statements are on the table, they can be looked up, if someone wants to use them in the article, in debates, I don't wish to.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)I have given 2 sources here, one is social acceptability and the other is official.

• Social acceptability 1, 2, 3, for which there is little doubt.

Official recognition: from colonial authority, official government recognition in 1896.

• Let me know about it please if this needs further clarification. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 10:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I'll leave it, then. I have just removed Thisthat2011's latest repetition of his sources - it is tendentious and disruptive, since those sources have been dealt with several times in the last couple of days. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)Humour what is your point? (2)Sitush actually this source whatever it is worth, provides evidence for what I have written above.[3] (3)Sitush you cannot delete talk page contributions, unless under exceptional circumstances. That will get you into trouble.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC) PS: It is Humour's source.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, please look at this Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomersYogesh Khandke (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It was disruptive & therefore is within the bounds for exceptional situations. He has been told about this. He is not a newcomer, either, but has had plenty of warnings from at a broad spectrum of people (including several admins) and on a range of articles. This is not about biting anyone; it is about someone who refuses to work in a collegial manner. - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sitush: I suppose congenial is what you mean, but it cut both ways. Humour perhaps you could look at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#One who repeats the same argument without convincing people, there are two ways out one (1)bring fresh arguments, (2)take a break from the argument. See also Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#How to pull back from the brink, see if you are tendentious then you could be considered wp:disruptive, and then you could be blocked or banned which is very painful, I can tell you from experience.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The source you refer to has already been rasied about 10 times by Thisthat2011. It has also been dealt with about the same number of times. It is referring to claims, which is an issue already covered in the article. - Sitush (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)Hey, hold the fire. I have written about the dynamic nature of caste, which the source deliberates, the source is presented as evidence for my statements, what has it to do with Humour's claims.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No, collegial is what I meant: working in a communal spirit. Yes, on the point of mobility this source is useful. The problem is, the point probably is not massively relevant unless you can first "prove" that Kurmis were one of those groups that moved around. For example, I did just that at Nair. - Sitush (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I will re-read it from that perspective, but have to lay a few bricks first! - Sitush (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now (twice) re-read the source provided by Yogesh Khandke and I still cannot see the relevance of it. The issue of "respectability" vs. "are kshatriya" has been dealt with; the issue of the dynamic nature of caste simply does not fit here but is relevant in a general article about the caste system of India. This, too, has been mentioned previously. Now, if you could prove that the Kurmis did indeed move from shudra to kshatriya then there would be a use for the source in this article, since the source would provide context. We're still waiting for the proof. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)There are no reasons given here for ignoring sources presented by me, other than User:MathewVanitas comments, without sources as per his assumptions, that these refer to 'swaying' authorities for recognition. I am not sure how this is so, if I apply for some recognition am I swaying sources? The sources presented by me are very clear on this. User:Sitush has by now deleted a lot of my comments across talk pages, without even commenting on User:MathewVanitas's assumptions. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 11:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Humour: (1)See I have brought your talk page edit back, some one may of-course delete it one more time. (2)Please read the links

How to pull back from the brink , and One who repeats the same argument without convincing people, you see tendentious is not about right or wrong, or whether your sources are good or not, it is how a group of editors perceive your editing, in a dead lock it is best to take a deep breath and step back, or perhaps you would like to learn it the hard way. Please spend a lot of time reading Wikipedia policy.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

TT2011, you want "sources" to verify that what you are putting in the article is not supported by the source. The source you are citing does not say that they were declared Kshatriya in 1896. I quote directly the two mentions of 1896 on that page[4]:

“ The governor’s office was flooded with letters from an outraged Kurmi -kshatriya public and was soon obliged to rescind the allegation in an 1896 communiqué to the police department: “His Honor [the governor] is . . . of the opinion that Kurmis constitute a respectable community which he would be reluctant to exclude from Government service.” ”

“ Though the official government recognition in 1896 of Kurmi respectability represented a major, and early, victory for the Kurmi -kshatriya movement, especially vis-á-vis its critics, it represented only one component of the complex history of kshatriya identity. ”

The governor did not say in 1896 that the Kurmi are Kshatriya, he rescinded the allegation, to wit: "a provincial circular of 1894 that included Kurmis as a “depressed community” and barred them therefore from recruitment into the police service." Full stop. There is no possible way this cite could be used to support "During colonial times, in 1896, official government recognition was given to Kurmis as Kshtriya" as you do here. I have told you and told you and told you this multiple times on this very page, yet you persist in not only bringing the issue up again and again, but then adding it to the article and dismissing my very clear objections as There are no reasons given here for ignoring sources presented by me, other than User:MathewVanitas comments, without sources as per his assumptions. As though my saying "your source does not say that" is some form of OR. I am simply running out of patience with you, and expect that your NPOV claim will boomerang on you as just this Talk page is evidence of your lack of positive interaction. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)Matthew the point is that Shudra is a slur, nobody in contemporary India is a Shudra, please also see another editor's comments on Thisthat's talk page addressed to you. Also it is Other Backward Class not caste, there are all types of castes and religions in it, Hindus, Muslims.... (2)We have the statement ...only one component of the complex history of kshatriya identity, there is a categoric reference to a kshatriya identity, which is what you wanted.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Another point Matthew is resinded a provincial circular of 1894 that included Kurmis as a “depressed community”, it doesn't prove that Kurmis were considered Kshatriya by the circular (for whatever it was worth), but it does prove that Kurmis wasn't considered depressed, so the source if you think does prove that the circular considers Kurmis as not Shudra, if you translate Shudra to depressed. So the statememt as I interpret though not good enough to put the lable Kshatriya, is good enough to take the Shudra lable off.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I am getting a little confused here. The term "backward caste" is linked and redirects to backward class. It is a commonly used term: they are a caste who have been classed as OBC. Sure, we could say that they are "designated as an backward class" but it is slightly unwieldy in a sentence that is already somewhat unwieldy. I think that we are being a little pedantic here but I am happy with either version. The reason I changed your edit was because your phrasing implied that both the sudra and the OBC designations were historic, which is definitely not the case. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Shudra/sudra designation. It really doesn't matter whether people find the term offensive. Wikipedia is not censored. and it is a term that is still used today, regardless of what the government of India may desire to achieve and why it wants to achieve it. A similar situation might found in relation to the words "nigger" or "spastic", both of which have their place in Wikipedia. For that matter, "deaf" (which is something I have been almost totally from birth) continues in both common usage and in historic context despite attempts by some to whitewash it with the phrase "hard of hearing". - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

We cannot translate "depressed" to mean "shudra". That is original research and/or synthesis (take your pick). "Depressed" usually relates to a medical condition (not here!) or an economic situation, whereas "repressed" refers to a social position. The shudra term is one of ritual rank which, I accept, more often than not had economic and social significance but is neither precisely "depressed" or "repressed". In any event, it is not "good enough to take the Shudra label off". There are multiple reliable sources that say otherwise and it would be whitewashing to remove the term. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"One component in the complex history ..." is true enough but, as I have said several times previously, there is no dispute regarding the fact that some castes moved around the varna system. The issue here is were Kurmi one of those and the answer, so far, is there is no clear evidence that they were. Their claims, however, are a valid issue and have been dealt with in the article. - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't think Yogesh Khandke is correct here anyway. Lifting my own words out of a response I made to xyr on MatthewVanitas's user talk, "A search of gov.in sites shows over 200 mentions of "Shudra", with another 119 on nic.in sites. A search of Shudra on Google Scholar returns over 400 results--and that's searching for just articles published in the last 3 years (many/most of which are clearly published in India)." Apparently, both the Indian government and Indian scholars are still using the term, at least to some degree. Now, perhaps I'm wrong--perhaps if I actually checked, all of those sources says something like "Don't use shudra anymore" or "In previous years, the term shudra meant...even though it is no longer in use." In any event, as Sitush says, we should be aware of Indian linguistic/cultural mores, so that we can report on them, but our articles should follow what reliable sources say--this is the same reason why we include pornography in Wikipedia and why we have pictures of Muhammad, despite each of these offending people from various cultures. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Shudra sub-section

(1)Q and S, Shudra isn't offensive to me, as I don't care, that is why I can discuss the issue with a level head and am kind of neutral on the issue. You see it is a slur, it is a dynamic lable, and so its application would be inaccurate, more over it is bound to attract attention and waste time. (2)In the context Shudra is depressed castes. See ghits of its use, see it is a historical use of the word, Ambedkar, was called champion of the depressed classes[5]~, so the evidence can be used to take the Shudra lable off post 1896.Yogesh Khandke (talk)

So, you are advocating the sanitisation of Wikipedia to "save time"? How about we abandon the project totally and save all of the contributors all of their time? I do believe that there are people out there who still believe that Earth is flat, so we wouldn't want to waste time offending them and atrracting their attention, would we? - Sitush (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)No Sitush, it isn't a statement like Dogs are born with tails. Shudra was a dynamic condition, it cannot be marked as a permanent lable. If it is something like the earth goes round the sun, we could go to the gallows saying E pur si muove!. (2)Would you please respond to the two statements, now that the meaning of depressed is clear.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You are not getting it. "Depressed" is not clear: you are synthesising & I am surprised about this because you have previously explained synthesis to TT2011. - Sitush (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)I would like to quote Setu Madhavrao Pagdi, who re-edited the British era Gazetteers in 1964,, In this dynamic world, circumstances and facts of life change, and so do national requirements and social values. Such significant changes have taken place in India as in other countries during the last half a century, and more so after the advent of independence in 1947. The general scheme and contents of this revised series of the Gazetteers have been adapted to the needs of altered conditions. There is inevitably some shift in emphasis in the presentation and interpretation of certain phenomena. For example, the weighted importance given to caste and community in the old Gazetteer cannot obviously accord with the ideological concepts of a secular democracy, though much of that data may have considerable interest from the functional, sociological or cultural point of view. What is necessary is a change in perspective in presenting that account so that it could he viewed against the background of a broad nationalism and the synthesis of a larger social life. It is also necessary to abridge and even to eliminate, elaborate details about customs and practices which no longer obtain on any extensive scale or which are too insignificant to need any elaboration. In the revised Gazetteer, therefore, only a general outline of the practices and customs of the main sections of the population has been given[6]. (2)Your analogy with deaf or hearing impaired is incorrect, we are not looking for politically acceptable terms or euphamisms, the term is not a self-designation and communities are referred by their self-designations.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I have no interest in how Pagdi did things. My interest here is in how Wikipedia does things. Look, all you need to do is find a couple of citations from reliable sources that say, explicitly, Kurmi were kshatriya. If you are correct then it should not be so difficult to do. However, even if those citation do appear the article would still refer also to sudra because we are then in the realm of "different reliable sources say different things". What would change is that we could perhaps elaborate and firm up the discussion about what are currently noted to be claims. - Sitush (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)(edit conflict)Please let me give it only one more try, I am using Matthew's statement above, The governor did not say in 1896 that the Kurmi are Kshatriya, he rescinded the allegation, to wit: "a provincial circular of 1894 that included Kurmis as a “depressed community” and barred them therefore from recruitment into the police service." Full stop What did the governor do? He rescinded an earlier order that included Kurmis as a depressed community, as a Shudra community, so according to the Governor (we must capitalise, bless his soul), he no longer considered the Kurmis Shudras, am I indulging in wp:SYNTHESIS? I am not saying use this for saying Kurmis were Kshatriya, but to me the above statement is The Governor no longer considered Kurmis to be depressed aka Shudra, if you don't agree I drop it.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You probably need not capitalise in this instance - Wikipedia:Capitalization#Titles_of_people is a bit confusing about it but generally I manage to find a way round such issues simply by rewording a sentence. In any event, this is a talk page and MOS applies to articles. I will revisit the source once again (this will be my third reading) as I prefer not to rely on paraphrases - I have had far too many bad experiences involving them. Let you know soon. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, on second thoughts, I will not re-read the source just yet. I do not understand the point that you are trying to make now. Whether this source explicitly links sudra to "depressed" has no bearing on the article, surely? Social mobility is one thing and varna mobility is another (eg: via hypergamy or regional differences). If your point is just that sudra should not be used in the article then I will be wasting my time since, clearly, there are hundreds of reliable sources that do use the term. Can you explain the relevance to the article, please. Then I can read the article with that in mind. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(1)Sitush the capitalise part was a joke, we are giving so much importance to him, he is like God. :-) (2)I was working from the paraphrased statement, assuming you were happy with it.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)Is there a standard source that you are refering to find out caste? A source that you refer to for all the articles you have edited?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The capitalisation issue looked like a criticism to me but obviously that got lost in translation. I know that some people have a real issue with the British Raj (and in many respects I am one of those people) but it is irrelevant to WP.

I cannot recall using a standard source and I am not sure that one even exists. The requirement is that sources are reliable, not standardised. If reliable sources differ then we should present all of their opinions. Anyway, let me know what you would like me to interpret from the source referred to. - Sitush (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That would have given it a sense of objectivity, the template could be modified to include:(1) Classification as per GoI's affirmative action programme. (2) Classification as per State government affirmative action programme. (3)Self-designation (4) xxx's designation, xxx being our master or standard source, like Dalton's ethnology or whatever. And leave it at that, that would be accurate and encyclopaedic.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You are avoiding my query, I feel. Please could you respond to it.

With regard to classification, I have in the past commented at the India project and (IIRC) on the caste template page that I feel the classification line should be removed as impossible to source in a standard manner, as also should the line for population (because there has not been a caste-oriented census for many years and also because of the diaspora). However, these are not issues for this talk page. - Sitush (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well that is why I asked the question, I wanted to know the source. I asked you which source is your source for classifying a caste? Then that source could be mentioned in the Classification, such as Dalton's designation, then the onus would be off Wikipedia and on the source.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There is, for better or for worse, no "one stop shop" to define varna. As you note, it is an issue which may vary over time and location, and in some cases we get different varna cites just depending on whom the writer asked when, what the writer personally believes, etc. This is precisely why the article says "some say Shudra, some say Kshatriya". Do you not see how it looks rather untoward to want to remove one term and not the other. We saw the same thing at Nair: not accusing you personally, but it is vexing to have one group say "keep A and omit B", and the other group say "keep A and B", and have the first group react as though the second were on the far end of the spectrum saying "keep B and omit A". Not a single person here has said "remove the word Kshatriya and keep the word Shudra." We are not on "opposite sides", we have one side largely of new-regs, SPAs, and IPs complaining voiciferously while (in most cases) doing nothing constructive and demanding we remove a cited point, and on the other "side" we have a handful of editors wanting to keep two different cited perspectives. These positions are not equally defencible. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)Matthew what do you think of my template suggestion?Yogesh Khandke (talk)

No, Yogesh. You wanted me to comment on the source mentioning the governor. If you have now decided to drop that issue then fine but please let me know either way. This article is consuming vast amounts of my time & I would rather get stuff knocked on the head here and now, while the thing remains protected, than have to go through it all again in a week's time when yet more "warriors"/misguided editors/socks etc (almost inevitably) come along. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes Sitush do you still call my interpretation Synthesis?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Your interpretation of what? I do not know what it is you want me to examine in the source. Look, perhaps it would be easier if you quoted the relevant bit of the source directly here. Then there would be no confusion regarding what it is you are debating. - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)My interpretation of Matthew's paraphrasing, that the statement is good enough to be considered as The Governor declared that Kurmis won't be considered Shudras. (2)Also M and S, we have government classification which is very objective. Perhaps you can drop the two other, and drop all mention of Varna from the article. Even diet is stupid, I'm a vegan, my wife isn't, isn't diet a matter of individual and not communal choice, so dress, like the Nair article, contemporary Nair girls wear Jeans and T-shirts or Salvar and Kameez, or skirts or frocks, and eat at McDonalds which does not serve beef or pork in India, so much for bare-chests and diet.Yogesh Khandke (talk)

This is turning into annother pointless and chaotic thread. Let me try, once again, to make it simple.

• Ignore for now what MV may or may not have said
• Go to the source at cdlib which you are indirectly commenting about
• Find in that source what ever section you feel is relevant to what ever it is you have an issue about with this article
• If possible, copy/paste that here, and explain its relevance to your point
• I will do my best to resolve the issue and will also ignore MV's interpretation for the purpose of achieving that. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)(1)We were discussing interpretation MV's statement, which was his interpretation of a good source, which you were happy with, now you want it to be forgotten. Phew. I think I need a break. No offence meant to you. (2)In the mean time, if possible please remove all reference to Varna from the article. and (3)In classification classify Kurmis as Other Backward Class, about which there would be no doubt. (4)I would have no quarrel if you ignore all of the above.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This is just getting silly: the source is good, Humour's interpretation of the source is inaccurate. That's the entire point which you are not addressing, and I and Sitush have been saying for paragraphs.

You think you need a break? Look at this page, Sitush and I have been dealing with incredibly repetitive arguments, whines, and threats for weeks upon weeks. Next, "well, let's compromise by doing it my way" is not a proper resolution. We aren't trying to remove Kshatriya content, we are trying to keep all content. The arguments you and TT2011 use have not in the slightest addressed the Shudra issue directly, instead you have used highly tangential evidence to "prove" they are Kshatriya, and then say "oh, well they can't be both, so let's remove Shudra." MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yogesh, what I am saying is that you need to prove whatever it is you are saying, and so far I have been unable to work out even exactly what that is. I say "forget what MV said" for a reason: I am prepared to evaluate this source from scratch, one last time. It is prima facie a reliable source and was indeed I think introduced by TT2011. Now, given that it is RS, if you let me know what bit in there you think is relevant to this article etc, in the manner I have listed above, then I will look at it. If I am known for anything here on WP it is for my thoroughness in issues related to sourcing. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I am really sorry. I need a break. But I think it is rude to leave something hanging like that. (1)The source is good you say. (2)Do you agree that it says Kurmis are not Shudra as decreed by the Governor? as that is what my interpretation of MV's paraphrased statement is.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the record. Yogesh has now posted on my talk page that he has no intention of adding anything further here for now, at least. I take this to mean that what ever point it was has now been conceded. I take no pleasure from this. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud. I see that the edit conflict means I have said something and Yogesh has already changed tack. Sorry.

Yogesh, as far as your last msg of 15:11 is concerned, I am unable to answer it. I am not prepared to consider your interpretation of someone else's interpretation. Just get what ever you want from the source as per my previous requests. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok I concede, if that is what you wish I say.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I do not "wish" that you concede. I take no pleasure from the entire episode but, in particular, from the gross waste of everyone's time that it has become. You could resolve this very directly but, for what ever your reason is, have chosen not to do so. Please do not put words into my mouth. - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

?!?!?! I am absolutely baffled as to how YK could read my summary, or the source itself, as saying Kurmis are not Shudra as decreed by the Governor?. Fine, please take your break, I can only say the same thing over and over again so many times. This is becoming less and less a POV issue and more an ANI issue of disruptive practices. I have no doubt that any neutral editor reading my posts would agree that TT, and to a lesser degree yourself, are simply refusing to actually understand what is being explained. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

These diffs Matthew.[7][8], that is the beauty of Wikipedia, not a letter is lost.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Those diffs explain nothing, you're just showing your very own posts which, yet again, demonstrate that you are reading into (or misreading) the source. Fact: Circular called them "depressed". Not Shudra, not SCT/ST/OBC/NRA/OPP/ICP/anything, "depressed". FACT: the governor, two years later, after receving many Kurmi complaints, rescinded the statement. The source says nothing about their being called Shudra, and far more importantly does not say anything about how negating "depressed" suddenly confers upon the the Vedic status of Kshatriya. Maybe you are confused by the start of the paragraph: Though the official government recognition in 1896 of Kurmi respectability represented a major, and early, victory for the Kurmi -kshatriya movement, especially vis-á-vis its critics, it represented only one component of the complex history of kshatriya identity. This is not saying "and suddenly they were formally declared Kshatriya, and ticker-tape parade wound through the streets of Calcutta." This is saying that, in the process of re-defining their position in society, the Kurmis pushed back against a "low" depiction with success. The source is reliable, the anecdote interesting, but it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be used to say "the Kurmi are Kshatriya and thus every mention of Shudra should be struck from the article." Removing all varna would be horrendous whitewashing: the Kurmi caste-politicking regarding varna is a vital part of both Kurmi and overall Indian social history, and it would be egregious to remove it simply to prevent hurt feelings (or vague "totally not a legal threat" comments). MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is confusing me, please read the diffs carefully. (1)it has answer to your questions is Depressed = Shudra? (2)I have never claimed that the Governor says Kurmis are Kshatriya, I read the text as the Governor says Kurmis are not depressed in which depressed is the then English translation for Sanskrit Shudra, so we can quote the Governor as having decreed Kurmis aren't Shudra. Please see diff for evidence for depressed = Shudra.Yogesh Khandke (talk)

Another point is that articles about extant communities should be written with all necessary care like required of Biographies of living persons, in which US laws are to be taken care of. One good idea that has come out of this Samudra manthanYogesh Khandke (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Guessing at what is meant by "depressed" is WP:OR. And no, you didn't explicitly say "the governor called them Kshatriya", but you do appear to be arguing "the governor called them not-Shudra, so we should remove the Shudra cites and keep the Kshatriya ones". What is so wrong with "let's tell both sides"? I'm arguing for both sides to be told, you're arguing to exclude one. In any case, I don't quite grasp how the "Ocean of Milk" factors into this: are you suggesting a churning metaphor, or was there some legal dispute about that page that I missed.

Your "by any means necessary" approach to removing Shudra is interesting, but as noted Indian law has no bearing here. Further, while I would imagine Indian law would frown upon "the Fooians are vile Shudra and should not be allowed to own land", I would expect they'd be cool with "the British listed the Fooians as Shudra (footnote 1891 report)" as actual historical perspective. Further, noting BLP doesn't support your case at all: first off, there's no policy saying that groups of people should be treated the same as BLPs. Secondly, even if there were, cited text is exactly what you need to have in a BLP. BLP rules aren't "don't say anything unpleasant about living people", BLP rules say "everything must be cited, negative or positive." For example, if I were writing about Dr. Elias Foo, born in Calcutta in 1902, and said "His application to medical school was denied in 1922, with the rejection stating that he was a Shudra and thus inadmissable.<footnote>" that would be completely proper, BLP policy would support it, and again Indian law has no bearing and also it'd be an awfully rough court case to prove that describing a 1922 incident was hate speech. So, there are my rebuttals. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have you ever read WP:BLP? Where is there an equivalent for "extant communities" and in what way do you feel BLP applies. More importantly, in what way do you think this article exceeds the spirit even of BLP ? Looks like some vague wikilawyering to me. - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)MV Shudra = Depressed in the above context isn't wp:OR, see Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, it has the statement Scheduled Castes ("SC"s, परिशिष्ट-जाति [parishiShTa jAti] in most Indian languages) and Scheduled Tribes ("ST"s) are Indian population groupings that are explicitly recognized by the Constitution of India, previously called the "depressed classes" by the British.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That is interesting, but it is synthesis and circular. Can you find the original sources for the statement? - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

For the whole "1896 circular... gov rescinded..." thing? I've had it open on my desktop for two days now: [9]. What thinks? @ YK: I'm not convinced that there is a precise and long-term correlation between the terms you're using. And in any case, one governor one time making one statement doesn't suddenly undo prior history, Vedic issues, etc. I'm literally just failing to see what is wrong with the page (aside from general tweaking) other than "the word Shudra has become hurtful in India in the modern period." A lot of words have become hurtful, and I can totally see how on a political/social basis they may be discouraged in some contexts, but that does not mean we whitewash them out of academic discussion. If an Indian reads Wikipedia and goes and shoots someone or burns a house down, that's not my dang fault, that's on them. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sitush what is synthesis and circular? See Sociology of Religion in India, By Rowena Robinson, uses the terms Shudra and depressed interchangeably. see page 255-257[10]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comment @ 16:21 was synthesis and circular. What else did you think I meant? I'll take a look at the source which you have now provided. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• My bad.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)MV it is not just about the page, it is how one reads sources, one moment you quote a source, and the next moment it is one governor, why? Sitush Samudramanthan was used a metaphor for a huge effort.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The book you mention is a reliable source, no question about it, but I am afraid that I remain confused. Page 258 appears to make it clear that depressed is not the same as shudra, but throughout it is referring to "depressed caste" rather than "depressed class" - I assume, as per my previous discussion about class/caste today, that these are interchangeable words:

"Thus, in each village or region if the relationship between the various depressed castes has been one of socio-economic differentiation, status uncertainty and social competition, the relation between those castes on the one hand and the upper-caste Hindus (including the Shudras) on the other was one of explicit hierarchy, discrimination and exploitation".

What am I missing? - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am looking at Shudras were once Kshatriyas, who because of their antagonism.... were degraded into the fourth varna. The opposite theory contends that the depressed classes were... on page 257.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. There are several problems with it:

• It does not mention Kurmi, nor is it clear whether Ambedkar was referring to all shudras or just some of them. We would need to see the original source (Ambedkar)
• The source makes it clear that Ambedkar was a fringe theorist with regard to this - see WP:FRINGE - and that he subsequently (1948) changed his mind.
• The author of the paper itself says that the two theories are "contradictory" and that which of them is correct is moot. The author then plumps for the 1948 version.
• None of this alters the point that I quoted below.
• I still cannot see the relevance, mainly because your argument (remove all refs to Shudra) is demonstrably untenable. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Where have I ever said that the bit you cite is anything other than one particular case? It is you and TT who want to use this one example to say "The Indian Government official declared the Kurmis as Kshatriya in 1896". I am simply opposing that massive generalisation. If you wanted to put in a sentence saying something like "The Kurmis were called depressed in 1894 and barred from police service, but they wrote a bunch of complaints to the governor and in 1896 he rescinded it" you wouldn't be hearing objections from me, because that's what the source actually says. We're going round-and-round here, and your accusations are bouncing from one side to another. Your bring up a source, we rebutt your findings but say it's a good source, and then you suddently make it sound as though Sitush and I were the huge supporters of the quote, rather than just trying to discuss it with you.

Take a step back and look at the entire course of this Talk page, top to bottom. Do you see how much time has been spent on this, how several times outside admins have been brought in, and overall how repetitive the arguments have been? To break it down shotgun-style:

• Article notes that the Kurmi claim and have campaigned for politically Kshatriya status
• Article notes that they have been categorised as Shudra in some academic works
• Even if you literally found an official 2010 Indian Government proclamation saying "the Kurmi are and have always have been Kshatriya", that would not justify removing the word Shudra, that would justify bringing up the controversy and its current state.

Again, there are two sides to this story, and you are taking up huge chunks of the page trying to completely remove one of them, while Sitush and I want both sides. Do you disagree with this last sentence? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

For my reply see my earlier statement [11], which debunks your theory that It is you and TT who want to use this one example to say "The Indian Government official declared the Kurmis as Kshatriya in 1896". (emphasis mine)Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, again, again. Okay, you say So the statememt as I interpret though not good enough to put the lable Kshatriya, is good enough to take the Shudra lable off. Not only is the 1894-letters-governor-1896 statement not good enough to add Kshatriya (as you correctly note), it is not by any possible stretch of the imagination justification to remove the word Shudra from the article. To put it in clearer context: if that cite were to say, for example, "in 1896 the governor declared that the Kurmi were absatively-posolutely double-triple definitely the most Kshatriya-est of Kshatriyas and anyone who ever said they were Shudras had clearly overindulged in hashish", that would justify saying "in 1896 the governor firmly stated...", but even that would not somehow outweigh everything else that's ever been said about the Kurmi being Shudra. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You leave out the other important qualifier post 1896[12]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You keep repeating that particular post, but so what? It has been answered: you are not going to see shudra removed from the article. Qwyrxian has pointed out that it appears probably still to be in use in Indian officialdom today. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kurmi/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Please check the FA Tamil people and reorganize the article. KensplanetTC 15:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC) This page can be merged with Kunbihttp://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kunbi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guddu56 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 20:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)