Talk:Kurmi/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Addition to subdivisions sections

Patel is included in the subdivisions section,please add Patidar in the subdivisions section- quote from patidar page-

• Patidars are also known as Patel, a common surname with in the community.

If merger of Kunbi is not practical,it can get place in the subdivisions section like Kapu and Kanbi is listed. Rajesh785 had provided enough references that it could be placed there without any problem. --Ajneesh Katiyar (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Why have you started a new section for this, when you acknowledge that there is a section above that is still "live"? - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

start a section named 'Demographics'

Please,start a new section 'Demographics' under which give the information of kurmi people living in different states like Maharashtra, Gujrat,Madhya Pradesh,Uttar Pradesh,Jharkhand,Chhatishgarh and Bihar.It is quite reasonable to do so because kurmi is not a small caste and people of this community live with a huge population in each state mentioned.In each state they have different and great cultural heritage which cann't be intermixed.In each state different sub-castes are found,please list the famous sub-caste and dominated region (or districts) as is done another caste pages(such as gurjar and yadav).Rajesh785 (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

How do we verify the number of people living in each area? How do we phrase it so as not to ignore lesser populated areas? How do we even define Kurmi, given your recent suggestion that various other communities should be included under the general umbrella term? - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Number is not important here,only more populated regions are to be included.The same thing i.e. only more populated regions are mentioned in gurjar and yadav pages.So,why this can't be happen with kurmi page?Also,you should include patidar related information for kurmis in gujrat and kunbi related information for kurmis in maharashtra.As far as exact figure is concerned,it is going to be released by Indian Government next year after conducting caste based census.Rajesh785 (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the starting point would be reliable sources for where Kurmi live. Do you have any? Note that I'm not saying that, even if we have them, they should all be included--there is a limit to how much info we should include, and how much info is really necessary for encyclopedic coverage of a topic. For instance, on Yadav, we're actually discussing removing the demographic info there. I certainly think that we should have some demographic info here if we can verify it, but we just don't want to have too much. We definitely don't want a state by state list; if we actually have that much verifiable info, it should go onto a new page, with a link from this one. So, let's see what kind of sources you have then we can figure out how much to include here and consider whether or not a separate page is necessary or desirable. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding a table of sex-ratios 1901–1921 for possible future use.

Sex ratios of castes in the United Provinces 1901–1921 (females per thousand males) Caste Category 1901 1911 1921 Gujar A (Castes with a tradition of female infanticide.) 802 755 785 Jat (Hindu) A 852 769 763 Rajput (Hindu) A 887 873 877 Brahmin B (Castes without a tradition of female infanticide.) 923 899 895 Chamar B 986 958 960 Kumhar B 931 941 931 Kurmi B 970 929 909

You can have some idea of dense kurmi populated region from the book

^ The Indian Empire Census of 1881 Statistics of Population Vol. II., W. Chichele Plowden, Publisher Superintendent of Government Printing India. Calcutta, Date: 1883.

The database regarding population of different castes in different region in 1881 is also available at the link www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/page.php?title=&action.

Higher kurmi population in area of some eastern states like west bengal,orissa and assam is given in book (see page no. 337)

^ Issues in Indian politics, Author Lalan Tiwari, Editor Lalan Tiwari, Publisher Mittal Publications, 1995 ISBN 817099618X, 9788170996187

similarly the distribution of kurmi population can be estimated from article pulished in Indian Express www.indianexpress.com/news/eye-on-ups-kurmi-vote-cong.../2 see also the presence of kurmi as dominant caste in Outlook magazine article www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?237326 - Cached Rajesh785 (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The table looks useful, yes; the data on Kurmi might belong here, but of course not the whole table (perhaps at Indian population?). Something's wrong with the Indian Express article, because the title of the page is about Kurmi, but the title of the news story is totally different. The outlook india link doesn't work for me. Sorry, have to run now, but yes, some of this may be useful to point out the specific sex ratio in the early 20th century. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Working on the article

I've finally found some time to work on the article. I will be tagging the article with the "inuse" tag. Please do not edit the article while I am working on it (likely for the next two or three hours). Thanks very much. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now finished for tonight. I've changed things quite a bit. As you will see, the historical record of the Kurmi is complicated. I feel there is no point focusing on the Varna debate. Since most of the Varna debate section was really an aspect of early 20th century history, I've gone ahead and made it just that. I've removed most of the quotations. Some of them could be readded to a "culture or customs" section later. The colonial context is now explained in great detail, so one or two small quote are enough, but no more. I've also added four pictures, including a map of the "Prevailing Races" of India from 1909 which shows the Kurmi in the UP and Central India. There are also three "ethnographic" pictures from the early 20th century. I will work on the 20th C history later; maybe early next week. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

i m happy for kurmis that they hv got out of shudra tag.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.56.57.129 (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Working a little bit on the early 20th C section. Will use the "inuse" tag again. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Have added two paragraphs to the 20th C section; will attend to the remaining later this week. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to wait until you've got more done to copy-edit, but, if possible, could you try to tone down the lofty narrative and stick to presenting information more factually? Examples include "Kurmi and Ahir were exhorted to inculcate manly righteousness as well as solicitude for the cow" and "hey asked their members to wear the sacred thread of the twice-born, and—ironically for the Kurmi, whose women had long enjoyed outdoor freedom—to sequester their women." Wikipedia should never call something ironic (though it could attribute such a claim to someone else), phrases like "exhorted to inculcate manly righteousness" is a statement of opinion by the use of overladen terms like "exhorted" and "manly" that imply a lot of things that are POV. If it's easier for you to write that way, it's fine; I'm happy to do the clean up later, but if you're comfortable doing so, please switch to a plainer, more neutral tone. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Best not to teach me how to write. I saw the kind of crap you guys were writing here for three months. I wrote something hurriedly while I was waiting for dinner. Perhaps I went overboard a little. I'll fix it soon enough. I don't need your pretentious nonsense. Stick to editing articles you know something about. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well said.-MangoWong (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

PS To Qwyrxian: I do understand your point. I agree it's not in the encyclopedic register. I'll fix it. And if I don't you can have a go. Sorry about the outburst above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

PPS I've toned down some. Will keep tweaking as I had more material. Thanks for noticing and pointing out the "lofty prose" problem. I'm strapped for time, and often forget what working on! Once I'm done, please do copy-edit it for tone and meaning. Look forward to your input. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this past week was a busy one for me (in real life that is). I'm flat out of time this weekend, but I'm planning to do the William Pinch bit Monday night, and the Jaffrelot, Eric Stokes, and Chris Bayly bit either Wed or Thurs night. Those are the only times I have free and by Thurs night I'll stop regardless. Thanks for your patience. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm done with this article. I've now read Susan Bayly's Caste Society and Politics in India: From the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age, Chris Bayly's Rulers, Townsmen, and Bazaars, William Pinch's Peasants and Monks in British India, and the relevant chapter (6) of Christophe Jaffrelot's India's Silent Revolution. I've tried to tell a story (of sorts). By the time I got to the 20th century, I was tired, and didn't elaborated too much. Also, Pinch's book is a Ph.D. thesis, and of necessity has shallow focus. I have therefore based most of the main argument on Susan Bayly's book, which is a widely used graduate text, and has been vetted for balance and WP:DUE. Based upon these readings (and notwithstanding isolated sentences here and there) I feel that the weight of the historical evidence is against a blanket characterization of the Kurmi as "shudra." I have therefore removed the category "shudra," which (without qualification) is exactly such a characterization. I would do the same if someone added the category "kshatriya" for the Kurmi. I have left the post independence material as is. I don't know much about this period. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Not been through your edits in any great detail but the varna thing has to go in, sorry. I too have read Bayly, among others, but in any event we simply cannot ignore the situation because it is the single thing that is a constant edit across caste articles by contributors who quite obviously are connected to India. Either we deal with it properly (including, if necessary, with "there is a difference of opinion regarding ...") or we watch this deteriorate once more. It saddens me that even caste still has a significant role to play in Indian society but it does and we cannot ignore these issues. I should be seeing SB in a few weeks when I return to Cambridge for a dinner - perhaps I should ask her to write a paper specifically on this issue! Actually, come to think of it, I may indeed raise the question even though "She told me personally" is not WP:RS etc. - Sitush (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No point dropping names. You have unfortunately not read Susan Bayly's book, and by that I mean understood it. I now have a good sense of your edits in these caste related articles. You have a pattern of frenetically collecting isolated sources and you seem to be obsessed with "shudra" (for better or worse). A similar problem plagues the rest of the James Tod article, for example, which out of politeness I have not deconstructed for you. You are welcome to have an RfC, but this is as far as I go. Sorry, but the category shudra doesn't belong to this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Deconstruct anything you want. This is a communal project. You are wrong about me but entitled to your opinion. Want to have a bet on how long before the varna point reappears here? I'd hazard some time within the next month. - Sitush (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate Fowler&Fowler for a great academic work on Kurmi History. The article was a mess, F&f's contribution will rescue the article from constant attack.Modern Kurmis are seen as Kshatriyas by Indian society. Dainik Jagran,the Largest selling daily newspaper lists Kurmis in the Kshatriya section of Matrimonial pages, very few castes are listed as Kshatriya in that section, even Yadavs are listed in separate section.It's very important because marriages are decided on the basis of Varna and caste.Contribution of Kurmis in establishment of Hindu rule in India can't be ignored.please include reference to Shivaji and Sindhia in the article.these are some of the references:

1. "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."by Jayantanuja Bandyopadhyaya from The Harijans
2. "The Mahatos had attained Kshatriya status by identifying themselves with the Kurmis." by Amrita Basu from Two faces of protest: contrasting modes of women's activism in India page 110
3. "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." by Syed Siraj ul Hassan fom The castes and tribes of H.E.H. the Nizam's dominions, Volume 1 page 371
4. "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." from The India list and India Office list for ...page 384
5. "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." by William Crooke from Natives of Northern India pages 116
6. "The Kurmis are considered to be the descendants of Chatrapati Shivaji" by Jose J. Nedumpara from Political economy and class contradictions: a study pages 47
7. "Shivaji was a Kurmi and the Rajas of Gwalior and Satara are said to be of the same race." by A. Vijaya Kumari, Sepuri Bhaskar from Social change among Balijas: majority community of Andhra Pradesh page 6

Ajneesh Katiyar (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ajneesh, your allegations are ridiculous; you're literally defining "mess" and "attacks" as "any mention of the word Shudra". The version I wrote was based on RSs, Fowler's version is much more expansive and it's great that he brought his time and expertise here. The only "attacks" the article was experiencing was attempts by inexperienced editors to whitewash out any varna controversy and portray the Kurmis as "pure Kshatriya". I never attempted to excise the term Kshatriya from the article, but rather to emphasise that it's an issue of debate, and Fowler has, very fairly, placed "varna debated" into the lede of the article. WP is not here to help castes glorify themselves, it's here to report the scholarly, neutral consensus. In the case of the Kurmis, the history shows that their status has been debated, and the debate has led to much political agitation, which Fowler has portrayed at length in this new revision of the article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Mr Vanitas, I was not critisizing you, while praising F&F. Both you and Sitush are doing good job in handling caste related articles. The article was a "mess" because, whenever Kurmi youngsters saw themselves listed as "Shudra", they want to change it as "Kshatriya", because they're grown up with such beliefs, they don't care about the academic nature of Wikipedia. We have limited inputs from British era about the caste. we don't have much from the Medieval period. The Varna status is a matter of debate, personally I'll always come with some inputs to support their "Kshatriya" status. I think, we can also include a section about "Patels" the most successful Indian community overseas.

Ajneesh Katiyar (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm a bit prickly on the topic, but we do both agree that there is an issue of new editors overreacting to the Shudra/Kshatriya debate with undue emotion. So far as Kshatriya, I agree that we shouldn't denigrate their claims, but nor should we attempt to "win" the argument one way or another, particularly through OR such as "the Kurmis do X, Y, and Z, so they must be Kshatriya". I'm fine so long as Kshatriya is presented as the group's declared identity (vice "The Truth"), that Shudra is mentioned somehow as a varna they've been associated with (and Fowler did a great job laying out the political agendas behind this). Personally, I'd like the varna issue tackled a little more directly, but I think Fowler's way gives a bit more wiggle-room on the issue, so manages to soft-pedal the issue a bit yet not whitewash it, which I think is a pragmatic way to minimise vandalism. Ajneesh, if you have inputs on Kshatriya, it'd be great if you could bring them here to Talk: first, given how contentious the issue is, but I'm certainly interested in reading more neutral, third-party analysis of caste politics. So far as Patels, that name is also used by plenty of non-Kurmis, yes? I'm just not clear on how Patels (writ large) figure into a Kurmi article, unless you have resources specifically cover Patels (agricultural record keepers?) who were explicitly of the Kurmi jati. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I should point out that I am neither against a discussion of the Varna issue in a separate section, nor against the use of the words, "shudra" and "kshatriya" in the article. What I oppose is the listing of the Kurmi in the category: Category:Shudra caste. A category gives the impression that the Kurmi are (meaning they always have been and will always be) shudra. For the same reason, I am against listing them in Category:Kshatriya caste. My understanding (from the readings) is that the Kurmi (like other cultivator castes) were free non-elite middle peasants, whose caste status was low to middling, but it was usually not pondered much, and interaction with them was considered clean. They were respected for the acumen as cultivators both by the small successor states of the Mughals and (later) by the British. For much of the eighteenth century, many Kurmi rented their land from Muslim or Hindu gentry who were developing new areas for cultivation. Their success led to land ownership and declarations of high status, which while looked upon sympathetically by Muslim overlords and by the British, were often opposed by the Hindu elite, some of whom had only recently acquired their own elite status. In the first half of the 19th century, the Hindu elite, pressed economically from above, offered new and more stringent (and Sanskritized) formulations of varna, in which castes such as the Kurmi had now slipped to a servile shudra status, which, it was further suggested by the elite, obliged them to perform begär (unpaid labor) for the elite. Perhaps because these upper-caste assertions came too late in the social history of India, perhaps because the Kurmi themselves were becoming more powerful economically, even filling the lower to middle ranks of government service, many Kurmi did not take these upper-caste impositions lying down. In the second half of the 19th century, they formed associations, which advertised what they claimed were their "kshatriya" origins. There were all sorts of claims advanced, from their membership in the Rama-bhakti cults, to a ancient link to Lord Rama (himself a kshatriya), to their belonging to a lineage beginning with Lord Rama's younger son Kush, to their support of new temple construction in the expansive manner of kshatriyas, etc. According to William Pinch, they were simply attempting to maximize their links to kshatriya-hood to strengthen their case. Both the shudra label and the kshatriya claim are the products of the 18th and 19th centuries. Before that time the kurmi were a low to middle free peasant jati whose varna status was not pondered much, but which interacted freely with other communities in the village or town. Obviously, present-day claims of eternal kshatriya status are as ludicrous as present-day claims of eternal shudra status. The varna discussion needs to be nuanced. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

PS I should add that I didn't use Christophe Jaffrelot much since the relevant portion of his chapter 6 is a straightforward paraphrase of William Pinch. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too fond of Category:Kshatriya for the reasons you mentioned, and had created Category:Shudra only so that articles (such as this one) would have both cats vice just one. I'd be equally happy just deleting both cats, and not cat'ing any caste by varna. As you mention, it's complicated stuff, variable, etc. Various people in the past had made the "it's complicated argument"... and proceeded to use that argument to keep Kshatriya and remove Shudra, but so long as folks are reasonable about not trying to force in K. and keep out S., and rely on neutral, reliable, third-party sources for each, I'm fine.

In the short term, and as far as this article is concerned, I'm fine just removing both cats. In the longer term, we could propose deleting both on WP:INDIA. However, that might be a little tricky since Category:Brahmins does a decent job holding Brahmin issues and castes which are (relatively) indisputably considered to be Brahmin.

In response to the general questioning of whether varna should be in articles: the absolute prevalance of POV pushers putting "Kshatriya" into articles, often in the lede, and sometimes in the first sentence, indicates to me that the readership is still interested in varna. Though I agree that it's officially obsolete, and that even viewing it historically is complicated and largely a result of 19th C. political wrangling, discussing varna is necessary both to introduce the issues of Sanskritisation and caste politics, and also to head off the legions of editors who want to swing by and add "My caste is severely awesome and amazing Kshatriya warriors". MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Category:Kshatriya is creating more confusion than solution to the caste related articles. we can't ignore categorisation as in the case of Kurmi but can split the "Kshatriya category" into "Vedic Kshatriya" and "Modern Kshatriya" category, like the Yadava could be classified as "Vedic Kshatriya" and the Yadav as "Modern Kshatriya". We need to recognise the "Dyanamic" nature of "Varna", first. I believe "Modern Kshatriya" is a better term than "claimed Kshatriya". The Varna classification can't be ignored due to it's importance in Religious and Matrimonial issues. We have thousands of castes to be classified in different categories. the castes classified in Category:Brahmins could not be the real "Vedic Brahmin", the term "Modern Brahmin" would be a better term as it will define the castes seen as Brahmin in Modern Indian society. It will convince both the Academics, who are interested in Ancient people and the Commoners, who're interested in the caste's Modern status. I suggest the following model for caste classification.

• Modern Brahmin - Sharma, Dube, Mishra,Pandey etc.
• Modern Kshatriya - Gujjar, Jat, Rajput, Kurmi etc.
• Modern Vaisya - Mittal, Gupta, Jindal, Agarwal etc.
• Modern Shudra - Chamar, Dhobi, Dhanuk,Kanjar,Nat etc.

This classification will be a better approach to define Modern Indian society. it will reduce attacks on caste related articles as these are the result of confusion created by Historic facts and general perception of the people.Thank You. Ajneesh Katiyar (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That makes little sense to me, sorry. It is so because most of the "modern" claims are based on alleged connections to mythological origins, so we're back at the vedic link etc. Having two categories merely muddies the waters further. Better, I feel, to have none. And in this latter regard, I misunderstood Fowler&fowler's earlier post where they said that they had removed the shudra category - apologies for that. As long as the categories exist, they will be a focus for POV and warring & indeed my only ventures into varna category editing have been to remove entries in a (usually unsuccessful) attempt to minimise such warring. We cannot ignore the issue in the articles but, as with stating varna in infoboxes, the cats often cannot do justice to the issue.

However, this is really an issue that should be raised on the talk pages for the categories and/or at Categories for discussion. - Sitush (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sophomoric nonsense

Let me suggest, Mr. Sitush, that you don't know the first thing about sourcing on Wikipedia. Please don't try to snipe with me. I can take you to the cleaners in a New York minute. I've been treating you with kid gloves, but please don't push your luck. And don't flatter yourself by imagining that this is even remotely a threat. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Do it. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Note about the Koeries

A comparison has existed regarding the agricultural abilities of the Kurmis vs the Brahmins. I added a note to the effect that the Koeri were reckoned to be the "most advanced" of the cultivating classes in Bihar. This is for a perfectly valid reason: comparing Kurmi to Brahmin is ok but it can give the misleading impression that Kurmis somehow were therefore top of the tree in terms of cultivation. F&f removed it as original research. I have reinstated. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the Kurmis, not the Koeris or the multitude other agriculture castes that inhabit the Indian subcontinent. Besides my statements are based in modern sources. That Blunt statement is paraphrased in Susan Bayly. I can easily replace the quote with the paraphrase. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the article any way in which you wish. I do not have a problem with that and had my doubts about the Blunt statement when it was added (by MangoWong, Thisthat2011 or someone like that - I am not going back to check exactly who). At the point of it being added, the purpose was to glorify the Kurmi agricultural abilities. My note offset the glorification & thereby prevents the inevitable future warring over the abilities of the Kurmi. I've been through all this before, you see: the best way to stop sniping in the long run is to head off the points where one-upmanship between castes can be practiced.

What I would appreciate is that if you know something then you use it. All this bluster about how you can run rings round me on sourcing etc may well have some foundation in truth, and you'll certainly be better in some aspects. But making out that you have held off to spare my blushes or whatever is just silly. We are here to build and to improve an encyclopedia.

I have no access to a hardcopy of Pinch and have said this time and again; as for Bayly, well I should be able to get that back out of the library soon. - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you tend to snipe. Your trademark edit seems to be about collecting "facts" from some source and adding them (rather than assessing evidence and making arguments) and it usually elicits a tit for tat edit by your opponent and, consequently, promotes edit-warring. Do you realize that it was I who added the Blunt edit? For better or worse, the Kurmi are the best known of the cultivators. Are you also aware how many cites I can find that speak to the Kurmis' excellent reputation as cultivators, for your one cite for the Keoris? At least a dozen without working up a sweat, if I want to play that game. So, what is the point of your note? I still have no idea. Also, you are increasingly coming across in your edits as someone who is obsessively unsympathetic to the lower castes in Hinduism, and I say that as someone who had no interest in the caste-related pages until a month ago (and no ax to grind). How come you are not going after the Brahmin or Kshatriya pages which, if anything, have more nonsense than the Yadav or Kurmi pages? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me for not being aware that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to make arguments. I thought that was the purpose of an academic paper. I have already said that I could not recall who added the quote but that I was uncomfortable with it at the time that it was added, which was during a period when there were some people pushing a POV (not that you have, but it was at that time). You added a whole load of quotes as some sort of framework for future use, IIRC.

A footnote is not undue weight but, yes, it may be irrelevant. I accept that possibility. I do not accept your vicious edit summaries or some of your other comments which seem to me to be tantamount to bullying. Maybe they are not, but it is how they appear. Furthermore, people cannot read your mind: if you have the information but do not demonstrate it then things happen. Not everyone has access to everything: we work with the tools that are available and to the best of our ability.

You need to check my history better than you have done if you believe that I am obsessively unsympathetic to any subject. There are, of course, a lot of subjects that I have no interest in, but that is different. Eg: maths & most science stuff just goes over my head. That I have done a lot of work on lower caste articles is just one of those things - they tend to link to each other, for starters - but you will find that I have done a fair amount elsewhere, including on Brahmin and Kshatriya articles. - Sitush (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's not drag this on more than we need to. For my part, I apologize for the viciously brusque tone of my edit summaries. Irene (the hurricane) has blown away my internet connections, so I'm typing on my cell phone, and racking up a big bill. I do have all three books: S. Bayly, W. Pinch, and C. Jaffrelot. I also have a scanner and optical character reader, so if you want a page or two from them, I'm happy to send them, once I'm back on track. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have already removed the note, in the light of your additional info. Instead of being 1 person (Blunt) vs another (in the note), the extra info clearly demonstrated a trend. I am also much happier to see Bayly's name attached to it, being a modern stamp of approval. I've read Bayly and Jaffrelot via the library & can see fairly big chunks of them still using GBooks. Pinch is a problem for me & I'd like to read it through if only for my own pleasure, but as far as using it in articles is concerned there is no urgency: others have access to it. Doubtless a copy will turn up some time at a reasonable price. My problem tends to be with people who use GBooks snippet view or do not read around a specific sentence/paragraph that is attractive to them. It does not apply in your case, obviously. Now, turn that phone off for a bit. When your net connection is back, check over my other recent edits to this article. I'll stick to anti-vandal/bias stuff on this one until then, so it should enable the undo link to work for most of them. I think that you will find they are mostly tweaks. - Sitush (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

:With the proviso that the discussion is about the conduct of Thisthat2011 and not this article. - Sitush (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Now irrelevant. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Widow-remarrying tiller

The phrase "widow-remarrying tiller" does not imply in any way that Kurmis were marrying Brahmin widows. It should be removed. --70.64.86.187 (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Note

This article has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topicsMW ^ℳ 03:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source

Can we clarify the first citation? It is referenced to Gyan Publishers. However, clicking on the link and going to the book's copyright page shows the publisher as being Kalpaz. Is this a WP:RS? Their contact email is a hotmail address, which does not speak to an established and reputable publisher.JanetteDoe (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that this is intended for the Kunbi article, regarding the subject of which I know nowt. But Gyan are never reliable, IMO: a known mirror, known publisher of plagiarism, and even their reprints are sometimes mangled. - Sitush (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. I have placed it on Kunbi. JanetteDoe (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Kurmi is common umbrella for different castes in India

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

Shudra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

allegation of caste prejudice!!!!!

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

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

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

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

kurmi varna status

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I give up. Please read WP:TE and WP:IDHT. - Sitush (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm close to giving up, but I'm going to give it one more shot, because there's one thing I just don't understand. Jaychandra, you say the article is imbalanced in terms of covering the various theories. I almost agree with you on that point...but I think it's imbalanced opposite of how you say. When I read the article, the vast majority of discussion about varna/status seems to say that the Kurmi are not Kshatriya, and their opinion is mentioned only very briefly. Why do you think the article is "tilted overweight towards "they think they are""? Qwyrxian 07:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, Sitush, I once again read the article at your suggestion and i am sorry but, though i wish to, i could not find it that way. Also, i don't understand why are you hinting WP:TE WP:IDHT. Its not my concern at all what varna kurmis traditionally belong to or not belong to. Actually, i am only politely trying to convey or request that lets merely mention or clarify all the positions(at least well-referenced ones) regarding difference/dispute/whatever, which is already significantly expressed in the article and so summarized in lead, nothing more. And that too because, It is clearly unbalanced when all positions in difference/dispute/whatever are not clarified. I am in no way confronting your point of view or wish to disrupt present article in any way.Jaychandra (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that last comment was mine. You haven't answered my question. I re-read the article. To me, it includes very little on "what kurmis think about themselves". I literally do not understand why you say it's imbalanced that way. Could you please point out exactly what parts of the article say that? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, Qwyrxian, specifically, as i have conveyed earlier, my actual concern pertaining to imbalance is not what is already there in the article but what i feel is not there in the article, i.e. article clearly and significantly reflects that there is a difference of opinion about kurmi varna status, also "what kurmis think about themselves" but does not clearly clarify or mention other position of difference. And believe me this could be easily resolved simply by minor rephrasing of an existing sentence in the article ". ... Kurmi and Goala/Ahir tillers who held tenancies from these 'squireens' found themselves being identified as Shudras, that is, people who were mandated to serve those of the superior Kshatriya and Brahman varnas." if we merely replace 'found themselves being identified as Shudras' with 'were classified as Shudras under traditional Hindu varna system' other position will be clarified and i think this should end this Jaychandra (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

But they were not definitely so classified. That is the entire point. - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That may be your point of view and i have no problem with that but references are there to suggest otherwise and thats exactly why "difference of opinion" comes in. Any ways, if you have reservation with classified lets just simply replace "found themselves being" with "were" i think this should concur Jaychandra (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's my opinion and Fowler&Fowler's opinion (I think) as well. If you want to pursue the matter further, I think you'll have to use dispute resolution to see if a wider set of editors might have a different opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoops! I forgot that this was actually already an RfC! Well, I still don't see any change here; the next step you could take would be the dispute resolution noticeboard, or possibly asking at the India-related issues noticeboard. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Guys, who is the authority to give Kshatriya or Shudra tag? These things were very dynamic. Several groups of people came to India from outside who were not even part of Varna system and given Kshatriya status. Likewise several dynasties who were Kshatriyas and went out of power after some time were not identified Kshatriyas after that. In other example during Ashoka's time most of Kshatriyas became Budhists, were no more Kshatriyas but later came back to Hindu Dharma. Some people will identify them Kshatriyas and others something else or Shudra. Kurmis might be similar case. Mallas of 16 Mahajanpads were Kurmis. Chandragupta Maurya's case is also same. All Buddhist and Jain literature identify them as Kshatriyas and Hindu literature Shudra.

Foreigners ruled us around 1000 years because of these kind of division in society, either on caste of class basis. Why are we not learning any lessen from history? My suggestion would be mention that Varna status is not very clear. Some sources believe that Kurmis are Kshatriyas and others Shudra and current status is somewhere in between Kshatriya and Shudra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.36.196.9 (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Qwyrxian, i really thought we were so near to resolution. I tried my best to comply Sad that we could not concur. If you insist i dont mind but still i do feel we can definitely resolve this by just being reasonable. Regarding last edit by some user? I am thankful for valuable feedback now only if you could back it all up with valid references I would be pleased to agree with you fully.Jaychandra (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Jaychandra, I gave you bad advice to go to DRN while the RfC is still in progress--I forgot that they don't like to take disputes while they are still undergoing another form of DR. So, I guess that after the RfC is finished, you can go back to DRN, if you want. I do, however, agree with your point to the above user: we need sources for anything. However, the IP's overall poin that the "varna status is not very clear" is exactly what the article says now, and what it should say. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, plz do not be sorry at all. You suggested only because you felt Rfc is not yielding. Anyways, I am glad that we are discussing. Thanks for your feedback. I agree with you on ""varna status is not very clear" and that's what article should say". In fact, it is also significantly indicated/summarized in the lead and we all concur here, atleast, that there is a difference of opinion/dispute/confusion/unclear/whatever regarding Kurmi varna status under traditional Hindu varna system. Now, this difference of opinion/dispute/confusion/unclear/whatever itself is indicative of multiple positions/views/whatever on the issue. All that I am requesting here is just a small sentence, anywhere in the History section, simply very briefly stating/mentioning/touching what this difference of opinion/dispute/confusion/unclear/whatever is all about, Nothing more. And we are definitely not disrupting the article or taking stands by doing that but just being informative.Jaychandra (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

In the light of above, I have tried to put very brief and well-referenced informative sentence under 'Varna Strife & Kurmi Kshatriya Movement' which, in my opinion, is very significant to Kurmi History in terms of 'social enlightenment/uplifting'. It also, even if subtly, almost clarifies difference of opinion regarding varna status and provides some brief reference to readers willing to know details. Though positions are not clearly specified, I can live with that! I will remove POV and move forward if this stays. Please review edit and provide your valuable feedback.Jaychandra (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What you did was enter exactly the same contested statement that you have been trying to get into the article for days on end now, and using a very nasty linking from the lead section to it. I suggest that you re-read about consensus and neutrality. I have reverted your entire edit. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised! Its only a well-referenced, brief, informative sentence and not a word is paraphrased, its exactly the same as quoted references say. I did not know if this was the contested statement but, well, if it is so, kindly convey reasonable basis for contest of this well-referenced statement. Also, I strongly object to the use of word nasty for the internal reference link provided. I just used available wiki tool for readers who wish to have details regarding summarized 'difference of opinion' in lead section. Please explain What's so nasty about it?Jaychandra (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"Nasty" as in "clumsy and inappropriate". We do not usually link within an article, except for footnotes & contents boxes, and by doing it as you did you gave undue weight to a particular section of the article. You were already well aware that the sentence was disputed. What is now even worse is that you seem to be saying that you have copied it verbatim rather than paraphrasing it - if you want to do that then you would have to use a quotation. - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the article as you left it. Aside from the POV-y section heading and the poor phrasing, why do you think that the placement is suitable and the short explanation is accurate, given all of our discussions here & the content that exists elsewhere in the article? - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The Gooptu source merely quotes from William Pinch, who is already cited and says things much better. Your Pandey source is simply not acceptable and has been rejected previously, although I realise that you may not be aware of this. Aside from having far too many mistakes, it is published by Gyan and our default attitude regarding that publisher is to reject anything that they produce - there are far too many problems with their output, as has been discussed on numerous articles, at the reliable sources noticeboard, the dispute resolution board and at our list of mirrors and forks. Your Tewari source, again, is based substantially on Pinch and - as we have been saying all along - makes clear that the situation was complex with regard to varna perceptions. Finally, you actually cite Pinch and do so in a clumsy manner after a massive section that far better explains what he and others think. - Sitush (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, Sitush, you may prefer to call whatever that doesn't match your viewpoint as nasty/clumsy and inappropriate/whatever, i simply do not subscribe to that!Jaychandra (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on internal linking I do not agree with that as being a general rule and I also gave reason why I did that. If you are not happy with that, I am not pushing for it.Jaychandra (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding section title Varna Strife & Kurmi Kshatriya Movement: I think Kurmi Kshatriya Movement is the most significant component of Kurmi History and Varna Strife is very basis or crux of this movement which is explained by 'some social groups traditionally belonging to Shudra varna, after gaining economical stature were not happy with their current position in varna hierarchy and demanded elevation from around 19th century onwards' which led to such movements and you will find this in any reference you pick up.Jaychandra (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding difference of opinion on varna issue as summarized in lead section I have a simple question, What is this difference of opinion in your view?Jaychandra (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Photographs in the article are insult to caste.

Photograph used in the article are similar to what photographer or the article creator wants to portray about the caste not reality, more of a defaming the caste. What article wants to show is not what entire Kurmi caste looks like, some places may have. Similar photographs could be found for every existing caste in different parts of India currently. Seems limited reference's about the mighty Kurmi Kshatriya's, they are all over India but known with different names and castes. Being Kings and Zamindaars, some places as rich farmers but very few places where they are workers. And article portray a picture of Kurmi as worker which is defaming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.146.123.24 (talk) 05:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Uh, if they're known as different names or castes, then by definition they aren't Kurmi. In any event, you'll need to provide reliable sources if you want to suggest changes. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of the people are not able to digest upward mobile position of Kurmis. They are even disputing the fact that Kurmis and Kunbis are same. These guys are only interested in showing Kurmis in bad light. I am from Allahabad and in rural ares of Allahabad, Varanasi and Vindhya region, Kurmi and Kunbi is used interchangeably. Why don't these guys put the picture RNP Singh Raja of Padrauna? or Scindias? Why only people working on the fields? Why don't they put similar picture for other communities. In Rural areas majority of the population is engaged in agriculture.

Wikipedia is a useless place. Don't waste your time here. There are lot of dedicated websites already available on Kurmis created by Kurmis of UP, MP, Bihar and Patidars of Gujarat and MP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.36.196.11 (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have some free pictures of people and would like to upload them to Wikipedia, we can certainly discuss including them. Don't forget that we can't just use any photographs, because Wikipedia respects copyright. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Colonial and Pre colonial sources valid or not valid

This article has been vigorously edited by several experienced editors .It currently has the following citations .

• 4 pictures in the article an all four from British Colonial era .Four from a 1916 book [1] [2][3][4] and one from a 1909 book [5]. All four contributed towikipedia by Fowler and Fowler .

Citation number	Citation
1	Various census of India. 1867. pp. 36–. Retrieved 13 May 2011.
2 a b	^ a b 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–. Retrieved 13 May 2011.
18	^ Quote: "The Hindu draws a distinction between kachcha food, which is cooked in water, and pakka food, which is cooked in ghi (clarified butter). This distinction depends on the principle that ghi, like all products of the sacred cow protects from impurity ... and enables the Hindu to be less particular in the case of pakka than of kachcha food, and allows him to relax his restrictions accordingly." In Blunt, Sir Edward Arthur Henry (1931). The caste system of northern India: with special reference to the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. H. Milford, Oxford University Press. p. 89. Retrieved 4 August 2011.
19	^ India. Census Commissioner; Risley, Sir Herbert Hope (1903). Census of India, 1901: Volume I. India. Ethnographic appendices, being the data upon which the caste chapter of the Report is based. Calcutta: Office of the Supt. of Govt. Printing, India. pp. 56–57. Retrieved 4 August 2011.
26	^ Crooke, William (1896). The tribes and castes of the North-western Provinces and Oudh, Volume III. Office of the superintendent of government printing. pp. 353–354. Retrieved 4 August 2011.

I have no problem with the use of these sources , but having seen various negative comments and removals of these and such like citations removed from Wikipedia articles , I would be interested to know from the [among the most prolific registered editors on this article MatthewVanitas, Qwyrxian, Fowler&fowler, Boing! said Zebedee are these sources good or bad , valid or invalid . And whats with plastering this and other caste articles with 100 year old ethnographic pictures ,one of the Kurmi picture here is also on the Caste article . Do you believe these pictures to be "emblematic". Intothefire (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You have no problem with the sources? So why are you raising the issue? Are they good in my opinion? No, with the exception of the images. You've been around long enough to know that Rome was not built in a day and, in my opinion, this is just another snide attempt on your part to attack other editors. Which is something for which you have had numerous prior warnings and numerous prior advice regarding taking the issues to a higher level, be that WP:ANI or (in this case, WP:DR. If you want to take those sources out of this article, and given your professed knowledge of what others think, then just do it. - Sitush (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading

Can someone include info from this book "Martial Races of Undivided India" by Vidya Prakash Tyagi?. This talks about Kurmis as a Martial Race.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vRwS6FmS2g0C&pg=PA267&lpg=PA267&dq=kurmi+population+in+UP&source=bl&ots=REaxKtN0d_&sig=qiVD0fFxPzR6EBLqAcegT1nXzqM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=b1bYUfzND-SJiALFm4D4BQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=kurmi%20population%20in%20UP&f=false

Sorry but that is not a reliable source. Please see User:Sitush/Common#Gyan and note that this book by Tyagi is one of the worst examples known by me to have been published by that company. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Why the content always change 360*

I am a kurmi and I am following this Kurmi page in wikipedia from atleast 10 years. Every year content of this page changes completely. I am not a researcher but there are few facts which I know and I have seen from my childhood. Famous Kurmi people Sardar vallabh bhai patel-The Iron man of India, Veer Sivaji were Kurmis. Presently Three Chief ministers Nitish kumar, Anandibai patel and Chandra babu naidu are kurmis. Armed kurmi struggle in Bihar Kurmi and bhumihar rivary was so infamous that it was an Idea cellular advertisement http://orkut.google.com/c1160595-t8cf3f085ad341f1.html. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFNNUvwg1jE Kurmi subcastes current socio economic status All should be included. The current article only content defamatory stuff . Origin of kurmi from vedic era is elaborately explained in this article. http://www.kurmisamaj.com/kurmi-in-history.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishalvks (talk • contribs) 17:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2016

Viveksomya123 (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC) Kurmi samaj near by Nepal and Bihar are well established they are not agriculturist but a good businessman and have acquired lots of land and called jamindar. List of districts such as bara and kalaiya which are situated in Nepal is having 40% total strength of kurmis in nepal.eventhough majoroity of kurmis are well established lots of them are vessel wasser.

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Areas inhabited by the kurmis

The article says that Kurmi is a cultivating caste of the eastern gangetic plains but from where does the 'eastern gangetic plains' region start ? There are hardly any kurmis in West Bengal (the traditional agrarian caste there was Mahishya) and most of the Kurmis are concentrated in modern day Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (which is not 'eastern gangetic plains'). The primary source cited here is that of Bailey's (the other two repeat the same sentence, perhaps citing from Bailey's work) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timdrake91190 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

All three are academics who are familiar with the usage. The Eastern Gangetic plain does not mean every bit of the eastern Gangetic plain. We can replace it with "lower Gangetic plain," but unqualified Gangetic plain would be inaccurate. The lower Gangetic plane would the the basin that drains into the Lower Doab and the course further downriver. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Lets keep it as in the source. The eastern half of the gangetic plains would include Bihar as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Merged

Merged from Talk:Awadhiya (caste)

Discussion from Talk:Awadhiya (caste)

Copyedit I tried to copy edit where I could but there were a lot of instances where I didn't know if I was cutting out something important or what was going on. If anyone with knowledge of the subject can get involved as well that would be great! Leefkrust22 (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Recent edits @Pna.wpedia: you cannot keep doing things like this. You are removing sourced material without explanation, and you are adding unsourced material that, on the face of it, is original research. Please read our policy regarding verifiability. If you can find sources that support your point then great. In such circumstances, we would include both opinions, in accordance with our policy regarding neutrality. Alternatively, you could demonstrate why the existing source(s) are not in fact reliable. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC) You cannot do this either. It is original research based on notoriously ambiguous primary sources issued by a government agency. More than 1400 amendments have been made to that document during the course of its existence. - @Pna.wpedia: please give me the exact page of the exact document in the source that you have added. It doesn't seem to mention them at all. We cannot extrapolate like this, although we could say (if sourced) that the Awadhiya are classified as OBC in Bihar. - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Reservation classification I think our source is confusing re: whether or not this community are classified as OBC. It does mention Awadhiya as one of several items in parentheses after the name Hajjam but this is typical of the ambiguity we find in the various government lists and that particular range of pages in the source looks like nothing more than a transcription of Mandal's official list. Are the Awadhiya connected to the Hajjam, which is apparently mostly a Muslim community, or is the list just meaning those of the Hajjam who live in the Awadh region? Of course, that source was 1991 and much has changed since then. The present Bihar OBC list mentions neither Hajjam nor Awadhiya, although the usual provisos still apply re: these appalling primary sources. I'm tempted to remove the entire statement on the grounds of uncertainty regarding what the source means, even if not actual unreliability. - Sitush (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Regarding Mehulshah123's edit I moved @Mehulshah123: 's comment from my talk page to this one: Hi!Whatever editing was done is correct. Awadhiya is not a caste. The article as edited by you says "The Mandal Commission designated the Awadhiya of Bihar as Other Backward Class in the Indian system of positive discrimination." The list of Other Backward Class from Bihar is here:http://www.ncbc.nic.in/user_panel/GazetteResolution.aspx?Value=mPICjsL1aLt5iq8E5sHcb9aZw5ZegRBySCH7TfTamcrBZvQJkfhn9Q57N54VaSrW You will not find any caste by the name Awadhiya. Then why do you say that I have removed 'sourced material'? The actual source, i.e. the link above defies the statements that you have made. Awadhiya means people from Awadh. That is true. Further, many jain people including myself use the surname Awadhiya. Jains have never been related to agriculture. They are merchants and traders. Your article says "Awadhiya (also referred to as Awadhiya Kurmi, Ayodhya Kurmi and Awadha Vansi) is a Hindu subcaste of the Kurmi who believe themselves to be descendants of the mythological Suryavanshi (Solar) dynasty. They claim their origins to be in Ayodhya, which was the ancient capital of that dynasty. The term "Awadhiya" means people of Awadh or Ayodhya." Kindly state what is the source of the said text? And how would you include the jains who are use the surname Awadhiya in the above-mentioned text? Hence, kindly revert back the article edited by me. Regards,Mehul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehulshah123 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC) This sentence The Mandal Commission designated the Awadhiya of Bihar as Other Backward Class in the Indian system of positive discrimination. is supported by the following source which lists Awadhiya as a OBC Caste from Bihar https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=COcwoYRCYhcC&pg=PA175#v=snippet&q=awadhiya&f=false This sentence Awadhiya (also referred to as Awadhiya Kurmi, Ayodhya Kurmi and Awadha Vansi) is a Hindu subcaste of the Kurmi.. is supported by the following source https://books.google.co.in/books?id=oDeFAAAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=awadhiya Your comment many jain people including myself use the surname Awadhiya. Jains have never been related to agriculture. They are merchants and traders. need a verifiable source that is why this template was added, otherwise it will be considered POV Pushing. So kindly provide sources supporting your views. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Re Awadhiya is not a caste. The article as edited by you says "The Mandal Commission designated the Awadhiya of Bihar as Other Backward Class in the Indian system of positive discrimination." The list of Other Backward Class from Bihar is here: http://www.ncbc.nic.in/user_panel/GazetteResolution.aspx?Value=mPICjsL1aLt5iq8E5sHcb9aZw5ZegRBySCH7TfTamcrBZvQJkfhn9Q57N54VaSrW First, kindly remove the claim that Awadhiya belongs to Other Backward Classes. The above link is that of Government's database. The book that you are (mis)quoting is bogus. The government's data should prevail over a self-proclaimed author with no credentials that you are misquoting repeatedly. Hajjams are muslims. There is no Awadhiya who is a Hindu and Hajjam. Your book says that Awadhiyas are hajjams (barbers). I am a jain who uses the surname Awadhiya. Have jains ever worked as barbers? You need to read some history bro. Awadhiyas can be Muslims too. How your article would be relevant to the Awadhiyas who never had any roots in Bihar? The article as edited by me is neutral, and is all encompassing. Kindly remove the claim that it is OBC. I will furnish the remaining proofs that Awadhiya can belong to any religion very soon. I am a jain who use the surname Awadhiya. With regards, Mehul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehulshah123 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Difference between Awadhiya Kurmi and Awadhiya Hajjam You misquoted two references. One you used to state that Awadhiya is Kurmi, and another you misused to state that they are OBC. In reality, the first one referred to the landholder zamindars of Bihar, who have been referred to as dwij (i.e. equivalent to brahmin) due to their high status. The second one referred to barbers who are hajjams. Both the Awadhiyas are different as is stated in the link below. The following link states that both are different: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=uEwut4Ax-3QC&pg=PA170&dq=awadhiya&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj13IK6sKXZAhUDQo8KHXz7BZo4HhDoAQhJMAY#v=onepage&q=awadhiya&f=false Your source states that Awadhiya Hajjam is OBC, how can you write in your article that Awadhiya Kurmi is OBC? In my opinion, you are misusing your privileges as administrator and are trying to block all attempts of any correction due to ego issues. Kindly reinstate the article to the form edited by me. It is all inclusive and does not hurt the sentiments of any particular section of people. Besides, it is true. Regards, Mehul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehulshah123 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC) As written by another curator Reservation classification[edit source] I think our source is confusing re: whether or not this community are classified as OBC. It does mention Awadhiya as one of several items in parentheses after the name Hajjam but this is typical of the ambiguity we find in the various government lists and that particular range of pages in the source looks like nothing more than a transcription of Mandal's official list. Are the Awadhiya connected to the Hajjam, which is apparently mostly a Muslim community, or is the list just meaning those of the Hajjam who live in the Awadh region? Of course, that source was 1991 and much has changed since then. The present Bihar OBC list mentions neither Hajjam nor Awadhiya, although the usual provisos still apply re: these appalling primary sources. I'm tempted to remove the entire statement on the grounds of uncertainty regarding what the source means, even if not actual unreliability. - Sitush (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehulshah123 (talk • contribs) Since you have repeated all the things you previously said, Let me reiterate-> This sentence The Mandal Commission designated the Awadhiya of Bihar as Other Backward Class in the Indian system of positive discrimination. is supported by this [[6]] which lists Awadhiya has been considered an OBC Caste from Bihar This sentence Awadhiya (also referred to as Awadhiya Kurmi, Ayodhya Kurmi and Awadha Vansi) is a Hindu subcaste of the Kurmi.. is supported by the following source [[7]] Try being succinct and less redundant. It'll be easier to understand. Here are some points taken from your comments- Hajjams are muslims. There is no Awadhiya who is a Hindu and Hajjam. - How do you know?...Provide Citations Awadhiyas can be Muslims too. - Now that's contradictory. Your book says that Awadhiyas are hajjams (barbers). I am a jain who uses the surname Awadhiya. Have jains ever worked as barbers? You need to read some history bro. - May be. I've met Jain mechanics, waiters, folk singers as well. Can I add these in any article without source based on my personal experience? Not according to Wikipedia. How your article would be relevant to the Awadhiyas who never had any roots in Bihar? - By providing Citations. The article as edited by me is neutral, and is all encompassing. - But Unsourced I will furnish the remaining proofs that Awadhiya can belong to any religion very soon. - That's what you are suppose to do. I am a jain who use the surname Awadhiya. - Surnames like Chaudhary, Shah, Thakur, Gill, Mann, Bhatt, Lone, Lodha, Verma, etc are multi-religious, multi-regional and multi-linguistic. What was your point? Kindly reinstate the article to the form edited by me. It is all inclusive and does not hurt the sentiments of any particular section of people. Besides, it is true. - That's called POV Pushing in Wikipedia WP:PUSH. Secondly, Wikipedia is not here to pamper any section of people. It needs sources. So kindly provide sources supporting your views. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Re You have said: The Mandal Commission designated the Awadhiya of Bihar as Other Backward Class in the Indian system of positive discrimination. is supported by this 1 which lists Awadhiya has been considered an OBC Caste from Bihar This link: http://www.ncbc.nic.in/user_panel/GazetteResolution.aspx?Value=mPICjsL1aLt5iq8E5sHcb9aZw5ZegRBySCH7TfTamcrBZvQJkfhn9Q57N54VaSrW states the list of OBC from Bihar. IMHO, my source, being the government's list, must prevail. The government's record does not find Awadhiya as an OBC from Bihar, then are you or your self proclaimed expert (whose book you have been citing) mightier than the government? In other words, if you say that Awadhiya is OBC in Bihar, then insert the same in the list of OBC and let them get the benefits! Your actions are undemocratic and one sided. You are not a rational person. You are unaffected by reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehulshah123 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC) We can mention your link in the 'Reservation' section but can't remove the original text or source. We can frame the sentence as follows. The Mandal Commission designated the Awadhiya of Bihar as Other Backward Class in the Indian system of positive discrimination.[2] However, presently they are not listed by the National Commission for Backward Classes as an Other Backward Class. Even than this doesn't prove that Awadhiyas exist in other groups and religions. I would suggest you not to call other users undemocratic, irrational, etc. That is harassment so mind it.Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC) When were they delisted/moved into another category? And note what I said above about the ambiguity in the source which we cite. - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC) What do you think about this govt. source [8] posted by MehulShah. There is no mention of Awadhiya in it. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC) I think it goes some way to confirming what I suspected many weeks ago, ie: that the source cited in the article is too ambiguous and should not be used. - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC) I agree. So what now? Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Remove the section if we are in agreement. There is no point in keeping something that is unreliable sourced. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC) OK, I'll remove the Reservation section. I believe we need to remove Classification - OBC from Infobox as well. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Yes, thanks, and any related categories. - Sitush (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC) January 2018 Sitush Sir, I have removed the Notable people section as per your edits in the respective article pages. Could you kindly direct me to project/talk pages where it had been established that self identification is necessary when mentioning castes. I understand that should be the case, but just for the sake of knowledge. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC) There should be info at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. It is a WP:BLP issue. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Customs @NikhilPatelReal: Awadhiyas banning widow remarriage seems trivial to me since a lot of communities do not let that happen. I don't think this section which writes: Customs and Traditions : The Ajodhya Kurmis of Bihar and Kanaujia Kurmis of the U.P. pride themselves on their prohibiting the remarriage of widows and have attained higher rank than the ordinary Kurmis should be here. Not to mention the references write, they attained "higher status" in the eyes of the "Brahmins". I wonder how important is that Any suggestions Fowler&fowler, Sitush - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC) It is important to write about widow remarriage because except for upper castes most castes allowed widow remarriage. So, not permitting widow remarriage is a important thing. Also all kurmis except awadhiya kurmis allow widow remarriage hence this contributes toward the unique feature of the sub caste awadhiya. the practice of not permitting widow remarriage is considered superior, it led to rise in social status of awadhiyas as a sub caste within the kurmi caste. so the importance must not be underestimated. anyway what is unimportant here. the communit barely has a 1000 word history in the Wikipedia page, any information with appropriate source should be relevant. and this information is not only relevant but important. so i am restoring the edit until the time any decision is made in the discussions. --NikhilPatelReal (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sitush

Hi @Sitush: i want to tell u that the quote here which is taken from Susan Bayly _____ By the mid-nineteenth century, influential revenue specialists were reporting that they could tell the caste of a landed man by simply glancing at his crops. In the north, these observers claimed, a field of 'second-rate barley' would belong to a Rajput or Brahman who took pride in shunning the plough and secluding his womenfolk. Such a man was to be blamed for his own decline, fecklessly mortgaging and then selling off his lands to maintain his unproductive dependents. By the same logic, a flourishing field of wheat would belong to a non-twice-born tiller, wheat being a crop requiring skill and enterprise on the part of the cultivator. These, said such commentators as Denzil Ibbetson and E. A. H. Blunt, were the qualities of the non-patrician 'peasant' – the thrifty Jat or canny Kurmi in upper India, .... Similar virtues would be found among the smaller market-gardening populations, these being the people known as Keoris in Hindustan, ...._________ book is on page 212 not 41 as referenced in this article.This quote i used recently in koeri article. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hm, thanks. I didn't add that quote but will check it out. Usually I would say it is due to using a different edition of the book but that is a massive difference in page numbering. I have a copy of the book here, so will check. - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, my copy says the same as yours. Changing to p. 212. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Criteria for adding persons in the Notable people list

One user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fylindfotberserk removed Nitish Kumar from the notable person list as there was "No self-identification by the living subject in the source" which seems quite funny as the article already mentioned Nitish Kumar earlier. I have re-added Nitish Kumar but this time using a source already mentioned in the above article. Hope this would be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timdrake91190 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't work like that. Self-Identification is necessary for living person as per consensus here, here and here. There was no self-identification from Nitish Kumar's part from any of the sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

No self-identification in source [9]. The one [10] about Samta party doesn't even mention the word 'Kurmi'. So it is case of original research. Hence removed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for clearing my doubt. Going by the above standard, a lot of articles need to be revised. Consider this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koeri. Shouldn't the names of politicians be removed as these persons haven't mentioned their jaati in any of the cited sources ? - Timdrake91190

You are welcome. Yes they need to be removed. I've restored Koeri to the last best. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I am kurmi and We are land lords since 10 to 12 generations , is this not sufficent to say we are Traditionaly elite Ap9492 (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Kurmi caste

Kurmi is a Vedic kshatriya according to sanatan dharam. Vansh. Suryavanshi Gotra. Kashyap Kuldevi. Chandrika Kurmi is a Suryavanshi kshatriya origin from lord luv son of lord Rama Vikas raj patel (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

One post is enough. Please see the reliably sourced explanation of the caste history of the Kurmis in the article. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Kurmi are vedic kshatriya, there are many kurmi estate families in uttar pradesh, bihar and madhaya pradesh and maharashtra. Chhtrapati sambhaji bhonsle of maharastra bjp leader, Ratanjeet pratap singh of padrauna,kushingar are examples Sanjaychaudharysc (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

AGRICULTURAL SLAVES

Fylindfotberserk, one user who was blocked for Pov-pushing wrt Rajput caste has added a source on slavery in the lead. They have provided a source with snippet view, from where it is not clear that it is about which period of time ? Also, they have mentioned that, they were owned as agricultural slave by upper caste. It is not clear from the snippet view. Another source is also there. Can you find the sentence from the JSTOR source used here. That user called RuudVanClerk also tried to delete many Jat related pages in bad faith. I doubt, whether the sourcing here say same thing or not. Admantine123 (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Admantine123: Snippet views are avoided if contentious, since we are not able to see the whole text. As for JSTOR, I don't see any mention of the "Kurmi" in page 1349. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Jats are also non elite why wikipedia is discriminating

Please add non elite in Jat too AjitKurmi (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

This disputation properly belongs to the Jat page, where I have replied to your post. The Kurmis hold their head high regardless of their origins. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Kurmi Kshatriya Caste

Kurmi is Vedic Kshatriya caste, they belongs to Suryavansh & Raghuvansh.. in Kurmi Caste Many more Famous Kings had born & Lord Rama born in Kurmi Kshatriya Caste.KURMI's are Zamindars Good Landholder in over all india. They comes un General category in south india & Gujarat before PAA & in bihar they are in Upper backward class but they are dominating caste in bihar. In bihar Kurmi CM is ruling approx 17 Years Mr. NITISH KUMAR he Belongs Kurmi Kshatriya community.In Gujarat & MP & Rajasthan they called as Patidar which means Zamindars, They are biggest Landlords in that area, They use Patel's as surname mostly they are Superior in Politics, We can say Patel's the Caste of Landlords. Famous Personality Sardar Vallabhai Patel First elected PM & Home Minister of Independent India. Sardar Patel united the modern india He is Rashtra pita & Famous empire Maratha's are Kurmi & King Chhatarpati Shivaji Maharaj belongs Kurmi Maratha caste.Kurmi's are doing Good & Kurmi Kshatriya community having 6 CM in current. 2409:4050:2EB9:9508:0:0:C3C9:5E0A (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, as none of this has any reliable sources whatsoever, so cannot be considered for inclusion - Arjayay (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I am agree with arjayay Abhishek Koormvanshi (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Kurmi are desendents of major kings

kurmi kshatriya are descendents of major king like chhatrapati shivaji maharaj,kings of scindia dynasty and gaikwad dynasty etc and belongs to solar linage they all spread from Maharashtra to several parts of India In maharsatra kurmi called as kunbi in marathi language chhatrapati shivaji belongs to bhosle family which is also kurmi/kunbi family Shivkumar008 (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shivkumar008 - what Reliable sources do you have, to support your claim? - Arjayay (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

reliable sources Link of kurmi kshatriya are descendents of major king like chhatrapati shivaji maharaj,kings of scindia dynasty and gaikwad dynasty

1 Book - https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Social_Change_Among_Balijas/r-ffeWmj2JUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=shivaji+and+kurmi&pg=PA6&printsec=frontcover

{page6}

2 Book - https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Report_of_the_Census_of_Bengal_1872/R_8IAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=shivaji+and+kurmi&pg=RA1-PA174&printsec=frontcover

{page174} Singh ji vineet (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2023

{{edit extended-protected|Kurmi|answered=y}

2405:201:300D:6DD2:F1B4:E7D3:B5B2:67BF (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Kurmi is kshatriya caste not shudra... Please change.

 Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Discrimination

Why non-elite word is used in first paragraph? This is pure discrimination. 122.150.101.240 (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

'Non Elite' word in first sentence to degrade at caste is being allowed on wikipedia. Pls delete the word non elite.

India is a democratic country and Constitution doesn't distinguishes on basis of caste then how and why wikipedia is letting people write unconstitutional word 'Non Elite'? Pawanksgangwar (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Kurmi is a Vedic Kashtriya caste

Kurmi is a vedic Kashtriya caste who adopted Farming, They claim to Suryavansh Raghuvanshi clan according to Shrimadvalmiki Ramyana Sarg 12 Slok 36 - अंजलिम् कुर्मी कैकेयी पादौ कैपि स्प्ृष्टामि द | शरणं भव रामस्य मां धर्मो मामिह स्पृष्टेत

Meaning - mainne apanee hatheliyon se kaikeyee kurmee ke charan chhue raam kee sharan lo aur dharm mujhe yahaan sparsh karane do

Source -https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Martial_races_of_undivided_India/vRwS6FmS2g0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Kurmi+kastriya&pg=PA265&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Castes_and_Tribes_of_H_E_H_the_Nizam/lYSd-3yL9h0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Kurmi+kastriya&pg=PA370&printsec=frontcover

2/19.88lakh 0 1 SumitSPK (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Unconstitutional Page

Constitution of India doesn't allows differentiation bases on caste then why wikipedia is allowing use of wore 'Non Elite' in very first sentence? Why a caste is being downgraded intentionally and such a thing being allowed here? Pawanksgangwar (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Kurmi is Kshatriya caste

Source - https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Castes_and_Tribes_of_H_E_H_the_Nizam/lYSd-3yL9h0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Kurmi+kastriya&pg=PA370&printsec=frontcover — Preceding unsigned comment added by SumitSPK (talk • contribs) 03:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2023

ORIGIN & NOMENCLATURE:

Kurmi society is an ancient kshatriya race of the world. This race has been important place in the history of human being. The nomenclature of this species based on ‘Vedas’. The oldest book of the world ‘Rigveda’ in which the term kurmi is used for Devraj Indra. This word is an adjective and it means workaday or laborious. The term Kurm is also used in Upnidan sutra, in this book the word kurmi is in respect of great kourmi Indra. There is a similar word Kauram is found in Atharva ved. It is originated from the word Kurma where ‘Ku’ means earth and ‘rama’ means wandering. Therefore hard worker of the earth are called Kurmi. The Kurmis owned the land over many years became to known as Kunbi and then later Kanbi. TerminatorInAction (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Source - https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Castes_and_Tribes_of_H_E_H_the_Nizam/lYSd-3yL9h0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Kurmi+kastriya&pg=PA370&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Martial_races_of_undivided_India/vRwS6FmS2g0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Kurmi+kastriya&pg=PA265&printsec=frontcover SumitSPK (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Source - https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Castes_and_Tribes_of_H_E_H_the_Nizam/lYSd-3yL9h0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Kurmi+kastriya&pg=PA370&printsec=frontcover — Preceding unsigned comment added by SumitSPK (talk • contribs) 03:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Totally wrong and misleading about Kurmi caste

Kurmi is a higher caste in hierarchy, the are pure Aryans, Kurmi means Landlords who have good land holdings and they given land to cultivate to other castes... Kurmi is higher in land holding/ earnings per capita, more than 6 CM of this caste... Please correct the information or delete this perhaps who is misleading information. 103.87.56.194 (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Add present condition

Kurmi are now one of the most land dominant caste and dominant caste in OBC. Singh ji vineet (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

KURMI IS KSHATRIYA RAGHUVANSHI CASTE

WIKI is showin wrong about Kurmi caste they are kshatriya and & elite caste 103.225.190.172 (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 July 2023

कुर्मी समाज — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.214.199 (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done, no specific edit requested. Belbury (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Add the present condition of kurmi (giving with reliable sources) AND please add the information about kurmi private army called as bhumi sena

Line-While the Kurmis have been upwardly mobile in post-Independence Bihar, scaling the ladder of social and educational status, the Koiris are as socially and educationally backward as the Yadavs or other OBCs The Kurmis – particularly the Awadhia Kurmi group which Nitish belongs to – have practically the same status among the backward castes as the Bramins have among the upper castes. Ever since the 1960s and 70s, the Kurmis have manned key positions in bureaucracy, education, engineering and health. In fact, they joined the land-owning upper castes in forming a landlords’ sena (militia) in the 1970s. They were involved in the massacre of Dalits in the 1970s at Belchi in Patna district. Indira Gandhi had travelled to Belchi on an elephant’s back to assuage the Dalits against the wrath of the Kurmi landlords, helping her gain the support of the deprived sections and stage a come back to power in 1980. source 1- https://web.archive.org/web/20210411230235/https://thewire.in/politics/bihar-nitish-kumar-upendra-kushwaha-rlsp-jdu-koiri-kurmi

source 2- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhumi_Sena Singh ji vineet (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Present condition of kurmi

(respected editors all the information about the kurmi are of the old generation please write about the present condition of kurmi) 1.line-Kurmis are educated, have jobs, land and, thus, money. They demonstrate upwardly mobile and the so-called upper-caste characteristics. source-https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/anand-mohan-gets-freed-from-jail-nitish-kumar-rajput-vote-bank-bihar-rjd-bjp-politics-2364418-2023-04-25

2.Line-According to a report of the Institute of Human Development and Studies, the kurmi with the second highest land per capita of 0.45 acres are among the highest landholder groups of Bihar, much above the other important castes like Rajput, Yadavs. They are placed below the upper castes in per capita earning.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210122091426/https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/bihar-elections-caste-obc-mandal-6929329/ Singh ji vineet (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023

PLEASE REMOVE NON-ELITE WORD FROM KURMI CASTE.. KURMI IS KSHATRIYA CASTE WHICH IS ELITE CASTE.. IN THIS CASTE STILL HAVE RAJAs / Rajwade / some details as below- Mr. RPN SINGH Raja saheb of padrauna belong sanithwar kurmi caste. Maratha belongs Kurmi caste.. Scindhia dynasty is Kurmi dynasty. CM of BIHAR Mr.Nitish Kumar CM OF MAHARASTRA Mr . EKNATH SINDE CM OF GUJARAT Mr. BHUPENDER BHAI PATEL CM OF CHHATISHGARH MR. BHUPESH BAGHEL GOVERNER OF UP ANANDI BEN PATEL 103.127.227.39 (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2024

change word non-elite to elite, I have roamed India and have found out that Kurmi are the wealthiest land lord of that area and they are the most elite people of those areas. so please edit them as elite class. wrong history need to be corrected. kurmi have their own temples and they employ brahmins to do puja, also they employs poor caste people to do farming and house work labourer. they are head to head to the rajpoots. 2406:7400:56:AF74:70D0:C6BD:11D0:5D27 (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done The article is written using reliable scholarly WP:HISTRS sources. Not going to change content based on personal opinion. If you wish, find reputable widely accepted scholarly work and post the links here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)