Talk:Khandelwal Vaishya

India: Rajasthan Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rajasthan (assessed as High-importance).
	This article was last assessed in May 2012.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Hinduism

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

Brief introduction of Khandelwal community should be given here.

Prominent Khandelwal Section

Dear Fellas,

Please refrain from adding any Person to Prominent List without any reference or External Links. Wikipedia requires sources & references for information displayed here.
Gradually, the Prominent people without the links would be reviewed and if no credible evidence is visible, the entries will be removed.
The Prominent section is to display prominent people & not to make any one Prominent :)

Thanks for your Cooperation.

Goutam

--Goutam (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Goutamkhandelwal (talk • contribs) 03:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely phrased, Goutam. I'm going to follow your lead. 207.157.121.50 (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with main article Khandelwal

This should be the content for main article. Other pages like Khandelwal Brahmin or Sarawagi should link from there. Adroit09 (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but you can't just do it unilaterally, as you tried to do (very poorly). - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for at least now trying to comply with WP:MERGE. Now, please explain how you are going to merge this into that disambiguation page, which currently has Khandelwal (surname), Khandelwal Jain or Sarawagi, Khandelwal Brahmin and Khandelwal Vaishya. On the face of it, these are not synonyms. - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose What's the use of turning a disambiguation page into a mainspace article? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the reasoning on the appropriate page. --Adroit09 (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the appropriate page. Having said which, your rationale at that page is plain wrong. How are you going to merge the surname article into this? How on earth is Sarawagi going to be merged into it? - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been better if you had a look at the page before reverting the changes. Sarawagi is a predominantly Jain sub-community among Khandelwals who are both Hindus and Jains. There is no separate page for it. Khandelwal surname is used only by members of the community and hence disambiguation isn't needed though the page could be part of the See also in the main article. Also, per WP:MERGE the discussions should be held on the destination page and hence I'll copy this response on the appropriate page. I would request you to carry forward the discussion there. --Adroit09 (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discuss-link in the merger-tag redirected to this page and section. I've corrected it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adroit, read User:Sitush/Common#Castelists and find me a single reliable source that says the name "Khandelwal" is used only by members of this caste. But don't give up editing Wikipedia while you do that otherwise we'll never see you again ;) - Sitush (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, wouldn't it be better if you could provide reliable sources for the contrary. As far as editing is concerned, rest assured I am not faint-hearted. --Adroit09 (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking me to prove a negative. That's not how it works. - Sitush (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were references to back my earlier statement that the surname is used by the members of the community, which have all gone (been lost) in your revert. If you have references to deny this, I would be glad to have a look. --Adroit09 (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing my point. Unless you can provide evidence that the name is exclusively used by people of the Khandelwal community, the surname article cannot be merged. This is a logical outcome of what I say at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from one of the Wiki Articles which succinctly summarizes the point, "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy, occurs when the lack of proof for a proposition is assumed to prove that the proposition is false. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the claim, but is not valid reasoning." Also, there is no proposal to merge "Khandelwal surname" with the main article. If you would have observed the page before your revert, you would have noticed that there was a separate section with the link to the separate page of "Khandelwal Surname" --Adroit09 (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Khandelwal surname article appears on the dab. Your unilateral usurpation of that dab was wrong. We've now gone past that issue but you are still misguided because even in your replies above you are assuming that if someone bears the name then they are of the community.

Look, this merge is not going to happen unless you come up with some extremely good reasons - the groups are clearly distinguishable in sources. If you were to gain some experience by contributing more widely than just to articles with "Khandelwal" in the title then you might appreciate this. You'd also gain from reading about indenting posts, which should be covered at WP:TPG. - Sitush (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am boldly closing this discussion. It is not going to gain traction. - Sitush (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]