Talk:Kunbi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Definitions

I am aware that the Kunbis exist in Goa and in the rest of the Konkan. I am aware that Sharad Pawar, who either claims to be, or for whom it is claimed that he is, a Maratha, is actually a Kunbi.

What I do not know is that Shivaji Bhonsale was one. This is news. Also that the Kunbis are Kshatriyas.

Refer to his Powara page in Marathi. This is about Afjal Khan's fight with Shivaji. In this Powara Afjal calls Shivaji a Kunbi. http://www.powade.com/lyrics/agindas/agindas.pdf

If they are Kshatriyas, then they must be Kshatriyas wherever they exist, which is false, for in Goa they are counted as Shudras, not Chardos or Kshatriyas.

Just face it Kunbis, Patils, Marathas, Yadavas, Kayasthas etc are all Shudras like 95% of Indians south of the Vindhya mountains. It does not mean they are low. It just means they are not dvijas and are not entitled to chant Vedic mantras. You can call yourself whatever you want but it does not mean Brahmins will accept it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.252.158 (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Bhonsale family history claims descent from a collateral branch of the Chittor royal house forced to take refuge in the south. It was on this basis that the Brahmins agreed to crown Shivaji according to Hindu rituals. According to Hindu law, the Bhonsales were Kshatriyas who had become Shudras because they had failed to perform the Upanayana Samskara for two or more generations. As such, if a member of the related family that had not lost their caste status adopts the lapsees, the lapsee can be reinstated into the Caste system, and this is what was done in Shivaji's case.

The Patels of Gujarat were certainly Kunbis, but it is more precise to define them as a subsection of Kunbis who have effectively transformed themselves and are no longer recognizable as Kunbis. The Patel name, according to the Patel page, developed from the name "Patlik"; but this is false, and that article deliberately confuses Patils and Patels, who are two different groups. The Patels developed as a result of a Hindu reform movement, the Patidar Movement, which transformed them from Shudras to a Kshatriya sub-caste. A more recent example of this is the Swadhyay Movement.

Patel is derived from Patidar; Patil, derived from Patlik, is a village head, similar to Mukhia, Nayak or Chowdhary, titles used in other parts of South Asia.

Just as the Patidar movement did earlier, the Swadhyay movement today Brahminizes those low caste folk who adopt it; they give up meat and fish and become vegetarians, and adopt upper caste rituals, etc. This is caste mobility.

What is "Northern Maharashtra"? It is a label I am incapable of understanding, so I request a definition. When people speak of Maharashtra, they speak of Western Maharashtra, which is an euphemism for the Desh, and they speak of the Konkan & Vidarbha. I have never before encountered a reference to "Northern Maharashtra". It seems as easy to conceive as an "Eastern Chile"!

If it is true that Gurjars or Gujjars are a subsection of the Kunbis, then it must be true where ever the Gujjars are found. But this is evidently not true of Gujjars throughout South Asia, both in Bharat and in Pakistan. Therefore, it cannot be true.

Is there any support for the claim that the Kunbis form 55% of the population, and if so, where exactly —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiSceptic (talk • contribs) .

Be Bold, your argument sounds convincing and you may change the relevant information on Kunbi, Gujjar and Patel. However, I thought that the Caste System in Goa would be almost inexistent because it is predominantly a Roman Catholic state. Also, remove any information that seems to be wrong, or at least not firmly proven, like the 55% of Gujarat being Kunbi. DaGizza ^{Chat (c)} 08:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, DaGizza. I always sign my posts, but here it seems I overlooked doing that. But the article as it stands is so flawed that I do not know how to rewrite it. I do not believe that negative statements, i.e., a denial of the claim that Shivaji Bhonsale was a Kunbi, belongs within an encyclopedic article. I will wait and see for a few days, if old contributors will come up to take up this matter, and if not, I will see what I can do to correct the entry.

Regarding Goa, unfortunately, despite having converted to Christianity, and particularly after Portugal became involved more with the War against the Dutch invaders and for independence from Spain, from which time it was no longer as zealous to protect Christians from pagan blandishments, Goans have backslided to various extents in different parts of Goa, but all, as far as I know, backslided into a revival of pagan social practises. I know, for my own parents claimed to be "Brahmins", which for me is anathema as a practising Christian. As a matter of fact, this is an explosive issue in Goa, that has been hushed up, but which sometimes blows up. The last time, the diehard "Gaoncars" of the village of Cuncolim threatened schism when the Parish Priest attempted to make the Parish Council inclusive of Kunbi and other Christians, considered "Shudras". The situation in India, particularly in Tamil Nadu, is far worse. A former Benedictine monk from Shantivanam informed me that the Bishop of Kanyakumari unleashed goons upon a Dalit priest and his independent order of nuns because they would not surrender their land that has gone up in value, and his goons even raped some of the nuns in front of this elderly priest!

As for "backsliding", recently, a Hindu, Mangalorean Konkani doctor in the U.K. had taunted me in a list for objecting to paganism, triumphantly pointing out that very many Goan Christians go to the Damodar temple at Zambaulim to pray there. Things have become much worse in the last forty years, due to "Vatican II", with priests and bishops now vying to lead Christians into even further "eclecticism", or more precisely, spiritual adultery.

Regards. WikiSceptic 09:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

From what I've read so far, it seems Shivaji was related to the Kshatriya family of Rajasthan from his mother's ( Jijabai) side. I might be wrong. The story about thread ceremony not being performed in the Bhosale family for two generations does not seem correct. Can someone shed more light on these stories? No offense intended to any caste or sub-caste. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.137.2.50 (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternate version

I have created an alternate version of the Kunbi page here: Talk:Kunbi/AltVersion. If there are no objections, after sometime, I will make it (or the improved version) the main page. WikiSceptic 14:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Great article

This is a great article. It has some valuable information in it.

Some suggestions:

1. The term Kunbi is also used in Gujarat (for Patels), its north Indian form is Kurmi.

2. Its Sanskrit form is "Kautumbika". The earliest mention is from Gujarat, in a Buddhist inscription.

3. The term "shudra" is ambiguous. It can be defined in many ways. I am not aware of a definition that will satisfy a majority of the scholars. Thus it should be used only if it can be defined, and if there is a need to use the term.

--Malaiya 19:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Brahmins are Shudras ?

Now days very few Brahmins perform thread ceremony and this mean they are lower than Shudras. Brahmins have started eating meat and travelling abroad, so they become Shudra. Inter caste marriages in Brahmin have picked up and they have turned Shudra. Scholars will surely disagree with the basis of caste system followed in India. As per Geeta a Brahmin is person with knowledge, no desire for wealth & sexual pleasures. Even a Brahmin who practices thread cremony is not a brahmin if does not practice religious cermonies as per books. It seems that a Kunbi does not claim to be not a part of Hindu Culture and therefore they are not Kshtryias, Shudra, Brahmins and Vaniyas....they are Patidars or Kunbi. A kunbi can be Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Christian and there are very few kunbis who practice Hindu religions as they used to practice Buddhism after failure of Hindu religion.

Reply:

You are WRONG.According to Hinduism, Upanayan Vidhi is a Sanskara. You do not become a Brahmin or Kshatriya just by performing the thread ceremony. Also you are not demoted to lower caste if you do not perform thread ceremony. Brahmin is a Varana and not a caste. And Varnas are defined according one's GUNA ( Satwa, Rajas or Tamas) and KARMA. Please read Geeta again. The information you have posted is erroneous. The classical definition of Brahmin is "The one who knows What BRAHMA is", is a brahmin. Brahmins used to eat meat during vedic period. So meat eating is not forbidden. Also do not confuse Caste system with Varna System. Are you sure about your statement that Kunbis do not claim to be part of Hindu Culture ? Islam, Christianity and Buddhism do not have Varna or Caste. Also most of the muslims or christians who claim to be Kunbis are converted Mulsims/Christians. So, at one point of time they were Hindus. Also, can you elaborate on There are very few Kunbis who practice Hindu Religion?

I have a question. Is UPANAYANA vidhi a part of the Kunabi culture ? I am sure in Maharashtra Kunbis do not wear the thread. If I am not mistaken Kunbis are farmers and not Kshatriyas. 96 KuLee Marathas are Kshatriyas. Correct me if I am wrong. Thread ceremony is performed only in the Royal family of Bhosale. Also, there seems to be some confusion as to who is Kunbi and who is 96 KuLee Maratha. e.g. The last name Chavan is derived from the Rajput name Chauhan. They are Kshatriyas and not KuNbees. This page should me modified to reflect correct and historically accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.137.2.50 (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Reply" A BRAHMIN IS A SHUDRA is very RIGHT. Kunbi is a very different group of people and it has been formed over the many past centuries. I have seen different practices in this kunbi group primarily based on status in society. My great grandfather was from a wealthy kunbi family and he has performed UPANAYANA vidhi. In fact he had 4 sons all of whom had performed thread ceremony. This was during early 19th century. After the killing of Mahatma Gandhi by Brahmin's there has been a considerable divide in the Marathi society. The condition of many Marathi Brahmin's is so poor and shows prominent division that happened in Marathi society after 1950. Also I don't believe the concept of caste being called as a BRAHMIN. In fact the present day so called Brahmin's should give up the caste name because they have assign themselves to a VARNA just by birth. So a person is called a Brahmin's only if he does not show exceptional skill. In fact a false Brahmin's can become corrupt and that is the main reason why India is ranked 17th in terms of corruption. I have seen so many false Brahmin's destroying the career of intellectuals irrespective of their caste. The same concept is copied by other caste people and has destroyed the India economy to a vast extent. If you see the impressive performance of Indians abroad then why the same is not happening in India. It is primarily because of this Brahmin caste creation. The caste system formed by Brahmin's had vandelised the Indian society. This is a part of development process and Brahmin's alone are not to be blamed for this. The same is true for European countries and African countries. Also kunbi is a term commonly referred to as KUTUMBIK in Gujarat , Maharashtra and northern parts of India. It is very hard to bring down the self created false pride of a Brahmin's and therefore classification of a BRAHMIN AS A SHUDRA is correct. A true Brahmin's is a person who is wise and down to earth. A Brahmin must not have inclination for wealth or other world pleasures. It is difficult to buy any kind of caste theory from a Brahmin's. In fact the present day Brahmin's should not be allowed to tamper the historical caste structure and must be kept away from the society. THE CASTE SYSTEM IN INDIA IS LIKE UNREGULATED ROAD TRAFFIC AND NO ONE KNOWNS WHAT IS HAPPENING. IF A ACCIDENT HAPPENS IT ENDS IN A QUARREL WITH WASTE OF TIME FOR OTHERS ON THE ROAD. The caste discussions are endless and a simple issue cannot be solved even in 1000 years time. Please see the outside world which is developing fast and no one cares what race or origin he has. I would appreciate if a so called Brahmin's edits his own website. DhananjayJ (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Singed by Dhananjay Jadhav, Brisbane: Australia 12 May 2008

>>>>>--Sanjaydh (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC) In this day and age, of internet, globalization and market economy you are talking like a some 16th/17th century Pundit from Kashi. Can you practice Hinduism to the letter of the religious scripture in today's world ? You will be an outcast. e.g. Can you practice untouchability? Forget the dalits of India. An upper caste Hindu is not allowed to touch people who eat beef. Kshatriyas are supposed to protect cows. Can a Kshatriya kill a british or an American man just because he eats beef? I thought we wanted to get away from that and practice more spiritual form of Hinduism. But people like you want to get back to the old days. Or they just want to use something to show hatred for the other castes? If Brahmins or any other so called upper caste practiced the form of hinduism they practiced 100-200 years ago, they will be killed.

Ancient India & Caste System

From the many wikipedia pages on hindu, jain, buddhist & British Raj in India it seems that Maharashtrian Brahmins have always tried to invent new stories for throwning any powers out. In turn they have destroyed there own existance. Many brahmins are living in poverty. Infact the untouchables in India were educated by Brahmins and now they have too become corrupt. This is very strange and i simply cannot understand what these confused group of Maharashtrian Brahmins are upto.

6 April 11:00AM, Mark

Can you be more specific ? You are making a very general and vague statement. I am a Maharashtrian Brahmin and I don't think Maharashtrian brahmins are living in a poverty. What is the source of this information? How have we destroyed our own existance. We were driven out of villages due to the Anti-Brahmin movement in Maharashtra. Most of the Brahmin community of Maharashtra lives in Urban areas. Maharshtrian brahmins put up a fight against the british ( e.g. TiLak , Tatya Tope, Rajguru, Vasudev BaLwant Phadke, Queen of Jhansi Laxmilbai etc..). What stories did we invent ? We fought with the Muslims and British and at one point of time Maratha Kingdom was the biggest and the most powerful kingdom in India. Many Brahmins in Maharshtra are in UK, USA, England and Australia in IT, Engineering or Medical profession. In Maharashtra too they are doing well. I suggest that you get your fact right and give specific examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.137.2.50 (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Kunbis != Kurmis

Kunbis DO NOT equal Kurmis nor do they share a common ethno-cultural heritage. Kunbis were historically accorded the same social status given to Kurmis in North hence the similar names.... It would be better if some Kunbi guy could clarify this for our POV warrior.

File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 21:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Kunbis and kurmis are same caste. They are present mainly in Maharastra, Gujarat, MP, UP and Bihar. You can refer to some of URLS present in this page. Can you share some of the information that you used to make this statement ?

Yeah,I agree with the fact that kunbis and kurmis (also patidar)are same caste.You can find many text claiming that kurmi who migrated from punjab in early times to gujrat via sindh known as 'kanbi'(basically gujrati version of 'kurmi')and later on 'Kunbi'(Marathi version of 'kanbi'-see http://www.maharashtra.gov.in/pdf/gazeetter_reprint/Maharashtra-%20Land%20and%20its%20people/chapter_2.pdf).If any caste is being known as different name in another part of india that does not mean they are different castes.Saying kurmi and kunbi as same caste is not the idea of making a big community on the hypothetical facts but on ground realties.And fact is that many of our young generation neither know our pasts nor they try to know that.The same is the case with young patidar(kurmi/kunbi) brothers. Also,Indian government takes any final decision on caste based issues only after going through a rigerous process by setting a panel who gives final decision after hearing all arguments in favor and against of the claim,no matter how much time this process takes , because in India caste related wrong fact can hurt feeling of a large section of people and Indian government has already been accepted that Kurmi,Kunbi and Patidar are same caste by including their name in central list of OBC(must see ^ "Central List of Other Backward Classes". National Commission for Backward Classes Retrieved 2007-05-31.)

Many patidar related books and links also provide enough material to prove that kurmi.kunbi and patidar are same caste.Must see

^ Economic and Politcal Integration in Immigrant Neighborhoods Trejectories' By Laurette Conklin Frederking ^ Kacchi Leva Patel-Our Journey To The Prosperity' by S.P.Gorasia(2nd Edition 2007) ^ Pocock, David Francis (1972). Kanbi and Patidar: A Study of the Patidar Community of Gujarat. Clarendon Press. ISBN 019823175X.

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

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

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

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

^ "The Patidars: A Golden Page in History" (PDF). Patidar Samaj. Retrieved 2007-09-16.

I also request to merge this page with kurmi under the sub-article kurmi in maharashtra-kunbi.

Rajesh785 (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

VarnaShram Dharma

Before reverting the changes understand the Varnas system well. Do not mix varnas with caste. Most of the anti-Hindu people use caste to defame Hinduism. Hindushudra 18:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Vijay Hazare

I have corrected the link to the article on Vijay Hazare. But this article mentions that he was a Goan Christian while this artice Vijay Hazare says he was from Sangli. If he was from Goa he would probably have a Lusitanian name, not Hazare. Can someone please verify ?--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 09:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Kunbi primary living in Maharastra

There is significant Kunbi population in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, UP and Bihar. They are call Kunbi and Kurmi in Madhya Pradesh. in UP and Bihar they are mostly known as Kurmi but as Kunbi in some districts. Even in Gujarat they are known as Kunbi Patidars. So why are we making this article only Maharastra focused. There is another article on Kurmis also. I would propose to merge these two articles to one and give one complete view about our Kunbi/Kurmi community. We can provide more info when we mentioned about the community in a given state. I liked approched taken by Gujjars and Sainis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.83.147 (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2007‎ (UTC)

Vishwapurush: A Kunbi-- helped Parashurama to reduce his anger against Kshtriyas

Parashurama a great sage who saved the earth from greed of Kshtriyas was eliminated by a kunbi sage know as Vishwapurush. Vishwapurush being a kunbi had unique power of controlling Brahmin and Kshtriyas DhananjayJ (talk) DhananjayJ 16:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Not notable and no sources

This article may be deleted if no notions of notability found. Wikidās ॐ 21:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

See also notice on "No OR noticeboard". Wikidās ॐ 19:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

RS at [1].--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

An opening 'great mythological salvo', incomprehensible sentences in Bad Hinglish and a bunch of crap about people's surnames and 'most indeed famous' non-entities is NOT an article. Please change this. I've tried, but apparently no change to this thing is 'constructive'. Would you please read some real Wikipedia articles to see HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.122.175 (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

TIROLE KUNBI

TIROLE KUNBI ARE RAJPUT HAVING SURNAME LIKE RATHOR,BAGHELE,SOLANKI,PAWAR,CHOUHAN OR CHAVAN ,AND ELSE SOME OTHER ,THIS PROVE'S THAT TIROLE KUNBI ARE RAJPUT........ REFERENCE:-http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20668/20668-h/20668-h.htm#d0e3452

sonu 09:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarsinghdevre (talk • contribs)

Looking to blank article and start from scratch

This article has been disastrous for several years, so some time in the next few weeks I plan to blank the entire article, starting from scratch and only using reputable, published sources, of which there are plenty on GoogleBooks. If anyone has any reason why I shouldn't just blank this article and start from scratch, and then NPOV editors work together to keep POV-pushing editors from adding unreferenced, self-published, or "I know for a fact" material, please state your objections now, as barring that I plan to WP:BeBold and just get started. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Went ahead and blanked the article and put in new content based on a few sources. It could definitely use expansion and corroboration, but it's a start. We just need to be vigilant for people chucking in a bunch of listings of non-notable names, or unverified sub-group claims. In particular, we need to watch out for the whole Shudra vs. Kshatriya debate to ensure that any statements about such are properly cited. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What you say about others may be easier to digest if you yourself would read your sources and investigate your own sources.MW ^ℳ 07:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo for upload

Busy now, but if anyone wants it: [2]. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Bulleted list item
• Bulleted list item

Merger request with the Kurmi

My humble request to all Kunbi brothers,please consider merger of Kunbi with the Kurmi article, It will strenthen our historical links, as well as our Political and Social status, we're not getting, what be deserve,so it's the time to unite and show our strength, The word "Kurmi" is a Sanskrit word and is synonymous to 'Kurma' or 'lord' 'Master' 'Powerful' 'Noble' etc.Please consider the request.Thank You. Ajneesh Katiyar (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I also think that this page should be merged with kurmi page because both castes are same.The same thing I would say for patidar caste page.We are same by origin but consider ourselves different only due to different language and habits.Below I have mentioned genuine materials which clearly say that kurmi and kunbi are same caste.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the above books provide enough theory to prove that kunbis and kurmi are same caste. Rajesh785 (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajesh785 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

about Goan kunbis

Goans Kunbis have nothing to do with other kunbis the information furnihsed by Dr Suresh Singh is not true.The so called Goan Kunbis or better known as Gaudes are aboriginal proto-autroloid goan people. and have nothin to do with other kunbis. Nijgoykar (talk) 06:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Two separate issues: what statements by Singh are "not true"? Singh doesn't say anything about the two groups being related; are you just targeting Singh because he happens to be in the section, or do you have objections to the specific sentence cited to Singh?

Secondly: you raise a good point; it may be that the Goan Kunbi is more of a "similar name" issue than a "same group" issue. Do you think that section could be moved into and integrated with Kudumbi? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

1.I am Goan.(That does not give me a right to say whatever Dr Singh has written is incorrect) The Portuguese for the management of the village land communities wanted to categorise the converted people.So the Brahmins,Kshatriyas were classified as Bamons and Chardi.But the Vaishya population of Goa has always been very negligible so they directly classified the converted Vaishyas and Gaudos as Gaudde.Similary many surnames and titles used by many castes were misinterpreted by the Portuguese.Eg the title Chatim or Shethi was used by Brahmins and non-Brahmins as well.So they classified all the converted Chatims as Shudras or Sudir. Please refer other books.By Goan authors,to clarify your doubts.

2.This section must not in any case be merged with Kudumbi.As all the Kudumbis of Kerala are descedents of Goan Kunbi Gavdes and have nothing to do with other Kunbis in Maharashtra or Kurmis of the North.This tribe is clearly Proto-austroloid belonging to the original settlers of Konkans.

Another point that Dr Singh has misinterpreted.They never owned land.In ancient Goa land was never owned by individuals.It was collectively owned by the village.so them being land-owners is not true.

Yet another thing.Gaudes or Kunbis of Goa were never a part of the four fold Varna system.Neither were they ever called Shudras.Nor do they ever claimed to be Vaishyas.Only Goa so called High castes(eg: Saraswats,Karhades,Chitpawans,Daivajna,High caste Kshatriya Marathas) and Vaishyas and some Shudra castes were considered as a part of Varna system.Others never followed it.

Check this article: Gauda and Kunbi

Nijgoykar (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Nijgoykar (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Can we clarify the 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 reliable publisher. JanetteDoe (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Gyan is definitely not reliable. Your point about the Hotmail address seems valid to me. - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Kalpaz is nothing but an imprint of Gyan. Out of the six sources presently in the article, four are of vintage variety. I have tagged the article to be checked for unreliable sourcing.MW ^ℳ 15:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I had already checked. In the absence of anything more modern, they are fine. The names are all well-known in the field of oriental studies. Sure, I would prefer something newer but that does not make them wrong, especially given that the article is carefully worded to put the attributed statements in context with regard to the time period. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments are illogical. As such I reject them. Please show some logical arguments. The absence of other modern sources does not increase the reliability of obsolete sources in any way. The names of amateur obsolete authors being well known also does not make them reliable or modern in any way. For example, the authors of all the books of the Bible are well known. But the Bible is still an unreliable source. Please try to come up with something logical looking. And don't revert the tag until the discussion completes.MW ^ℳ 15:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If you dispute the reliability of any of the sources in the context that they are used then you know what to do. Now I am removing that tag and it is staying off the article. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen / ladies, Please check books by Prof. Ghurye. He and Prof. Irawati Karve were considered authorities on Indian anthropological studies. (GS Ghurye - 2008 - books.google.com). Ghurye has a lot to discuss on the subject of Kunbi /Maratha. His and Karve's careers spanned from 1930s to 1960s. So their work should be considered more recent and, in my opinion, reliable. I don't see any mention of Herbert Risley in the article. Being chief of 1901 census means he was not an amateur. Sitush, without your misgivings about him , you should have a second look at him on the subject of Kunbi. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop you adding reliably sourced content. The article is not protected in any way. You must remember that Google Books does not present the same view worldwide: there are things that people in one country can see but which are not available (or are only available in a limited fashion) in other countries. Believe me, the more modern sources are included in this or any other article, the better. Although that does not necessarily discount older sources - there would be judgement calls to make if there are contradictions etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Dubious claims - "quiet and unpretending, are a robust, sturdy..."

I've added a {{dubious}} tag to the following claim:

The 1885 Cyclopædia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia described the Kunbi as "though quiet and unpretending, are a robust, sturdy, independent agricultural people... though their institutitions are less democratic than those of the Jat and Rajput..." The author also noted that the Hyderabad Kunbi of the period were known to be "wholly illiterate." The 1881 Census of India stated that the Kunbi in all of India numbered 5,388,487.[9][dubious – discuss]

Quiet, unpretending, robust, less democratic by whose standards? This seems like a biased observation from an antiquated and bygone era. I haven't even heard of the publisher (Bernard Quaritch, 1885). Is this source reliable? Zuggernaut (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It is at WP:DRN. I really see no problem in removing the first part of it, but from "their institutions ..." onwards might be of use if someone can narrow down what the heck the guy was referring to. - Sitush (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

ISHA Books

Is it right that we use Sadangi, Himansu Charan (2008), Dalit : The Downtrodden Of India, Isha Books, ISBN 9788182054394

As with Gyan Publishing, ISHA Books have had a rough time of it at WP:RSN and, believe me, umpteen other examples have been found that clearly demonstrated them to be plagiarists, copyright violators and so on. Moonriddengirl is one who has generally despaired of these two publishers being cited. The RSN threads are here, here, and here. - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Isha is also an imprint of gyan.MW ^ℳ 09:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as it says at RSN. - Sitush (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible source - Tribal society in India

It looks like there may be some useful history in Tribal society in India: an anthropo-historical perspective (Kumar Suresh Singh, 1965) but I only have snippet view. Can anyone else see more? - Sitush (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The book is only available in snippet view format. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Jadhavs

Zuggernaut, under Jadhav , you say and I quote" Amongst the rural Jadhavs, the traditional caste council has been replaced by the mandatory gram panchayat." From what I know of Maharashtra, the gram panchayat is the village or parish council dealing with civic issues like lights and roads etc. The caste council on the other hand could also officiate as tribal court on legal matters such as marital infidelity and pronounce punishment if necessary. Gram panchayat does not deal with legal matters. Also you say "Mandatory" ? Mandatory for whom ? In my experience, gram panchayat mambers are elected by voters registered in the village. Usually there are seven members of the Gram pancha-yat ( literal translation: Village (Gram) Jury (Panch) council). So the whole village does not participate in the proceedings of the council, neither is the voting mandatory. And so I am curious to know as to where Mr. Singh got his information on "Mandatory" nature of the council. You used similar wording in the Deshastha brahmin article too. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

@ Jonathansammy - removed your bolding of the section heading, and I hope that you do not object. Zuggernaut has done great things over the last few hours. I saw an issue regarding panchayats with the (now out of place) paragraph I inserted about Kunbi in Gujarat. I could not see it all and so omitted it entirely. The gist seemed to be that in Gujarat there are both formal and informal panchayats, one being recognised just by the community and the other being more widely recognised. It seemed to be suggesting some sort of hierarchy whereby the first port of call was the entirely communal/local version and that the other acted, if you can excuse my poor phrasing, as something akin to an appeal court for matters originally examined by the "lower" body. Could this be at the heart of the issue that you raise? Can anyone see more of the Gujarat source than I can and fill in the gaps for it? In any event, that now should be moved into the section that Zuggernaut has been expanding substantially, - Sitush (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's my mistake not the AnSI's. It should go something like "A regional council replaces the traditional caste council at the village level. The community follows the rulings of the state government's statutory gram panchayat, also at the village level."

Thanks for pointing this out. If possible, please also take a look at the other groups. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will have a thorough look at the article and offer comments. BTW, when did the Maratha-kunbis get classified as OBC ? Also, and this goes for a large number of other castes too, I have not seen any articles that mention the bureaucracy which certifies who belongs to what caste. We have countless number of colonial era accounts on castes but not many recent writing due to a number of factors. However, because of reservation or affirmative action policies of post-Independence administrations, a discussion on the practical aspects of the classification process should form part of caste articles. Jonathansammy (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The Maharashtra government amended the OBC list on June 1, 2004 to include Maratha-Kunbis. I wonder if we can include the discussion you are suggesting to individual articles. It might merit a separate article on its own. Perhaps there already is one. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There certainly should be such an article, as an umbrella for the various generic articles on ST/OBC/FC etc. It is odd if this has in fact never happened. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Kunbis in several states

The common thread amongst all Kunbi or kunabi communities in various states seems to be their traditional occupation as agriculturists or cultivators. I am wondering if we should merge the following articles in this one (divided by sections based on states, for example, the current section "Kunbi communities" can become "Kunbi communities in Maharashtra"):

• Kudumbi
• Gauda and Kunbi
• Maratha Kunabi (merger proposed since May 2011)

Zuggernaut (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Jadhav

This article lists Jadhavs as Kunbis. But the page Jadhav doesn't even mention the word Kunbi. It states that Jadhavs claim descent from the Seuna Yadavas of Devagiri, listing Television and social change in rural India as a reference. Almost 80% of the article (including both the images) are about the Yadavas of Devagiri. The "See also" section lists Ahirs, Chandravanshi, Rajputs etc.

Can someone please clear this up? utcursch | talk 17:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That article is on the Jadhav Maratha clan. They are probably different from the Kunbi Jadhavs. There is some ambiguity here (see the section on Maratha-Kunbi in this article) and might need more research. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Shudra

I have reverted the Shudra claim ([3]) because this is just factually incorrect. Here's what that Anthropological Survey of India says about two Kunbi communities:

• Lewa: They are aware of the varna system and categories (sic) themselves under the Vaishya varna.
• Tirole: They are aware of themselves as being of the Kshatriya varna.

Zuggernaut (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for my terse edit summary in reverting you. I do not accept that the term should be removed. What I do accept is that it needs more modern sources and that the variants, such as those you have mentioned above, should be shown also. (I was not aware of those because I have extremely limited access to ANSI). I listed a fair few potential sources at WP:DRN and asked MangoWong to select or reject, which they refused to do. I'll paste them here later but am off out right now. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your modern sources were all misrepresentations &/ non academic sources &/ off topic sources &/ passing comment sources etc. Find some solid source yourself, then talk.MW ^ℳ 16:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Below is what I posted at WP:DRN yesterday. Please note that I did mention the possibility of other varna ranks etc.

Here follows a brief list of some modern works that refer to Kunbi as Shudra, some will be more reliable etc than others. Please could you indicate which of these would be acceptable to you as a bolster for or even replacement of the Balfour statement.

• A
• B
• C
• D
• E
• F
• G
• H

Obviously, if you can find sufficient reliable sources that say they were either not shudra (or were one of the other three ranks, or dalit) then the article would have to reflect the various strands of opinion. If none of the above are suitable then I'll just keep bringing more forward - there are loads of them & I am not going to spend too long analysing the things because my past experience is that it is a waste of my time. You tell me, MangoWong, which ones seem ok to you, or alternatively why they are not ok. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sure that some of those sources are not great. I am also sure that the issue needs to be addressed and not swept under the carpet. Believe me, if it is not addressed then very soon someone will come along and we'll be back with "they're all kshatriya" in the article, which is as misguided as the "they're all shudra" comment that someone had inserted in response to that situation some months ago. None of us know it all, but between us we can sort out a suitable paragraph or so that knocks the generalised claims on the head, once and for all. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, none of the sources you provide above are relevant to the central subject of this article (per the Library of Congress cataloging data), anthropology. We should give more weight to the relevant volume of the following work:

Dhar, P. (2004), Singh, Kumar Suresh; Anthropological Survey of India, eds., People of India: Maharashtra, People of India, 2, Anthropological Survey of India, ISBN 8179911012, retrieved 5 October 2011

Zuggernaut (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You have lost me, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A literary work that is closer to the subject of the article (anthropology/ethnology in this case) should carry more weight when deciding whether the source is reliable. By looking at the table below you will find that the subjects of most of the sources you provide are far away from the subject of this article. The main work from the Anthropological Survey of India which is closest to the subject does not support your generic claim that all of the nine Kunbi groups are Shudra. The Library of Congress cataloging data is similar to the Google books subjects.

Title	Google books bibliographic information - (subject of the book)	Relevant?
Mahatma Jotirao Phooley: father of the Indian social revolution	History›Asia›India & South Asia Biography & Autobiography / General Biography & Autobiography / Political History / Asia / India & South Asia Political Science / General Social reformers	Not relevant
Arabian Seas 1700-1763: The Western Indian Ocean in the eighteenth century	History›Asia›General History / Asia / General History / Middle East / General Indian Ocean Region	Not relevant
Medieval Indian literature: an anthology, Volume 2	Indic literature	Not relevant
People of India: Maharashtra, Volume 2	Ethnology Maharashtra (India) Maharishtra (India)	Relevant
Buddhism in India: challenging Brahmanism and caste	Religion›Buddhism›General Brahmanism Brahmanism/ Relations/ Buddhism Buddhism Buddhism and social problems Buddhism/ India/ History Buddhism/ Relations/ Brahmanism Religion / Buddhism / General Religion / Hinduism / General Social Science / Anthropology / Cultural	Not relevant
Caste and democratic politics in India	History›Asia›General Caste Caste/ Political aspects/ India Democracy Democracy/ India History / Asia / General India Political Science / Constitutions Political Science / General Political Science / Government / Comparative Political Science / History & Theory Political Science / Political Ideologies / Democracy Representative government and representation Representative government and representation/ India Social Science / Social Classes	Relevant
The public and the private: issues of democratic citizenship	Political Science›Political Freedom & Security›Civil Rights Communities Community Democracy Democratization Individualism Philosophy / General Political Science / Political Freedom & Security / Civil Rights Political Science / Political Ideologies / Democracy Political Science / Public Affairs & Administration Public interest Social Science / Anthropology / Cultural Social Science / General	Not relevant
Building democracy in South Asia: India, Nepal, Pakistan / Maya Chadda	Political Science›Political Ideologies›Democracy 1977 1988 1990 Democracy Democracy/ India Democracy/ Nepal Democracy/ Pakistan Democratization History / Asia / India & South Asia India Nepal Pakistan Political Science / Civics & Citizenship Political Science / General Political Science / Government / Comparative Political Science / Political Ideologies / Democracy Political Science / Political Process / General Politics and government	Not relevant

Zuggernaut (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have made no generic claim, either here or at DRN - throughout I have been saying that there may be other angles. For that matter, the Balfour quote that someone had added was not a generic claim, although it was not a great one given that there were clearly more modern sources that could have been used. Just because A should be ascribed more weight than Z does not mean that Z should be excluded entirely, nor indeed in some situations does it make Z of lesser weight (eg: you appear to have made the assumption that this is an anthropological article but it is possible to construe it in other ways also, eg: political, general social sciences etc). I've just spotted a reference to Goan Kunbis who were Christian fishermen, btw.. - Sitush (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The thread at Wikipedia:DRN#Kunbi was recently closed and the discussion referred back to here. I am happy to continue it until we have some agreement, although MangoWong agreed to the inclusion of a comment regarding the shudra status of the Khaire Kunbi from People of India: Maharashtra, Volume 2. At the point of closure, I was asking for reasons why Arabian Seas 1700-1763: The Western Indian Ocean in the eighteenth century should be excluded and although I note Zuggernaut's comment above that it is "not relevant" I am still unable to see any reason why this should be so. In particular, even if I accepted Zuggernaut's proposition regarding weight according to Library of Congress cataloguing data, that data for the Arabian Seas book is in fact not reflected fully in the GBooks comment noted in the table.

I accept in principle the earlier points here regarding the Lewa and Tirole but note that in both instances it appears to be a claim of the community, ie: a self-definition. That should be mentioned, certainly, but initial research from other sources suggests that it may not be a claim that is accepted outside the community. I cannot see the relevant portion of the ANSI works to determine precisely what the phrasing is but will continue to dig. The contributor who acted in the role of mediator at DRN is apparently now watching this page. - Sitush (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah. It now seems as if there may have been a degree of subtle misrepresentation going on with regard to the ANSI books. What I can see of them is not great, either in terms of number of pages or quality of the writing, but it is starting to look like a fair bit of whitewash may have been used. I wondered why what I was seeing elsewhere differed so much from what I was being told, but AGF and all that.

I have also been thinking about the detail of the various communities now included in the article: a lot of it seems to be a little on the trivial side and massively generalised. How accurate are those ANSI surveys? I see from footnotes therein that they do seem to use works from the Raj period quite heavily, and presumably update that information, but they are not very academic in the way that they footnote the things. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sickle-cell disease

I keep seeing references to Kunbi in relation to studies of sickle-cell disease. Is the community particularly affected by this or is there some other reason why they appear frequently to be studied by researchers of the condition? - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Added to the todo list at the top of this page. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Gujarat Kunbi

I added some info recently from the little that I could see of an ANSI book (a short chapter). It is now out of place because of the expansion by Zuggernaut, but I am unsure how best to integrate it in a move out of the Historical Accounts sections into the Communities section because the latter names communities but the ANSI source I used names a region. If anyone can resolve this then I would be grateful. - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

See todo list at the top of this page. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reorganized that section and called it Kunbi communities in other states. Please feel free to add summary level nformation about Goan, Gujarati and other Kunbis there. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder if the Kunbi of Gujarat are just that, without the subdivisions/alternate names etc. It seems odd that ANSI should go into so much detail in one volume and so little in another but there must be a reason for it. I just assumed that an explanation wpuld be in the intro to the book (which is invisible to me). - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Srinivas and Patidar

Is there any mileage to be had from the brief mention by Srinivas of the Patidar link here? I know that Srinivas is cited a lot but have no idea if this particular point is more widely acknowledged. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Mandelbaum mentions a couple of other sources for the theory of a divergence here. - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hypergamy

Again, I am tending to see snippet views but there are mentions of the role of hypergamy in Maratha - Kunbi relationships, eg: here and on page xvi here. How significant was this? The sentence trails off in my snippet view, but Singh seems to be suggesting that it was still significant c. 1992, when his paper was presented. - Sitush (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it has ever stopped.24.187.26.104 (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that a serious comment? Can it be supported by reliable sources? Was/is it only hypergamy between Maratha and Kunbi, or did/does it extend further? - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Farquhar

In response to Zuggernaut's items in the to-do list above, I have done some preliminary investigation about Farquhar. It appears that the Farquhar book was written in 1913 [4] and Farquhar was a Protestant missionary in India. I think it would be distorting most of what it says about India, and the source should be deleted.MW ^ℳ 12:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

As opposed to, say, a source written ten years ago by, say, an atheist or a Hindu? I do not understand the reasoning. If there is a more recent source, or if Farquhar is not much cited by subsequent academics etc, then those are good reasons. And both of those may apply in this case.

You cannot presume to read the mind of a writer. Every person has prejudices, pet interests etc and often they are subconscious even to the writer. Take your approach to its logical conclusion and we would have no sources at all on most articles. You've tried this line of thought twice at DRN without much success, so why should this be any different? I have no opinion on Farquhar myself as I have not read the thing, but this continued bludgeoning of Brit sources needs to stop. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If a source is from ten years ago, it would be a plus (but not sufficient on the reliability index). If a source is a missionary, it does not matter whether the source is Hindu/ atheist/ satanist/ skullist/ bonist/ whatever. They would fail WP:QS. These are valid criteria on the reliability index. The reasons you show are also valid criteria. That everyone has some bias or other is correct. But it is no reason to use extreme sources. Try using someone like Acharya S on the Christianity article, and you will know. You may think deleting unreliable sources is a loss. I don't. You may also think that my efforts at the DRN were without success. But in both cases, the source/s in question got deleted. If you have no opinion of Farquhar, why are you commenting at all? I have been supporting and opposing all sorts of sources, so, it is a falsity to make it out as a British/notBritish thing.MW ^ℳ 07:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Quoted favorably, Farquhar is Zero on the reliability index IMO.MW ^ℳ 07:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What is going on in this page?

What is going on in this page? All of a sudden there has been a flurry of edits by Zuggernaut without any previous discussion on the talk page. An article, which on October 2 was a start or C class is suddenly B class now. The references, all of which were cite books format have en masse been changed to Sfn, by whose permission? Where is the talk page discussion. Kunbi is a set of caste related in some ways to Kurmi (to the extent that in the 1891 census, they were counted together). We can't just run away with this page just because one editor who had never made an appearance on this page until October 6 is in some mysterious hurry. Forget it. It won't happen here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fowler&fowler - for what it's worth, there has been quite a lot of discussion on the dispute resolution noticeboard. I don't really see a problem with Zuggernaut expanding the article - on the contrary, I think it is commendable. Before it was using very outdated sources, and I think Zuggernaut's additions have made it a lot more reliable. I presume Zuggernaut has used sfn templates because it makes it easy to specify page numbers - in my experience using cite book in the article text is clunky at best. If you would like the relationship with Kurmi to be more clearly specified, I'm sure we can do that. Are there any other specific things on the page that you disagree with? All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sitush and I discussed this on my talk page and we agreed on standardizing this article to use the sfn template. The obvious advantages of the template are (from {{sfn}}):

• The template call is both concise and readable.
• It allows any editor to identify the reference while looking at the wikitext.
• It minimizes clutter in the wikitext by using only the smallest possible amount of (meaningful) information to identify the source.
• Text containing {{sfn}} can be cut and pasted without any danger of accidentally deleting the original named reference; any call to {{sfn}} can define the named reference.
• It allows the detection of errors using bots (i.e. it has machine readable semantics).

As I announced and sought help at WT:IN, I would be happy to see this article reach GA level and even happier if it surpasses GA level. Mr. Stradivarius, If we can agree to standardize and stick to the sfn template, then I'm guessing this will be a lot of help taking it beyond GA (not to mention that less clutter will make editing the wikitext much easier). The assessment done by User:Redtigerxyz at the top of this talk page was appropriate. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, the presentation of the AnSI book isn't great (along with language problems) but the Anthropological Survey of India's People of India project was conducted from 2 October 1985 to 31 March 1992 involving 500 scholars from 26 institutions and ended in the identification and the study of 4635 Indian communities. You will find more statistics about the study itself in the foreword. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, I don't dislike the Sfn or Harvnb formats, I'm just concerned at this en masse and sudden change without attention to WP:CITEVAR. (See similar discussion Talk:Kurmi/Archive_3#Citation_format about changing format from cite books to harvnb.) The DRN (a usual one between Sitush and MangoWong) was about the usual old sources which Sitush to his credit is trying to get rid of. Zuggernaut, I don't care who assesses something, changing a long standing assessment on the basis of one flurry of edits is simply premature.

To Both: I'm also not sure if Zuggernaut is not violating his topic ban by treading on the British contribution to notions of caste in India. In one incorrect paraphrase (from MN Srinivas) which I have since corrected, he seemed unable to resist his usual dig at British intentions, motivations, and historical guilt. The AnSI volumes are not standard, not by a long stretch. The quality of the writing, as you've already noted, is a dead give away. Even the Kunbi/subgroup articles are not integrated with each other, each written by a different person, who has not bothered to read what the other has written. Mainly though, it is not clear they are secondary sources. In Susan Bayly's book, Caste Society in Politics in India, they are listed under "Government Publications," and not under "Secondary Works." They are also not cited much in caste related articles or books. See for example the standard books by Susan Bayly (Bayly, Susan (2001), Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9780521798426), William Pinch (William R. Pinch (1996). Peasants and monks in British India. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520200616.), or Christophe Jaffrelot (Jaffrelot, Christophe (2003). India's silent revolution: the rise of the lower castes in North India. London: C. Hurst & Co. p. 197. ISBN 978-1-85065-670-8.), there is not even one mention of any of these two dozen volumes. (Bayly has the one mention under "Government Publications" in the bibliography.) Where are the citations to these much vaunted AnSI volumes? Zuggernaut, please don't make any more edits, especially not a flurry of them, sourced to these volumes until the issue of reliable and secondary sources has been resolved here on the talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This removal by me was in part because of the inappropriate/irrelevant commentary, & I too have previously raised the topic ban issue, although I suspect that the excesses are only in a small number of the numerous contributions here. It may be what was said in the source (I cannot see it to check) but it adds absolutely nothing to the article and was quite obviously just a "dig". The bits of ANSI that I can see, across various volumes and not all related to Kunbi, look pretty poor to me, official stamp or no official stamp. If they are official then they are valid as sources at least for some things, but the weight being attached to them seems to be somewhat excessive given their overall quality.

I gave up the Sfn issue gracefully on Zuggernaut's talk page. I was being swamped by edits and the situation seemed to be irrecoverable when it had gone so far down the line. I still suspect that it is irrecoverable. - Sitush (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius. Zuggernaut is restricted from saying anything to or about Fowler&fowler. Zuggernaut is in the unique and “enviable” position in the whole of the “civilized” world for being under criticism (not sometimes) in a one sided way for whatever Zuggernaut may say or do.

@Fowler&fowler. Well Fowler&fowler, you seem to like the {{harvnb}} system. You even had a “run in” with Sitush&co. over it at Talk:Kurmi/Archive 3#Citation format. You had suggested that I could convert the refs there, but the idea got dropped. I have now familiarized myself with the system. I could convert all the refs here to harvnb system. You can check them later to see if I screw up something. I have got a handle on both the {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} systems and would take it upon myself to turn all refs into one, or a combination of these two systems.MW ^ℳ 13:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I was not aware of that part of the restrictions imposed on Zuggernaut. That makes life a little awkward here. I don't think that MangoWong can act as a mouthpiece? Or can they? I think that the overseer is User:ErrantX - should that person be involved? - Sitush (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Although the interaction ban was placed on Zuggernaut there is, I feel, an onus on Fowler&Fowler to avoid him likewise (this is why I hate interaction bans that are not mutual - it gets complex). He must have known that prior to posting on this talk page and becoming involved in the article. I think it "who bows out" is best resolved between you like gentleman because this is not a situation we can turn around and say "Fowler&Fowler is here now Zuggernaut, you must leave". If needs be swing to AN/I to get a broader array of input. As to the wider topic ban issue; parts of this article do seem to be in the problematic area (BI history) that caused the topic ban - however I am unsure if there are any specific content issues being caused here or not? --Errant ^(chat!) 14:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Interaction ban? I just meant his topic ban on British India related articles. As you will see from the other non-elite occupational caste articles that I've worked on, such as Kurmi and Yadav, a considerable portion of these articles relate to history and, of that history, to one of British India, for the British were the first people to pay any serious attention to data gathering. This article Kunbi, for example, is related to Kurmi (for one, the present Government of India recognized them as only one group; for two, there has been a history of links between the two—in the 1891 Census of British India, they were counted as one; and for three, as recently as a month or two ago, there was a move afoot to merge the two articles). So, the Kunbi article, by precedent will need to pay attention to history, and then, inevitably, to the Kunbi in British India. In his frenetic slew of edits, Zuggernaut couldn't resist taking his usual digs at the Brits. That is what I'm objecting to. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave the topic ban/interaction ban situation for now, which I can see is messy, and just comment on the citation templates. Now that the article is using {{sfn}}, I think any move to go back to {{harvnb}} would be splitting hairs. Besides, sfn is clearly technically superior, as you don't have to worry about the ref tags and getting the "name" part in the topmost reference. I think some judicious use of WP:IAR would be good for the encyclopaedia here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm prepared to show diffs if required but timestamps will show that I waited patiently until there was agreement between me and Sitush about the citation format. This contradicts with Sitush's claim that he was swamped with edits (there was one cite I changed prior to an agreement).
• The Srinivas edit was copy-pased from Deshastha Brahmin where it was developed many months before the topic ban and after a discussion/consensus. If I remember the incident correctly from almost a year back, either an anon or User:Jonathansammy proposed that content. Please feel free to fix it there too.
• I will ask WP:RSN if the AnSI source is reliable. Regarding the AnSI work being cited elsewhere, the volume that I have referred to here says on page iv that it first published in 2004 so it is unlikely that it would be referred to in 1996 (Bayly) or 2003 (Jaffrelot) Zuggernaut (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh? That is nonsense. Here is the diff between just after I raised the issue and when I gave up gracefully. Too much had happened and the way in which you swamped with your own style made the prior style pointless to maintain. Just for future reference, you did two things wrong: (a) introduced without discussion here, and (b) mixed styles. It is too late now but I felt a overwhelmed by the way that you continued after I had raised the issue with you, so simply gave up.

Mr. Stradivarius, you don't have to worry about getting the name part in the topmost ref when using the style which did prevail prior to Z's contributions. But, like I say, it is too late now. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

To Zuggernaut: The buck stops with the person who makes the edit. I don't care where it was copy-pasted from. You made the edit. It clearly mentions British India. As for the AnSI series, all the 11 National Series of People of India and 16 of the 22 Regional Series had been published by the time of the publishing of Susan Bayly's book (1999) (See here). There are three "People of India" series edited by K. S. Singh cited in the "Government Publications" section of Bayly. These are a) People of India: an Introduction (Anthropological Survey of India, Calcutta), 1992, b) People of India II: Scheduled Castes, Oxford University Press, 1995, and c) People of India, National Series Volume 10: The biological variation of the Indian populations, Oxford University Press, 1994. If those, with their more general scope, are not listed under "Secondary Works," it is impossible that the regional series published by Podunk Publishers will be so.

Mr. Stradivarius, as I said, I don't have any issues with Sfn per se and I'm not in the least suggesting that it should be changed to Harvnb, only there there is something screwy in this frenetic manner of editing the article, with no history of editing similar non-elite caste related articles, no history of any previous post on the talk page of these articles. Out of the blue Z. turns up here, like a tornado (see the article history), the very next day the article is promoted from Start Class to B class. This after these issues have been discussed ad nauseam on these talk pages for over three months by Sitush, MangoWong, MatthewVannitas, and Qw. and in a few cases by me. On none of these pages have I seen Zuggernaut anywhere. He then posts on WT:INDIA claiming that "he is trying to promote the Kunbi article to GA," a choice of words most people would not make after two sets of edits on a page. What is the mysterious hurry? Given his past, I am justified in my suspicions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

On none of these pages have I seen Zuggernaut anywhere. You forgot talk:Lodhi ? Anyway, seems it would be on ErrantX or someone else to take this to ANI for wider input. Zuggernaut is probably restricted from doing that too.MW ^ℳ 16:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did forget that. And I even agreed with Zuggernaut there. Actually, I'm a little mystified with this interaction ban. I didn't realize it had to do with any interaction, thinking it had to do with British Indian history. There is no need for a general interaction ban either on Zuggernaut or me. In any case, per ErrantX's suggestion, I'm happy to stay away from this Kunbi article, now that other people are watching it. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

PS After I've added a few pictures. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, if it can be kept civil then I'd be happy with both of you here, especially since you have access to sources that are limited for me. As far as I am concerned, and in the context of this article, I don't see a big problem. It might even be seen as a test case, if ErrantX & Mr Stradivarius are ok with the idea. I mean, it is apparent that the BI issue still exists in fact (per Zuggernaut's contributions) but maybe we can move beyond the interaction ban, which seems a bit awkward to enforce anyway. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler. Whether support or not, you did not pass the opportunity to make another tangential attack on Zuggernaut at talk:Lodhi too.( At least I interpret it as such. And it was petty too.) I feel you do need an equivalent interaction ban.MW ^ℳ 17:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong, if you have English comprehension issues, then consider seeking another person's opinion before you talk about other people's motives here (and unrestrainedly). I was entirely agreeing with Zuggernaut, and in sympathy. The "sentence" I am talking about was someone else's, one which both Zuggernaut and I disagreed with. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Just drop it, MangoWong. We're talking in the context of this article, in order to continue to develop the thing. If you have an issue with F&f elsewhere then you know what to do. I am beginning to think that your original mention of the interaction ban is connected with the expressed desire to see the entire thing lifted, which based on recent edits will not happen. Now, can you possibly assist me with any of the queries? I really am struggling to source things for this article but am finding snippets, as with the sickle cell and Goan Christian fishers etc, that could be of use to it. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

By now, you must have aired about 200 different types of suspicions about me. Do you think I take your suspicions seriously? Why do you think I would want to help you with anything when you have a proclivity for having different types and varieties of suspicions about me and anyone else who has disputes with you?MW ^ℳ 18:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

@Fowler; well, as the point of the interaction ban was to avoid Zuggernaut clashing with you (at least as I read it), if you're amicable to not having it apply on non-topic-banned articles then your the boss... :) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If these two guys are able to interact with each other, what would be the rationale for any editing restrictions? It seems Zuggernaut's editing restrictions were designed to stop (in BI articles) through behavioral policies what could not be stopped through content policies.MW ^ℳ 01:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If they are unable to interact, then restrictions should have been placed on Fowler&fowler too. The restrictions on Zuggernaut are very one sided and biased.MW ^ℳ 07:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

To do list: split the article

Why does the to do list refer to splitting the article, particularly at such an early stage of expansion? As it stands, the title refers to Kunbi, not Kunbi (Maharashtra). Sure, it seems at present mostly to be in relation to Maharashtra, and that is apparently the place where the majority of Kunbi live, but I suspect the weighting towards that state is as much down to the sources used etc rather than because of any particular natural delineation.

Can we not remove it from the to do list for now? It seems to be a little premature. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I first proposed integrating all Kunbis in this article (see "Kunbis in several states" section on this page). Since there was no response to that discussion and considering the talk page discussion initiated by User:Nijgoykar about Goa Kunbis being different, I thought it would help the articles to keep them separate. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I missed that proposal, which was made not long before the to do list was created. This entire expansion is starting to look very rushed: we do not propose something one day and then "promote" it to an action the next, surely? - Sitush (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend splitting the article into the following: 1. Kunbi groups of Maharashtra 2. Kunbis of Gujarat. I certainly would not recommend integrating the article with the one on Kurmi. Again, in my opinion, the communities are far removed culturally as well as geographically. The only common link would be agriculture. As Zuggernaut points out, genetically the indigenous Marathi Deshastha brahmins are closer to other castes in Maharashtra, including the Kunbi-Marathas, than to other brahmin groups in India. This doesn't mean that the article on Kunbis should be merged with that for the Deshastha. There is an article on Marathi people which takes care of the common cultural aspects of people from that region. Also due to the campaign by Shahu Maharaj of Kolhapur the Kunbis started identifying themselves as Maratha. If anything, it would be a good idea to merge this article with that on Maratha. One can keep a separate section in that article on the 96 clan higher social status "Rajput"-Marathas. Now talking about the effect of British colonial rule and caste mobility, please see the following book: Social change in modern India, By Mysore Narasimhachar Srinivas, chapter 3, some aspects of caste mobility. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That still begs the question of what we do about the Goans etc. My brain is a little fried with all of this but I think it possible that the quote from Gadgil & Guha may have been taken out of context. It certainly needs to be read in relation to their thesis, which starts some way prior to the sentence quoted in the article. In the ideal world, we read the entire book but certainly the section starting at page 82 needs examination. I'll try to do that in the next 24, since it is a rare example of something Kunbi-related that I can see. - Sitush (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I am OK either way (to split the articles or keep them here) but we need to keep in mind that largest community of Kunbis is in Maharashtra. User:Nijgoykar clearly states that Goans are separate. I have not seen them listed together with the Maharashtrian Kunbis in the AnSI work or the other sources. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Quotes in the notes section

Presently, there are three references in the "Notes" section which have quotes. The quotes seem to appear out of place in the "Notes" section and I think that those references should be moved into the "Footnotes" section. Thanks.MW ^ℳ 15:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed this. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Cite formats

We had citation templates, then some sfn templates, then some more citation templates, and now some harvnb. What the heck is going on? - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The harvnb system is being used because it takes up less space and allows for easy bundling with quotes. Bundling quotes in the sfn system may be complicated.MW ^ℳ 07:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Was this agreed? Or is it just someone's whim? - Sitush (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Of the four major and active contributors, three (Sitush - reluctantly, MangoWong and me [5]) support the use of the sfn template. I will convert the harvb template to sfn to include the quotes in the footnotes section. Zuggernaut (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Notable Kurmis

In looking for some info about Kurmis, I found that Beni Prasad Verma, Union Minister of State for steel, is a Kurmi.[6]. He could probably be one of the persons who would merit a mention in the article.MW ^ℳ 16:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Might be a good addition to the related article Kurmi. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I had placed this comment here through some confusion. I have looked through the googlenews archives to find something about the Kunbi names which you suggest, but with no results. I could find only non RS sites on the generalized google search. Googlebooks also does not seem to be of much help in this sphere.MW ^ℳ 07:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I encountered the same obstacles. The problem is that strictly in technical Wikipedia terms, people are indulging in WP:OR by guessing the caste of people from their last names. Since not too many give a damn about castes in India, it is very difficult to prove (by finding reliable sources) that a certain famous person belongs to a certain caste. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, in this reference on Sharad Pawar, the author calls him "Maratha".(Sharad Pawar, the Maratha legacy By Shiri Ram Bakshi, chapter 7). In my experience, "Kunbi Maratha" people in Western Maharashtra identify themselves as Maratha rather than Kunbi. Now with the recent Kunbi / OBC designation , it may be beneficial for aspiring politicians to identify themselves as Kunbi. Also, as you say, it may be considered offensive to ask a person about his or her caste and quite often the same name may be found amongst different castes. For example, Chaudhary and Deshmukh are found amongst Maratha/Kunbi and also Deshastha brahmins. Jonathansammy (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess then the claim about Sharad Pawar being Kunbi is bogus and needs to be removed from the List of Kunbi people. I agree that titular last names are seen across various communities. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

According to this [7], whether the Pawars, Deshmukhs and Patils are/ are not Kunbis seems to be a debatable point. I agree we had better stay clear of saying anything on this, unless we have some good sources to do so.MW ^ℳ 08:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Kunbis are not non-elite

I've removed the claim that the the Kunbi are mostly non-elite. Reasons:

1. Both sources cited in support of the claim contain quotes from the sixties and are almost half a century old. In the new millenium, the Kunbi are politically dominant in several electoral constituencies and can hardly be called non-elite.
2. We can certainly state that the Kunbis were in the past non-elite but not in the present.
3. This then becomes a point to be discussed in the body of the article and then have its summary included in the lead if it is due. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this earlier. You are being disingenuous, and that doesn't bode well for someone trying to come out of a topic ban. The articles were not from the sixties but from 1981 and 1993. Just because they use and analyze data from the 1960s doesn't make them from the 1960s. By those standards, all classical historians will be instantly out of date. I am restoring the "non-elite" mention. The traditional non-elite non-servile nature of the Kunbis (in common with the Kurmis, Kacchis, Keoris, Ahirs, Goals, Yadavs, Jats, Gujjars) is nothing new. It has been commented on by many authors, many of whom I plan to use this weekend. I will add a "traditional." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Message for regular and long-time watchers/editors

MangoWong, Utcursch, Redtigerxyz and others, I am trying to get this article promoted to GA level and have thus asked for a peer review (although I think we could have directly gone for a GA review). Obviously, this does not mean in anyway that the article is complete or frozen and all contributions (not just those listed in the ToDo template at the top) are welcome. Thanks to the collaborative work of several editors, we now have standardization of the {{sfn}} template in the article, have sorted out the Shudra issue, seem to have driven away the drive-by-IPs (whose only purpose was to add WP:PEACOCK terms) and now have pictures in the article. I will be off Wikipedia for a while and I know this article is in good hands. I know you will be watching this article to ensure that the article makes progress in the direction of achieving a GA status. Just FYI, the good article criterion is listed at Wikipedia:GA_Criteria. Thanks for your collaborative contributions. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, I have recused myself from editing this article until now because you had begun to edit it, but I had warned you that there are many serious problems with the article. (a) It is based entirely on a primary source (the Anthropological Survey of India series). (b) The series has not been vetted by concurrent (or subsequent) publication of its data in peer-reviewed journals, and as such is nothing more than a collection of printed field reports. (c) The series has not been cited in the secondary literature. (d) It's one review, in the Journal of Asian Studies (Laura Jenkins), "Colonial and National Anthropology" is not flattering.

More worryingly, the article is entirely about the anthropology of the Kunbi (based on these nationalistic field reports). There is nothing about the history, much of it intertwined with the British years. I plan to work on that history, but please don't exaggerate that it could have gone straight to a GA review. It is nowhere near completion. It is best not to make these wildly premature claims. The sorting out of the "Shudra issue" one of them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Although better than it was, the article is a long way from GA and the sourcing remains a matter of great concern. We need to see some balance, some "rounded-ness", and something more than generalised notes from what seems often to be a flimsy source that lacks academic rigour & at least on some occasions appears to be in denial. I can't do much for this particular subject but if anyone else can then that is great. - Sitush (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Work on the article

I will need some time to work on the article this weekend (Friday to Monday morning). Because of the interaction ban with Zuggernaut I am giving ample warning. I will be putting the inuse tag on the page when I edit it. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You are obtaining a one way ticket only by taking undue advantage of the one sided restrictions on Zuggernaut. Your rubbish quality arguments would not stand a chance if Zuggernaut had a level playing field.MW ^ℳ 10:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut has already indicated that they will not be around much; Fowler&fowler has given more than enough notice; and you are again stirring the pot unnecessarily. It's good that you are now occasionally admitting that you are not omniscient; it would be better still if you actually realised it. And even better if you could try to be a little more specific for once: you have been told before that "rubbish" does not exactly communicate a problem usefully. This article has a lot of problems still but it is not to deny that Zuggernaut has improved it. In the absence of any more specific criticism than "rubbish", methinks that your real issue is most likely the revisionist/whitewashing agenda that you hold but, of course, only you can confirm this. So, please can you be specific before Fowler&fowler starts - it will save everyone a lot of time if your concerns are known in advance. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I have already indicated what the problem is. Fowler&fowler is persistently making one way attacks on Zuggernaut, Zuggernaut's edits and Zuggernaut's comments by taking advantage of the biased and one sided restrictions on Zuggernaut. It is an uncivilized and dishonest way of dishing out criticism. The commununity had foolishly created this situation and believed that Fowler&fowler would not be doing something like this.MW ^ℳ 13:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you said that F7F's arguments were "rubbish" - that is the bit that we need to concentrate on here. Anything else can and probably should be taken to WP:ANI It is quite obvious that you and Z get on well but you should not speak for Z.: if they have an issue then they know what to do. So, what is "rubbish", please? - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

...but you should not speak for Z It is Zuggernaut, Zuggernaut's comments and edits which are coming in for criticism, and as you say, it is not for me to speak for Zuggernaut.MW ^ℳ 13:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to stop whingeing about Zuggernaut's topic ban here - good idea. But I still await your explanation of what you actually mean when you refer to F&f's "rubbish quality arguments". That has nothing to do with Zuggernaut, since you said it & therefore it is your responsibility. Look, if for once you would stop being evasive until pushed to the absolute limit then you might find some people take your thoughts on board with less hassle all round, and surely in this instance it is better to get it off your chest before F&f starts deploying what you consider to be "rubbish quality arguments" in the article itself. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm. There was no response to my last message above, although MangoWong has been contributing elsewhere. I take that to mean that MW has decided that the arguments are not in fact "rubbish quality". The chance has gone. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. I was not able to make much progress over the weekend, having been caught up in putting out little fires elsewhere. I would like request to edit this until the end of the week. Zuggernaut has already indicated that he will not be editing the article in the short term. I will need this time to write a reasonably sourced history. Please do not conduct any peer reviews during this time. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It is assumptive of you to think that I have decided that Fowler&fowler's criticisms are not "rubbish quality". Fowler&fowler's criticisms continue to remain "rubbish quality" IMO, and they remain so because they were made in an uncivilized and one sided way.MW ^ℳ 10:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:WQA if you believe that it was uncivil. You know the drill. - Sitush (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)