Talk:Kunbi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Inter-caste issues: OR????

The "Inter-caste issues" section portrays that Kunbis hate the Dalits and harass them. There is no reference that explicitly states that Khairlanji Dalit killings or "Other voilence against Dalits" [sic] is a specific issue between Kunabis v/s Dalits, rather it may be a general case of higher caste Hindus v/s Dalits as suggested by Mitta 2010 TOI. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we can change the title of the section or merge somewhere? Zuggernaut (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it has been correctly identified as OR. The OR part (IMO) being the assumption that it pertains to the Kunbi article. Unless this issue gets covered in secondary sources which are focused on "Kunbi", the material is OR for this article. A similar section had been deleted mercilessly from the Yadav article. Rather than changing the section title, I think creating a new article may be a better option.MW ^ℳ 10:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I refute your "mercilessly" statement. That is misrepresentation. It was removed pending article development, and it will reappear because it was sufficiently specific. The problem was that at the time it was undue weight, given the then rather minimalist nature of the article.

I have not yet looked at the issue raised here by Redtigerxyz, nor did I add that section, but I'll take a look later today. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I meant to ask for a link to the Mitta piece. Can anyone oblige, please. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who had deleted it, and I should get to say whether I had done it mercilessly or not. I don't see how you can know whether I had done it "mercilessly" or not.MW ^ℳ 10:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:OSE. Now, let's concentrate on the matter at hand, shall we? You have enough other people pointing out the inappropriate choice of venue for some of your recent talk page stuff without me joining in. - Sitush (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(←) The Mitta 2010 [1] is used to source "The Times of India questioned the ruling of the Mumbai High Court that the Khairlangi killings were motivated by revenge and not racism or casteism" in "Khairlanji Dalit killings". The sentence portrays that the casteism is particularly by Kunbis, but the source about casteism against Dalits by higher castes in general. IMO, the incident should be noted in the Dalit article in some "Inter-caste issues". --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't see Mitta or the content to which you link. I'll see what I can dig up. It seems to be a notable event in its own right, although the article trails off in 2010. Whether one incident can carry so much weight here is another matter. - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The link redirects to the lite.epaper.timesofindia.com/ after 1-2 secs. Just press Back. You will see the content. Faced the same problem initially. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

How odd. Pressing back doesn't work here - it just reloads the e-paper subscription page. And that is a nuisance, actually, since you cannot easily get back to where you came from! - someone at ToI or wherever needs to rethink that. - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is the article:

The Buddha is not SMILING

A HIGH COURT RULING SAYS THE KHAIRLANJI KILLINGS OF 2006 WERE DRIVEN BY REVENGE,NOT CASTE PREJUDICE.CAN AN ATROCITY OF THIS NATURE BE ANYTHING BUT RACISM

Manoj Mitta | TNN

Whenever a caste Hindu kills a Dalit,does that crime necessarily qualify to be called a caste atrocity Is there any so-called judicially manageable standard to determine whether such an offence was motivated by caste prejudice These fundamental questions have been thrown up by the Bombay High Courts judgment this month in the much-touted Khairlanji case in which a mob of caste Hindus lynched four members of a Dalit family four years ago. The high court verdict proved controversial because,even as it awarded an exceptionally stiff sentence of 25 years to eight accused persons,it upheld their acquittal by the trial court on charges pressed by the CBI under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.Thus,the denial of the atrocity label did not quite conform to the stereotype that the upper caste-dominated judiciary is indifferent to crimes against outcastes.Short of the death sentence,there was little scope for the high court to impose a higher penalty. Yet human rights defenders and Dalit activists are crying foul.This,because of the courts refusal to acknowledge the caste angle in the Khairlanji case.Many see this as a setback to the larger challenge of enforcing the atrocity law or preventing such incidents.Even 20 years after the enactment of this special law,there is no clarity on when its harsh provisions should apply to offences committed against Dalits.For,the law,which gives teeth to the constitutional ban on untouchability,divides caste atrocities into two broad categories: The first covers typical forms of untouchability : forcing a Dalit to drink or eat any inedible or obnoxious substance,dumping excreta or carcasses on his premises,parading him naked or with painted face,obstructing a Dalit from accessing a place of public resort or forcing him to leave his house or village.In such cases,the caste motivation is a given. The second category covers grievous offences that are anyway punishable under the Indian Penal Code (rape or murder,for instance).It is not enough for the victim to be a Dalit and the culprit to be non-Dalit to invoke the atrocity law.The prosecution would also have to prove that the crime was motivated by caste prejudice. The problem is that this is subjective.Hence,cases relating to the second category of caste atrocities often result in acquittals under the special law.There is no objective standard for determining the hand of caste prejudice in such cases.Unsurprisingly,this offers ample scope for judges to interpret the law in a manner that may diverge from common sense. In fact,the problem with the Khairlanji verdict is that the high court remained unconvinced that caste hatred had,in any way,contributed to a terrible crime the four Dalits were chased and beaten to death by a mob made up of locally dominant Kunbi Marathas.As far as the court is concerned,the only motive for the mass murder was the mobs quest for revenge.It is true that two of the targeted Dalits mother and daughter had dared to lodge a police complaint against some of those caste Hindus following an assault on a Dalit family friend. But the assumption that the mob was driven by revenge alone and displayed no caste prejudice is contradicted by the courts own narrative of facts.Take its failure to notice that the vengeance wreaked by the mob was far too disproportionate to the supposed cause of their outrage: the registration of an allegedly false assault case by the Dalit mother and daughter.The offence of assault carries a maximum penalty of two years.Could mob frenzy be whipped up to the extent of committing crimes punishable with death just to get even with somebody who lodged such a petty case Had the Bhotmange family been upper caste,let alone the locally dominant Kunbi Maratha,would the mob have dared behave this way,that too in broad daylight The revenge theory also seems thin given the manner in which the daughters body was found naked in a canal and the fact that the mob killed the sons as well,one of whom was disabled,although they had nothing to do with the allegedly trumped-up assault complaint. The Khairlanji verdict is more questionable than other atrocity cases in which judges have ruled that the crime had little to do with the victims low caste status.In 2006,in Bandu Tamboli vs State of Maharashtra,the high court rightly ruled against the application of the atrocity law as there was no reason to believe that the accused would not have raped the victim had she not been a Dalit.There was no racial tinge to the offence, the high court said.

It is ironic that while the courts use caste and race interchangeably,the government spares no effort at various international meets to delink the two.In any event,Khairlanji is a watershed event.It is a fit case for the Supreme Court to clarify that judges cannot defeat the very purpose of having an atrocity law by overlooking clear evidence of caste prejudice.Else,judges themselves might be seen as unwittingly betraying a racial tinge.

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Redtiger that the "Other violence against Dalits" sub-section within the "Inter-caste issues" section may have an appearance of WP:OR. Regarding the main section on Khairlanji, the Indian media, which generally avoids mentioning castes of people, seems to have made an exception in this case. You will find numerous sources noting that the Khailanji incident was directed against Dalits and the perpetrators were members of the Kunbi community. Further, Bhotmange has said he will take this to the supreme court and ask for the application of PoA act. Re-titling of the sub-section or merging the content in to one larger section may be necessary to address concerns raised by Redtigerxyz. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the "Other violence against Dalits" title and moved the text under the main section to address the WP:OR concern. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be unclear, but retitling or merging does not solve the problem. "Khairlanji Dalit killings" as well as the former violence section needs to be removed, if you can not find any reference that says that these incidences are a specialized case of Kunbis v/s Dalits, rather than a generalized case of "caste Hindus" v/s Dalits, as suggested by TOI. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've struggled with this for days, and I still do not understand the logic. Forgive me then if I am mis-stating things now. If we state the community X did not permit widow remarriage then we are stating something that is not specialised to that community because many other communities also did not permit it, therefore we should not be mentioning it at all. Would this be a correct analogy? - Sitush (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The logic is: "A harass X; B harass X; C harass X .... ; everyone harass X", where X = Dalits; A = Kshatriyas; B = Vaishyas; C = Shudras; ... some other "caste Hindu" groups. So, if everyone harasses Dalits, the problem is the general harassment of Dalits, which needs to go in Dalit article or not here. However, if "Various incidents of violence against Dalits, almost always by other backward castes such as Kunbis Kherlanji Massacre and Jats Mirchpur killings in 2010, have been reported from many parts of India." (as worded in Indian_caste_system#Caste-related_violence) is true than we should have a section "violence against Dalits", otherwise we should have just 1 section called "Clashes with other communities" or similar, which should have the Kherlanji massacre as well other incidents against other communities, which also includes things Rape of a Kunbi woman by Pardhis for example. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I still don't get it, for some reason. I don't see why, just because other groups may attack Dalits, that makes it something which should not be mentioned at all in this article. Is an entry in See Also the answer? Anyway, I'll just go with the flow. - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What I'm gathering from this exchange so far is that the content fits well in the article on Dalits and that we can keep it here if we include violence against the Kunbis. The section is already titled "Intercaste issues" but I am okay to change it to what Redtigerxyz is suggesting. Khairlanji was a one-off incident but for whatever the reason, the media started looking at violence between Kunbis and Dalits more closely post-Khairlanji (the two rape reports after Khairlanji are an indicator of this). I am of course in agreement that we should not at all make it sound that there's something going on between the Kunbis and Dalits explicitly (and that wasn't at all the intention in adding this content). I will look at the other incidents (including violence against Kunbis) and add it here assuming this is the path we want to take. I do not mind deleting it entirely if that is what you feel. Zuggernaut (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The content is very relevant to the Dalit article. Currently, the article portrays that "there's something going on between the Kunbis and Dalits explicitly" (Kunbis in particular - NOT caste Hindus in general - are torturing Dalits) and that's my only worry. Also, Should a section be devoted to Khairlanji (UNDUE IMO) with all details of the killings and the judicial sentencing? IMO, we should shorten it to 3-4 sentences: "In 2006, four members of a Dalit family with the surname 'Bhotmange' were murdered after being tortured by members of the Kunbi caste from the Khairlanji village in the Bhandara district.[110] Two female members of the same family were paraded naked in the village and then raped. The Nagpur bench of the Mumbai High Court has eight villagers to life imprisonment, declaring the killings were motivated by revenge and not racism or casteism. The case is still pending in the Supreme Court of India."--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes. The current length is certainly undue & in need of some pruning. Your suggested wording is ok, and obviously can link to the article about the killings. - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this has been sorted out. Please feel free to add violence against the Kunbi if you have access to reliable sources. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Maratha or Kunbi

I think the article will not reflect the Maratha / Kunbi reality on the ground until it is resolved as to who is Kunbi and who is Maratha. The article goes into details about the Vidharbha kunbis, however, that region is only a small part of Maharashtra and that means details on Kunbis from Western Maharashtra or Desh, Konkan and Marathwada region are excluded. These details are excluded because of the Maratha v Kunbi confusion Jonathansammy (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Multiple Issues Tag

Kunbi is entirely based on a primary source, the Anthropological Survey of India's printed and airbrushed field reports. No reviews, except one uncomplimentary one, is found in the secondary literature. Respectable authors don't cite these reports. Moreover, the article entirely lacks a history section, out of which, to be fair, the primary author is topic-banned, since a large part of it concerns the British years. I will get around to writing a history section, but I want to make sure, that no premature moves are afoot to nominate it for a GA review. It is nowhere near that level of completion. I have accordingly added a multiple issues tag. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I also want to make sure it is understood that the article has not really received a complete peer-review yet. user:Finetooth, a superb reviewer, has, to her/his credit, stated clearly, "I realized when I started reading this section (Maratha-Kunbis) that I was in over my head. I know virtually nothing about the caste system in India, and the article uses too many terms with which I am unfamiliar for me to follow it very well. There's a great deal of detail in this section, but much of it is strange and new to me, and I can't decide what to say about it. I must beg off at this point in commenting on this and the later sections (a few footnotes excepted). I hope the few comments I've posted here are of some use to you. Sorry I can't be of more help." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That comment speaks volumes. If this article is not accessible, even to someone as proficient as Finetooth, then it is still in need of some major work. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As I have said in the preceding section, until it is clearly defined as to who is Kunbi-Maratha, it is really pointless working on this article. This is no refection on any one editor but on the Maratha communities themselves to agree on this matter. In my opinion, this article should be merged with the one on Maratha with a separate section for the small minority who claim Rajput lineage. This will also stop all the discussion on whether ICC chairman Sharad Pawar or actor Rajnikant are Maratha or Kunbi.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why can we not reflect the debate? - Sitush (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, I don't understand the point your are trying to make.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is a debate about the identity of Marathas, of Kunbis etc then can it be reflected in this article. I have limited access to sources on this subject but I have seen plenty of refs to Kunbi and to Maratha. While there may be some debate about it somewhere, there appear to be reliable sources that have no compunction in calling them one or the other (or both, as Maratha-Kunbi). Is this debate a relatively new thing? Does it extend nationwide or is it confined to, say, Maharashtra? If the uncertainty has existed for a long time then is there any reason why modern sources do not apparently always adopt the "Maratha-Kunbi" nomenclature? How do the groups self-identify? - I am pretty sure that I've seen a source that says the Marathas do not consider themselves to be Kunbi. I am curious, not necessarily opposing the idea of a merger. It appears that we are going to have to reflect the issue either on two articles or in one merged article. Perhaps it would be best if you started a formal merge proposal, and that way everyone can comment at a central venue? - Sitush (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I now understand what you are trying to say. Maratha are one of the major indigenous communities of Maharashtra. In fact, the word Marathi and Maratha may be a corruption of the word Maharashtri. Until the 19th century, the word Maratha was either used to describe Marathi People from the area that makes the present day Maharashtra or the non-brahmin ruling class of the Maratha Empire. Somehow in late 19th century the Brahmins of the region stopped using the term. On the other hand, the ruler of Kolhapur state, Chhatrapati Shahu Bhosale urged the peasant communities (Kunbi) to start identifying themselves as Maratha. All the rich or poor Maratha I have come across have always identified themselves as Maratha rather than Kunbi. Now there are the so called 96 clan Maaratha who consider themselves above the other Marathas. The 96 clans do not have any bar on marrying women from the lower , let say, Kunbi-Marathas community but will not allow their daughters to marry Kunbis. Did the Scottish clans have similar rules ? This debate is purely regional and confined to the state of Maharashtra where about 40% of population may identify themselves as Maratha. The government also does not recognize a caste category called Kunbi-Maratha. Anyhow, I will start a formal merger proposal and let's see how that goes. Obviously, as you suggested, the debate will be included in the merged or separate articles. Jonathansammy (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'll do some reading around the issue as best that I can, beyond AnSI stuff on this article which in any event I can see only minimally. Please accept my apologies for causing you to have to read my mind in the first instance. I did see your comment in the thread above this one but could not really put it into any context. It is much more clear now.

These things are really awkward for me to deal with but (a) I want to learn; (b) there is real need to sort out the many, many articles dealing with Indian castes/communities; and (c) I am as uninvolved as it is possible to be in terms of association with any such castes/communities. And, for the record once more, although it is true that I am a Brit, I do not particularly have much regard for colonial Brit sources in the context of WP: they're old, they're usually amateur, and they had an agenda. Right now, I have no particular view regarding a merge but I hope that those involved during the process can provide calm, rational comments and (ideally) sources that everyone else can see either by direct link or via one of the download hosting sites. - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Jonathansammy - the "ambiguity" is in the sources and it is explained in the Maratha-Kunbi section. Merging with Maratha is a welcome idea if the wider Wikipedia community agrees. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Multiple issues tag: primary sources

That "Kunbi is entirely based on a primary source, the Anthropological Survey of India's printed and airbrushed field reports" is a misleading allegation. Of the 118 citations, more than 50% are from sources other the P. Dhar or Kumar Suresh Singh (the 2130 page Anthropological Survey of India volume on Maharashtra with six editors). The claim that the AnSI volume is a primary source is also misleading since the general editor, K S Singh, clearly states in the foreword that pretty much all of the prominent and well-known works have been used in the volume (Enthoven, Karve, Dandekar, the various constitutional lists of the OBC, SCs/STs of the government of India, etc).

The sources in question:

• Dhar, P. (2004), Bhanu, B.V.; Bhatnagar, B.R.; Bose, D.K.; Kulkarni, V.S.; Sreenath, J. (eds.), People of India: Maharashtra, People of India, vol. 2, Anthropological Survey of India, ISBN 8179911012, retrieved 5 October 2011
• Singh, Kumar Suresh (2004), Bhanu, B.V.; Bhatnagar, B.R.; Bose, D.K.; Kulkarni, V.S.; Sreenath, J. (eds.), People of India: Maharashtra, People of India, vol. 2, Anthropological Survey of India, ISBN 8179911012, retrieved 5 October 2011

Andrew Dalby had this to say at the reliable sources noticeboard about this volume:

The Anthropological Survey of India is a major research organization, long-established, government-supported, academic. Its publications should be treated as reliable. There may be opposing points of view on controversial issues, and in that case we should cite reliable sources for the opposing views too.

And I have replied to him there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Me, too, just so that it is a matter of record. I then noticed that the thing is archived now, which is unfortunate - I didn't realise that it had been referred to RSN. - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Volumes_of_the_Anthropological_Survey_of_India Zuggernaut (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware that I could restore an archived thread. - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

In light of the evolving discussion at the Noticeboard, I have changed the tag to "OneSource" especially in section Kunbi#Kunbi_communities_from_Vidarbha_region_of_Maharashtra. If Zuggernaut will agree to using the AnSI volumes judiciously (i.e. not exclusively and not in large-scale edits), we could soon have that portion of the tag removed. In practice this means that the material relying on AnSI volumes will need to be pruned, and other sources will need to be accommodated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Multiple issues tag: historical information

There's sufficient historical information on how the Maratha-Kunbi consolidated in to one block (as fixed by User:Jonathansammy recently). For details see the section titled Maratha-Kunbi. More historical information is of course welcome. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You are topic banned from writing on "Indian history topics" broadly interpreted. You wrote this article, solo, in a flurry of two edits earlier this month. Who then has written this history? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I will be using the following as one of the main references when talking about the Marathi v Kunbi designation. I am very busy with my regular work so editing of this article by me will take place in bits and pieces. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. (It is Polly O'Hanlon's book. Both author and book are well respected.) I will be adding historical bits too, but more general ones. Look forward to your edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sfn citations

The manner in which the Sfn citation system is now being used is becoming far too complex, imo. There is no way that most newbie contributors would be able to find their way around it, and caste/community articles such as this tend to attract a disproportionate number of such contributors. Is all this fiddling about really necessary? - Sitush (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

See also: User talk:MangoWong#you're gonna like this. I don't know where the {sfn} system entered this article, I just helped it along. It's a good system, and the future of citations. A teachable moment. It is best to not retard progress and better approaches. Alarbus (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The system entered this article by the back door, as per an earlier discussion on this page. I have the feeling that you have been contributing here for a lot longer than this month, perhaps as an IP. You certainly know you way around, which is great. However, a lot of people will really struggle with additional complexity. Just because we can do something does not necessarily mean that we should.

I am not advocating that we get rid of sfn here - it is unfortunately too late for that - and I do appreciate that you have been fixing errors. But, in fact, the very existence of those errors & the necessity to use fancy .js scripts to pick them up is an indication of how messy this is. Let's not make it more so: the K.I.S.S. principle applies. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong information!

The information provided here about Goan Kunbi is 100% wrong and the references from the book are irrelevant.As the writer of the book has misinterpreted the information about Goan Kunbis itself!

• Unlike other Kunbis Goan Kunbis are Proto-Australoid people originally speaking an Austric language.
• They never owned land,as in ancient Goa the land was never owned by a single person but was jointly owned by the village and belonged to the village God.
• They do not belong to any Varna.They are not Vaishyas.The whole confusion was created by Portuguese.As when they converted people,they wanted to group the converts as per Hindu caste system for their convenience.So they lumped all the Kunbi-Gaudes and Vaishyas into a group of neo-catholics called as Gauddes,this should clear the confusion.There is no connection between Hindu Gaudes Kunbis and Hindu Goan Vaishyas,nor is there much social interaction between both the groups.
• Goan Kunbi Gavdes do not belong to this article a mere mention should suffice.
• Goan Kunbis are always referred to as Kunbi-Gavde or Kulvadi or Kulambi or just Gavade (alternate spelling:Gaude,Gauddo)

Main article: Gauda and Kunbi

Nijgoykar (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Gauda and Kunbi is unsourced on the points that you mention and is highly likely to be pruned back and/or merged. The merge would be to here or to Gauda or the rename to Goan Kunbi. I have been keeping an eye on that mess for a while now, and trying to find some substance myself. Do you actually have any sources to support your comments? - Sitush (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 February 2013

Kunbis is similar to the Munnuru kapu caste of Telangana. Both are farming castes and OBC. see the similarity of the word kunbis and kapu. 112.79.40.91 (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  TOW  talk  23:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 June 2013

ADD KHEDULE KUNBI IN TYPES OF KUNBI MOSTLY OF VIDARBHA REGION 103.6.171.240 (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please also provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Deon^talk 13:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 June 2013

ADD KHEDULE KUNBI IN TYPES OF KUNBI MOSTLY OF VIDARBHA REGION OF MAHARASHTRA

MAHESH B W 103.6.171.240 (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please also provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Deon^talk 13:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

About The Tilale Kunbi

I would to mention one thing here that every tirale bunbis are patil(head of village)it's honour that has given them. ex:-

 (1) takli(khode), khode is a surname, they are the patil of that village that's why the village takli knows as takli(khode).
like that
 (2)dahegaon(miskin)
 (3)dahegaon(gavande)
  
                              SOME OTHERS

       village             sername
   1) yenikotha            kothekar(patil)
   2) chikhali             Chikhalkar(patil)
   3) sonegaon             kombe(patil)
   4) jangona              raut(patil)
   5) waifad               zoting(patil)
etc....

all above mentioned are the patil(head of villafe) of their respective village. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.27.42 (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

IF you want to see some of this material in the article then you will need to provide reliable sources and demonstrate why it should be included. If, on the other hand, you are just passing a general comment about the community then please do not - this page is for discussion of improvements to the article only. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

surname spelling mistakes

The spelling of wankhede surname in hindre contains 'e' at end.

(current spelling=wankhed) (correct spelling=wankhede)Sswkp (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kunbi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130203225748/http://blogs.thehindu.com/elections2009/?p=2237 to http://blogs.thehindu.com/elections2009/?p=2237
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130204111218/http://blogs.thehindu.com/delhi/?p=14004 to http://blogs.thehindu.com/delhi/?p=14004
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130205002342/http://blogs.thehindu.com/delhi/?p=2766 to http://blogs.thehindu.com/delhi/?p=2766

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2018

There are fundamental misinformation in the section of jhare or jhade or Zade kunbis in the article. I would like to highlight few of them.

1. "Jhare/Jhade/Zade" and "Bowne" are different communities or sub-castes in the Kunbi's. Jhade/Zade kunbi's are prominently home in the districts or Bhandara, Gondia and Northern parts of Chandrapur & Gadhchiroli and eastern parts of Nagpur Districts. Although, for work and professional reasons you can find them in good amount in almost all districts of Vidarbha reagion and adjoining districts of present chattisgarh.

2. They are called Jhade not because "they comes from jhadi (forest). This is a blatant lie and ignorance on part on the writer. They are called Jhade/Zade because they belong to the parts of Vidharbha which gets maximum rainfall during rainy season. "Jhadi" means intermittent rainfall, which this region normally gets during monsoon. Older generations often talks about more than fortnights "jhadi" (Rains) during monsoon. Thats the reason this region is rice bowl of Maharashtra as they grows "Paddy" (dhaan/rice) due to ample rainfall during monsoon rains as against scanty rainfall in other districts of Vidarbha.

3. They are not "Gond" people. Gond people inhibits the district of Gadhchiroli in Maharashtra and Bastar in chattisgarh. Gondi people are the tribals who lived deep in the forests and dependents on forest produce for their livelihood.

While kunbis cleared the forest lands into Agricultural lands and tilled them for growing rice as a staple produce during Monsoon season i.e. kharif season and Pulses like tur(lentil), chana(groundnuts), moong(lentil), til(linseed), and grains like wheat and jowar during rabbi or winter season.

Like all kunbi's they are the people who migrated as men from Maratha Armed Forces from places like Kolhapur, Satara, Pune, Ahmednagar etc. during expansion of Maratha empire to eastern parts of India. Along the way they inhibited the area, cleared the Forests into agricultural fields, utilize their farming skills and settled in this part of vidarbha.

4. The typical surnames mentioned herein the article are Bowne's who are prominent in district of Amrawati and Nagpur primiraly. The common surnames of "Jhade" Kunbi's are Kathane, Shivankar, Munishwar, Shende, Kore, Pathode, Bhramhankar, Doye, Hatthimare etc.

5. Jhade Kunbi's are decently educated as compared to other kunbi's, even druing 1970's most of men and woman studied upto matriculation atleast. Despite a large number of Graduates and Post graduates in the community, they preferred to stay back at their villages and were primiraly engaged with Agriculture and Agro based industies till around mid 1990s, when the changing economic scenario made then seek more lucrative opportunities into new age industries of IT, Banking, Manufacturing etc.

5. The fact that they prefer to marry in relation i.e maternal uncles is correct. So is the preferred ages are mentioned.

6. The Jhade Kunbi dominated areas were always considered progressive as their forefather generations had the foresight and had ensured access to education - primary and higher, primary health, infrastructure like Rail, Roads, electricity, cottage industries, etc available since early times of Independent India. Highly politically aware people who dominated the cooperative sector at its peak. Msandeep25 (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Msandeep25, I do not know who has made the edit about Jhade and I am myself not familiar with this topic(last name of Jhade). However, if you want any changes on wikipedia, please provide reliable sources for your information. Please see WP:RS. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)