Talk:Kurmi Kshatriya

Removing redirect
I am removing this redirect. Post your concerns here. This organization needs a separate page.

80.84.55.196 (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's my concern: we can't have a blank page. Second, you can't base a wikipedia page off of an unreliable website. Please work on the page in either your sandbox (to have one, you'll need to register an account) or off wiki.  Then bring it up for discussion here (or on Wikiproject India, if you prefer a centralized place).  But we cannot have a blank page.  If we have to, we can AfD the page as a POV fork, and leave behind no redirect (in which case, you wouldn't be able to recreate it without registering an account).  I took a look at the older version of the article, and this is nothing other than an attempt to take the claims of Kshatriya status found on Kurmi and make them appear as fact here.  We cannot have 2 articles on the same group from different POV.
 * In fact, now that I think about it, the thing that needs to be done is to confine the discussion to Talk:Kurmi.  Qwyrxian (talk) 06:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian I agree with you. Let's remove this page for now. I will agree to whatever you say. You are the nicest person I have met today and I want to keep you happy. 80.84.55.196 (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

One more think. The website is not unreliable. It's the official website of the Kurmi 'K' organization. Please do substantiate your claims when you say "unreliable" 80.84.55.196 (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Something that we don't know about doesn't mean that it's unreliable. It just means that we are all limited in our knowledge. Google this Org. Wiki shouldn't be a censored place and we MUST do due diligence before terming some source as unreliable. Not because 'he said or she said'

I would still like to see this talk section to be as is. It helps other to create the article about this org. 80.84.55.196 (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, I took a look at that site. It completely fails Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, which I recommend reading for more information. That site is just the official site for an advocacy/social services group.  The only thing that they qualify as a reliable source on is their own group (here I mean the organization called "Kurmi Group", not the more nebulous caste/sub-caste whose members call themselves Kurmi Kshatriya), and in that they are only reliable for basic factual information (like the number of members, head officers, some of their activities, etc.).  If "Kurmi Group" had their own wikipage, this could conceivably be listed as a reliable (but not independent) source, but not as a general source for other information.  The very fact that they group advocated for a specific POV makes them unreliable.  To give a comparison, The All India Congress Party homepage is reliable for listing what politicians are in Congress, what speeches they are making, and even what their political platform is.  It is not reliable for facts about India, the Indian government, the state of life in India, India's relationship to other countries, or the price of tea in Mumbai.  So please do not attempt to rewrite this page using that website as a source.  You will need sources that meet WP:RS. Since this page is a redirect, it won't get much traffic, so that's why I'm recommending you bring up such sources on Talk:Kurmi, especially since, if they exist, they will be helpful for that page as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute, looking at the rest of your comments, it seems that both of us may have misunderstood. Are you saying that there should be an article about "Kurmi Kshatryia Sabha"--that is, about the organization whose website that is?  If that's true, I misunderstood you--I thought you wanted to make an article about the caste allegedly called "Kurmi Kshatriya".  Sorry about that.  At the same time, I think you misunderstand a little about Wikipedia's criteria for articles.  That is, that website will not qualify for an article, because neither the website or the group are notable--that is, they have not been discussed in detail by multiple, independent, reliable sources, which is a requirement that all of our articles must meet. Unless you can meet that (fairly high) hurdle, that website/organization can't have a wikipage about it. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

List of possible topics
These topics are needed: a) Past of the organization b) Branches of the organization c) Who's who d) Work done for general welfare.

Add more. I am working to create this page about this organization.

80.84.55.196 (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)