Talk:Meghwal

Untitled

This refers to edit by Drisz on 25-08-2009 at line number 210. I have heard that scheduled tribes do not exist in Punjab. There are scheduled castes there. This needs verification as it can affect Wiki reference 'Punjabi tribes' at line number 210.(Bharat Bhushan Bhagat 23:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhagat.bb (talk • contribs) 16:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In continuation to the above it is suggested that 'Punjabi tribe' should be renamed as 'Social groups of Punjab'. It will be more near to the present reality and sentiments of Punjabi people.(Bharat Bhushan Bhagat 23:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC))Further a reference can be taken from http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_And_You/scheduled_castes_and_sceduled_tribes.aspx at second para (below table) in the article.(Bharat Bhushan Bhagat 23:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

{{help me}}This refers to edit of Meghwal by Drisz on 25-08-2009 at line number 210. Tribes as such do not exist in Punjab. There are castes only. It is suggested that 'Punjabi tribe' should be renamed as 'Social groups of Punjab'. It will be more near to the present reality of Punjabi people. Further a reference can be taken from the site http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_And_You/scheduled_castes_and_sceduled_tribes.aspx at second para (below table at site page)(Bharat Bhushan Bhagat 07:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC))

42. What is your question ?Calimo (talk) 09:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

{{help me}}It is in fact a suggestion to Wiki team that the group mentioned as 'Punjabi tribes' at the bottom of the article Meghwal should be renamed as 'Social groups of Punjab' because there are no tribes in Punjab. It refers to http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_And_You/scheduled_castes_and_sceduled_tribes.aspx at second para (below table at site page)(Bharat Bhushan Bhagat 11:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC))

You can propose that a category be moved at Categories for Discussion. Note that this is a well populated category, with close to 200 400 tribes listed - any changes would affect a lot of articles, so be sure to have a good source handy supporting your proposal. Alternatively, you may wish to discuss the matter less formally at the category's talk page or at Wikiproject India.  ∙ AJChamtalk 12:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was keep title at Meghwal. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Meghwal → Megh (people) —

After the move, Meghwar, Meghwal and Megh bhagat would all redirect to the new title, and the disambiguation page Megh would also link to the new title. The proposed new title seems more general, and does not seem controversial. If there is consensus after 7 days, the move will be made. Please comment below with Support or Oppose. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - seems a better title. Neutral - don't know enough about the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - An absurd idea. These people are widely known as Meghwal or Meghwar. There is no need to move the page.Shyamsunder (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Seems most appropriate title because they are nice and peaceful people from the same lineage though scattered all over India. This move will help them identify themselves with each other. This merger of titles means much more in fact.Bhagat.bb (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)(Bharat Bhushan Bhagat 10:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC))

  Helping people to identify with each other, a noble purpose it may be, is not the purpose of our naming conventions. We're supposed to use whatever name is the most common in the English language. Looking at the sources, I see both "Megh" and "Meghwal" used a lot, with no clear indication of which one is more common. All things being equal, I would prefer the current title as it does not require an additional qualifier like the proposed title does. Jafeluv (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

menghwar

HELLOW GOOD DAY FOR ALL

PLEASE GIVE ME SOME SUGGESION FROM ALL MENGHWAR AND MEGHWAR ...

THERE IS SOME WRITTEN MENGHWAR AND SOME WRITTEN IS MEGHWAR..

SO PLEASE DISCUSS THIS ...WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG....

THANKS

CHAMAN LAL MEHARCHANDANI

KOT MIRS LANDHI

0300-3019879 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaman meharchandani (talk • contribs) 12:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Can Muslims be descended from Brahmins?

This line is in the article about Meghwals... I'm confused, does it mean that these Kashmiri muslims descended from Brahmins? Is that possible?

Many of the Kashmiri Muslims settled in plains of erstwhile Punjab and Gujarat states who were weavers and like Meghs have descended from Brahmins.

Thanks

StudyfaceStudyface (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2010

Muslim converts

Yes there are many Muslim convert Brahmins in Kashimir. So they are descendants of Brahmins. Historically it is possible.--Machob.zz (talk)--Machob.zz (talk) 08:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Brahmins never had a big population in North West India. Chamars form 24-30% population in Jammu which is around 40% population among non-muslims. Chamars have cultural history of 6 thousand years old and originally they were known as Chanvars and dedicated followers of Rishi Charvak who powerfully rejected social system created by another Rishi Brahma whose prime followers are still known as Brahmins. During Buddhist era of India, Chamar population increased as new buddhist followers mixed with them due to similar faith and they were known as Chinvars(as they used to wear cheevar). And Chanvars and Chinvars together were known as Chamars. Later with the help of persian and arab muslim invaders brahmins twisted identity of Chamars to chamda workers. Kashmiri Muslims are converted from Chamars primarily. From time to time many greate sage(rishi) born in Chamar community who tried to revive the original tradition like Megh, Ravidas, Ghasidas are few of them and people started calling themselves after the name of these rishi as a matter of pride. Parallel himalyan region upto the western UP has been a historical mainland of Chamars. There are still many thing in Kashmir to afghanistan and Uttrakhand- Nepal border with the name of "Chamar" like Chamar pass in Afghanistan which connect central asia to south Asia, Chamar chowk in Laddakh, Chamar kund in Kashmir(changed to Amar kund during british era by brahmin priest hood), Chamar gaon(toli) at border of Iran and Pakistan, Chamar mountain at top of Uttrakhand, etc. Be unite and educate your people of their original history divided across several religions and sub-castes like Meghwal, Jatav, Kori, Chooras, Bairwa, Jaiswars, Doahare, Ravidasi, Satnami, Raigar, khateek, Ramadasi(Sikhs) Mochi, Ansari and Khateek(Muslims)etc. Great Kabirdas ji said cha se chamdi, ma se mass aur ra se rakt se bana ye akar, aankh pasar ke dekh sara jagat chamar and generalized humanity with chamariyat. Brothers revive glory of Chamars. If considered all Chamars subcaste and including muslims and sikh chamars, then chamars form 22% population in Rajasthan, 34% in Punjab, 22% in Haryana, 24% in UP(35% in West UP), 24% in Himachal are few of the actual statics of Chamar population. Many of the Chamars subcaste were formed on basis of profession during long Islamic and British era. And actual Chamar termed were forcefully taged as workers of leather to put brainwash Chamars generation by propagating false theories so Chamars can be made slaves of Brahmins by hiding their original history. But Brahmins writer themselves remain confused whether Chamars should be called Cobblers or tanners or butchers. If Chamars were actually a occupational caste based people then Chamar must have a population of less than 1% in every state of India as shoe making has never been like a banking service or IT service like profession. Communities who consider Chamars as enemy don't want you guys to call themselves Chamars but willing to keep calling you chamars so that you can never have self-esteem. And such people will keep writing false history books that Chamar were only leather workers. Wake up Chamars and know your history. --By Proud Chamar boy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamarsingh (talk • contribs) 07:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Meghwal & Chamars

What is the relation between the Meghwal & Chamar caste? Several books say that they are the same. TimesGerman (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

People of India: Rajasthan, AUthor K.S. Singh, Page 629

In Rajasthan, "The community identifies thaemselves as Meghwal or Megh, while the neighbouring communities refer to them as Meghwal or Chamar." "The Meghwal are well known as an occupational group engaged in the tanning of hides. http://books.google.com/books?id=vm_KCE4XXPMC&pg=PA629&dq=meghwal&hl=en&sa=X&ei=M5hdUcW1Bona4AOT1IGICg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=meghwal&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimesGerman (talk • contribs) 15:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The "states" series of The People of India is a poor source. I thought that I had explained this to you recently but maybe I am mistaken. While the "national" series was published by Oxford University Press in the lifetime of Kumar Suresh Singh, the general editor, the "states" series has been published by various outfits and mostly subsequent to the death of the person who gave the project credibility. The latter series is full of plagiarism and poorly-sourced content most lifted direct from known problematic writings of the British Raj period. Few other modern academics give those sources any credibility and few of them cite the PoI publications either. - Sitush (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a better source: http://www.pwescr.org/Dalit_Report.pdf, Dalit Women in Rajasthan, Status of Economic, Social & Cultural Rights. "Chamar, Balali, Bunkar: These communities too have started calling themselves as Meghwals. They live in the Central and Northeastern parts of the state. Some of them are still engaged in leather related work, while the majority are small farmers and laborers."

I know that the following is not considered to be a reliable but the matrimonial site shows that the people of the Meghwal caste are referring to themselves as Chamars as well: http://www.bandhan.com/male/chamar/meghwal/

Another source: http://www.vedamsbooks.com/no83691/studies-social-protest-shyam-lal TimesGerman (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It has been more than 2 months and no-one has commented. I will be adding the Meghwal & Chamar linkage in the article page, unless some-one objects. TimesGerman (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It does not authorizes you to made changes or play with sentiments of specific community or corrupting the history of specific caste. People who were marginalized by invaders or in other worlds were defeated as it happened in other parts of the world like in North and South America, Australia, South Africa etc. were made to live miserable life and that is also true for the castes who were marginalized in India. And these things don't need evidence from books written by people of other communities as they are bound to prove their Indian origin. It seems from the changes you have made or making in this page and other pages that you also belongs to the same hate lineage who see people with upper and lower tributes. Given your world vision which becomes narrow when it comes to caste please try to be more open and human in this regard.

Chamar is a profession and became the identity for the people who were involved in this profession for some or long time of period and these people can be found in different castes/country's identity like butcher surname in English people/caste however they are identified as English only. Likewise some people of defeated castes/later on marginalized/now called dalit adopted the profession of leather however this does not changes their identity to Chamar.

Given time I will provide you the necessary references however it is request to you to stop expressing your malicious intent of defaming people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABHI935011 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You must provide valid sources for your beliefs. The above discussion has been going on for months and there is multiple references. You will have to provide references why the above sources are not valid. This is how Wikipedia works. Pleas do not get emotional and take this personally. TimesGerman (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

ABHI935011, Chamar is not a profession. Read " The Religious Life of India — The Chamars " by Briggs, George W (1920) and "Reconsidering Untouchability: Chamars and Dalit History in North India" by Rawat, Ramnarayan S. (2011). Association of Chamar with leather is a myth with no historical evidence. Meghwals is a sub-group within Chamar caste like Jatav, Balai, Bairwa, etc. — Indiancj (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Alexander Cunnigham

Alexander Cunnigham wrote his book in1871 and makes a broad blanket statement regarding pre-aryans, origin in Assyria etc. in other caste related articles, books written by colonial British authors such was H.A. Rose, Ibettson have been stated as unreliable. The same should apply to this author. The text related to this source fails WP:verifiability. WP:pus and WP:source may also apply. TimesGerman (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:V does not apply. Cunningham is one of those odd exceptions to the general "Raj sources are bad" notion. He has to be examined at a much more refined level because often he is cited in the context of something for which he was indeed an authority and for which he is still regarded as one. The "poor Raj sources" notion generally refers to ethnographical works, not ones that are primarily archaelogical, and it does so because of issues such as poor data collection and scientific racism. I strongly suggest that you do not go around removing Raj sources without discussion until you have a much more firm grasp of the issues involved. - Sitush (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

In this case, he is Alexandar Cunningham statement needs [dubious – discuss]. He claims that the Meghwal were pre-aryan (vs. being an aryan) and the whole aryan invasion theory is controversial and is generally debunked (see Indo-Aryan_migration). He claims that the Meghwal people were from Assyria (see Assyria), which is a claim that cannot be confirmed even with modern DNA genetic studies and he certainly is making a wild claim back in the year 1871. He claims they were pushed back by the Aryans into central india, again this claim is based on the controversial Aryan Invasion Theory is cannot be validated in anyway. TimesGerman (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a claim that the Meghwal belong to the Indus Valley which is sourced to a dead link, this contradicts Alexander Cunnigham's claim that they were from Assyria. Also, even today, scholars have not been conclusively been able identify the modern day descendants of the Indus Valley people, other than being Dravidian. Being able to link them specifically to the Meghwal caste is [dubious – discuss] and needs a cite tag.See Indus Valley Civilization.

Claiming to be descended from Rishi Meg is also sourced to a dead link. This is a pretty big claim and needs a cite tag and a [dead link] tag. TimesGerman (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

When reliable source disagree, we show all sides. Thus, if one says origins in Assyria and another says Indus Valley then we would show both. The Aryan invasion theory was based on linguistics - genetics were irrelevant and indeed barely known back then, and genetic studies available now are usually also useless for caste articles. Have you actually checked the Cunningham source to see if what he said matches our article? In what context does he refer to this theory? - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Cunningham book is not readily available and I don't know where to even get it from. TimesGerman (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Will tag it as dubious for now and revisit in 4 months. TimesGerman (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"For the wit and mind of man, if it work upon matter, which is the contemplation of the creatures of God, worketh according to the stuff, and is limited thereby; but it if work upon itself, as the spider worketh in its web, then it is endless, and brings forth indeed copwebs of learning, admirable for the fineness of thread and work, but of no substance or profit...." Empiricism says. It seems even authentic references given is not acceptable to the person who is making changes to the page uninterruptedly and is constructing its cobweb to hide the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.66.73.187 (talk) 05:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Dead links and links to blogs

There are many sources in this article that are dead links. I will add the citation needed tag to these. There is a link to a Kabir religion blogspot. It makes no mention of the Meghwal caste and it fails WP:verifiable. TimesGerman (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Blogspot does indeed fail WP:RS and that can be replaced with a {{cn}}. The remainder should not be tagged thus: please read WP:DEADLINK. - Sitush (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I will add a tags regarding to this page and revisit in 4 months. TimesGerman (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Links to book that cannot be found and links to non English books

there are a coup,e of books with ISBN that produces no result when searching for this book. Does this book even exist? This also fails WP:verifiable. Also, a lot of text sourced to non English book, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Foreign_sources#Non-English_sources. Does this make it a non reliable source if it is not translated? TimesGerman (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:V and I suggest that you revisit that policy: if you cannot view the source then you have no idea whether or not it passes that policy. If an ISBN is wrong then try to fix it. If you cannot fix it then tag it. See WP:ISBN

For non-English sources, please see WP:ENGVAR and please note that there is a convention whereby we usually raise all of the issues you mention in this section here on the talk page first and give a reasonable time (6 months or so) for someone to resolve them. You will need to list all the sources regarding which you have issues, together with the reason for your cause of concern. - Sitush (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You are not understanding what I am trying to say: A lot of text in this article is sourced to R.P. Singh (2009). Megh Vansh Ek Singhavlokan. Ravi Prakashan. ISBN 81-8033-017-6. This ISBN is invalid and I am not able to find anything else about this book or the author. The publisher "Ravi Prakashan" also seems to be a small town published in the city of Rajkot Gujarat. The book itself seems to be written in Hindi or Gujarati and I have strong doubts about how reliable this book is and whether this book is a caste pride book. I am proposing [need quotation to verify] for the non-english sourced book.

According to wiki standards: Citing non-English sources Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, where English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page.[9] (See Template:Request quotation). TimesGerman (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, you can tag it for a quotation but you should not remove it yet ... which is what you have been doing. I agree that it is quite probably not a reliable source but what we really need to know is more about the source itself, not what it says. Thus, tagging for a quotation is rather pointless. I would suggest tagging with {{dubious}} and see what happens over the next few months. Start a new section here titled, say, "Dubious source: Singh's Megh Vansh Ek Singhavlokan" and explain your doubts in that. You could copy/paste your doubts from this section but having a clearly-labelled separate section for each dubious source makes it more likely that someone will respond. - Sitush (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Text linked to the book Megh Vansh Ek Singhavlokan

A lot of text in this article is sourced to R.P. Singh (2009). Megh Vansh Ek Singhavlokan. Ravi Prakashan. ISBN 81-8033-017-6. This ISBN is invalid and I am not able to find anything else about this book or the author. The publisher "Ravi Prakashan" also seems to be a small town publisher in the city of Rajkot Gujarat. The book itself seems to be written in Hindi or Gujarati and I have strong doubts about how reliable this book is and whether this book is a caste pride book.

I am proposing that people provide exact quotations in the source so that we can understand what the author is actually saying. If no-one is able to add this information, I am proposing that we delete the text linked to this source.

How about we give 4 months, up to July 2013 for editors to provide this information? TimesGerman (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources that refer to them as, say, "Meghwal (Chamar)" and that mention their self-identification as a separate group is not recognised by their peers. On the other hand, there are sources that do appear to treat them as an independent group, using phrases such as "Chamar, Meghwal". The source that you mention is highly unlikely to be reliable and should not be used in this article until someone can prove otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Untouchability

There has been an effort to completely remove all references to "untouchable", simply on the basis of the word being offensive. Wikipedia is WP:UNCENSORED, therefore that basis is inappropriate and the attempts to remove it have been reverted as vandalism (attempting to censor offensive material goes against policy). As far as I am able to determine, the usage here is a fair and accurate reflection of the true facts of history. History and truth are not mutable. If there is an issue of historical accuracy or something which is not true, then we can look at making a change. We can also look at improving the wording, but we can't look at completely removing it on the basis of it being offensive to some people. Please raise any valid editorial issues here, for anything other than it being "offensive". Murph9000 (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

Liquisearch and caste-affuliated websites are not reliable sources, hence my reverts. I have attempted to notify the IP but something is going wrong with the mobile version of the editor on user talk pages - will find out now whether that also affects article talk pages.- Sitush (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Meghwal & Literature

Meghwal and folk religious or non religious literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.192.2 (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

User asking for rights

Edit i want edits in this page Because some information is wrong Zaddy007 (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Meghwal Meghwal, I want to edit this page Zaddy007 (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Meghwal when the protection of this page is reduced? Zaddy007 (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC) This page's protection expires 11 February 2024. If you'd like to edit it before then, you can submit an edit request. — Urro[talk][edits] 18:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2024

change The community is also known by the neutral term Bhambhi as well as Dhed, considered derogatory. To the community is also known by the neutral term Balai Zaddy007 (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PianoDan (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)