Talk:Maheshwari

message: This page is awfully formatted and made, and things which are stories versus the historical bits need to be sorted out. Please fix the grammar so that it at least resembles British or American standard English.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.187.161.73 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns with formatting and language

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  -- — CactusWriter | needles 07:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://community.mmna.org/community/About.aspx. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: It has long been accepted at WP:RSN that websites that are operated by advocacy groups are generally reliable only for information about the group itself and not for any statements about that which they are advocating. In addition, there is consensus that, in large part because of issues such as sanskritisation, we do not use caste-affiliated websites as sources. Please do not use them here. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caste-affiliated websites 

message: Substituted at 22:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: This article is going nowhere in its present form. Nor are :Maheshwarism or :Maheshwari Mahasabha. It seems to be some sort of minor sect of Hinduism but finding independent reliable sources has been tricky for years. There are numerous people called Maheshwari for whom we have articles, so perhaps re-purpose this as a surname list? - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: * I forgot that I did remove this ages ago when :Maheshwarism was a blue link. Still, there is little else of note. - Sitush (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: * Right you are. I misspoke, and amend my previous comment. For mine, there's not a lot to establish notability in that source. I do see the potential for noteworthiness based inclusion at :Mahajan; but that's a surname disambig itself. We should also consider the other groups/names which the source identifies: :Agrawal, :Khandelwal & :Oswal; of these, as an article only Agrawal has much in the way of depth. Still support a surname based disambig; with a brief paragraph at the top, similar to Oswal. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a reasonable compromise. - Sitush (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convert to surname list? 

message: This article is a mess and has no encyclopedic value, it should be deleted! Dan Holsinger (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: It took a long time but finally, spurred by a proposed deletion, I untangled this thing. In doing so, I note that there may just be enough sources to create an article for the dalit Maheshwari of Sindh etc, although if not then they should certainly get a mention in the :Meghwal article.
One contradiction in the sources which I cannot resolve is that of the number of khamps/gotras. I've used the sources that mention the number being 72 simply because there are more of them but a footnote to the Veronique Pache matrimonial article, which currently sits in Further reading, cites p. 168 of Gunter Tiemann's paper here seemingly in support of there being 77 of them. I haven't yet found where it even mentions 77 and wonder if Pache is just citing Tiemann for the general information of the rule, using her own research to state the number and then having that number misprinted. I'm not at all sure what to do here: usually we would mention all reliable sources but there is an exception for obvious misprints. - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update