Talk:Gadaria people

derivation of "Baghela"

The article says that "The Baghela sect of the Gaderia derive their name from the Baghela river" but goes on to say that the sect derives from an individaul named Baghela. Meanwhile Baghel and Baghela derive the name from the word meaning "tiger". Are there any reliable sources for any of these claims? -- Timberframe (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. The article was created by WALTHAM2 (talk · contribs), a notoriously poor contributor who has been effectively inactive for some time now. They used the awful and self-contradictory The People of India series of books to create a large number of stubs that make little sense and, inevitably, also contradict each other. The Gaderia word is one of many generic terms for a herdsman (see also this), so it is no wonder that numerous groups are called this even though they have more specific alternate names in the various regions. This article is basically a DICDEF. - Sitush (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Some sources

Of varying quality.[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

And more, including recent news stories about official actions. I did multiple searches at Google Books using both Gadri and Gadaria.[7] Google News also confirms, eg [8] "Other than the Gujjars, the SBC include Banjara/Baldiaya/Labana, Garia-Lohar/Gadoliya, Rebari/Devasi/Raika and Gadaria/Gadri/ Gayari." (which reminds me the 'Gayari' spelling should be added), "Put together, the two sections – economically backward classes and the special backward classes – Banjara/Baldiya/Labana, Gadiya Lohar/Gadoliya, Gujjar/Gurjar, Raika/Rebari/Debasi and Gadariya/Gadri/Gayari – will take the total reservation upto 68 per cent"[9], "the Rajasthan cabinet cleared 5% quota in government jobs for Gujjars under the Special Backward Classes (SBC) category after adding Gadaria/Gadri as the fifth community to this group late Wednesday night."[10]. I also see sources which show the Jat and Gadri as separate.[11] See also this. Some of the late 19thc and early 20th c sources aren't as good as we'd like. Doug Weller talk 14:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Text I just deleted

Not copyvio but plagiarism from an obsolete 1916 publication.[12] Doug Weller talk 12:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

There is wrong detail about provide of gadaria community

Gadaria cast is oldest community of India and entire world. But Now as we know about this community. Peoples of this maximum profession from staring taken goats cows and buffaloes with them.as Hindu mythology says about Gadaria is first "Avatar" Hindu God Lord shiva. There is people whom believed at this Gadaria is not born as normal Gadaria created by used with powers of every Hindu goddess. As believes of Hindus mythology Gadaria is death of death "Mahakaal" names firstly Gadaria godness got. After then Lord shiva taken him Gadaria in himself. "Mahakaal" named named got.Gadaria killed every evil spirits. Of entire world. Gadaria got son this normal Human lady. But his son had his powers. But as Hindu mythology he can't used them. Whenever their no needs. And then there is Gadaria community started son of Gadaria. Every Gadaria had power of Gadaria goddess. But as mythology says they can't used normally . Normal day to Life. Rawal922 (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Rawal922, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Please don't add content like this to the article again, it is incoherent and lacks sources. I don't want to be rude, but it might be easier for you to contribute to the Wikipedia of your native language. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Sir are you indian Rawal922 (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

If you are indian know about this and if not you have no right to teache me. Rawal922 (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Rawal922 there's no need to call me sir, Girth will do fine. My nationality doesn't matter - our articles summarise reliable, published sources. We don't write what we know, we read reliable sources and then summarise them. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 15:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It's about are indians community we know better than any other experts of foreigner. So don't teach me about us. Rawal922 (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rawal922: this is an encyclopedia and we use reliably published source, see WP:VERIFY. What we definitely do not use is editors' knowledge of experience, see WP:No original research. You can't change this. Your views simply do not matter here and you should not use the article or this talk page to express them. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, just FYI, I've blocked this account - they were still carrying on in the same vein on their talk, I tried to explain matters, and they offered me a few choice words in what Google tells me is Bengali as a response. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit good block, and inevitable. Doug Weller talk 18:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Original varna status of the Gadarias

According the pre-existing content, the Gadarias Sanskritized themselves in order to claim "kshatriya" status. This begs the question, what was their original varna status? According to , they were classified as "Low Shudras or "backward castes"", according to the 1931 Uttar Pradesh census. That reference itself sources , which states they were a backwards caste. In the table, they are listed alongside other castes of Shudra origin. Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this page and the explanation. At the outset, given the sheer volume of edits on this article with respect to so-called "caste status", it must be treated as a controversial article and "a lot more care has to be taken". The references you cited do not appear to engage any concerns about reliability. Rather, the issue appears to be that neither sources purports to be a reliable source on the subject of this article. Please see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content". Again, in light of the edits this page receives, particularly the History section, it is warranted that any assertion meet the needs of context-specificreliability, and neutrality. Thank you.Deccantrap (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Minor castes aren't going to have sources dedicated solely to them, so we must make due with what the reliable sources provide. Here is another source which attests to the original status of Gadaria's as Shudras. All of these sources talk about caste quite a deal (especially the second and third), and since I have found no reliable source so far stating that they were originally Vaishyas or Dalits, those statuses can ruled out as well for now. Given that we have several sources that are knowledgeable about castes, written by scholars in the humanities, published by reputable publishers, and have no soures of differing opinion of similar quality, I do not see why the statement cannot be included. Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Ruling out statuses is not for Wikipedia authors to do, that is what the no original research policy prohibits. You bring good points that there are several sources that are knowledgeable about castes, written by scholars in the humanities, published by reputable publishers, and have no sources of differing opinion of similar quality. All these would be persuasive if this was not a controversial article and there weren't neutrality issues involved (this is not my opinion; this is borne out by the nature of edits and reversions on this page). But being the nature of this article, I am not sure an editor should "reach" to find sources for a proposition when those sources clearly are not reliable for context-specific purposes.Deccantrap (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The nature of reversions on this page have been of extremely low quality (except for your's of course). 120.57.21.15, 106.195.111.218, 2405:205:148C:161E:0:0:1CE3:8A5, 171.61.145.208, Jobb 1996, 110.235.233.215, 110.235.232.108, and 2409:4053:181:FC0:0:0:B99:A0AD have all removed the statement without providing adequate reasons for doing so, so I highly doubt how seriously their contentions' should be taken. @Anthony gomes 92:, what do you think about the validity of the statement? Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Bharvad

bharvad shree krishna ke vansh hai or shatreey jati mani jati hai bharvad puri pruthvi par raj kiya he orr bharvad lakdi valo vansh chhe 49.34.87.153 (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Bharwad gadariya hote hai 110.226.203.197 (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)