Talk:Gurjar Kshatriya Kadias

Proposed merge with Kadia Kumbhar

Duplicate articles on the same subject. This article contains bogus and unsourced claim of connecting the community with Gurjar/Kshatriya castes Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 14:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - There are no bogus claims- the name of community itself is Gurjar Kshatriya Kadia - and they are included in other backward class of Gujarat Statei, where as Kadia Kumbhar are totally different community as per sources in that page - only thing common between them is their occupation - Kadia means masonry job. Gurjar Kshatriya Kadia are not Kumbhars - do not mix these totally different articles - proposer has no idea about both these castes and their cultures. - Jethwarp (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I request you to please refer the following official page consisting of All OBCs of Gujrat along with the gazette notifications . I could not notice even a single occurrence of the word Kadia or Kadia Kshatriya. There are however, Kumbhar (Prajapati,Varia), Prajapati (Gujjar Prajapati, Varia Prajapati, Sorthia Prajapati), Sorathiya Prajapati caste at serial No.84 and Mistri (Suthar/Sutar), Suthar, Mistri, Gurjar (Suthar/Sutar), Gujjar, Gujjar (Suthar/Sutar) caste at serial No. 90, and accordingly I proposed the merger because there are many more articles for the same subject. If we project wrong information in the articles, even by consensus, then also it will remain wrong. Hence I request everyone to please examine the facts before giving your view.

National Commission for Backward Classes A Statutory Body under the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment Government of India -- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 15:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Please go thru following news [1] and [2], [3] and following list List of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes declared by Gujarat State and List of Other Backward Class Castes (OBCs) - Maharashtra. Further, one more point you may argue that No. 99 incldes names Kumbhar,(biyar,Kadra Patel,Lathiya,Potmaker, Prajapati Variya,Varia)Sorathiya Kumbhar, Kadia Kumbhar, Sorathiya Prajapati, Gurjar Prajapati,Vataliya Prajapati, Gujjar Kshatriya Kadia, Kshatriya Kadia, Kadia so they are all one but in fact they are all different communities just to explain further for example see No. 104 - Mistri, Gujjar, Mistri Rathod, Mistri Suthar. Suthar, Sutar, Suthar Gurjar, Gujjar Suthar, Gurjar, Mistri Sutar, Luhar, Panchal, Kadiya Suthar - that includes communities like - Suthar(carpenters), Mistri, Luhar (blacksmiths), Panchal - which are not one community. These are all artisan communities and government has clubbed them together - as per their convenience based on their occupation - but that does not make all these communities as one group. They have different history, caste associations and social status individually. Jethwarp (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply:Dear, I understand what you said earlier and saying now, but the problem is that most of the sources I find, all points to the same mythological theories of origin and suggests the various terms to be synonymous. In few articles even the self published and non reliable promotional websites are used as source of information. In my view, if you agree, then, the sources making the various communities distinctive shall be projected. I tried but did not get, but being from Gujrat you have more accessibility and can help more. Regarding grouping of castes, I boldly admit that Kshatriya is a distinct term almost exclusively used for Rajputs, no matter how many castes claim to be so. The Gurjars is also a distinct caste and they are dealt on wikipedia by the articles Kshatriya,Rajput and Gurjar respectively. Like many there are few artisan cases in gujrat claiming superiority over the members of native castes as mentioned in the article Kadia Kumhar also that few Kumhars taken up to mason / carpentry jobs. Sources are required to deal with these issues, also the history of Gurjars must have an account of its members have taken to mason/ carpentry jobs as the sources on Kumhar mention. I think, I will very soon see these, if they exist.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 16:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You are still stick up with this Kshatriya, Gurjar, Rajput or Brahmin issues. Being specific to this article - the sources above, which are state government official websites confirm that the name of caste is Gurjar Kshatriya Kadia - the article does not mention anything about their mythological origin or caste superiority or any such issues - the article in my opinion is clearly written in neutral point of view and several renowned editors who are expert in caste related issues - have previously seen and edited this article and is probably on their watchlist also. Jethwarp (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting. I too agree that there may be two 1-Kumhars (Potters) and 2.Kadia (Masonries) and the same way I proposed the mergers. There are even more same stories in the articles See here (Exclude the names of places and concentrate on caste related articles) and that is what I pointed out. I am very sorry to say that sources given by you does not support your oppose move. Let the eminent wikipedians decide.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 13:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I feel you have shallow knowledge about both the articles. The govt of Gujarat list mentions the name of caste as Gurjjar Kshatriya Kadia and Govt of Maharashtra as Gurjar Kadia - so it is official. Further, similarly Kadia Kumabhar is also separate caste mentioned by Anthropological Survey of India and others. There is no confusion anywhere and both are separate castes. Even Gujarat Govt list given by me above mentions in 58-A Kadiya Kumbhar as separate caste. Jethwarp (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for personal attack. But here question is not what knowledge I or you have . The need is what sources suggest. Definitely the websites portraying caste interest and websites or fronts run by 'kadia samaj' are not a reliable source. Also, manipulatin of the sources is never a good deal. However,finally,once again to remind what I said-" Let the eminent wikipedians decide". -- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 15:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

All I wanted to say was you have not gone into depth or researched about these communities - it takes lot of time and passion to do so. Jethwarp (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gurjar Kshatriya Kadia. 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://web.archive.org/web/20150227190922/http://www.sandesh.com/article.aspx?newsid=37026 to http://www.sandesh.com/article.aspx?newsid=37026

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)