Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Banjara

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GLChr001 (talk | contribs) at 18:43, 29 June 2020 (reposting information for a blind moron, note the dates of the papers and the statements which reflect what I said). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconIndia: Jharkhand C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Jharkhand (assessed as Low-importance).
Note icon
This article was last assessed in May 2012.

What does Basically mean?

I wish to refer the statement in the first paragraph

"Basically they are from Rajasthan and Gujarat".

The word "basically" is often used in coloquil English in either a redundant, ambiguous or unclear manner. We should avoid localised coloquil usage in documents meant for precise comprehension unless we wish to describe that coloquilism.

Does "basically" here mean, generally, historically, in most cases, originally, currently or actually? Could someone who knows this subject replace "basically" so that we know if one or more of the following cases are true:

Historically, they were from Rajasthan and Gujarat;
Generally, they are from Rajasthan and Gujarat;
In most cases, they are from Rajasthan and Gujarat;
Originally, they were from Rajasthan and Gujarat;
Actually, they are from Rajasthan and Gujarat; or
Currently, they are from Rajasthan and Gujarat;

This clarification is needed because Banjara is found not only in India but also in Europe and Russia as part of the gypsies. Therefore, a clarification is needed if non-Indian Banjara are/were ?basically? from Rajasthan and Gujarat.

Hence Jewish Anderstein (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not the Gypsies who made their initial appearance in Eastern Eurpoe. It is well documented that Banjaras traded salt produced from Sambhar lake. Their dress and language even now reflect their Rajasthani origin. Malaiya (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in MAHARASHTRA

The banjara are comercial man who had expanded their business in all over india. But in between british empier the whole system collapsed because of industrial developments.

they had only choice to go back to jungles for their bulls and survival — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankajadhav (talk • contribs) 15:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is indeed true. There are numerous mentions about Banjaras engaged in transportation and trade though out a large region of India. Banjara is derived from Banij (Vanijya) meaning trade. Malaiya (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs to be merged with the Vanjari article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanjari_(caste) 14:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)unsgn

Merge Vanjari (caste) to Banjara

From the judgement: "The authoritative works referred to above show that Banjara, Banjari and Vanjari are inter-changeable terms and that people of these communities are also known as Lamanis, Lambadis, etc. In the context of these authorities must be read the G.Rs dated 18th February, 1985 and 18th August, 1977. By the former, the following were treated as synonyms of Banjara: Lambada/ Lambera, Laman Banjaras, Laman/Lamani, Shingawala Banjarais and Shingawala Vanjaris. By the latter, Banjari was treated as a synonym of Banjara and, at the same time, the synonyms shingawala Banjaris and Shingawala Vanjaris were deleted. It is difficult to see how, in this background, it can be contended on behalf of the State Government that the terms Banjara and Vanjari are not synonymous.
...a representation is made and a final decision taken as aforesaid, Banjara and Vanjari shall be treated as synonyms of each other and the confidential circular dated 5th March, 1986 shall not be acted upon." -Mohanbhan (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The view expressed in the edition of the Gazetteer of Maharashtra that Banjaras and Vanjaris are the two sub-tribes of a larger tribal community needs to be revised in the light of the available evidence. It is more realistic to treat Banjara and Vanjari as two different ethnic groups unrelated to each other. The description of the Banjara community in the reports of the British Government as exhibiting criminal tendencies is not applicable to the Vanjari community of Maharashtra which is mainly agriculturist community. Hence the two communities are treated as two separate groups. page 4 --- https://gazetteers.maharashtra.gov.in/cultural.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/land_and_people/L%20&%20P%20pdf/Chapter%20II/2%20Major%20Castes%20and%20Tribes.pdf again if u look into caste section of Maharashtra govt banjara come under VJ and vanjari come under NTD ---SO THERE SHOULD BE DIFFERENT ARTICLE India1277 (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article on Banjaras is not Maharashtra-centric, and the classification made in the Maharashtra gazetteer for administrative purposes cannot be used to cite a difference that is not recognized by scholars and historians. That Banjara, Vanjara, Lambadi, Lambani etc are different regional names for the same tribe is widely recognized in scholarship and has scholarly consensus (Sumit Sarkar, Kosambi, Bhangya Bhukya etc). So the articles should be merged. -Mohanbhan (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A Source cited in the Vanjari caste page describes vanjari caste as "a de-notified ex-criminal nomadic tribe". None of the sources cited (most of which are unreliable news reports) differentiate between Banjara and Vanjari. -Mohanbhan (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@mohanbhanI know you merged page in good faith. But before you did that you should have talked with me. ok. I see you are not satisfied with Maharashtra Gazetteer. ok its fine I will try to explain my point
1)"... a representation is made and a final decision was taken as aforesaid, Banjara and Vanjari shall be treated as synonyms of each other and the confidential circular dated 5th March 1986 shall not be acted upon..." you quoted this from State Of Maharashtra And Ors. vs Ganpat Pandurang Sankhe And Anr. on 24 July 1991 judgement. But in that same judgement, its said that a committee should be made to look into this problem.
2) A committee is formed under DC Wadhva who submitted a report in 1993. [1]
3) In the conclusion the committee reported that Banjaras and vanjari are not in synonymous. (page number 83 see conclusion)
4) Finally we are talking about the community having a strong presence in Maharashtra. If we can have page upon small groups of people Vanjari community deserve a separate article.
5) And Vanjari Community also have very strong religious and political presence in Maharashtra.
6) and if you have problems with sources of the article you are free to modify it and make the good article .. but don't just merge it with another totally different article ok
so I am reverting the changes in good faith... u can discuss on this issue and if you are still not ok with it you are free to merge. I am here only to make information available to those who love wiki

thank you India1277 (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://dspace.gipe.ac.in/xmlui/handle/10973/13771
@India1277: Reg points 1-3: I have already acknowledged that Vanjari community is seen as a distinct sub-tribe and not the same as Banjara community in Maharashtra. This is exactly what DC Wadhwa committee report says on p.83. That is why I said this is an entirely Maharashtra-centric administrative issue which has no bearing on how the community is seen and understood in scholarly literature. If Vanjaris did not live outside Maharashtra we could have accepted this distinction and allowed a separate page for Vanjari, but since they live in many states, including Gujarat, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka this Maharashtra-specific distinction cannot be accepted.
Points 4-6: Vanjaris having a strong presence in Maharashtra does not make them deserving of a separate article on wikipedia. The wiki policy on this is pretty clear. See WP:CONTENTFORKING.
You can't revert the article merge until we reach a consensus. Thanks. -Mohanbhan (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved Editor Comment

I came across Vanjari (caste) though WP:NPP. While there is nothing wrong with a bold merge neither is there anything wrong with necessarily having two seperate articles. Given that there's not consensus between the two of you on this topic I would encourage you to get some other knowledgeable editors, perhaps through the India WikiProject to weigh in on this content dispute and decide the right way to move forward with Vanjari. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of the writing

Many recent edits have been made by editors lacking fluency in standard Indian English, to the extent that, in some places, I'm not sure what the article is saying. If an English-fluent editor with some subject familiarity is able to straighten out the wording of the article such that it remains both factual and comprehensible to a native speaker of English, WP will be the better for it. Thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example? It seems pretty good by the standard of our caste-related articles. - Sitush (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on External links say link should "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". We can't expect a source from 1819, and written by a British officer in the army of the East India Company, to meet this requirement. Capitals00 (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as someone who is reading extensively on the topic I can say that John Briggs's account is an invaluable source for "an encyclopedic understanding of the subject." Much of the history of subaltern communities (as well as those of prominent communities like the Rajputs) is written based on oral sources, and the few written accounts are the ones by colonial orientalists. John Briggs was a Persian scholar, and like many renowned scholars of 19th century, like William Jones, was an employee of the East India company. This particular source is one of the most important documents used to write Subjugated Nomads: The Lambadas under the Rule of the Nizams (2010) by Bhangya Bhukya. So this meets both point 3 of WP:ELYES (Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject) and point 4 of WP:ELMAYBE (Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.) -Mohanbhan (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Citing a modern secondary source of repute that uses a much older source of less repute is fine. We assume that the modern source, with all its benefit of hindsight and wider reading etc, has been able to interpret the potential fallacies and other unreliabilities contained in the older source and disseminate the useful information that can be gleaned from it. Such information is often used as a counterpoint to modern theories.
However, using the older source directly is problematic because we are not qualified to make assessments etc in the same way as the modern expert. That is also what underpins the bit of WP:EL that Capitals00 quotes: there is little to be gained by directing the reader to such old sources when a more modern one is available which analyses those older sources. No 200-year old source is neutral, let alone one with a provenance in the East India Company, and "maybe" isn't "yes". Thus, Briggs should go.
If we allow Briggs to stand then we have to allow every other source of its type in every article and we will become primarily a bibliography on the subject, circumventing our own desire for neutral reliability etc by allowing a potentially massive accumulation of primary documents etc. That is not the role of Wikipedia and such bibliographies already exist in the modern sources. You should know all this, Mohanbhan, and you're in breach of WP:BRD. - Sitush (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mohanbhan what you consider as "knowledgeable" source is inaccurate given how much scholarships have changed about this subject. By putting this link you are endorsing content of that book. I just can't see the relevance of those chapters in modern context. If you want to make a point that Banjara history has been well researched for 100s of years, then you should look for a modern source that will focus on that. If there is any relevance, a modern source would've surely mentioned it. Capitals00 (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, I get your point about "colonial sources" being considered unreliable on WP but "maybe" is also not "no", the unreliability of Briggs as a source cannot be made the reason to remove it when the history of an entire community is being written based on oral sources. And external links are provided to give extra information, which may or may not be reliable, on a certain subject; the problem of making assessment, neutrality of the sources etc only arise when something is being said in the article based on that source, which no one is doing here. John Briggs's account of the Banjaras is of archival and historical interest and I think your fears of "If we allow Briggs to stand then we have to allow every other source of its type in every article and we will become primarily a bibliography on the subject, circumventing our own desire for neutral reliability etc by allowing a potentially massive accumulation of primary documents etc." are quite unfounded as giving links to archival sources used to write history will not in any way affect the neutrality and reliability of the articles themselves.
@Capitals00: I am not sure what you are trying to say but a historical record is relevant as history and therefore it has been added.
I regret breaching WP:BRD. -Mohanbhan (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at present you are outnumbered on the policy argument. EL is not a dumping ground for stuff that we cannot cite for policy reasons. - Sitush (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By linking to a "material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" and which "cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues" and issues of reliability one is using EL for the purpose it has been created and not treating it as a "dumping ground".-Mohanbhan (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a copyright issue and it is not relevant to an understanding because, as you say, that particular source has been used by more recent scholars, where appropriate, and we can cite them. We don't just dump all sorts of archival stuff in external links because, as I said before, it will just lead to a massive bibliography of primary sources etc. If someone really wants to delve to that level, they have the information in the modern secondary sources anyway. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Citing British representations of Banjaras is very much relevant to an understanding of this tribe because it led to them being denotified as a criminal tribe. There is no "massive" archive of primary sources, there is just this one document; Grierson mentions them in his Linguistic Survey and there is an entry in Edgar Thurston's Castes and Tribes. So please let us not speak in generalities; John Briggs's account is historically important and relevant. -Mohanbhan (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mohanbhan, there would be no copyright violation even if that book was wholly copied here. Your comment shows you don't even know what is a WP:COPYVIO. Historical record is relevant but you need to find modern sources discussing the "historical record", because they are more aware of the changes within scholarship and they are also more neutral compared to a very old source that contains numerous errors. Capitals00 (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I have added "and issues of reliability", can't you read that or are you just fond of talking to other editors in a hectoring tone? Neutrality and reliability are not at issue here -- if you had read the messages above it would have been clear to you. -Mohanbhan (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And that has been already answered to you, that we can't rely on "a very old source that contains numerous errors". It seems that you can't find a modern source for supporting the content that you want readers to read through this outdated source. Capitals00 (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

@MRRaja001: Your recent edit is a violation of WP guidelines as has been pointed out to you here. Please familiarize yourself with the policy WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY ("Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions") before you post slanderous content. -Mohanbhan (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

There appears to be a case of either sockpuppetting or meatpuppetting going. Please note that, except in circumstances that do not apply here, it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to use more than one account to edit or to coordinate editing to promote a point of view. WP:Sock puppetry explains both issues. - Sitush (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjari & Banjara are two different casts

Hi there. Fee months ago, there were two different pages, Vanjari Cast and Banjara. I dont know who redirected Vanjari as Banjara. Kindly Revert Them.

mr.m.Wikipedia.org/wiki/वंजारी mr.m.Wikipedia.org/wiki/बंजारा Goresm (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjari & Banjara

Hi there, Few months before there were two pages, Vanjari and Banjara. I don't know who redirected Vanjari to Banjara. These are two different Casts, having different cultures, languages, rituals as well as different dress codes. I myself is a Vanjari Person. So it's a humble request to revert the same.

mr.m.Wikipedia.org/wiki/वंजारी mr.m.Wikipedia.org/wiki/बंजारा Goresm (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot use the Marathi language Wikipedia as a source. Also, even if that version of Wikipedia allows, say, sources from the British Raj era, we cannot use those here because the English language project has determined that they are not reliable. So, do you have any modern, preferably academic sources that show that the Vanjari are a different community to the Banajara rather than just being a different name? Have you read the past discussions about this issue? - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ymnonline.com/data/stureg/caste.html#NT-B

Kindly see this. Banjara are listed in VJ category and vanjari in NT-D or say NT-3 Goresm (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Vanjari and Banjara are Not Same, but similar. That's why NT is subcategorised into different categories. Goresm (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't see why some random website should be considered reliable, and I suspect that your deduction regarding categories there might be considered original research. As I suggested earlier, we really need academic sources from respected publishers. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Vanjari and Banjara are Not Same, but similar. That's why NT is subcategorised into different categories. Goresm (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my English is not so fluent that's why I can't reply you in proper way. But will add that also you can see language, dress code, rituals, Origin of the caste and last but not least Names & Surnames Vanjari and Banjara are totally Different. And as I mentioned before, I AM VANJARI. Goresm (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://barti.maharashtra.gov.in/ECasteValidation/CCVIS/SearchCaste.aspx

Kindly see here. Vanjari is categorised to NT-D and Banjara to VJ Goresm (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohanbhan at first you used Bombay High court decision to prove that Vanjari and Banjara are same. And afterward on further discussion you stated "This article on Banjaras is not Maharashtra-centric, and the classification made in the Maharashtra gazetteer for administrative purposes cannot be used to cite a difference that is not recognized by scholars and historians" Kindly be sure whether you want to use Maharashtra Govt docs or to deny. Use Only One Ladder Goresm (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Goresm: Unfortunately, you'll need reliable sources that state that they are different. Please see WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source on en.wiki. Other language wikis, random websites, are not reliable. Government websites are also not always reliable and you will be better off searching for scholarly sources that discuss these caste groups. Otherwise, this discussion is not going to go anywhere. --regentspark (comment) 18:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2019

Please add this book to the Further reading. Thank you.

J. J. Roy Burman, 2010, Ethnography of a Denotified Tribe: The Laman Banjara, Mittal Publications, Delhi. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The book is already used as a reference in the article. NiciVampireHeart 04:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Ketan

Hi I m a banjara guy so I collect information from youtube and Google ,various people.so please don't edit it. ..,..,............. Kethan123450 (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kethan123450: You don't get to tell people what not to edit. This is a community editing project. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Please do not tolerate unverifiable data

Please do not tolerate unverifiable data as threre seems to be some hate and intent to malign going on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.135.146 (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Stop removing verified information

did Sitush seek Consensus? 1 . the community is identified by language and DNA, both these elements are verified, 2. they call themselves only Gor, Lambadi and Banjara were names given by other people 3. we dont let other people name us 4. there is a lot of defamation and intent to malign 5. the photo cannot be put, because it cannot represent 5 million people , as it does not show the balanced view of the people, it has been put with the intent to indirectly lie 6. verified dna information from american journal of Genetics dating back to 2002 was used, why was it removed? 7. Wikipedia should behave like an encyclopedia

Please revert back all of situshs edits, he has not shown any proofs or reasons, he just edited whatever he wanted — Preceding unsigned comment added by GLChr001 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you think you're talking about, you haven't actually explained anything or provided any coherent explanations for what you think was erroneously added or removed, nor do I see any quality references that would counter whatever opposing opinion you think you're operating against. I mean each of your seven points just raise an innumerable amount of follow-up questions, none of which you've bothered to anticipate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6. verified dna information from american journal of Genetics dating back to 2002 was used, why was it removed? source reference given there , check it

[1]

the quote "Furthermore, the high frequency of M269 in the Lambadis positions them away from Indians and between the southern and western European populations, among whom this marker is more commonly found (Cruciani et al. 2002)."


8. Bol in Gorboli means sing/speak , Boli means language, Gor people call it GorBoli



"Gor" and "Gor-Boli" here in these research papers dating since 1983 in google scholar, 5 minutes required to search

got these from scholar.google.com for proofs for gor and gorboli

Status and role of women in the Changing Banjara (Lambadi) community of Andhra pradesh BS Naik - Indian Anthropologist, 1983 - JSTOR … Page 2. IS trrdìan Anthropologist [13,1983 In Andhra Pradesh, these people are considered as S and are called by various terms such as, Lambadi or Lambada and Sugali … The Banjara among themselves popularly address each other throughout the country as Gor …

Natal to conjugal household through marriage: A traditional life cycle of the Lambadi (Banjara) women in Andhra Pradesh VS Naik - Indian Anthropologist, 1996 - JSTOR … The traditional characteristics that remain as distinctive cultural identity marks for the Lambadi are : 1) their exclusive settlements known as Tandas , 2) common reference name among themselves as Gor, 3) distinctive colourful dress and ornaments of the women, 4) their dialect …

[PDF] Cultural Changes and Marginalisation of Lambada Community in Telangana, India V Vaditya - researchgate.net … India. The language that is spoken by Lambadas is known as “Gor Boli” or Lambadi'.(2) It is further noted by him that the Banjari dialect of Southern India is mixed with the surrounding Dravidian languages. European Roma …

Status and role of women in the Changing Banjara (Lambadi) community of Andhra pradesh [PDF] shram.org [PDF] B. 2016.“ DS Lal - A historical study of orig Research - shram.org … unique culture of their own, and it tant role in Indian culture, their life style is s not have anything in common either with plain areas or with the local tribes who are ra or Lambadi or Sugali or Lambani, in Banjaras are one of the tribes of hey speak dialect known as Gor Boli/ Ghor …

[BOOK] The Banjara SG Deogaonkar, SS Deogaonkar - 1992 - books.google.com … In 1965, the Government of Maharashtra specified the following, as castes/groups within Banjara. (1) Gor-Banjara (2) Lambhada, Labhana

[PDF] Impact of globalization on socio-economic and health conditions of lambada: An empirical study in Telangana state A Saradha - academia.edu … Religious Hindu 100 100 Total 100 100 Language Spoken Telugu/Gorboli 100 100 Total 100 100 … All respondents are Hindus, and they speak Gor boli which does not have a script. Table 2: Facilities Available in the Study Area Variables Parameters Frequency Percentage …

[BOOK] Ethnography of a denotified tribe: the Laman Banjara JJR Burman - 2010 - books.google.com … He also gave me a book of his (Written in Marathi and Gorboli) in which the Laman tradition has been recorded in Page 29. Introduction/3 some detail. I made good use of it to substantiate the data on religion and marriage in particular … the Grammar of Lamani by Ronald L. Trail, 1968 PHD thesis [2] if this is not sufficient , then I dont know what is sufficient<

References

  1. ^ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707605412
  2. ^ https://www.sil.org/system/files/reapdata/10/65/22/106522541261516644341351990009797392571/12544.pdf
Yeah, well, that's why you need to engage in discussion with Sitush. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what is the point in speaking to a person who intends to misrepresent information, I know from his edits that he is not neutral and has intent to misrepresent information

I haven't got a clue what you are proposing here, except for the bit about genetics. Like it or not, the consensus has long been that we do not use genetics studies in subcontinental caste and tribe articles. There are lots of reasons why this is so but someone really needs to pull together all of the various discussions at one central place, such as a subpage of India project - that hasn't happened but the consensus exists, regardless. You will find some mention here but there is more at individual articles and I think even at WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GLChr001 (talk · contribs) are you the blocked user Kethan123450 (talk · contribs), whose sockpuppet was also blocked yesterday? Some of your comments above suggest that you are, eg: He also gave me a book of his (Written in Marathi and Gorboli) in which the Laman tradition has been recorded in Page 29. Introduction/3 some detail. I made good use of it to substantiate the data on religion and marriage in particular (my emphasis). You are not going to get your own way if you are creating new accounts. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


No you lowlife, I am not ketan, you cannot implement a policy which does not exist, you cannot have a different policy for India alone, you can make a policy for your community only, not for others communities, the communitys name is Gor, I have shown you way more than 10 research papers for that, stop cherry picking information, banjara and Lambadi are names given by others because they have a problem with the commuinity, put back the information from american journal of Genetics and sciencedirect,as it is over 10 years old and "Old is Gold", and it is necessary for history and to remove the defamation, information is not for you to decide and cherry pick. and by the way I am not a nomad, I am a well educated high IQued individual and it is because of my majorly european genes which all Gors have.

Ah, you are wanting us to move this article to an alternate name? See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RM. - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gor is the name of the community(plenty of research papers provided in the talk section dating back to old times as old as 1968)

Gorboli is the name of the language(plenty of research papers provided in the talk section dating back to old times as old as 1968)

revert your edits where you removed the term Gor and put back the information from american journal of genetics /sciencedirect , I gave you sufficient reasons for this

you cannot hide your intent with a bunch of seemingly positive changes, you may be able to hide from dumb people like you but you cannot hide your 2 faced psychology from intelligent individuals

yes we do need a name change but in the mean time do the above as I have given you plenty of reasons GLChr001 (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)GLChr001[reply]

WEll, I am finding plenty of academic sources and not one of them suggests Gor is a synonym, let alone the more common name. They do mention other sort of synonyms (ie names of groups that fall under the Banjara umbrella, such as the Labana). Are you sure this Gor thing isn't just some campaign to dissociate the community from its ridiculous classification as a criminal tribe way back in the Raj era? - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

did you read my posts and the references which I posted, I posted the summaries for most of them Lambadis call themselves only Gor, banjara and Lambadi are names given by outsiders see the papers in this talk page, there are atleast 10 the referemces I posted also clearly mention Gorboli do you need me to post them again? GLChr001 (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)GLCh001 "Gor" and "Gor-Boli" here in these research papers dating since 1983 in google scholar, 5 minutes required to search[reply]

got these from scholar.google.com for proofs for gor and gorboli

Status and role of women in the Changing Banjara (Lambadi) community of Andhra pradesh BS Naik - Indian Anthropologist, 1983 - JSTOR … Page 2. IS trrdìan Anthropologist [13,1983 In Andhra Pradesh, these people are considered as S and are called by various terms such as, Lambadi or Lambada and Sugali … The Banjara among themselves popularly address each other throughout the country as Gor …

Natal to conjugal household through marriage: A traditional life cycle of the Lambadi (Banjara) women in Andhra Pradesh VS Naik - Indian Anthropologist, 1996 - JSTOR … The traditional characteristics that remain as distinctive cultural identity marks for the Lambadi are : 1) their exclusive settlements known as Tandas , 2) common reference name among themselves as Gor, 3) distinctive colourful dress and ornaments of the women, 4) their dialect …

[PDF] Cultural Changes and Marginalisation of Lambada Community in Telangana, India V Vaditya - researchgate.net … India. The language that is spoken by Lambadas is known as “Gor Boli” or Lambadi'.(2) It is further noted by him that the Banjari dialect of Southern India is mixed with the surrounding Dravidian languages. European Roma …

Status and role of women in the Changing Banjara (Lambadi) community of Andhra pradesh [PDF] shram.org [PDF] B. 2016.“ DS Lal - A historical study of orig Research - shram.org … unique culture of their own, and it tant role in Indian culture, their life style is s not have anything in common either with plain areas or with the local tribes who are ra or Lambadi or Sugali or Lambani, in Banjaras are one of the tribes of hey speak dialect known as Gor Boli/ Ghor …

[BOOK] The Banjara SG Deogaonkar, SS Deogaonkar - 1992 - books.google.com … In 1965, the Government of Maharashtra specified the following, as castes/groups within Banjara. (1) Gor-Banjara (2) Lambhada, Labhana

[PDF] Impact of globalization on socio-economic and health conditions of lambada: An empirical study in Telangana state A Saradha - academia.edu … Religious Hindu 100 100 Total 100 100 Language Spoken Telugu/Gorboli 100 100 Total 100 100 … All respondents are Hindus, and they speak Gor boli which does not have a script. Table 2: Facilities Available in the Study Area Variables Parameters Frequency Percentage …

[BOOK] Ethnography of a denotified tribe: the Laman Banjara JJR Burman - 2010 - books.google.com … He also gave me a book of his (Written in Marathi and Gorboli) in which the Laman tradition has been recorded in Page 29. Introduction/3 some detail. I made good use of it to substantiate the data on religion and marriage in particular … the Grammar of Lamani by Ronald L. Trail, 1968 PHD thesis [1] if this is not sufficient , then I dont know what is sufficient GLChr001 (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)GLCh001[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.sil.org/system/files/reapdata/10/65/22/106522541261516644341351990009797392571/12544.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Banjara&oldid=965157474"