Revision as of 16:19, 22 April 2018

India: Jharkhand C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Jharkhand (assessed as Low-importance). 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Merge Vanjari (caste) to Banjara

• Support: They are the same caste according to this Bombay High Court judgement: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1839070/

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)

• Merged boldly. -Mohanbhan (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

External links

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

By linking to a "material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" and which "cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

• C-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• C-Class India articles of Low-importance
• C-Class Jharkhand articles
• Low-importance Jharkhand articles
• C-Class Jharkhand articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject Jharkhand articles
• WikiProject India articles