The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to South Asian social groups, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
India Low‑importance This redirect 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 Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Among large group of kadia ( a occupational name of community ) there are various ethnic communities like Muslim Kadia, Chunaras, Mistris & Kadia Kshatriyas, Kadia Kumbhars, which are listed separately by gujarat governemnt in other backward class. Hence you the community needs a spearate page. the ref also mention same. one cannot simply redirect page, what about contents of this page???? Jethwarp ( talk) 04:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

kadias are not kshatriya.stop using such terms for caste glorification.there are various backward subcastes only.kadia is the generic name of the caste.06:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pernoctator ( talk • contribs)

ATTN : User : Pernoctator : Please go to link : (1) [1] Encyclopaedia of backward castes, Volume 2 By M. L. Mathur and (2) [2] Land and people of Indian states and union territories: in 36 volumes. Gujarat By S. C. Bhatt, Gopal K. Bhargava. Both mention KADIA KSHATRIYAS as a separate Backward Class. Among the Kadia (community) - there are three major groups 1. Kadia Kumbhar, 2. Kadia Kshatriyas and Kadia (Muslim). All have separate pages. Please note that the citations of above books are given in article. One cannot simply re-direct a page. First create a consensus for a redirect. Jethwarp ( talk) 06:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply

I'd just like to write a small thank you note to whoever corrected the redirect. In the process of doing some family research I stumbled across a volume of the anthropological survey of India entitled PEOPLE OF INDIA, GUJARAT PART 1 VOLUME XXII, and read the section that includes my surname. I had intended to essentially to only do a little research but came across a little sentence that clears this debate up;

The community is well aware about its varna status and regcognize itself as Kshatriya in the four fold varna system. This self perception is reciprocated by other communities

It just so happens to corroborate what I have been told by my grand mother, although her claims that we moved from Rajasthan in the 14th century as a result of incursions of invaders from the west remain to be proven. In the United Kingdom, there is a small but distinct group of us who call ourselves the Gurjar Kshatriya Gnati. Would it be useful in any way to put up information about this organisation in the wikipedia article as for the most part, there is no actual written evidence of it that I can access?. Furthermore I think it would be a good idea to once again put in the surnames of those clans who have named themselves after dead warriors;

The clans are named after dead warriors who are looked upon as gods. Solanki, Chaora, Tank, Parmer, Chowhan, Maru, Varu, Waghela, Chotalia, Gohel, Bagera, Wasani, Rathor, Kacha, Vadav etc are some of the clan names. The clan tank has division, viz., again Mewara tank, chitora tank and Bajania tank

As I am aware that many of these names such as Gohel and Yadav previously had links to other pages. -- Splashley ( talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply

What the community thinks and your own personal knowledge are both irrelevant here at Wikipedia without reliable sources to support them. I would add that no book published by Gyan, ISHA or Kalpaz is deemed to be reliable. - Sitush ( talk) 11:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply

May I ask why no book published by these people is deemed to be reliable? -- Splashley ( talk) 11:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply

The community has discussed them on numerous occasions, notably at the reliable sources noticeboard. Basically, they often copy stuff from our articles without admitting it, which makes them a Circular reference. They also copy stuff from books published by other people and do not acknowledge it. In fact, it is rare that I have seen a book from them that is not basically a compilation of copyright violations. They are probably quite lucky not to be sued in some instances. - Sitush ( talk) 11:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply

That is absolutely fair and completely understandable. However, I assumed a book published by the Anthropological Survey of India, bearing the name of it's director at the time Kumar Suresh Singh would be reliable, at least to some degree. Especially considering it's parent body, The Indian Ministry of Culture has no real stake in these 'caste disputes' and would therefore seem to be a fairly unbiased source. not only that, would it not be prudent to at least voice the information proposed in this book as a possibility, even if it isn't agreed in all cases by all parties. Any article based on caste or family will always have disputes, I think providing information while offering differing viewpoints would be useful. -- Splashley ( talk) 11:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I was referring to some other sources mentioned further up the thread, and explaining some recent removals of mine. As far as AnSI goes, the general rule seems to be "try to find something better". They, too, have been discussed at RSN and are considered to be a bit problematic, although nothing like as bad as the stuff published by Gyan etc. The problem with AnSI is connected primarily to their political role, but they too copied stuff from Thurston/Enthoven etc without often admitting to it. Also, they produced two series of survey results: the first series was published by either Oxford or Cambridge University Press & is thought to be ok; the second series, which comprises most of the output, is more dodgy. I wrote Kumar Suresh Singh, btw - not one of my better efforts but it is all that I could find about the guy. - Sitush ( talk) 12:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Are the Kadia kshatriyas basically a Muslim community? Do we have any sources that would confirm this or that they are mostly Hindu? - Sitush ( talk) 11:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply

"Are the Kadia kshatriyas basically a Muslim community?"

I'm not sure why you would assume this to be the case considering there is no evidence either way. All that is known is that there are Hindu and Muslim Kadia Kshatriya despite Islamic prohibitions on caste-like social stratification.-- Splashley ( talk) 12:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Because we have an article, Kadia (Muslim), and if the two overlap then they should be merged. That article claims that the MK are kshatriya who converted many centuries ago. - Sitush ( talk) 12:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure if Kshatriya Kadia are a distinct community as 'Kshatriya' implies varna status, while kadia is a purely occupational title. If anything, the Kadia (Muslim) could quite easily be merged with Kadia (community) page as there is already a section on that page that links to Kadia (Muslim). Again I am not sure if the Kadia Kshatriya could afford to be merged with Kadia (community) page. It is the redirect from KK to K(c) that caused this mess in the first place. Caste politics genuinely give me a headache.-- Splashley ( talk) 13:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply

No problem. I will have a think, do a bit of digging for sources and perhaps formally propose a merge of something to something else. There is a tendency in this area of the project for people to create what are known as POV forks. - Sitush ( talk) 13:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply

I think it might be a good idea to look at the sources for the Kadia (Muslim) article too. As far as I can see, it is using the same or similar source as the one I was going to use to update this article. If that article cites them as acceptable sources then I see no reason why this one shouldn't either. Likewise, if those sources aren't acceptable, then I guess they will have to be removed and this article can stay as it is for now.-- Splashley ( talk) 15:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Indeed. I was intending to look at all of the related articles in order to try better to understand the linkages. I've not had much involvement in any of them, although I've been involved with the general subject area for some time. - Sitush ( talk) 15:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply