Talk:Gujarati people

Majority of Gujarati enjoy non-veg food

Most Gujaratis from higher caste percieve traditions, customs and life style from their own caste as that of Gujaratis at large. Unfortuntly this higher caste represent Gujarat among non-Gujaratis and hence there are many missconceptions about Gujaratis. One of the main missconceptions about Gujaratis is that majority of them are vegetarian which is not true. Infact, about 70% of the Gujarati population enjoy eating fish and meat. Gujarat has long coastal area and fish is a staple food for people living along coast lines. Only the higher caste (even within them most Rajputs eat meat) and Patidars or Kanbi are vegetarian. They make up less than 25% of the Hindu population of Gujarat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dcpatel (talk • contribs) 18:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Patidars (or at least a part of them) do eat meat and fish. BernardM 19:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can agree, however most Lohana Kshatriyas and other castes are veg. --92.8.202.26 (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Very poor information on the origin

After reading this article, I have no clue who Gujaratis are. I am left more confused than before. The changes made to the origins were well deserved. It feels as if the Gujaratis dropped out of thin air. In comparison, the article for Marathas has some more detailed information. Eventually, the origin must be elaborated. It is serving no purpose.

Also, shouldn't there be some reference to the tribes, the clans, the rulers, etc. of Gujarat? Manasl 12:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Origins

The entire section on the Origins of Gujaratis need to be redone. The following para which is currently present is blatantly POV.

"Some scholars hold that "Gujar" or "Gujjar" is the Indic term for Khazar. Khazars (or "Gujjars") are reputed to have invaded historic north western India (the former Indus Valley region) — what is now Gujarat and Punjab (in northwestern India and Pakistan). This region was the first to host Aryan-speaking peoples, and their descendants remain in the area. Other scholars connect the name etymologically to "Gurjiya", the Persian name for Georgia, asserting that they were a Georgian contingent affiliated with the Hephthalites who invaded India and settled in Gujarat by 600 CE. Gujarati language has been adopted by communities such as the Parsis who have made the Gujarat region of the Indian subcontinent their home."

Here are the issues with the above para :

1. Starts with "Some scholars ..." - issues : Which scholars? What kind of Scholars? 2. Attributing Khazars as Gurjars - issues : Blatant attempt on re-writing history! 3. Other scholars connect the name etymologically to "Gurjiya" then lead to the Persian name for Georgia - hinting that the Gujaratis are Georgians. - issues : Which scholars again? Further is etymology is an art and not a science! So it cannot be cited as definitive!!!! Third another blatant attempt on re-writing history...

As a Gujarati myself, I take offense that my own history is being re-written! I protest it !!! As such I am removing the content for the origins.

USER:abhijna

there is definetly something wrong with this section. references would be nice...i dont want to delete the information, but it does seem quite iffy! Pirus 03:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

sigh, based on what this discussion page says, the edit page has got to get the axe. Pirus 05:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Defination of Gujarati

There can be two types of Gujarati: 1. Citizen of State of Gujarat in India. No matter what language they speak. 2. People who speak Gujarati as their native tougue.

This page should be primary to identify second category. Chirags 18:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a distiniction between people whose native tongue is gujarati and people who are ethnically gujarati. Are the parsis gujarati or persian ?

Parsis living within Gujarat can be considered Gujaratis. Further, their language has been heavily influenced by the Gujarati language.

65.93.206.241 19:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, however Sindhi speaking and other migrants into the area may consider themselves Gujarati. The article should distinguish between migrants and speakers of the language. --92.8.202.26 (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The list of Gujarati people on this list has grown to be immensely large; is this necessary? Should we have an article similar to this List of people from Gujarat?

I agree that the list is way too extensive to be kept in this article. Having it as a seperate article could be a good idea. However, I think a "List of Gujaratis" article would become quickly populated with red links. See List of Pashtuns as an example of this. Then again, it would keep this article clean and tidy. Thoughts, anyone? --Yenemus 19:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Gujarati People and Location

Gujarat State in India, is a relatively newer creation compared with Gujarati language, or Identity of Gujarat as a region. Chirags 18:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Gujarati people and India

Gujarati did origiate with undivided India or rather Indian Subcontinent. To claim them as part of India only would not be right. Chirags 22:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

L.K Advani is not a Gujarati,he is a Sindhi.mahawiki 12:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is Umang Seth, Industrialist. Which Industry does he belong to?

I could not found any Billionaire by name Ravi chavda and similarly there was no record to suggest there was underworld godfather names jay chavda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.123.250 (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

-Someone needs to get some pictures of famous Gujaratis to put on the box like they did with the Punjabis, Persians and Pathans. There are tons of guys out there: Gandhi, Sardar Patel, even Jinnah. -User: Afghan Historian

I have added a picture

Original picture was unsourced. Put up a new image, with source information and caption. --Yenemus 12:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Photo

I added the photo with Gandhi, Jinnah, Patel, and Freddie Mercury. Some people may not include Jinnah or Mercury as people because of strict definitions, but I based my decision off of the premise that this isn't a fixed ethnicity and highly syncretic therefore Parsis and other "foreign" subgroups who all speak the language or have connections to Gujarat are include.

Please respond and edit freely, but I still think my addition is cool =P.

Regardless of however "non-fixed" or "syncretic" the Gujarati people as a group might be considered, it doesn't change the fact that Parsis are definitely not Gujaratis. Of course, they've lived in Gujarati and speak Gujarati, but they just aren't a part of the "Gujarati peoples". Please remove Freddie Mercury. Tuncrypt 14:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the image change, please don't simply remove the new version. At the very least you should have replaced the original image.
2. It's not clear that you're right; you haven't made a case for Parsis not to be included. The article itself defines its subjects as "traditionally Gujarati speaking peoples who can trace their ancestry to the Gujarat region in India"; you accept that they're Gujurati-speaking, so your point presumably rests upon their not being able to trace their ancestry to Gujurat. Parsis have been in Gujurat for about a millenium... If that's not enough, what is? Does anyone count as Gujurati? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Parsis trace their ancestry to Persia. While over the very long time of 1000 years they have assimilated linguistically and culturally, they have stuck to intermarrying and retained their unique religion, and through this, and by self-definition, they remain a separate "peoples". I'm not an expert on the Gujarati people, but I think that Parsis being separate is a fact of utmost simplicity. Basically it would be like saying that the Welsh people are English... something like that. Tuncrypt 12:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be like that; it would be more like denying that the English should be included as "British People" because they trace their ancestry back to Normans, Vikings, Romans, etc. Where did the rest of the inhabitants of Gujurat come from?

If you admit linguistic and cultural assimilation over 1,000 years, then I don't see that there are good grounds for denying that they're Gujuratis. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The grounds for denying that Parsis are apart from Gujaratis are ethnic. Gujaratis are of Indo-Aryan lineage and Parsis are Iranic, and this division has persisted through Parsi endogamy. What's more is cultural uniqueness and its preservation (I take back "cultural assimilation"), and most important of all, self-definition as a group unto itself.

The term "Gujarati" is not as general as British. It is not a national umbrella term, whose place would be better suited for "Indian". It is instead analogous to the English people, and the fact that the Welsh or the Scots speak English doesn't make them English people would be the parallel I'm drawing.

Oh yes and also, the man in the picture described himself as "Persian" in interviews. Tuncrypt 17:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I have ended up saying too much. My basic statement, which my initial reply should have been, is: Parsis are a distinct ethno-cultural group apart from the Gujaratis. Tuncrypt 04:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Then the article needs to be rewritten, as it defines the Gujurati people in way that allows the inclusion of Parsis. ("English people", incidentally, isn't an ethnic term either.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The English "people" are not just consisted of Anglo-Saxon Germanic people but Brythonic Celtic origins too, in the same way Gujarati is now an ethno-linguistic group that depends on the REGION. All of the people included at least have one Gujarati parent and therefore should be included. And the Parsis are considered Gujarati much in the same way Ashkenazi Jews--who intermarry and behaved much in the same way as Parsis--are to German people.

Let's take a vote on whether the picture accurately describes "Gujarati" as well as any other inclusive ethnicity does. Dvptl 16:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

While the Ashkenazi Jews are seen as German to an extent, they're seen more as Jews than ethnic Germans. The same is true with the Parsis. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this silly (and somewhat biased) debate seems to have ended, but I just want to point out some of the flaws or unintentional errors in the arguments thus far. First of all, the Parsis are genetically closer to Gujarati's than they are to Persians. I do not know if this is because the Parsis intermarried and mixed with the local Gujarati populace or whether it is because the Persians of today have considerable Arab and Mongol admixture. But as it stands, Parsis are genetically and morphologically closer to the Gujarati people then they are to the Iranians.

Another point of contention is, if the Indo-Aryans, are considered to be ethnic Gujarati's, and Parsis, an "Iranic" group, then where does that leave the aboriginal population of Gujarat? They were the first arrivals in the region of Gujarat, then followed the Indo-Aryans, and subsequently, the [b]supposed[/b] Iranian Parsi's. Logically, if the Parsis are not considered Gujarati, then this should also hold true for the Aboriginal inhabitants of Gujarat, yet, I have not seen a dedicated wiki page or section (on the "Gujarati People" wiki page) on Gujarati Aboriginal's. And yes, the Aboriginal Gujarati's are genetically distinct from the Indo-Aryan Gujarati people.

Rather then having based the contents of the article on a rudimentary and flawed voting system, perhaps the actual facts should have been taken into account. - Just my 2C... Gregjackson112 (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Why Haplorrhini

Why are Gujarati's related to the Haplorrhini/snub nosed monkey? Is this right? Maybe something to do with mythology? Or is it vandalism?

V. interested. msp4realmf 16:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It was most likely vandalism. Has since been removed. --Yenemus 19:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Gujaratis are Haplorrhini, but so are all other humans (and haplorrhini aren't an ethnic group so its irrelevant anyway) Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Population distribution - misleading/incorrect/unsourced

The header table on population of Gujarati's is simply incorrect, and should be corrected from reliable sources, or meantime, removed. Where do those numbers come from - come on editors, no citation, delete!.

It is inconceivable that there are more Gujaratis in Tanzania and Uganda than Kenya, and that the substantial populations in USA (similar magnitude to UK), Australia, Canada are not listed. The numbers given for Uganda are so clearly wrong one wonders how they were dreamt up - for example see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Indians_in_Uganda_in_1972 to see that the total of ALL Indians expelled then was 50,000 and presumably numbers was zero after that (yes, there has been some measure of return, but 250,000?)

The 300,000 number for UK Gujeratis seems to be perhaps a factor of 3 too low - even a casual check for data supports this: Gujarati is the fourth most spoken language in London schools (cf http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/multilingual/gujarati.shtml) and about 400,000 speak only Gujarati according to the health survey, (cf http://www.cilt.org.uk/faqs/langspoken.htm), which also notes that 55% list English as their main language; given Gujeratis speak English more often than other Indian communities, that indicates around 900,000 is not unreasonable minimum.

The point is not to simply boost the reported number of Gujarati speakers, but to highlight that the numbers shown (and onwards quoted across the web as being from 'Wikipedia') are simply wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.215.122 (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

When did Irfan Pathan become Gujurati?

Isn't he Pashtun? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt that. More like a convert to Islam with an adopted surname. First off Pashtuns dont have the last name Pathan. Second he doesnt looks, act or is considered to be a Pashtun who are only found in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Three, lets not forget that he has been harassed by real Pashtuns and been told to change his last name which many Pashtuns find insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.164.238 (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, he was born and raised in Gujarat and speaks Gujarati. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I was born and raised in Australia and that doesn't make me an aboriginal. 121.222.62.91 (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the above was me. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Does make you an Australian. :) I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't have anything to do with my ethnicity (I am not an ethnic Australian - since there are none - the closest thing are the aborigines, which I assume this article on Gujaratis is about. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont think is article is specifically about ethnic groups. Its more like a linguistic group. Think of it more on the lines of German or Italian people. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And Germans and Italians aren't ethnic groups? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 10:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: PREVENTION OF FLOOD in BIHAR & UP

JAI BHARAT

RESPECTED SIR,

YESTERDAY I SAW ON TELEVISON NOW THAT YAMUNA IS OVER FLOWING & DELHI IS FACING THE FLOOD DISASTER EVEN BIHAR AND U.P. ARE EFFECTED.

PLS GIVE ME OPPERTUNITY TO OVERCOME THIS DISASTER AND CONSIDER MY INVENTION SERIOUSLY.

NOT ONLY OUR COUNTRY BUT THE ENTIRE WORLD WILL GET THIS ADVANTAGE AND OUR COUNTRY WILL BE KNOWN AS A FIRST COUNTRY TO OVER COME THE FLOOD DISASTER . I HAVE MANY OTHER INVENTIONS WHICH I WANT TO GIVE IT TO THE WORLD ONE BY ONE BEFORE I LEAVE THIS WORLD.

100% ALL MY INVENTION ARE GOD GIVING AND ARE TURE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE..

BEST RGDS

MADHUBHAI SHAH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.116.203 (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Mention in history

Neutrality dispute

"This paragraph seems to be a personal opinion of the writer and NOT worthy of being included in an encyclopedia. The writer has provided a reference - however the reference (at least whatever is available on the internet) does not mention anything that the writer has mentioned here. If the writer is not able to provide conclusive evidence of this, this paragraph should be removed."

This was written by "Goldeneye977." I removed it from the actual article page, and placed it here, in the "Discussion" section. This is where it belongs. Gregjackson112 (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2010

Please see the reference I have provided link for doubting Thomases. Thanks Gregjackson112 for putting it under discussion page.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)