Talk:Agrawal

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Hinduism Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

If you are here to discuss the merger, I'd like to redirect you here where the relevant discussion is taking place. Thank you, --Gurubrahma 19:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone feel like improving this?

I will do it, but not now.

(♂) 06:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

This article is in horrible condition and needs wikifying. Elephantmaster 01:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the article needs improvement, but what it needs is not formatting and links, what it needs is copyeditting. -- Whpq 02:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this well written article that claims, in a pseudo-scientific sort of way, the the number of Agarwals in the world is 160 million. Since this is a social studies issue, and especially about a community, the views of people who claim to represent the community are encyclopaedic content. And I don't see why this is original research any more than "Agarwals claim they descend from Agrasen" is original research.

Please discuss here before making any changes to the said content. Attraxion 04:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Problems is highly opinionated and sermonizing. Moreover, it does not cite any sources (Titania 06 18:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Bharatendu Harishchandra, a famous Hindi author/poet, was closely associated with Hindi as a language. There are few other communities that identify with Hindi as much as Agrawals. Yet, someone had deleted all references to Hindi in the article, including "Agrawal" written in Hindi!

--Malaiya 19:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed

I changed the spelling of "kshatriya" as it is listed as "kashtriya" in this article but as "kshatriya" in its own article. Feel free to change it or let me know if you don't agree with the change. Avinbansal (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the article states:

According to a

Gwalior District, an trader belonging to Agrotavansha (Agrawal clan) supported the sculptures and carving of idols at the place.^[1]

Agrwals who settled in Rohtak,Haryana acquired Rohtagi title.Many agrawals settled in north Bihar lost their Agrawal root and changed to casten ame  related to their profession.One such group is Ayodhyawasi sonar who are goldsmiths but have gotras of Agrawals.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.212.70.195 (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] 

Population is an importand fact. Population today is very different from the population in 1911. Some discussion of this should be restored. --Malaiya 17:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1 is really uninformed:

Singh, Kumar Suresh; B. V. Bhanu (2004). People of India. Popular Prakashan, 46.

ISBN 8179911004

--Navin gupt 00:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reference is 100% accurate and reliable. For example, Bharatendu Harishchandra's work on the history of Agrawals is full of pseudohistory. If the authority of any reference is disputed, it can be used with attribution ("According to..."). The "People of India" is a work of Anthropological Survey of India, and therefore quite a good reference (probably not 100% accurate, though). utcursch | talk 04:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "People of India" is very unreliable and is poorly written. Aparently the authors often wrote the articles lifting some text from books written about century ago without any further ground work. They sometimes even conflate communities with simialr names. In the past century, a lot of information on several communities, certainly Agrawals, has become available. In the past couple of decade, I have seen numerous books and reasearch articles that reflect much more thorough research on the subject.--Malaiya 01:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article states: "According to another version, the half-gotra is attributed to the illegitimate offspring.[1]" First it is not a version of an existing tradition, but a speculation of someone in modern times. Secondly it is not possible. Vachanakosh of Bulakhichand, which the oldest avaialable text mentioning their origin does not mention it. As a rule ilegitimate offsprings are assigned to a lower section, but they always inherit the same gotra. There is simple and much more likely reason why the Gavan gotra is said to be the half gotra, its population is extremely small (about 0.2% of Agrawals) in comparision with the larger gotras. The distribution generally follows the

Zipf's Law. I have not seen any indication that they were in any way "lower" ranking.--Malaiya 01:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Since the problem seems to be with that particular sentence, I've removed with it. If somebody can find other sources for that, feel free to add it back. utcursch | talk 04:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In main article Agrawal See also:Punjabi Bania, not looks good.Some one has created Punjabi banai to divide Agrawal caste, if we not protest than some other person creat Kasmiri Bania or himachali Bania and divide Agarwal caste in the state basis.

Someone had inserted:

"A large part of the Agarwal community over the period moved out of Aghora. Most of them settled in Nearby state of Rajasthan in the Marwar Region and later in the Shekawati region. The Agarwal of Rajasthan call them Marwari and have setteled in Rajastan for thousands of years and fully mingled with the Rajasthani culture. They cosider themselves as Marwari and culturally different from Agarwals of Punjab, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh or Uttar Pradesh."

Not true. While there are minor regional differences, essentially Agrawals everywhere follow the same traditions.

It is true that the Marwari Agrawals have often preserved their heritage better. They form the bulk of the Marwari traders who migrated from Shekhawati. However most Agrawals from other regions are just as strict.--Navin gupt (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our community uses different spellings in Roman script. They are all accepted. Please do not waste time on this type of discussion. Furthermore, I have known some families using three surnames. Father using Gupta, son using Agarwal and grandson using Garg. They are all accepted in the community without any problem or unnecessary discussion.

We are an ancient community of India, mentioned in the epic Mahabharata composed in Sanskrit.

With regard to Gotras: Many years ago Akhil Bharatiya Agrawal Sammelan based in Delhi approved the listing of Gotras in a specific order. The first Gotra is Garg and the last one is Kuchhal. I have noted that in the article in Wikipedia these are listed alphabetically. This article is about our community and there is no need to compromise our original listing simply because we are writing in English ! We should remember that thousands of years ago our ancestors came from Agroha and did not speak English or write in Roman script. Agrasen (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I have just noticed that somebody has again listed our Gotras alphabetically. Please note our Gotras are listed in a specific order by Akhil Bharatiya Agrawal Sammelan based in Delhi. The first Gotra is Garg and the last one is Kuchhal. Our ancient original listing is in a specific order for a reason and there is no need to compromise it. Our ancestors came from Agroha. Agrasen (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

It is stated in the beginning of the article that 'Literally, Agarwal means the people of Agroha, an ancient city in the Punjab region, founded by Agrasena'.

The title Punjab is of Persian origin. Long before the title Punjab was used, the region was known as Kuru Kingdom and Panchala Kingdom. Our ancestors did not originate in Punjab ! Agrasen (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have been vandalising this page adding things like agarwals are Dravidians and they were subdued by invading Indo-Europeans. There are many things wrong with these points. First the Invasion theory of Aryans has been totally disowned in scientific community. But people for political reasons are still sticking to it for divisions among Indian people. Similarly, agarwals are descended from Rajput lineages. It is universally accepted that North Indians Rajputs and Banias are different from Dravidians. Still this ongoing vandalism is not being stopped. 117.211.90.154 (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provide references and edit with good faith.

talk) 17:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Shouldn't we mention the possible link between the famous Gupta Empire and the Agrawals?

A.S. Altekar, a historian and archaeologist, who has written and several books on Gupta coinage,^[1] regarded the caste of the Guptas as Vaishya on the basis of the ancient Indian texts on law, which prescribe the name-ending with Gupta for a member of the Vaishya caste. Its mainly Agrawal Vaishyas, who use "Gupta" surname

Also, in opinion of famous art historian Dr. R. A. Agarawala, "Guptas" are said to be of

Even today many Agarwals use Gupta as their surname. Shouldn't this be mentioned on this page? PushpakVimaan (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to put two links which show that Agrawal Community carries two gene mutations as founder issue, means these gene mutations are existing within the community for a long period. As most of the marriages happen within community, these mutations are passed along the generations. I think every Agrawal should be aware of these facts and help available. AnwarInshaan is saying I am vandalizing the page which is not the case. I want to spread the word through wiki and I have no personal gains through this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.103.151 (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Including such serious claims in the wiki page without proper research is vandalizing. I am also concerned with people putting that Agarsen was Dravidian. I have never heard or read this anywhere in any book. It is clearly vandalization. 117.211.90.154 (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite years of various comments, this article remains a mess and I have no idea at all how it has been rated as a "B" class item. In particular, it relies too much on minor sources written by minor authors and produced by minor publishers, mostly in languages other than English. It is also disjointed, poorly phrased, full of gaping holes etc. I will be taking a hatchet to it unless things improve soon. - Sitush (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been vandalised by somebody using the name Kempcoach. Major editing has been dubbed as m (minor editing). Valuable information added by many editors over the years has been deleted. This is not acceptable. Many editors spend their valuable time in an altruistic fashion only to find that information is deleted in a senseless manner. I do not feel like editing Wikipedia any more. Many people, including myself, know that Wikipedia is a worthy cause for the entire humanity, yet witnessing this kind of vandalism time and again puts many editors off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.193.194 ([ [User talk:72.38.193.194|talk]]) 14:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is stated in the article under the section Categories that 'according to some sources, dasa Agrawals are said to the descendats of Agrawals through non-Agrawal wives. The ultimate source of cited information is Robert Vane Russell (1875-1915) who was a civil servant and superintendent of census operations for the 1901 census of India. Which text or historical source did this colonial civil servant use for this bizarre information is neither recorded nor known. Apparently this tale was found in Maharashtra. I am deleting this passage from the article. Agrasen (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Russell is poor. We should be using more recent sources. - Sitush (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an open RfC at Talk:Singla that needs more input. At the moment, the article simply redirects to Singhal, but there is an anonymous editor who is strongly objecting to this, variously claiming that it's a Jatt caste, or "a clan in the Jatt caste". I don't know enough about the topic to make a judgement either way, and there has not been enough participation to get a clear consensus. Any help would be greatly appreciated! --Slashme (talk) 06:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singla / Singhal / Singal / Singhla are all of Singhal gotra of Agarwal caste. The name Singhal is derived from

Singhal is one of the 18 gotras of the Agarwal community of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agrasen (talk • contribs) 15:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agrawal. 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/20111017145009/http://tripsguru.com/Monuments/Delhi%20Monuments.html to http://www.tripsguru.com/Monuments/Delhi%20Monuments.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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) 18:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit introduced a source from the British Raj era. We do not use the so-called ethnographies published during that period because the Wikipedia community has decided that they are not

Well strangely enough that sentiment has resulted in an article that seeks to understand the origins of an ancient people and yet, the most ancient work cited stems from 1987! Published work ought to be be evaluated on merit, not the timeframe, nor locale that it happens to be published in. Are you sure that it's not a contemporary ideology that is guiding your hand(s)? 2001:8003:70F5:2400:BDA0:5022:CBD:2B0C (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that one or more section of this article is copied from another website as per proof you can see this page. Here you can see only sub heading is changed article is fully copied. If you think I am right then these sections should deleted immediately. Thanks --Bluee Bell (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see this discussion here and reverted your edit before discussing. I have, however, mentioned my justification with the edit itself. If you still think there's something wrong, we can figure it out. Pheeniks (Talk) 19:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In his edit summary, User:Raaj Tilak blanked a large quantity of information from this article stating in unintelligible English: "vandalism, wants WP:RS". An accusation of vandalism is highly unwarranted and furthermore the references he removed were published in academic journals (e.g. Economic and Political Weekly) or by academic presses (e.g.

I have located some dangling refs and hidden them, replacing each with a citation needed tag. This has been done because we have references pointing to sources that are not recorded in the article. Please feel free to contact me if you need assistance fixing this. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero evidence to support the claim that Agrasen ki Baoli was built by the Agrawal as claimed in the article. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:ADB7:B16C:9CB9:A85E (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the text: "Golden Age of the Jain Digambar Temple in Gwalior under the Tomara rulers inspired by the Kashtha Bhattarakas and their Jaina Agrawal disciples who dominated the Court of father and son viz. Dungar Singh (1425-59)and Kirti Singh (1459-80) with the Poet-Laureate Raighu as their mouthpiece and spokesman, a centenarian author of as many as thirty books, big and small of which two dozen are reported to be extant today. Verify the advent of the Hisar-Firuza-based Jain Agrawals who functioned as the ministers and treasurers of the ruling family had turned the Rajput State of Gwalior into a Digambara Jain Centre par excellence representing the culture of the Agrawal multi-millionner shravakas as sponsored by them."

This is supposedly from a 'Historian'. It is the unsourced creation of a singular mind! If this is the extent of the scholarship that goes into creating this article it deserves the prefix "The Legend of ..." in front of it. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:ADB7:B16C:9CB9:A85E (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]