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
If this ethnicity is the same as that discussed at Siddi, the two articles should be merged. Since Siddi is the older article by almost three years, that seems the appropriate place. —Angr19:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These two are totally different articles. This article discusses about Siddhis in the state of Karnataka. Whole lot of information is provided in this article and not a good idea to merge. Gnanapiti19:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did think initially of merging it myself but on second thoughts decided against it. There are Siddi populations in a few states in India and even in Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Though they are of the same descent, their culture, customs, languages are all different. We should infact be writing articles about Siddis in each of these places. The Siddi article can then draw from all these articles and be a summary article. Also, in this article though some parts of the article may well apply to Siddi also, there are other non-trivial sections like "Historical references", "History", "Religion"(Hiriyaru worship), "Rehabilitation" etc., which apply to Siddhis in Karnataka alone. So merging is not a good idea. Sarvagnya20:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This article discusses about Siddhis of Karnataka in particular. It could be like a subarticle of Siddi, wherein a section can be made for Karnataka's siddhis, like, ==Siddhis of Karnataka==. The best example to co-relate is to consider examples of Tourism in India vs Tourism in Karnataka. They cannot be merged. - KNMTalk20:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a merger, no information would be lost, so the fact that there's a lot of information in this article isn't an argument against a merger. The difference between this case and the "Tourism" case is that Tourism in Karnataka is one of a series of articles on tourism in Indian states, and Tourism in India is an overview with links to them all. At the moment, between these two articles, there is not enough information to warrant having a general overview and several more specific articles depending on it. As long as the amount of information we have on the Siddis is small enough that it could be kept together in one article, it should be kept together in one article where's it's easier to maintain. At the moment, by having two different articles, there is a great risk of either repetition or contradiction. For example, Siddi says that most Siddis live in Gujarat, with a few thousand in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Kerala, while this article claims that more than a third of all Siddis live in Karnataka. Which is right? Again, this article says that the word Siddi comes from a word for "captive" or "slave", while Siddi says that it either comes from a word meaning "descendant of Mohammed" or an honorific title. Problems like that are much easier to resolve when related information is kept together in one article. And why doesn't this article even link to Siddi? And why does Siddi only link to this article in its "See also" section? —Angr20:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Risk of 'contradiction' is no reason to merge. For starters Siddi is unsourced. So you might do well asking for citation on WT:Siddi. Also, I hope that you appreciate that "Siddhis of Karnataka" are a distinct entity by themselves.. as would be "Siddhis of Pakistan" or "Siddhis of Sri Lanka" etc.,. Even if we merged this article into ==Siddhis of Karnataka== under Siddi, the section would then be long enough to merit its own fork. And another thing is give this article some time. Its been there just two days and more Karnataka specific information will be added as and when possible.
And I dont understand the "...as long as info is small enough to kept in an article..." line. First of all, the "Karnataka-specific" info in this article is not 'small enough' to be kept on that article.. and even if it was, the argument is a little strange. Because, if we went by that line, we'd have to start deleting or merging countless stubs all over the place. Sarvagnya21:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing is that Siddhi populations across the sub-continent are not identical except for the fact that they all came on boats from East Africa. After they got off the boats.. their histories(if not their fortunes) have taken different turns and today almost all of them have totally lost their 'original' Siddi culture and adopted that of wherever they live. I am not sure that the Siddi article gets this point across very well. It seems to paint a picture of a homogenous tribe which is not really the case. Also this article will also be one of a series of articles about Karnataka's tribes. Other tribes like Yeravas, Betta Kurubas, Soligas, Jenu Kurubas etc., also exist and merit seperate articles. Sarvagnya21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
