Talk:Marathi Brahmin
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Marathi Brahmin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
Daivadnya Brahmins
editDaivadnya Brahmins are Brahmins 115.69.243.70 (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Kramavanth Joshi and Mandyandin
editThis discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
Hi @Jonathansammy,
Seems like I heard about these two castes in Karnataka with their mother tongue Marathi.Any idea about this.
Karanth1234 (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Karanth1234, I have not heard of Kramavanth Joshi. Per my information, Deshastha Yajurvedi have sub-group called shukla Madhyandin. Irawati Karve treated them as a separate brahmin caste, but Ghurye, her PhD supervisor criticised her for that classification. Marathi Yajurvedi people call themselves Deshastha shukla Yajurvedi Madhyandin brahmin.I hope this helps.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
@JonathansammyNice then by Reference of itawari I thought madhyandin is seperate caste.That ambiguity was because both guide and scholars were contradicting each other!.Thank you for the reply. Karanth1234 (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)@Jonathansammy, Don’t you feel like there is near to nill content related to devrukhe! Karanth1234 (talk) 10:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Maharashtra brahmin or Marathi brahmin
editThis discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
As per my current research about saraswat Brahmins.They speak Marathi in their home in Maharashtra.But as I saw everywhere they have mentioned as Maharashtra Brahmins.Explicitly mentioning Marathi means we should add some content related kramavanth Joshi ,devrukhe and madyandin .Need some clarity here. Karanth1234 (talk) 13:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
@JonathansammyWhats your opinion? Karanth1234 (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)- Karanth1234 Marathi brahmin is what it should be. Madhyandin as I mentioned in a different post are Deshastha Yajurvedi. I believe Devrukhe are mentioned on the page. As I said before i don't know anything about kramavanth Joshi. Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
@JonathansammyNice then.- Regards,
Karanth1234 (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)- Karanth1234, Also my personal preference has always been to have separate pages for Panch Dravida Marathi brahmins, and Pancha Gauda Marathi brahmins respectively.That would stop muddying the waters that I have seen in the past.Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
@JonathansammySeems your point is valid.The way I saw one page getting only negative citation without neutrality made me to think this.Gramanya was on all the caste excluding one culprit caste.All 3 castes have written irrelevant information based on gramanya and based on edit history constantly they are doing this.Time to think!Karanth1234 (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Karanth1234, Also my personal preference has always been to have separate pages for Panch Dravida Marathi brahmins, and Pancha Gauda Marathi brahmins respectively.That would stop muddying the waters that I have seen in the past.Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Usage of prohibited reference
editThis discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
Dear @LukeEmily
Indian Sociology Through Ghurye, a Dictionary,By S. Devadas Pillai(1997).
Please read the page number 38 and 50 .Where he clearly states deshasthas(Calls them as non Brahmins and compares to one particular caste) and Chitpavan(Very harshly compares their origin) as non Brahmins in more harsh way.Sitush told to prohibit this book 6 years ago as the study was based on DI index.He believes bringing racial index is not allowed in Wikipedia.I was a part of discussion!.Please contact him for further information.Hi @JonathansammyI hope you remembered this discuss regarding non inclusive of DI index based book which gave negative about all Maharashtrian Brahmins based on genetic study.
Karanth1234 (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Karanth1234:, please can you post a link to the discussion. We are not using genetics.LukeEmily (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Karanth1234:,@LukeEmily:, I recently did my own DNA profile. My Y-chromosome haplogroup is G which I share with the infamous Josef Stalin, Richard III, a very large % of male population in the country of Georgia, 10% of Tamil brahmins (both Iyer, and Iyengar),10% Gujarati brahmins, 10% of Bihari Paswan (a dalit caste), and Afridi pathans from Uttar Pradesh. The point I am trying to make is we are all results of human migration through the millennia from far away places, and there is no such thing as caste purity. Varna and Jaat are human constructs and therefore I don't see any point in this day and age of people fighting over social hierarchy based on caste, or accusations of this person or that community "fabricating" their respective geneologies. I know we have a policy of not using genetics for Indian castes, and my own research shows how pointless that would be. My two cents.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- dear @Jonathansammy:, I agree with your sentiment. Genetics is scientific and religion/caste is not. I agree on a scientific level that there is nothing like a pure caste. But caste articles are not based on scientific facts - but mostly on mythology. I support 100% the freedom of speech and any caste can claim whatever they want. But at the same time, wikipedia should not silence any opposing views and we have to give all views. If you notice, for example, the (Shenvi)GSB/Saraswat varna is even today not considered Brahmin by many sources. One is M.R.Kantak, (1978). "The Political Role of Different Hindu Castes and Communities in Maharashtra in the Foundation of the Shivaji's Swarajya". However, in wikipedia, we are overiding all opposing opinions and stating that GSB is a Brahmin caste when in fact clearly some groups within GSB are not(at least according to some scholars). Its as if Kantak's opinion does not count. My only aim in the GSB case is to resolve the issue that Sitush brought up(why Saraswats are mentioned differently from Brahmins). Wikipedia should not have misinformation. I have no other interest in the GSB caste. I think a lot of issues will be resolved if the page "Marathi Brahmins" talks only of Brahmins that traditionally spoke marathi (not Konkani). Anyway, please can you or @Karanth1234: point me to the discussion with Sitush about the partiicular reference?LukeEmily (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sitush initiated many discussions on caste related articles, which one are you talking about? In my opinion, if any community has claimed to be brahmin (very few), or Kshatriya (huge number) then that claim should stay.Yes, many stories have been invented, or to quote your favorite word, "fabricated" to further these claims. Since these communities are sincere in their beliefs, I don't think we should use a disparaging tone on these claims in the articles.If the Saraswats of the Konkan coast, i.e. Shenvi, Chitrapur, Rajapur etc. want to be addressed as brahmins, then that's their prerogative.In present times, you can mention their historical struggles to be accepted as brahmins, and the opposition from the panch Dravida brahmins.You have included anecdotal chitchats from your sources how some Panch dravida in present times feel about the GSB being brahmins but I would just regard that as idle chat.As things stand, communities such as the Marathas, unlike the past, in the Marathwada region are agitating to be declared kunbi so that they can receive affirmative action offered to the "backward classes".Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Karanth1234:, please can you post a link to the discussion. We are not using genetics.LukeEmily (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Recent Revert talk(Consensus proceedure1)
editThis discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
@LukeEmily@EkdalianIncase if you find any content as offensive/irrelevant.Either discuss here or if we fail to get consensus let’s move towards intermediators.Don’t revert without any strong reason.(wp:TALKDONTREVERT,wp:3RR.)Brittlee1990 (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)