Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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

Ethnic groups High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the ((Ethnic groups)) template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. India: Goa / Karnataka / Mangalore 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. This article is supported by WikiProject Goa (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Karnataka (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Mangalore (assessed as Top-importance). This article was last assessed in June 2019. Hinduism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

The contents of the Goud Saraswat Brahmin temples in Kerala page were merged into Gaud Saraswat Brahmin on 20 December 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Archives

Archive 1

Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

from 12th century, gsb's started settling in parts of south and central kerala. much before portugese invasion of goa. gsb's are pretty much common in all over coastal kerala. they are called as "konkani people" in malayalam. they are rich businessmen in central kerala. the claim of parashurama created kerala from gokarna in the north to kanyakumari in south from sea is essentially a nambudiri brahmin story. i was amazed to see that this claim is common among konkan people also!

gsbs are spread out in major cities of tamilnadu migrating from tulunad region of karnataka along with bunt community. you can find konkanis in large numbers in coimbattur,madurai and madras for example. 59.93.12.35 (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The surname Shenoy has a legend behind it's origin; that Lord Parshuram settled 96 (Xennai in Konkani) families in the land he reclaimed from the sea – 66 (Sashast) in Salcette and the balance 30 (Tis) in Tiswadi. But then again, this mystic number 96 is not unique to the GSB's. The Kshatriya clans of Mahrashtra are known as Xannav Kuli (96 families in Marathi). Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 10:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Konknni friends,

Konkani Wikipedia has been started and been in test stage since August 2006.

Kindly contribute towards the Konkani wikipedia. We intend to make it a multiscript

Wikipeida. At least tri-script with Roman ,Devanangiri and Kannada scripts since these are the most popular ones.

We would like to get more articles/templates in place. We also need volunteers to do the thankless and boring job of transliterating it to different scripts .

As of now only two members are making active contributions. The more the merrier. Your contribution is vital to its success.

The url is given below:

http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Konkani_Wikipedia

Dev boro dees deum! -Deepak D'Souza 07:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While the article is well written, and contains a lot of useful and presumably accurate information, there are no verifiable references or sources attached to any of the material. Could some of the original authors cite some references, even "non-online" ones (perhaps historical books?). Phloyd (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Raised via WP:ANI: this edit [1] introduced a large chunk of copyvio from www.gsbkerala.com/gsbhistory.htm. I suggest a revert to the previous version. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the origination point; quite a time-saver. I have removed the problematic text and placed a warning below against restoration. I did not flatly revert, so that other improvements and changes to the article might be preserved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from this URL: http://www.gsbkerala.com/gsbhistory.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Languages of Saraswats

As per my knowledge Konkani and Marathi are spoken in Saraswat(GSB) homes and not Kannada and Malyalam,these languages are spoken outside the house.so they cannot be their mother tongues.

Deleted J. N. Wartikar - Noted Mathematician & Writer, * K. R. Kamath - Chairman and M.D., Allahabad Bank, Vithal Kamat - Hotelier and Restauranteur and * Sachin Pilgaonkar - Showman of the Marathi Film Industry. No wiki pages exist for them. --Donotask-donottell (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please add the page number of any veda for evidence and the page numbers from the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Bhagavata and the Bhavisyottara Purana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.196.128.114 (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Konkanies in kerala constitute Senavis, Seths, vysias, Kudunbis according to wikipedia encyclopedia. Among them seths / Konkan sonars are under the new name (acquired afterwards)Daivajnya Brahmins. Vysias are presetly denoted as Vaniya, Vysias. Kudunbis are Kundumbis. What about Gouda Saraswath Brahmins which is a acquired name. Whats thier original community name ? There should be one. Konkini People are not only GSBs'but all those who came together in the run. Why they only conceal thier original name and try to be Konkini People. They have taken every right of Konkini People thus. Schools, Medicalcollege, teacher traing institutes and what not in Kerala representing the Konkini people after wards bring all under the GSB which is only a caste or sub set of Konkini Linguistic group. They should disclosr their old Brahmin Name to which they belong when they reached Kerala. There should be one as is with other . Wikipedia should come forward and find this with all efforts. Remesh B S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.166.178 (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Konkanies in kerala constitute Senavis, Seths, vysias, Kudunbis according to wikipedia encyclopedia. Among them seths / Konkan sonars are under the new name (acquired afterwards)Daivajnya Brahmins. Vysias are presetly denoted as Vaniya, Vysias. Kudunbis are Kundumbis. What about Gouda Saraswath Brahmins which is a acquired name. Whats thier original community name ? There should be one. Konkini People are not only GSBs'but all those who came together in the run. Why they only conceal thier original name and try to be Konkini People. They have taken every right of Konkini People thus. Schools, Medicalcollege, teacher traing institutes and what not in Kerala representing the Konkini people after wards bring all under the GSB which is only a caste or sub set of Konkini Linguistic group. They should disclosr their old Brahmin Name to which they belong when they reached Kerala. There should be one as is with other . Wikipedia should come forward and find this with all efforts. Remesh B S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.166.178 (talk) 06:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Konkanies in kerala constitute Senavis, Seths, vysias, Kudunbis according to wikipedia encyclopedia. Among them seths / Konkan sonars are under the new name (acquired afterwards)Daivajnya Brahmins. Vysias are presetly denoted as Vaniya, Vysias. Kudunbis are Kundumbis. What about Gouda Saraswath Brahmins which is a acquired name. Whats thier original community name ? There should be one. Konkini People are not only GSBs'but all those who came together in the run. Why they only conceal thier original name and try to be Konkini People. They have taken every right of Konkini People thus. Schools, Medicalcollege, teacher traing institutes and what not in Kerala representing the Konkini people after wards bring all under the GSB which is only a caste or sub set of Konkini Linguistic group. They should disclosr their old Brahmin Name to which they belong when they reached Kerala. There should be one as is with others . Wikipedia should come forward and find this with all efforts. Remesh B S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.166.178 (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• First Rigvedic brahmins- what does it mean? who says so?
• Rajatarangini which mentions pancha dravida and gauda classification was written in 12th century,by that time they had already settled Konkan and Goa,so how does that make them Pancha Gouda when they have in inhabiting the region to the south of vindyas at least from 5th century AD.

Nijgoykar (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The term GSB is a very new ameliorative term.There were many castes in Goa like Shenvi,bardeskar,kutthalkar,sashtikar,shenaipaki,pednekar etc,used different titles and never inter-dined or inter married.Some were called bamans.it was some 150 years or before that the term Saraswat was used and the Sahyadrikhanda was edited and story about them were written in it.later the term Gowda was added and extensive literature was created.nowhere in history of goa or any copper plates,stone inscriptions mention the name Gowd saraswats,the sahyadrikhanda which mentions the Parashurama story is very recent.Same is the case with the shets,who were also divided into 3 sub-castes before and it was only some 300 years ago they acquired the name daivajna,(but its also said that it was given to them in 16th century by Sri Vadiraja teertha Swami when some of them adopted madhwa religion,which later was used by all) before that ,since 4th century AD to 16th century they are mentioned only as sreshthi and sethi in copper plates and communidade records in halekannada. Same is the case with the GSBs which is a pretty new term.Even the Vanis started claiming to be Vaishyas ,when they are mentioned as banijagas in copper plates,and known as Vanis only.But yes, the two groups shenvis and the shets seem to have been sanskritised at an very early date in history moreover many of them(though not all) might have descended from the vedic people who were again heterogeneous.They might even have diverse origins who were united at a very later stage.

There are more chances of all these castes who now constitute the GSB might have intermingled during Goa inquisition,in either old conquests,other parts in konkan,karnataka,maharashtra etc.which eventually led to inter-dining and then intermarriage giving rise to what we call now Saraswats.

More examples:

• Charis or carpenters,iron-smiths being called Vishvakarma manu maya brahmin
• Kansar or Kankankar claiming to be tvashta brahmin
• Naik bhandari as kashtriya bhandari
• gauda as gauda maratha
• Padye being called as Karhade and Pancha dravida
• Chitpole being called as CHitpavan n then Konkannastha

and the list goes on n on

This is called upward mobility and it still continues.

Nijgoykar (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it is likely to be a part of the whole sanskritisation etc ethos, of combining forces/jostling for position in order to achieve advancement and/or protect interests. But without sources we cannot really say so. - Sitush (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All the sources are available and even literature that says their real history is also available but is mostly suppressed by them.Nijgoykar (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nijgoykar, please can you provide the sources for your claim?(preferably English but other languages are OK too if you have the translation). I have found a couple that seem to agree with what you have stated. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This and other GSB pages, lists and categories have been moved without discussion on various occasions by people such as Wikirobo2 (talk · contribs). I and Dougweller have pointed out our requested moves procedures - eg: here - but we seem to be ignored. Please explain here, with evidence, why it is that the various moves should occur. Bear in mind WP:COMMONNAME. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pages affected by the moves include:

• Wikipedia:Gaud Saraswat Brahmin (which should not even exist and is now CSD R2'd)
• Goud Saraswat Brahmin
• Goud Saraswat Brahmins of Cochin
• List of Goud Saraswat Brahmins
• Category:Goud Saraswat Brahmin
• Goud Saraswat Brahmin temples in Kerala
• List of Kuldevatas of Goud Saraswat Brahmins
• List of festivals of Goud Saraswat Brahmins

Some of those should probably be merged anyway but let's get the naming sorted out first, then indefinitely move protect. - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Among the edits affected by my recent revert was this addition. There may be some merit to it but almost all of the sources seem to be dubious to me. Can anyone substantiate using modern academic sources rather than Raj era stuff and caste-affiliated websites etc? - Sitush (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are going to need to see translations of all the non-English sources that are currently cited. The subject matter is clearly contentious. Unless such translations turn up, or equivalent sources in the English-language are added, I suspect we'll have to prune this thing of all the recent edits. - Sitush (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.gsbtrivandrum.org/saraswats. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Voceditenore (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since it contains irrelevant info do we need these info in this page. Truth should trump (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is common to have a section on origins, mythological and otherwise. You do not explain what is irrelevant but the bigger issue here is whether the sources are ok. I have previously referred you to the above section about non-English language sources, which I opened earlier today in an attempt to address this. - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who gave you non english reference? Truth should trump (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My point is truth and reference should be valid.It should not go as per once brain. Truth should trump (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed non referenced points ,do u have objection? Truth should trump (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I object because I don't think you understand how we do things here and I'm not convinced the stuff is unsourced. There are numerous non-English sources being cited. Now please revert yourself before you get blocked for edit warring. You've not been here long but you are treading on very thin ice for the reasons I gave you on my talk page. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Truth should trump,the article is neutral and is unbiased.The statement which refers the Saraswats as Trikarmi is as per you offensive,but its the truth its quoted from Mitragotri's book,and Saraswat writers like B.D. Satoskar and DHume have also mentioned the Trikarmi" status of Saraswats in their books.So its you who is biased here,please do some homework. Nijgoykar (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See who is biased?First understand arrangement of caste all works were done as per surname Bhat and pandit are reserved for satkarmi.Other members of caste do other profession,that's why they are called trikarmi and this was not after invaders attack,this is from the era of settlement. Truth should trump (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Secondly kumbakonam math recognized yadavendra Shree and initiated kashi math.caste owns Veda pathashaala. Truth should trump (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So before coating any offensive statement keep more references.Bcoz point of view should not be of any other caste, should be neutral. Truth should trump (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyhow I appreciate your work except offensive statement. Truth should trump (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kamath, Nayak (title), Pai (surname), Shenoy, Prabhu, Kini, Bhat, Shanbhag, Mallya, Padiyar, Baliga, Hegde, Rao (surname), Bhandarkar are the common surnames.. it should be added to the article.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.106.131 (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not cite ancient texts such as puranas directly. They are primary documents of little worth in an encyclopaedic article. It is ok to mention them when citing a modern, reliable secondary sources that does so.

Please also not the information at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists and at WP:INDICSCRIPT. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted here, having done much the same thing at least once today and also some weeks ago. I note that various issues have been raised by people on the contributor's talk page also.

I think we need to break down those changes into small bites to examine their impact and sourcing. There appear to be concerns about glorification, lack of neutrality, queries regarding reliability of sources and (at one point at least) some sort of copyright issue. It's a lot of information to have added very quickly and it needs some scrutiny.

I am unlikely to be around much until the early part of next week but perhaps others can comment before then. - Sitush (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

when coming to mythology I have given my best to be neutral there.I have read your rules and as per rule this edit is not affecting others directly or indirectly.Mythology is a part of Indian caste system.(Ex Greek mythology)

Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC) Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also there is perception for the mythology hope this justification is clear.still if u have doubt with any part feel free to pm me. Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not averse to including information about mythological origins - see, for example, my comment above. However, it must still derive from reliable sources, be of due weight and neutral, and not involve copyright violations etc. Various people have raised various queries, so we need to examine them. - Sitush (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But reverting without examination of citation makes no sense so hope my research don't go waste!!!

Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not infer that I reverted randomly, without consideration of what you had done. - Sitush (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For starters, adding Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmin to the "related groups" field of the infobox is, at best, unnecessary because there is already a link there to Saraswat Brahmin and thus it is duplication. To be honest, that field is often pretty useless anyway and there have been wider discussions recently regarding whether or not the thing should be removed entirely.

Of greater concern was the reinstatement of various names in the list of notable people from the community. Not only do we have a dedicated list article for that purpose, which is linked, but every single one of those entries was invalid. Sources must be provided for claims of caste affiliation and in the case of living people those sources must show that they self-identify that affiliation. It didn't happen before, as demonstrated by my copious removals both here and at the related list, and it didn't happen even at the time of the last reinstatement of a few hours ago.

My suggestion for that bit is not to include them here at all but instead to expand List of Goud Saraswat Brahmins after first ensuring that you fully understand the implications of WP:V and WP:BLP - User:Sitush/Common#Castelists should help. Having a subset of that list here is undue weight even if well sourced, and it creates an unnecessary need to maintain fundamentally the same information in two different places. - Sitush (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I accept the notable person section may not be up to the rule but I am only concerned with mythology,history and tradition section.These sections were personally edited by me with valid citation and as per Asian caste rule of wiki. Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When comming to the citrapur Saraswat page removal of name doesn't affect my research as Saraswat Brahmin page is linked.so no problem in removal of the page link Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So why did you repeatedly reinstate the notable people section? You should also take note that caste-affiliated websites are not considered to be reliable sources, so the bits where you used gsbkonkani.net are also invalid. - Sitush (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am also unsure why you think this is a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So informations like rituals should be taken from religious website which is no where available and when comming to notable page it was just a back up page I had store to reinstate in case of Vandalism which had notable section that's it. Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you revert and leave rule to add notable persons I personally work on that section.At present I am only concerned with 3 sections on which I spent 3 months purchasing books and doing some research Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not reverting it. There are plenty more problems in that edit. You seem to accept that the notable people list and the mention of Chitrapur in the infobox should be forgotten, so let's move on to the Nagesh Shonde source - how does that satisfy WP:RS? - Sitush (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nagesh sonde is an author and Dakshina Saraswat (PDF) was my main source there.Yes yesterday I had changed the link to website to authors book and page number Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hope this is clear the book name is dakshinatrya Saraswat.Refer yesterday's edit where I had changed the bug links to perfect page numbered link Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know who wrote notable person list but I can assure you 3 person as per rules by the way it is public domain which is not under my control Everyone will write and How can I revert giving respect to their research?? Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, thanks, I know Sonde has written books. So have lots of other people but that doesn't make them reliable. I have read random bits of the book that you cite and it seems to be very biassed towards the GSBs, trying to put them in a good light compared to other communities etc. What qualifications does Sonde have? What academics have cited him? Who even published that book? - Sitush (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ya it has been published under Government granted Konkani Sahitya parishad(Govt of Goa).In that I have only selected unbiased information. Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mr.sitush go through yesterday's citation you will find all source clearly with citation and page number Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there anything to clarify? Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, there is much to clarify. I know you have given page numbers but that does not make something reliable. Have you read WP:RS? As far as I can tell, Sonde is an amateur academic with an interest in the Konkani language etc, and also himself a GSB. The book contains no publisher info that I can see and I am struggling to find any decent sources that cite it. As such, it is of little more worth that a vanity publication and has no place in this article. - Sitush (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way that citation was first used by nijgoyakar but u didn't raised any queries on him!!!.When comming to your question his caste don't matter but yeah he is an religious researcher.Let me clear that once published under government of Goa (parishad) that means they don't allow fake content.I think u are reading PDF format but hard copy does have detail about publication details with year under academy of Konkani parishad Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This reference is still present here which was used by editor name nigoyakar to place biased info check out Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rule should be same for all mr.sitush coz this is wiki and international plateform.By the way I am ready to justify my citations . Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way Govt of Goa don't encourage vanity publications and yeah I had read WP:RS.Surely I can tell no citation voids this as per situation(Notable section is not my work). Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there anything do clarify mr.sitush? Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No citation belong to British raj era as per guideline.All are reliable research citations from valid publisher identified by Indian govt. Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

" I note that various issues have been raised by people on the contributor's talk page also."....Those questions were accepted and rewritten the article month before when comming to nigoyakar's objection was OBC status in Kerala for which I have shown him the valid Kerala website where he misunderstood other caste.So I didn't deleted that coz first 2 para was guidance site that I can visit if I get in confusion.For current article no one raised objection till date! Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there anything to clarify?? Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 07:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's see if other people have any thoughts while I wind down my editing on Wikipedia over the weekend. I do have other queries - eg: regarding potential use of primary sources - but they can wait until next week. There is no rush. - Sitush (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ya sure let me clear you one point there is no use of primary source there ,initially the format reference was in that format where u mistaken as primary source.Hope to see u soon Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mr.sitush hope your weekend was nice.Now lets back on analysis and explaination? Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there anything to clarify?? Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there anything to clarify?? Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1.I had been through your reverted info but Notable person is highly unacceptable as per wiki rules(Wait I'll post Notable person rules after some time). 2.You should explain why you are using caste website(If mandatory to use notify with perfect explanation). 3 Don't junk the related page with same dittos(Ex: citrpour sasawat Brahmin page is connect with saswat Brahmin isn't it?) 4.Yup your detail seems like non ditto or self work but for the reference book published outside India ISBN Number is very important,If possible give it. At present I don't have any rule to revert or rolloff .So give all details to sitush or any other editor.Hope u didn't used any vanity ref(If we think so you should explain why u didn't used vanity ref). Cheers and chill.This is wiki no hurry as only valid info should enter here.Wait if I get my original account I personally come and review cheers..:) Panjikar (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ya sure I will wait for him but make sure my work don't go waste. Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please go through the rule of wiki first and start editing or ask any experienced user.I have removed ditto copy from the Authors book line by line which is not allowed in wiki.Feel free to ask detail about this. Panjikar (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit reintroduced a series of sentences, all of which depended on the first source. Aside from that being synthesis of sources, which we are not allowed to do, the first source does not say what we claim. It is a glossary and says Kanya-Kubja Brahmin(s) Brahmins are traditionally divided into two regional groups: Pancha-Gauda Brahmins (north India) and Pancha-Dravida Brahmins (south India) according to Kalhana's Rajatarangini "The Karnatakas, Tailangas, Dravidas, Maharashtrakas, Gurjaras; these five (-types who-) live south of Vindhya(-mountains) are (called-) Dravida(-brahmins); (whereas-) Saraswatas, Kanyakubjas, Gaudas, Upkalas and Maithilas, who live north of Vindhya(-mountains) are known as "five-Gauda" Brahmins. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The information has just been reinstated with the addition of this, a source that I cannot actually read here but which seems unlikely to be reliable for history etc as the writer was a doctor and university administrator. - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1.Added Origin and other contents back with perfect reference,Please use talk instead of vandalizing other work. 2.Reference are reliable as per wiki policy Sarvesh04 (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I will be removing it. I think you are a sock of a topic banned contributor. - ~~ (<< that was me - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Since sections like cuisine,food habit all has been covered in some other page .That section has been removed.If any clash of data please let me know . Joshi punekar (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

^{[1] [2][3][4]} Joshi punekar (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Above reference only mentions Saraswat not Goud saraswat Joshi punekar (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3 rd and 4th both are not research oriented books it’s NDTV and Hindustan times .News paper written by random writer.Cannot be considered as per wiki policy . Joshi punekar (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Joshi punekar I have renamed the section from "Regarding redundant information" to "Regarding GSB Diet of Fish". Even if the cuisine and food habit has been covered in some other page is irrelevant to this page. This page is to discuss the GSB and it is strange that the page does not speak anything about the GSB diet. Gaud Saraswats eat fish, These sources specifically mention GSB, perhaps you should read all of these refs again.^[1][2][3]

• It appears to me that you are trying to WP:Censor the reliably sourced content about fish being the diet of GSB. Whatever may be the reason behind this but I would ask you to stop removing this per WP:TENDENTIOUS. Newspapers like NDTV and Hindustan Times are considered Reliable Sources.I am not sure why you feel they are not reliable nor have you shared the link of the policy that states these are non reliable. Please share the link.
• Lastly, I would request you not to edit the article any further. You should first complete the discussion here so as to get a WP:CONSENSUS--DBigXrayᗙ 10:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• DBig

Ya that’s what required for me please go through that book source and quote the citation that refers GSB . Secondly both the news paper what you are referring here are Article written by not editorial board instead by one individual(Go through it once).How can you term it as valid info ,He can write anything there.At last of news paper the owners have clearly mentioned that info as perception of author and they are not responsible.You are considering that one as valid?

Joshi punekar (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• DBigXrayᗙ

Disclaimer:

The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. NDTV is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this article. All information is provided on an as-is basis. The information, facts or opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.

This one is from NDTV newspaper go through it once ..... Joshi punekar (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have shared reliable source (a book) stating GSB eat fish. Do you have a source that says they dont ? --DBigXrayᗙ 05:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• DBigXrayᗙ

Revisit both the book it doesn’t contain the word Goud saraswat Brahmins instead it mentions saraswat Brahmins that’s it.If you find Goud saraswat Brahmins can you tell me the line number?Bcoz saraswat Brahmins have many subsections even Aadhya Goud saraswat,Citrapur saraswat,Rajapur saraswat etc are there .In North India almost 10 types of sub categories are there so you cannot generalise. Joshi punekar (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• PAge 35 Para 2^[1] --DBigXrayᗙ 09:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope it is not there,Go through it.It tells mentions the word saraswat Brahmins and Bengali Brahmins. Joshi punekar (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DBigXrayᗙ Should I copy paste whole paragraph?Nothing is there which drags GSB there,Instead it gives common statement and probability of Bengali brahmins and saraswat Brahmins .Not Goud saraswat Brahmins Joshi punekar (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Please read and follow WP:INDENT. The page clearly mentions GSB and explains their diet of fish. Here is another source for the same.^[1]--DBigXrayᗙ 12:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Vpv1DAEACAAJ&dq=gsb+vegetarian+recipes&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOyYqvkMvhAhXNfCsKHUxHBUwQ6AEIJjAA

See the above book for contradictions for your statement.Before that tell me how those news paper became citations ?? Joshi punekar (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I have produced official government source that says GSBs eat fish. you are posting a cookbook. there is no match. Dont expect a reply if you cant follow WP:INDENT --DBigXrayᗙ 10:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

It was proposed in this section that Goud Saraswat Brahmin be renamed and moved to Gaud Saraswat Brahmin. Moved. Uncontested move request. Kudos to you for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 15:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply] Links: current log • target log This is Template:Requested move/end

Goud Saraswat Brahmin → Gaud Saraswat Brahmin – As per WP:CONSISTENT, in line with other relating articles e.g. List of Gaud Saraswat Brahmins and List of festivals of Gaud Saraswat Brahmins Hemant Dabral^Talk 15:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: It seems likely that 'Gaud' is the better spelling. But given that this change may affect a number of articles it is better to have a discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

@MRRaja001: Hi, help needed. Could you kindly verify the content/source in this section? Are there other sources accessible to you that support the content? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: I think these might help you in your reasearch mate. Citation1 - Looks like Saraswat river is also known as Gauda. This citation says that they got the name after started following Gaudapadacharya, Advaita guru.[The Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society (Bangalore)., Volume 83, Mystic Society, p. 92, One conclusion I could reach in this field of study is that , the Gowda Saraswats have nothing to do with Gauda Desha or Bengal.], [P. Thankappan Nair (2004), South Indians in Kolkata: History of Kannadigas, Konkanis, Malayalees, Tamilians, Telugus, South Indian Dishes, and Tippoo Sultan's Heirs in Calcutta, Punthi Pustak, p. 91, Those who settled in Gauda or Eastern India were called Gowda Saraswats. Although Gauda be the name of Bengal, yet the Brahmins who bear that appellation are not inhabitants of Bengal, but of Hindusthan proper.] — These citations concludes that the name is not from Bengal. I'll update you with more citations. [Saraswats in Goa and Beyond, Murgaon Mutt Sankul Samiti, 1998, p. 136, The term Gauda came into use from the time of Sen Dynasty which had established its kingdom in Eastern Bengal.] — This citations says that they got the name "Gauda" during the times of Sen dynasty in Bengal - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 20:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've updated the section as per these sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Okay mate! - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 18:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MRRaja001: Can you help me with the languages they speak primarily. I've updated it here which was already sourced in the article lead after this edit. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Here is the data i found about GSB's language

• Kerala - J. Rajathi (1976), Survey of Konkani in Kerala, Language Division, Office of the Registrar General, pp. 145–150 (type: Gowd Saraswat), Kerala Citation2 — In Kearala they speak Konkani in different Dialects such as Cochin Gowd Saraswat Brahmin dialect, Quilon Gowd Saraswat Brahmin dialect, Cannanore Gowd Saraswat Brahmin dialect etc., like these there are many dialect spoken by Gaud Saraswat Brahmins in Kerala.

• Karnataka - Jyothi G. Nayak (2017). A Study on Culture of Goud Saraswat Brahmins - Special Reference on Uttar Kannada District (PDF). International Journal of History and Cultural Studies. — This book/journal says in Karnataka Gaud Saraswat Brahmins speak Konkani with different dialects with loan words borrowed from Kannada.

• Goa - In Goa we don't need to say, they speak only Konkani.

• Maharashtra - Maharashtra Citation1.

These might help you to write clearly what they speak mate. Thank you - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 08:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MRRaja001: I've included these in the recent edit in the lead. Obviously it can be expanded in a new section later. Thank you very much. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This one is predatory source, it triggered a filter, so had to live it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmily: I want to discuss with you regarding this — The Brahmins of Maharashtra, i.e. Deshastha, Chitpavan and Karhade were unanimous in the rejection of the Brahmin claim of the Gaud Saraswat Brahmins and cases were filed in the court against the GSB by different Brahmins in 1788 AD, 1850 AD and 1864 AD.^[1]. The citation is talking about Saraswats but you added this in Gaud Saraswats. I think you should remove this from here and add it to Saraswats. Coming to Shenvis, they are a subcaste of Gaud Saraswat Brahmins, this doesn't mean whole community were rejected the status. Author clearly mentioned Shenvis which is a small group amoung Gaud Saraswats. So, be specific. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 03:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MRRaja001:, I agree that we have to be specific. Will add Shenvi. Actually, the paper his is referring to by Wagle is about Gaud Saraswats of western India(not Saraswats in general). I am currently on a break. Will discuss more later as I found some more information.LukeEmily (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jonathansammy:, the source(Dr.Deshpande) does not give the specific courts. Anyway, this section is incomplete and needs expansion.LukeEmily (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmily: Then get rid of that sentence. Let us not have ambiguity in the article. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jonathansammy, what is ambiguous? Why is the specific court important? The quote is given and the sentence is part of the peer reviewed academic journal and was accepted in the journal but not acceptable on wikipedia? The only point Deshpande makes is that the three Brahmin communities did not accept the Brahmin claims.LukeEmily (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2022(UTC)

@LukeEmily:, The specific court is important especially for 1788 because the British at that time had jurisdiction over mostly Mumbai.In other areas the Marathas ruled with a very different legal system.Besides, just because it is peer reviewed doesn't mean one can not challenge material published by an author.In natural sciences, new discoveries make the previously peer reviewed material obsolete. Even in social sciences, eminent authors disagree with each other's work.Case in point was Ghurye, and his own student, Irawati Karve criticizing each other's work.^[2]So please keep an open mind with everything you read.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jonathansammy, as editors, the only way we can challenge is by providing opposite view by another source. If another source says that no cases were filed we can give both opinions. But we cannot use personal opinions to challenge such a high quality source as Dr.Deshpande. We can add information about courts once we get it but I was objecting to deleting the complete sentence in WP. Karve and Ghurye are both WP:RS, hence they can challenge each other but as editors we cannot challenge a high quality source unless we show it is wrong - in which case we have to give opposing opinions. I am keeping an open mind but I humbly request you to do the same and read the sources provided on the Brahmin talk page and let me know if you think that Sitush's concerns are invalid. The community is definitely misrepresented on wikipedia based on WP:OR. About the cases, even if the legal system, judges, etc. were different , why does it matter here? We are not even discussing the the case or the outcome. If three main Brahmin communities disagree with the claimed Brahminhood of some caste, is it not worth mentioning? Should the complete sentence be deleted just because the source does not give whether the court was British or not? We are not even discussing the outcome. Can so many sources(on the Brahmin talk page) be wrong? We have to be neutral on wikipedia and strictly follow guidelines.LukeEmily (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jonathansammy, why did you add the citation needed tag? It is clearly cited. This is making it very difficult to edit the page if you keep adding irrelevant tags.LukeEmily (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jonathansammy, you said: So please keep an open mind with everything you read. Does this not go against the wikipedia policy of WP:OR and WP:RS is we cherrypick sources based on what we think? ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmily:, Per Sitush, Raj era sources are not to be used. Bambardekar's work is from that period, isn't it? Also, why aren't you including the outcome of three court cases? I am sure you can find sources other than Deshpande for that, can't you? Thanks.104.148.248.100 (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source used in wikipedia is Deshpande(2010) not Bambardekar's work in Marathi - hence it is not Raj era. If and when someone finds the details of the court cases, they can be added if needed.LukeEmily (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since there are so many objections, removed the court case part.LukeEmily (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the See also section please add Kudaldeshkar Gaud Brahmins also. 42.106.236.132 (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The History and Varna status sections of the article can include the following information. A separate section on the Eki movement is definitely needed.

1. Historically there were 11 castes that used the term Shenvi and they never interdined or intermarried. The prominent ones are the Rajapurkars/Bhalavalikars (RSB), Kudaldeshkars, Pednekars, Bardeshkars, Sashtikars, Tiswadikars (Smartha Shenvi) and Chitrapurkars. As can be seen they were named geographically after certain districts of the Konkan. This is mentioned in the Bombay Gazetteer.

2. The Brahmin status of the community was challenged and the Brahmins of Konkan appealed to Shivaji to prevent the Shenvis of Rajapur from calling themselves as Brahmins. Gagabhatt was called to the Deccan to adjudicate and he declared them as Trikarmi Brahmins in the text Shenvijatinirnay.

3. The community was spread throughout the Western coast prior to the Portuguese rule as well. For eg the Akshi inscription mentions Bharju Shenvi while the Sashtikars had already settled right upto Kerala and established trading settlements named after them there. They created an independent merchant port state in Basrur that was conquered by the Portuguese but then freed by Shivaji through a famous naval battle. After Portuguese rule they became even more dominant in Karnataka kingdom affairs and were an integral part of the trade and diplomatic activities of the local Nayakas. Sanjay Subrahmanyam has written in detail about this. Shenvis were also the first community to migrate to Bombay and they primarily developed the trade of the city with prominent names like Rama Kamati, Narayana Shenvi and Rama Shenvi Lotlikar. When the Eki movement began these 12 families of the Shenvis who controlled the common temples etc opposed the movement and lost a court case in this regards.

4. They were Generals also from quite some time. A GSB Rashtrakuta general is said to have established the Mhalsa Narayani temple at Mardol by bringing the idol from Newasa (mentioned on the temple website). Yadava king Simhana II had a General called Mangal/Mahidev who held Kudal as a fief. These Kudal Desais ruled from Ratnagiri to Belgaum and Karwar during the period of the Bahamanis (as per Jarvis) and they probably fought in the battle against Mahmud Gawan due to which the Math village inscription/Veergal of Mang Samant is there (ref Rajwade and Bambardekar books on the Math inscription). Later in the Maratha empire era Jivbadada Kerkar, Ramchandra Shenvi Sukhthankar and Lakhbadada Lad were prominent examples. The Battle of Kharda was fought under the leadership of Jivbadada Kerkar who also administered territories of Northern India for the Marathas for a period of time.

For further detailed information on the Shenvi trading and historical presence the second half of this article is an excellent source-http://www.srikumar.com/tdtemplecochin/gowda-saraswath-history.htm

5. There were many Gramayanas against the Shenvis in the Peshwa era. Deshashtha Brahmins in Scindia's army would refuse to dine with Shenvis like Jivbadada (ref Jadunath Sarkar). In 1784, there was a Gramayana against Shenvis where they were stopped from performing some Vedic rites. Similarly in British era Bombay, the census report of 1864 (available on archive.org) listed Shenvis as Non Brahmin Hindu caste. A year before that there was a court case filed by Karhades against Shenvis when a youth called Vishnu Wagh tried to enter a Brahmin Sabha (on the issue of widow remarriage) and sign as a Brahmin on the attendance list. The Shenvijatinirnay was cited by the Shenvis in the court with the court then holding them as Trikarmis and subsequent Gazettes mentioning them as Brahmins but counting them separately.

6. The Vishnu Wagh case led to activity in the Shenvis. Gunjikar published the Saraswati Mandala giving a history of the community. Later Gerson Da Cunha published Sahyadrikhanda from Goa and also proposed Konkani as a separate language. The Eki movement soon began to unite all the Shenvi subcastes and programs for interdining and intermarriage were begun. A common origin legend explaining how the subcastes came about was presented in the text called Konkanakhyana. However, since the movement was led by Smartha Shenvis and the Sashtikars and it looked at Konkani as the language of the new GSB caste, the subcastes that were not from Goa like the Rajapurkars (RSB), Kudaldeshkars (KGB) and Chitrapurkars (CSB) stayed away and maintain their independent identity till date. Source-Eki movement by Conlon and Eki-Beki dispute and unification of GSB caste paper by Khandeparkar. 42.106.236.132 (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Additionally, please ensure that your suggestion is written in the appropriate style. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there anyone with know-how and access to reliable sources? No POV pushers or caste promoters please. We need reliable sources rather than personal opinions. This is what I understood from sources: One fact is clear - there is a Subsection of GSB called Shenvis. Other Brahmins and some scholars like Kantak refer to them as Saraswats and many do not consider Shenvis as Brahmins. The non-Shenvis (GSB from Karnataka for example) are 100% pure Brahmins AFAIK. Are all Goa GSB - Shenvis? We need to be careful to indicate Shenvis everytime we are talking about varna disputes. Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmins are a subset of GSB. What about Rajapur Saraswat. Are they also GSB? What are the subcastes of GSB (apart from Shenvi and Chitrapur)? Are Shenvis - chitrapur Saraswat or Rajapur Saraswat? Why are Rajapur Saraswat mentioned as Dalits by Singh? Does not make sense. Do they intermarry? How can the language of all be only Konkani if they are from different states? What is the difference between Saraswat Brahmin from western/southern India and GSB from western/souther India? So much confusion! Thanks in anticipation.LukeEmily (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems this page has lot of POV against this community.

Shenvi are a small set of people in Maharashtra who call them self saraswat Brahmin.The fact is this page has given reference of shenvis and generalised information about gaud saraswat Brahmins.

Rajapur Saraswat Brahmins are not GSB instead they claim to be a part of Sarawat brahmin same with chitrapur saraswat.

I don’t know how come Varna confusion came here?

Since policy of wiki is to give the neutral reference and neutral information has been void in this case. Pondakar (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=SBWQIDwNWx4C&pg=PA17&dq=origin+of+goud+saraswat+brahmin&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUjuDMvLSCAxViaPUHHQc_Bf0Q6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&q=origin%20of%20goud%20saraswat%20brahmin&f=false

Refer this neutral source page 16,17,18 Pondakar (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Pondakar:, the Shenvis are a subcaste of the Gaud Saraswat Brahmin community. Is that correct? The confusion is because how can an entire Brahmin caste have a subcaste that are not Brahmin. Also, the wikipedia page is specifying that the dispute is related only to Shenvis(they also call themselves Gaud Saraswat Brahmin). There is no dispute about the Brahmin status of other subcastes, AFAIK. Did not understand your objection. The problem with this page is that sources are lacking and some are confusing. If you can provide more information about this caste, along with sources, it will be very useful. Both Sitush and I are confused about the pages related to this caste.LukeEmily (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyShenvi claim to be a part of Gaud saraswat Brahmins somecase they claim to be Adigaud saraswat Brahmins(Maharashtra origin).They are called shenvi(96 clan) Brahmin and traced their ancestors towards saraswat Brahmins they were traditionally administrative for centuries this lead to insecurity in chitpavans about Peshwa post which led to Gramanya(Intercaste dispute).The gramanya happened between many community in this time frame.Other Brahmins opposed this claim and termed them as trikarmi as per Bombay court verdict they were termed as satkarmi Brahmins.

Gaud saraswat Brahmins are mainly from Goa origin(Madhwa and smartha).They worked as administrators from centuries,Priest in coastal Karnataka,goa and Kerala.Trade during Portugal era.They are satkarmi Brahmins.This community priest coronated Shivaji maharaj.

Rajapur saraswat Brahmins and chitrapur saraswat Brahmins hail from Goa claim their ancestors from saraswat Brahmins.

yes if you see foreign authors citations there you will find messup.Shenvi/GSB/RSB/CSB/Saraswat Brahmin.

I have posted the widely accepted and maximum authors endrosed origin with citation from the original text of shahyadrikhand,Mahatme(old Goan text),Dchuna(First author on this history)etc.That is related to only GSB.

If possible remove the content related to shenvis till authentic citation that reduces confusion comes into picture. Pondakar (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmily

Hope this clears shenvi part where court officially declared them as satkarmi Brahmins.There was not a single case in the court even for shenvis against thier Varna instead the case was satkarma and trikarma.

“

The Dravida Brahmins, in the scramble for posts and positions, developed antipathy towards the Gauda Saraswat Brahmins, and this rivalry had its manifestation in various places. (In Maharashtra, the shenvis were looked down upon and were described as not Shatkarmis but only Trikarmis, being not entitled to officiate as priests, to teach and accept gifts - danas. But the Bombay High Court during the 19th century decreed that they were qualified to perform all the six karmas).^[1]V. N. Kudva (History of the

Dakshinatya Saraswats) and Frank Conlon (A Caste in a Changing World)^[2]” Pondakar (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyIf you are genuinely searching for the answer I think I can help you out in this case with history,proof and transition of this group named shenavis.You can ping me if required. Karanth1234 (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

“ The Brahminhood claim of the Shenvi GSB was unanimously rejected by the Deshastha, Chitpavanand Karhade brahmins and even the British classified them separately from brahmins. The GSBs were traditionally traders and even as early as the 1400s they conducted commerce across the Indian Ocean”

here it has no way refered as traditional traders nor as shenvi GSB in all four reference. Pondakar (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

“ There were varna disputes related to the Shenvi subsection of the GSB. The Brahmins of Maharashtra, i.e. Deshastha, Chitpavan and Karhade were unanimous in the rejection of the Brahmin claim of the (Shenvi)Gaud Saraswat Brahmins. Bambardekar, a prominent researcher on Konkan's history, in his twentieth-century Bhaṭṭojidīkṣitajñātiviveka also rejects the Brahmin claim of the Shenvi GSB as well as their "gauda-ness". He argues that the Seṇavīs adopted the term Gauḍa-Sārasvata in the latter part of the nineteenth century. According to Bambardekar, the (Shenvi)GSBs have falsified the Kannada word gowḍameaning 'village chief' as being identical with the Sanskrit word gauḍa and challenges their Brahmin status itself. Bambardekar cites a document from 1694 AD and another from 1863 AD in which the Brahmins and Shenvis are separately listed. University of Michigan scholar Madhav M. Deshpande cites R.V.Parulekar and states that " British administrative documents from the early nineteenth century Maharashtra always list brahmins and Shenvis as two separate castes". Irawati Karve and G. S. Ghuryeconsider GSB's as part of larger Saraswat Brahminsand overall Brahmin community. The Hindu scripture Sahayadhri Khanda provided support for the Brahmanical genealogy of the GSB. However, Sanskrit scholar Madhav Deshpande, Indologist and Sanskrit Scholar Stephan Hillyer Levitt and historian O'Hanlon consider the portion of the Sahyādrikhaṇḍathat describes Saraswats to be corrupted and recently interpolated by Saraswats themselves in order to improve their status.”

Their whole reference speaks about shenvis but this page is regarding GSB .Ambiguity is very high by the way citing particular third perspective statements . Pondakar (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

According to the ''[[Sahyadrikhanda]]'' of the [[Skanda Purana]], ninety-six Saraswat Brahmin families belonging to ten [[gotra]]s migrated to [[Goa]] from the [[Saraswati river]] basin, along with Parashurama.<ref name="skanda">''Shree Scanda Puran (Sayadri Khandha)'' -Ed. Dr. Jarson D. Kunha, Marathi version Ed. By Gajanan shastri Gaytonde, published by Shree Katyani Publication, Mumbai</ref><ref>''Gomantak Prakruti ani Sanskruti'' Part-1, p. 206, B. D. Satoskar, Shubhada Publication</ref>

Reference to Saraswat names are found in [[Shilahara]]s as well as [[Kadambas of Goa|Kadamba]] [[Indian copper plate inscriptions|copper plate inscriptions]]. The inscriptions found in Goa bear testimony to the arrival of Brahmin families in the Konkan region.<ref name="trade" />

The [[Shilahara]] kings seem to have invited supposedly pure Aryan Brahmins from the [[Indo-Gangetic plain]] to settle in [[Konkan]]. These castes are the Gaud Saraswat Brahmins and s.<ref>((cite book|title=Religions And Faiths In India|publisher=Mangal Deep Publications|year=2004|page=204|isbn=8175941693|author=Raj Pruthi, Rameshwari Devi|quote=There was a craze in the southern and eastern countries for the importation of the supposed pure Aryan Brahmins from the indo-gangetic valley in the north. The silhara kings of Konkan also seem to have invited both brahmins and kshatriyas from the north for settling in the south about this time.They are the Gauda Sarasvata Brahmins and the Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhus of Konkan. The Gauda Sarasvata Brahmins and the Kayastha Prabhus are naturally often referred to as 'Aryas' which is corrupted to 'Aiyyas' in the inscriptions. The local Brahmins were referred to as 'Bhats', and the imported northerners as Aryas...))</ref><ref>((cite book|title=The Background of Maratha Renaissance in the 17th Century: Historical Survey of the Social, Religious and Political Movements of the Marathas|author=Narayan Keshav Behere|year=1946|page=81))</ref>

Sahyadrikhanda and ''Mangesh Mahatmya'' allude to migrations of Saraswat Brahmins, constituting ninety-six families, who settled in eight villages of Goa. There were regional variations among the Saraswats, such as those among ''Bardeskars'', ''Pednekars'' and ''Sastikars''. The ''Konkana mahatmya'', from the 17th century CE, deals with the internal rivalry of the Saraswats and strained relations between these groups.((citation needed|date=February 2018))In [[Kalhana]]'s ''[[Rajatarangini]]'' (12th century CE), the Saraswats are mentioned as one of the five Pancha Gauda Brahmin communities residing to the north of the Vindhyas.<ref>((cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lXyWE6KbG8oC&pg=PA168|title=Caste in Life: Experiencing Inequalities|publisher=Pearson Education India|year=2011|isbn=9788131754399|page=168|editor=D. Shyam Babu and [[R. S. Khare|Ravindra S. Khare]]))</ref> Pondakar (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done sock. RegentsPark (comment) 14:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

“History Page have become messup by mentioning history and analysis of Shenvi which may be or may not be part of GSB SO add this at the beginning of analysis to avoid confusion in the chapter history “ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pondakar (talk • contribs) 12:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the Sahyadrikhanda of the Skanda Purana, ninety-six Saraswat Brahmin families belonging to ten gotras migrated to Goa from the Saraswati river basin, along with Parashurama.^[3][4]

Reference to Saraswat names are found in Shilaharas as well as Kadamba copper plate inscriptions. The inscriptions found in Goa bear testimony to the arrival of Brahmin families in the Konkan region.^[5]

The Shilahara kings seem to have invited supposedly pure Aryan Brahmins from the Indo-Gangetic plain to settle in Konkan. These castes are the Gaud Saraswat Brahmins.^[6][7]

Sahyadrikhanda and Mangesh Mahatmya allude to migrations of Saraswat Brahmins, constituting ninety-six families, who settled in eight villages of Goa. There were regional variations among the Saraswats, such as those among Bardeskars, Pednekars and Sastikars.In Kalhana's Rajatarangini (12th century CE), the Saraswats are mentioned as one of the five Pancha Gauda Brahmin communities residing to the north of the Vindhyas.^[8] Pondakar (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done sock. RegentsPark (comment) 14:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

“whole reference speaks about shenvis and not Gaud saraswat Brahmins so better to delete it from this page and add it to shenvi page”

The Brahminhood claim of the Shenvi GSB was unanimously rejected by the Deshastha, Chitpavan and Karhade brahmins and even the British classified them separately from brahmins. Pondakar (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done sock. RegentsPark (comment) 14:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

“ Individual Scholar opinion and British Raj both are not valid so delete this statement or send it to talk till Neutral analysis from Expert author comes if not it may be POV push”

Scholars' opinions Bambardekar, a scholar on Konkan History, does not accept the Gauda or Brahmin claim of the Gauda Saraswats. According to Bambardekar, the Pancha Dravid Brahmins are the original Gauda Brahmins and he cites a verse from the Skanda Puran to prove his assertion.

Alexander Henn says that "modern scholars have questioned the myth of the northern descent". According to modern scholars, arguing that their origins instead come from local priests who, at some point in history, gained Brahmanhood". Pondakar (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done sock. RegentsPark (comment) 14:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed the content of dispute as the whole paragraph is related to Shenvis.Ambiguity between GSB and Shenvis is evident there so if and other citaion is there please cite it. Pondakar (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many colonial reference has been used seems like not allowed here. Pondakar (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to Add some Information in the Varna section from Maratha kaifiyat regarding shenvis with citation.

Madhwahari (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done You need to provide the exact text you wish to add along with the citations. RegentsPark (comment) 14:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyThere is clear misrepresentation of some statements which is contradicting reference.I have given detail in other chats

Regards, Dr.Karanath 2409:40F2:1F:E023:956F:A7DF:A9FD:B9A2 (talk) 07:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmily@MRRaja001There is clear misrepresentation of below statements which is contradicting reference.

1.”The Brahminhood claim of the Shenvi GSB was unanimously rejected by the Deshastha, Chitpavan and Karhade brahmins and even the British classified them separately from brahmins. In original reference it is Deshpande, M.M. (2010). "Pañca Gauḍa and Pañca Drāviḍa: Contested borders of a traditional classification". Studia Orientalia: 108: 45. “ The Deśasthas, Citpāvans and Karhāḍes were united in their rejection of the brahminhood for the Sārasvatas, and Wagle himself provides evidence of this animosity.” Meaning three caste got united in rejecting Brahminhood of saravats due to animosity(I.e.animosity is Rivarly/hate and unanimously is not same as uniting).This statement has repeated two times in a single page and one time in karhade after origin as per shahyadrikhand.How can you give reason for their origin from this caste?(clear POV) Here as per gramanya all Brahmins fought so why other Brahmins perception is required here?

2.The GSBs were traditionally traders and even as early as the 1400s they conducted commerce across the Indian Ocean. Here it clearly states trading communities like gsb and some other community.Author never uses “Traditional trading” word.This is misrepresented sentence.Mainly Author is not sociologist or historian he is basically Economist.What sort of reference is this.I can give 100 source which calls them as Priest,Administrator,landlords etc.Deshasthas were adminstrators,Chitpavans were farmers.So shall we change their Varna?

3.Varna status Satkarma Brahmin status of Gaud saraswat Brahmins of Maharashtra was contested by chitpavan Brahmins citing their food habit but majority of Gaud saraswat Brahmins were Vegetarians, this was discussed during coronation of shivaji where Gagabhatt(A leading scholar of benarus) gave verdict in favour of saraswat Brahmins.After fall of Maratha empire,further during British era this matter once again was raised and reached court which resulted in court declaring Gaud saraswat Brahmins as "Satkarmi Brahmins". This incidence resulted in rivalry between saraswat Brahmins and chitpavan Brahmins which manifested in multiple ways including 1871 dispute regarding Bombay High court Judge appointment where both the community fought to get judge position appointment from their community.^[1][2] Here issue and result of issue is clear even then why specifically this section has been added,even the perspective of author who are not even done research in Gramanya and Indian caste system.If so same thing can be done in deshasthas,Karhade and chitpavan as all Brahmins Varna status was challenged by one another in gramanya.Here even religious leader accepted and court of the land has given verdict.Isn’t this WP:POV push?. Will be waiting for discussion. Regards, Dr.karanth 2409:40F2:104C:6028:D12B:1E0:6328:CAE9 (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, The Shenvi are not Brahmins as per many sources although they call themselves GSB. The Guru Parampara is used for claiming Brahminhood as one scholar says. The Deshastha and Karhade Brahmins areundisputed Brahmins - no one disputes it today. But even modern scholars are not in consensus on the varna of Shenvi. The sources are also saying that the GSB manipulated Skanda Puran to improve their status. My research started because Sitush pointed out some inconsistencies about Saraswats in wikipedia. I will reply in detail on saturday or sunday.LukeEmily (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LukeEmily (talk) Tomorrow if a dalit caste starts claiming brahmin status then who is going to stop them? Other castes may even welcome it because there would be then fewer claimants for reservation quota in India.Similarly,if Shenvi or Devadnya claim brahmin status then in modern times you may dispute it but there are no legal ramifications. My two cents!Jonathansammy (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jonathansammy, I agree that anyone can claim whatever they wish. And that is their right. But we have to give opposing views of others too. In fact, I feel that the Devadnya page should be renamed to Devadnya Brahmin as that is the common name used by sources. Please also see Rajapur Saraswat.LukeEmily (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmily@JonathansammyClaim and counter claim is seperate thing.Here this page has crossed all the limit.Sitush had set the neutrality norms which was there till 2017 .Now this page is full of perspective than actual information.

Karhade,Deshasthas and konkanastha view on saraswat.

Nambodiri view on saraswat.

Just tell me how can you rely on other caste views?Isn’t that like French doesn’t consider British as British ?

Mainly this page is full of negative views and not a single positive view is there.Secondly @LukeEmily cannot come to conclusion after views.This editor is giving view of author/caste and just mentioning the information seems to be POV.This is cherry picking nothing more than that.Main authors like Gurhye’s and Karve perspective had been sidelined.

I can come with the same way of mentioning perspective to all Brahmins of Maharashtra(Chitpavan’s social ladder claim,Karhade claim from fallen village to brahmin,Daivadnya’s shudra status under Peshwa towards non shudra ladder) Karanth1234 (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmily@JonathansammyRegarding recent edit of nambodhiri,it clearly states that “Gaud saraswat Brahmins didn’t considered daivdnya as Brahmins and nambodhiri didn’t necessarily considered citing that they travelled via sea.Here sea traveling is prohibited in standard Brahmins like nambodhiri then how come that become Varna question?.Did you added same in sonar page,no right?.Why so obsessed with negative views in this page? Karanth1234 (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmily@JonathansammyThis page is void of neutrality.Sitush clearly advocated for neutrality till date.Daivdnya come under OBC I didn’t find this approach of writing only selected negative articles there,nor in Chitpavan,nor in Karhade.

secondly the editor is imagining that Pune Brahmins(Chitpavan,karhade,deshasthas) were masters in deciding other community Varna.The fact is only varnasi Brahmins had that power and GAGABHATT clearly stated the satkarmi status of GSB.Deshasthas were real Brahmins no doubt in that but during ligayat gramanya they clearly

claim karhade and Chitpavan of west coast were near to shudras.I’ll add these contents soon with citations.I saw @LukeEmilywriting about GOA ,in Goa even Portuguese called them as bomman.Whole archives are there regarding this. Karanth1234 (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Karanth1234:. I am still waiting for you give a source where you claimed that Karhade Brahmins are not considered Brahmins in modern times. Based on what I have read: Chitpavan, Deshastha and Karhade Brahmins varna is undisputed today. Please also see Kantak's paper "Kantak, M. R. (1978). "The Political Role of Different Hindu Castes and Communities in Maharashtra in the Foundation of the Shivaji's Swarajya". He is saying saraswats studied portuguese and Brahmins studied Sanskrit. Please give quality sources with opposing views if you feel there are other opinions. Thanks, Luke.LukeEmily (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyI am writing complete details about karhade since the source is in Kannada where few authors claim their origin from Portuguese intermarriage and regarding Chitpavan I can give the list of authors who claim them as Bane Israeli .So from these 4 books I’ll rewrite .Even during Lingayat issue they clearly proved the western coast brahmin including karhade and Chitpavan as shudras based on shastra.Well documented,in that stance only deshasthas stands as Brahmin.

secondly brahmandapurana was never considered edited even in that karhade has been mentioned as non Brahmins.Anyhow leave these things to me let me write the content of

brahmanisation excellently.

Your second point is all authors mentioned saraswat seperately from Brahmins the main reason is saraswats never identified and intermarried with local Brahmins they maintained seperate identity.The same saraswat in north are identified as Brahmins as the region is Gaud.Here always they maintained distance from pancha Dravid.But Karhade and Chitpavan who don’t belong to niether panch Gaud or panch dravid try to intermarry with deshasthas to become Brahmans but in Karnataka which was not under Maratha empire they were treated as non Brahmins and denied temple priest activity.I will cite in my article.One more thing for Chitpavan you need not to wait till my article just search good books from google you find this in almost all but karhade you may not get in google as that community was not famous as GSB,Chitpavan,deshasthas,ckp etc. Karanth1234 (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyDon’t you think for these statements like

“ Based on what I have read: Chitpavan, Deshastha and Karhade Brahmins varna is undisputed today. Please also see Kantak's paper "Kantak, M. R. (1978). "The Political Role of Different Hindu Castes and Communities in Maharashtra in the Foundation of the Shivaji's Swarajya".”

and

”They unanimously rejected Brahmins claim of saraswat”

To claim these things you want strong citational multiple references with high impact factor as you are coming to conclusion here.

I am from Karnataka and doesn’t belong to any of the above community I can see things in a neutral way. Karanth1234 (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Sitush Hope you are doing well,as I remember( 2014 ) you have clearly told me to keep the content neutral.Please look at this page once,More than information this is filled with perspective of other caste and complete negative cherry picking of information.Hope now it’s your time to interfere in this regards please set the guidelines.The samething can be done to all the caste page which finally results in vandalism nothing more than that,it seems WP:POV which cannot be accepted in Wikipedia.Imagine some person open page to know about this page and finds just perceptions which is completely negative without basic information!. Karanth1234 (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

“Write this sentence in Varna Status sub heading”

The Dravida Brahmins, in the scramble for the posts and positions, developed antipathy towards the Gauda saraswat Brahmins, and this rivalry had its manifestation in various places.Satkarma Brahmin status of Gaud saraswat Brahmins of Maharashtra was contested by chitpavan Brahmins citing their food habit but majority of Gaud saraswat Brahmins were Vegetarians, this was discussed during coronation of shivaji where Gagabhatt(A leading scholar of benarus who coronated shivaji) gave verdict in favour of saraswat Brahmins.After the fall of Maratha empire,further during British era once again this issue was raised and reached court which resulted in court declaring Gaud saraswat Brahmins as "Satkarmi Brahmins". This incidence resulted in rivalry between saraswat Brahmins and chitpavan Brahmins which manifested in multiple ways including 1871 dispute regarding Bombay High court Judge appointment where both the community fought to get judge position appointment from their community.^[3][4] Karanth1234 (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please give quote from source and proper citation of the 1974 source. The sources Pillai and Kurzon do not support the statement.LukeEmily (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilySure why not.pillai and karzon for the readers to know the background,Peer to peer journal about court case and decision.One more is regarding Gagabhatt and chitpavan,saraswat clash for court judge.

I will quote shortly. Karanth1234 (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyI have updated quote from the research article go through it Karanth1234 (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmily3 cases were there

1.Gramanya case that I have mentioned

2.1876(narayan vs Bhat) case

3.1909 (kelkar vs savant case)

In all 3 cases saraswat was victorious.Incase interested you can go through this.

Now add my content and don’t remove other two reference m,it’s for reader to understand the basic of the issue. Karanth1234 (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilystill you didn’t edited,hope two papers clearly cite the content without ambiguity. Karanth1234 (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Karanth1234:, we can add it to the page - but I am still waiting for you to give full citation - author , paper name- exact page numbers matching quotes etc Right now your citation is: The Indian Economic and social History Review” year=1974,vol-11,Issue-1,pages=17-58 which is incomplete.

 Not done: The proposing editor has been blocked, thus, the request can no longer proceed without their participation in the review process.  Spintendo  04:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

THE devdasis of Goa were traditionally connected to the men of the Gowd Saraswat Brahman community. How this connection came about is a matter of dispute. ...Malbarao Sardesai claims that his ancestors kept the kalavants free not enslaved. Saraswat girls were encouraged by their parents to learn singing and dancing from the kalavants. The updasis, who were concubines, were at risk of being pushed into prostitution. Devdasis too sometimes got involved in nonmarilal unions with rich pilgrims, priests, local traders and landlords, and in the colonial period, sometimes with British officers.

^[1] It is possible that the Devdasis had relationships with others like Karhade Brahmin priests and even British officers but the tradition is associated with GSB not the other communities. Could not find a source that says that Karhade or Deshastha or Chitpavan Brahmins had this tradition. It is unlikely that conservative Karhade or Deshastha Brahmins who did not even eat meat or drink alcohol had this tradition. Yes, there might have been individual members of those communities (like the ancestor of Lata Mangeshkar) who might have indulged in some relationships with the Devdasis but they could have been exceptions. In north India, the non-Brahmin upper castes had women slaves but the Brahmins from the north did not indulge in these activities.

Buchanan writes that in northern India, the Rajputs, Khatris and Kayasthas openly kept women slaves of any pure tribe, and the children through such women were classed in one matrimonial group . Rich Muslim families in Bihar maintained large number of male slaves called Nufurs and female slaves called Laundis . A distinct class of slaves known as Molazadahs were also maintained by them.

^[2]LukeEmily (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC) LukeEmily (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyTraditionally kalavants were associated with temple,singing,dance and flower collection to the god.

The traditional Devadasi part was related to Karhade priest of Goa(Lata Mangeshkar is not just exception instead just an example).Just read the Goan archive of Portuguese era.Saraswat Brahmins used kalavants for traditional dance and song training to the girls arriving at the temple,cultural program in the temple etc.

Noronha(1999):Dayanand bandodkar was from this community insisted pro Marathi and pro Maharashtra stance.The blame against saraswat Brahmins regarding this was a part of breaking saraswat brahmin and Christian elite tie.The association with Karhade is no way related to politics.

“It is unlikely that conservative Karhade or Deshastha Brahmins who did not even eat meat or drink alcohol had this tradition”

-This statement is valid only for Deshasthas who have a good origin but Karhade origin is disputed.They are called as community from fallen village of Goa in many religious books,these books were used and authenticated by deshasthas not by saraswat Brahmins (Dchunha,Ghurye).

Karanth1234 (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Karanth1234 and Jonathansammy:, you both mentioned that the Devadasi tradition was not limited to Saraswat (GSB). Please can you provide citation for your claim that this tradition was followed by other communities in western and southern India? I feel it is unlikely that Karhade or Deshastha community would follow it as a tradition given their strict rules for other norms in society. In the north, some non-Brahmin upper castes followed the tradition as mentioned in the quote above. Thank you. LukeEmily (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyProbably all South Indian Brahmins had this.(Exception may be there)

Soneji, D. (2012). Unfinished Gestures: Devadasis, Memory, and Modernity in South India. United Kingdom: University of Chicago Press.

Most cases were in Karnataka,TamilNadu,AndraPradesh,Odisha and Maharashtra .

No doubt that north Brahmins didn’t practiced this but north Kshatriya had this system called Dasi.

If you go in-depth through the history of Goa this culture came from Karhade priests who migrated from desh(Maharashtra to Konkan).Gaud saraswat didn’t had culture of having sex with devdasis but they treated devdasis as kalavantha(Artist).Please reference the above book.If you want in-depth information regarding particular caste involvement I can share. Karanth1234 (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear @LukeEmily, It Seems like there is contradiction in your reference and edit.Please go through it once.

1.In Kerala, the Gaud Saraswat Brahmin claim to be Brahmins but this view is not necessarily supported by other communities. For example, the Namboodri Brahmins do not consider the GSB as Brahmin.^[1]

->As per the citation,Nambodri didn’t recognised arrived gaud saraswat and sonars because they came by sea route.(Not by origin or Varna).

The same kerala king gave them place to build temple and follow brahmin ritual(If required I can provide the citation)

2.The GSB from Goa were considered to be non-Brahmin and the Pune Brahmins did not allow a GSB scholar to participate in a Brahmin only debate in the British era as he was a GSB and not a Brahmin. This caused GSB caste activists to claim the Brahmin status by using markers such as "gotra", "kuldeva", village, "allegiance to a lineage of spiritual descent" or "guru parampara" of preceptors (swamis). The movement was active from the late 19th century to the early 20th century. According the anthropologist Jason Keith Fernandes, the GSB from Goa are nowadays "generally" considered to be Brahmin.

->Here citation is clearly stating that the migrant GSB(Who migrated and settled in Maharashtra) in Pune was not allowed in brahmin only conference.This led to GSB of konkan and Goa to unite as single entity.Source didn’t mentioned as “GSB in Goa was not considered as Brahmins by others”.

Bammon-Shenaimam(was their name in Goa) and priest of temple was called bhat as per Portuguese archives.(Refer once)

Please recheck your content with citation.

Karanth1234 (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Karanth1234 (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Karanth1234:, OK. I will recheck content again, discuss and correct. Also, if you have citations for Shenvi conversion to GSB and how/why/when it happened , please can you share. LukeEmily (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmily

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=gdUVAQAAMAAJ&q=sastikar+pednekar&dq=sastikar+pednekar&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDicTCzayDAxWtT2wGHVR6DXYQ6AF6BAgJEAM#sastikar%20pednekar

Just for reference I am giving this search result for you.If you are genuinely interested I can redirect to the original articles.

saraswats had division like sastikar,Pednekar ,bardeshkar,Lotlikar,balvalikar,shevipaiki,shenavi etc.Interdine and inter-marriage was not allowed.Even today GSB from Karnataka,kerala won’t marry with GSB of Maharashtra(Ingeneral)

In Goa by default they were called bammon.The division was Bhatt and Bammon-shenavimam.Bhatt(GSB priest I.e.Sastikar,bardeshkar )and Bammon-Shenaimam(Non priest but brahmin I.e. Shenai and balvalikar).Shenvis we’re invloved in administrative post(Shilahara,Vijaynagar,Kadamba,sultanate,Martha empire,British era ).

Then what was the point of issue?

Scholars clearly explain this as power tussle.The Brahmins of Goa had unilateral status as they were local without competation.After Portuguese captured Goa ,The Brahmins who came to kerala didn’t had tussle with local Brahmins as they built their own temple,involved in priestly work,trade and self temple rituals.Those who migrated to Karnataka was welcomed by local king and gave land to build temple,they didn’t had political tussle with other Brahmins but they got opposition from advaithis as they had accepted dwaitha matha of Madhwacharya but it didn’t escalated.Even they had built their own temple and involved in priestly work only within madhwas,some involved in trade/some in administration.(Even today in krishna mutt sahapankti is there only between GSB,Deshasthas,Shivalli).

Mainly in Maharashtra they got complete tussle with existing Brahmins.First with deshasthas which got resolved after Gagabhatt verdict.(Scholar gives a data regarding intermarry between deshasthas and GSB).

During Peshwa rule,they were primarily targeted by Chitpavan as deshasthas and shenvi(Subsect of GSB) were primarily experienced in administrative work and both denied Chitpavans to be brahmin.Deshasthas justified as it was their own land but shenvis were new to the land and didn’t got that much support.The issue was raised 3 times .It reached court and all the 3 times,they were termed as Brahmins.This issue raged when GSB got administrative post in non Peshwa states.

Rivalry between shenvi and Chitpavan resulted in Ratanagiri,Malwan village dispute which was taken to control by shenvis.These tussle of power was there till antibrahmanism.(My current research topic how Brahmin was inter-related)

Why so much ambiguity?

All the citation available in the internet is concentrated with Maharashtra based writers and issues.Shenvais are termed as saraswats but they forget other divisions of Bhatt .Many writers were pro Peshwa writers like bambodkar,etc.The books written in Karnataka and Kerala are maximum in local language so May not available in net.Non of the western authors knew the difference within Konkan.They had mess up this to the level extent.Mainly maximum books are based on gramanya and Peshwa rule.

Today if you see any matrimonial portal Deshasthas-GSB preference will there completely.Deshasthas-Konkanasthas will be there if the bride from Pune.Deshasthas-Karhade will be there from Nagpur region.Konkanastha-GSB will be there in Bombay region.These things changes when it comes to Goa,Karnataka,Kerala where marriage with other communities won’t be there in the preference.(My own research -Cross verify Ex:shadi.com)

If you are really interested then I can provide complete citations. Karanth1234 (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Karanth1234:, please give full citations. One thing is clear from the sources. Not all scholars agree about varna of Shenvis who call themselves GSB. The Shenvis are simply called saraswats in the context of Maharashtra. Hence when the source says "Brahmins, Saraswats and Prabhus" as Sitush pointed out, it means Brahmins Shenvis and Prabhus However, Shenvis were major contibutors to the history of Maharashtra. But local Brahmins did not accept them as Brahmins despite so many disputes. Deshastha and Karhade Brahmin status is disputed. If you have a source that says otherwise, please can you provide full citation with quote? LukeEmily (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyFirstly all Gaud saraswat are not shenavis but I can show some authors mentioning all ”Shenvi as synonym to GSB”(This is impact of Gramanya).Many western author have mentioned it as Brahmins,Shenavis and ckp.The two root cause are there one is they belong to panch gaud and always keep seperate identity from Dravid brahmin second one lies in Maharashtra where they had Clash with already existing Brahmins.During Gramanya chitpavans repeatedly termed them as shenvis(That became perspective that all saraswat Brahmins are shenvis).As I saw they were just called as Bammon in Goa before Portuguese arrival(Reference:Portuguese archive).When they migrated from Goa they maintained identical distance from Dravid Brahmins and called themself Gaud saraswat brahmin.

I strongly refer you to read Portuguese inquisition to understand root of this cause.

Reference:(From non sarawat and leftist authors seems neutral)

Gokhale, S. (2008). The Chitpavans: Social Ascendancy of a Creative Minority in Maharashtra, 1818-1918. India: Shubhi Publications.(Just for search result for you from the above book to clarify the name shenavi in Maharashtra means saraswat Brahmins.(They thought all GSB are shenvis).I.e.Brahmin(Dravid),shenvi(saraswat Brahmin) and prabhu(CKP).

Just a snippet for you.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ez4wAQAAIAAJ&q=brahmin+caste+like+shenavis&dq=brahmin+caste+like+shenavis&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjG64u70K2DAxUER2wGHdJMCIU4ChDoAXoECAQQAw#brahmin%20caste%20like%20shenavis

Ghurye, G. S. (1969). Caste and Race in India. India: Popular Prakashan.

Just a snippet for you.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=nWkjsvf6_vsC&pg=PA194&dq=brahmin+caste+like+shenavis&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjf2fOg0K2DAxXKTmwGHYBhAXsQ6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=brahmin%20caste%20like%20shenavis&f=false Karanth1234 (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyThere is some ambiguity about your content mainly related to Deshpande,Wagle and lewitt.All three of them explains the content in different stance.I am mentioning conclusion after reading all three.

Deshpande :Shahyadrikhand was not edited by deshasthas as for writing pro Saraswat they didn’t had love left towards saraswat of western coast.

wagle:He explains about the animosity against saraswat for other 3 Brahmins.”They came united in rejection of brahminhood of saraswat due to animosity(Hatred)”.He meant this.

Lewitt:He suggests that saraswat might have edited but he doesn’t conclude.He speaks about patitagramanya(As other authors use this for karhade) where his conclusion fails.

Hope you will revisit this as you have concluded by adding these three.That cannot be done for editor side since all three are for different instance. Karanth1234 (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Karanth1234:, please can you give exact edit you want. For example, you can say change {this sentence} to {new sentence}. Then we can discuss with quotations.LukeEmily (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmily

Existing sentence: There were varna disputes related to the Shenvi subsection of the GSB. The Brahmins of Maharashtra, i.e. Deshastha, Chitpavan and Karhade were unanimous in the rejection of the Brahmin claim of the (Shenvi)Gaud Saraswat Brahmin.

As per citation :As per Deshpande,The Deshasthas,chitpavans and karhade united in rejection of brahminhood of saraswatas of westcoast due to rivalry(Animosity).Wagle himself gives the reference for this animosity.

Refer the same citation you will find the same difference. Karanth1234 (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Karanth1234:, please check. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyThat’s Nice.

These Statements have been written in starting of the page .Neither it is dispute section nor occupation.Some contents are redundant too(Braminhood is there in dispute and trade is there in occupation).

“The Brahminhood claim of the Shenvi GSB was unanimously rejected by the Deshastha, Chitpavan and Karhade brahmins and even the British classified them separately from brahmins.

The GSBs were traditionally traders and even as early as the 1400s they conducted commerce across the Indian Ocean”

Is that required on that place? Karanth1234 (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyWikipedia:LEAD clearly states “Important topics and summary”.

There is no ongoing dispute even with shenavis too.That’s why I gave the proof of Gagabhatt and Bombay high court decision for you(Both were related to shenavis ).Both are very important one in religious perspective(From Benarus brahmins) and one in jurisdiction perspective considering their origin to all documents.Secondly non shenvi GSB cannot be challenged as they were converted into madhwas by Madhwacharya himself(He didn’t gave Deeksha to non Brahmins).

Traditional trading community is very different than trading community(You gave example of one town basrur).With one source and one town can it be confirmed ?.In that case Chitpavan will become shudras (farming )and Kshatriya (Military) .Isn’t it?

Advaitha origin-Gaudapadacharya was Saraswat Brahmin.

Tattvālokah. (1989). India: Sri Abhinava Vidyatheertha Educational Trust.(Page 89)

First seer of Shankaracharya mutt,Sringeri was saraswat Brahmins as I reference few source.(Name :Mandan mishra-Sureshwaracharya)

So what’s your opinion on this.Trading cannot be a correct word as foreigners saw that traders not the internal priests.That’s the fact.

Karanth1234 (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilySitush had clearly told to keep article neutral.That’s what I am trying to do here.I feel like this article is too much negative towards this page compared to other page.

Karanth1234 (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see WP:LEAD. Generally Sitush has said that varna not be mentioned in lead but in this case we have mentioned brahmin even though there are ongoing disputes with certain subcastes of GSB(not all). Many sources call it a "trading community".LukeEmily (talk)

@Karanth1234:, that may be because several sources do not consider shenvi, a prominent subcastes of GSB, as BrahminLukeEmily (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyShenvi is not a prominent subcaste anyhow many source do consider them as Brahmins.Even if you see only online source even then more than 70% source consider them as Brahmins(May mention Gramanya somewhere).Based on 30% of online source you cannot draw the conclusion(Bombardkar-A British era writer).That’s why I have shared Gagabhatt and Bombay court verdict(Covering both Peshwa era and British era).This issue got solved but karhade and Chitpavan’s origin didn’t got solved till date many community refuse to accept them as Brahmins citing origin they consider only deshasthas for rituals (I can share some source if you want,if know Kannada let me know).This can be considered as ongoing.Karhade gramanya didn’t came to any conclusion,Yajurvedi came to the conclusion in Bombay court and benarus scholars too,Daivadnya gramanya didn’t got solved .So neutrality is expected here as you cannot see one community with different lens(As per sitush).Many sources are available offline than online.Hope you revisit the offline sources and alter the content.

Karanth1234 (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can we say x% consider them Shenvi(GSB) Brahmin and 100-x do not? That would be WP:OR. Is there any scholar in the 20th/21st century that considers Chitpavan, Karhade and Deshastha as non-Brahmin? Do other Brahmins (21st century reject the Brahmin claim of the these three? The issue is only with GSB. Shenvi(saraswats) were the major contributors to the Maratha empire hence very prominent. Please see Kantak's paper. Did some Brahmin religious assembly issue a verdict that Shenvi were full Brahmin? Yes, there is some British court verdict in the 19th century and we can mention it but even in the 20th/21st century there are opposing views. We have sources that some Brahmins do not accept the Brahmin claim of Saraswat. Nor do many academic sources. Yet, wikipedia has overridden this. It is obvious that wikipedia is wrong as Sitush already suspected.LukeEmily (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyPolitics between caste is common.If a person enters my boundary I may not treat him as a equal(If I am insecure-That’s nature of human being).As I read the history of Portuguese inquisition,the whole temples were destroyed and all the community were forced to migrate to the neighbouring unknown states.Now the question is who are these Brahmins(Karhade,Chitpavan-who lag the origin and karnatak Brahmins consider them as non Brahmins)to decide about other Brahmins and how can you rely on their perception?(Many author till date consider gramanya as part of politics).

If Banarus(Varanasi) well learned Brahmins reject their status then that will be surely disputed.Currently non of the caste challenge their brahminhood.This is void of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.I have given some reference and content in the edit request(Not edited though).Just refer those two peer to peer journals you will get one idea regarding this.

I may be against this but take some source which claims citpavans are not Brahmins instead some consider them as BENE ISREALIS.

1.Keer, D. (1964). Mahatma Jotirao Phooley: Father of the Indian Social Revolution. India: Popular Prakashan.

2.Kullrich, N. (2022). Skin Colour Politics: Whiteness and Beauty in India. Germany: J.B. Metzler.

3.Parfitt, T., Egorova, Y. (2006). Genetics, Mass Media and Identity: A Case Study of the Genetic Research on the Lemba. (n.p.): Taylor & Francis.

Just one snippet for you,it clearly mentioned chitpavans as BENE ISREALIS.(Mlech)

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=e5p-AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100&dq=chitpavans+are+bene+israelis.&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwir7c-Jg6-DAxWGSGwGHY4qBW04ChDoAXoECAcQAw#v=onepage&q=chitpavans%20are%20bene%20israelis.&f=false

4.Kehimkar, Haeem Samuel. The History of the Bene Israel of India. Israel, Dayag Press, Limited, 1937.

5.Religion and the Legitimation of Power in South Asia. (2022). Netherlands: Brill.

snippet for your reference.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=MrxtEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA90&dq=chitpavans+are+low+caste&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjl8ZGrha-DAxX7dmwGHaPnCis4KBDoAXoECAUQAw#v=onepage&q=chitpavans%20are%20low%20caste&f=false

Just few reference for you.Here I have not included Dalit literature.Just glimpse for you,Same thing is there with karhade(more than dozen offline source are available).But deshasthas were original Brahmins of that land and in online two book I find that too based on Genetic study.(Which I don’t prefer as it seems more racist).

Good through it and let me know.Till date Chitpavan and karhade are not considered Brahmins in South Indian states.In Udupi Krishna mutt only Shivalli,Gaud saraswat Brahmin and deshastha Brahmins are given sahapankti bhojan(Meals together).

Karanth1234 (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyYou asked one question there,

->Did some Brahmin religious assembly issue a verdict that Shenvi were full Brahmin?

Yes ,1674 brahmin assembly consisting of varnasi Brahmins and Pune Brahmins infront of chatrapathi shivaji maharaj in Rajapur,clearly accepted Shenvis as satkarma Brahmins.(This is what I termed as Gagabhatti).Further issues were only with Chitpavans which reached court.

Karanth1234 (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copied this from the Brahmin page The Brahmins were expected to perform all six Vedic duties as opposed to other twice-borns who performed three.

A brahmin is supposed to have 6 duties (or at least the right to perform six duties even if he does not do it). If that drops to 3, what is the difference between a Brahmin and other varnas? LukeEmily (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC) LukeEmily (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyExcellent point,Brahmin need to perform shodasha karma(16 duties) and satkarma(6 tasks).Gaud saraswat Brahmins have their own mutt and temples throughout the Konkan coast where their own community bhats study in their vedapatashala(Mulki,mangalore and north Canara,Udupi and manjeshwar).They perform all 6 karmas(Satkarma).

secondly you may think that few were involved in the trade.This was the same case with all Brahmins of western coast where scope is less to become priest(Even during Portuguese rule temples were destroyed-Read inquisition of Goa).Even deshasthas were involved in trade and administration.Chitpavans were traditional farmers.Padhye Karhade were traditional farmers.So throught india Brahmins need not necessarily priest instead they were doing many works.This is why Shankaracharya of Sringeri used two words Brahmin(By origin) and vipra(Currently doing priestly work).

Just as per shastras few works were prohibited to Brahmins they should not do that.Any work involving bad sweat touching janiwar(Sacred thread) is prohibited.Daivadnya(Sonars) were doing that work that’s why other Brahmins denied their claim similarly Vishwakarma (I may personally don’t agree degrading any community but that’s what happened).Cross verify my details regarding Gaud saraswat Brahmins.

Just one example from Mumbai(Walkeshwar)

http://www.gsbkonkani.net/TEMPLES/BANGANGA%20SHRI%20WALKESHWAR.htm

Like this you can find very old temples under them.In Karnataka and Kerala where ever they have settlement they build venkataraman temple and Kashi mutt.In Goa priests are from GSB(Bhat) or Bhatt-prabhu(Karhade). Karanth1234 (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilySee in this citation they are speaking about Chitrapur saraswat and they were endorsed directly by Shankaracharya of Sringeri as they belong to smartha(Reference will be available in net if not I’ll redirect).Many reference are available from archive mentioning their arrival from Kashmir during Islamic invasion(They were original Kashmir pandits as per my knowledge) Karanth1234 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Karanth1234:, you are not giving citations. Please see this quote about how Brahmin claim was achieved. Priest does not mean Brahmin. For example, Gurav are traditional priests but not Brahmins.

These Brahmans who Brahmanised others, including people of comparatively lowly or uncertain status, played a crucial role in spreading and stabilising the values of 'traditional' caste in this period. In both north and south India this task was regularly performed by the sampradaya devotional sects. One such case in the Deccan was that of the mixed array of Konkani scribal and commercial specialists who came to be known as members of a single Brahman jati, the Chitrapur Saraswats. Well into the eighteenth century, this group was still in the process of developing a sense of castelike cohesion; this was achieved primarily through bonds of preceptoral affiliation to a line of Brahman renouncer-ascetics with a network of hospices and touring gurus based along the Kanara coast^[2]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

->Add this statement at the last of Varna dispute-This was verdict from Vedic scholars of Varanasi headed by Shivaji maharaj.Second was the verdict from court.This gives the final solution for this section.

In 1663,Gaga Bhatt(Deshasthas Rigvedi scholar) and Anantdeobhatt were invited to maharashtra by Shivaji to solve the dispute between Saraswat Brahmin and shenvis over the ritual status of shenvis.The council presided by assembly of 15 Pandits gave verdict in favour of shenvis as Brahmins with complete ritual status(Satkarma Brahmins).The decision at this assembly in April 1664 is prefaced by praise or prashasti from Shahaji and Shivaji to Gaga Bhatt.^[1][2][3][4].Udupa0000 (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Udupa0000:, The 19th century decision would not be final since the Brahmin claim of the GSB has been contested by Brahmins and some scholars even in the 20th century. The article by Jyoti Nayak is published in arcjournals.org which is in the Template:Predatory_open_access_source_list hence not reliable. Second, the source by Bendre is a WP:PRIMARY as it is originally written by Vishweshara Bhatta in the 17th century. Manu Palli is a popular historian. Also the source does not use the word Shenvi. No quote is given for the Mendale source. Please give quote for the Mehendale source.LukeEmily (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @LukeEmily,Historian pillai had mentioned “Gaga Bhatt declared saraswat Brahmins as pure Brahmins” by default in the context of Gagabhatt scenario it is understood that they are mentioning shenvis.Even in this page I found some editor have mentioned saraswat as Gaud saraswat citing the western coast.

17th century Gagabhatt decision was final,Other brahmin perspective should not be a matter here.Even today Saraswats don’t consider Chitpavan and Karhade as Brahmins so it should not become an perspective based article instead it should be based on event or fact.In the state of Kerala Namboodiri doesn’t consider Karhade as Brahmin.In my state Karnataka Shivalli,hawyaka and Sanketi clearly doesn’t consider Karhade(They speak karhadi konkani as their mother tongue) and Chitpavan(They speak chitpavani as their mother tongue) as Brahmins.When a Brahmin enters others territory they would not be considered it’s that simple.

I’ll give a very good reference concerned to court verdict.

Mehendale quote:

Page number 480 Quote:”Shivaji had met Gagabhatt a decade before his coronation in Rajapur to solve the issue related to shenavis regarding their ritual rights.(Same page)15 well learned pandit from Benaras gave vedict in favour of shenavis declaring them as Brahmins.(Same page)The decision at this assembly in April 1664 is prefaced by praise or prashasti from Shahaji and Shivaji to Gaga Bhatt.” Udupa0000 (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/001946467801500304

Just refer this journal which clearly states in the state of Maharashtra.Those who came from saraswat including Kshatriya,vaishya etc were subdivided as per Varna and in which Brahmins were called saraswat Brahmin(In particular) and only Brahmins being gaud saraswat,chitrapur(Which was undisputed).As per this article the shenvis are a part of Kudaldeshkar(Aadhya Gaud saraswat).So this article is using wrong page to write content related to shenavis.Saraswat can be of any community if it is mentioned saraswat brahmin then only it is brahmin.Ya I’ll proved the shenvi court case soon.

Refer:Kudaldeshkar Gaud Brahmin Udupa0000 (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyI have removed court case which I will add after citing court case reference.Go through the current content and Mehendale source. Udupa0000 (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Udupa0000:, Mendale can be added. Rest of the content on the page is properly sourced. If you think we have misrepresented any source, please discuss on talk page. LukeEmily (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyPerhaps for discussion we have enough time and that’s how editing process goes on.At present do add this content exactly at the end of Varna dispute so that readers should not get misguided. Udupa0000 (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add this at the stating of occupation section

Traditional occupations of the Saraswat Brahman community are priesthood , astrology (Jyothishya) and preparation of janmkundali^[1].When the Kadambas declined and were replaced by the Vijayanagara rule ,the Saraswat Brahmins were the priests of the famous temples in Goa. In Goa many temples were under saraswat Brahmins.In the state of Karnataka saraswat Brahmins had their own priests and were invited by other caste for rituals.^{[2] [3][4]} Udupa0000 (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does not say it was the traditional occupation of Gaud Saraswats. The Singh source says "Saraswat Brahmins" (which could be anything including the ones from Punjab) not "gaud saraswat Brahmins" and you have not given any context for the quote. Please note that it is clear from the sources that the Brahminhood of the north Indian saraswat Brahmins is not in dispute. It is the Brahminhood of the southern/western Gaud Saraswat Brahmins who claim descent from the Brahmins of the north (although modern scholars doubt this claim) that some authors question. Please see the quote below.LukeEmily (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyFirst source is clearly stating saraswat Brahmins were traditional priests.I have added three more references all three speaks about goa(Konkan) and Karnataka(Saraswats in goa is nothing but Gaud saraswat).So there is no point in rejecting this well sourced content.If one modern scholar doubts it’s his perception we need not to accept his assumptions blindly instead summary of many arguments leads to one truth(If I summarise obviously there won’t be doubt about their brahminhood).Majority authors accept their claim of brahminhood as per my knowledge.Coming to your context specific query,by default they are called Saraswats in all documents right from British era to modern authors.Even you have used some reference in the article too.

Madhav Deshpande writes:The Deshastha, Chitpavan and Karhade were united in their rejection of the brahminhood for the Gauḍa Saraswats, and Wagle[a] himself provides evidence of this animosity.[b][26]

.Here the source uses the word Sarasvata instead you have used gaud Saraswats.

From "Pre-Portuguese history of Goa"

If they had been brought to Goa by Parshurama, earlier than this date, for performing sacrifices and to officiate as priests, then the question arises, how is that in the whole of Konkan and Particularly in Goa, not a single Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra or other Hindu has engaged a Gaud Saraswat Brahmin as his purohit or Bhat? On the contrary, it is found that a large number of Gaud Saraswat Brahmins themselves are engaging non-Gaud Saraswat Brahmiins as their purohits

^[5]

K S Singh covers whole Indian region,The main paper Emma(Socialistic)covers Goa during Vijayanagar times,Karnataka government gazette covers coastal part and UC LIBRARY goa saraswat. Udupa0000 (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmily G. Pereira (1973) shares his perspective I have already shared counter perspective on this.All four references are there in that quote. Udupa0000 (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not enter your reply before the answer. Please enter it after the answer. The source says saraswat, not gaud saraswat.Were the Shenvis priests?LukeEmily (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyWhere did I mentioned shenvi priest,shenvis were administrators and landlords from past 8 centuries from Shilahara to Maratha empire this is why they were infront of Gagabhatt.I have clearly mentioned exactly saraswat and gaud saraswat as per the respective sources.Please see all the 4 sources.In goa do you find north India saraswat Brahmin coming for priest work so as I mentioned it was your own piece of work where you have mentioned “in western India saraswat means Gaud saraswat”.

Madhav Deshpande writes:The Deshastha, Chitpavan and Karhade were united in their rejection of the brahminhood for the Gauḍa Saraswats, and Wagle[a] himself provides evidence of this animosity.[b][26]

.Section [a] is your note regarding saraswat and gaud saraswat.

I am expecting neutral response from you.

Shortcut

• WP:POVEDITOR

Udupa0000 (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read the source to get the context of Deshpande's paper.LukeEmily (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyThe samething I am telling in my content too.The context clearly states saraswat of goa and western coast.By default they are Gaud saraswat.Karnataka gazette and Emmi(Socialist) clearly uses the word gaud saraswat.I don’t think there is some sort of ambiguity here. Udupa0000 (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((Edit extended-protected)) template. Shadow311 (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyI still didn’t understood your concern regarding this sentence which is perfectly cited.I have even mentioned context,if you feel like we are in deadlock regarding consensus let me add other editors too.

Dear

@Jonathansammy@MRRaja001@Karanth1234,

Please check my content and give your opinion which will be helpful. Udupa0000 (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JonathansammyPlease provide your opinion regarding my above content. Udupa0000 (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MRRaja001Please provide your opinion regarding my above content. Udupa0000 (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello editors, I have observed the usage of Rao Bahadur Bambadekar’s view in this page.He was from British era and Bahujan view writer.So as per Wikipedia policy for south Asian caste I am proposing deletion of contents related to bambadekar. Udupa0000 (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source is not Bambadekar, it is a high quality 2010 source. So it is as per wikipedia's policy.LukeEmily (talk)

@LukeEmilySee this quote “ Bambardekar, a scholar on Konkan History, does not accept the Gauda or Brahmin claim of the Gauda Saraswats. According to Bambardekar, the Pancha Dravid Brahmins are the original Gauda Brahmins and he cites a verse from the Skanda Puran to prove his assertion”

The book Deshpande(2008) uses Bambardekars research.Is it accepted? Udupa0000 (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did not understand the objection about Deshpande. It is a WP:RS.LukeEmily (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyI really don’t have problem with Deshpande instead in the book he has mentioned the perspective of bambadekar.The view of bambadekar is basically British era and Bahujan literature view.What ever the view Deshpande have can be used but why the editor is using bambadekar’s view. Udupa0000 (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The rule is that source has to be post british era. Then that source is considered reliable assuming other conditions are met. It does not mean that any view before the independence of India should be removed. Otherwise we will need to remove Gaga Bhatt and every other view given before 1947. Look at other caste pages. Also, that view is reflected by Kantak and others as Sitush has pointed out. Bambadekar's view is mentioned in his own words by Deshpande. It is perfectly fine to use it. It is strange that you object to a scholar Bambadekar at the same time pushing some adminstrator(Judge's) view from from the British era - someone who probably no indepth knowledge of caste in India. I dont know what bahujan literature is. Bambardekar was a scholar on Konkan history and probably a Brahmin.LukeEmily (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyGagabhatt was from Maratha era and well learned Sanskrit scholar.During British era/Post independence the jurisdiction was/is caste independence and based on legal proceedings(Proofs).British Raj stated from 1857(Completely-1818).Now the point is Rao Bahadur bambadekar was a saraswat Brahmins I am not disputing his caste.The literature which even he wrote was from British Raj and Bahujan(Sometime anti-brahmin) literature.The literature which opposes the Brahmins and in this process their point of view cannot be neutral.His literature books were not research oriented instead it is speculation oriented please check once.If you allow Bahujan literature of British Raj many books have came to conclusion about the non brahmin status of communities Karhade and Chitpavan.Adding this may change the status of many Brahmin caste.I doubt about usage of Bahujan literature from British era.So better to verify with any administrators. Udupa0000 (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jonathansammy@Karanth1234@MRRaja001Pardon me as I am adding you people for discussion.Based on your activity in talk page I have added you three.Please provide your opinion regarding this. Udupa0000 (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Delete the below Redundant statements which is before etymology (Reason:Same Statements are there in Varna dispute section and Occupation section respectively so mentioning these statements at the top redundantly may give false information to the Readers and even introduction is not the place to write these statements)

The Brahminhood claim of the Shenvi GSB was unanimously rejected by the Deshastha, Chitpavan and Karhade Brahmins and even the British classified them separately from Brahmins. The GSBs were traditionally traders and even as early as the 1400s they conducted commerce across the Indian Ocean.

Udupa0000 (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, agree, especially to the word "unanimously". I doubt there was any kind of referendum conducted by the Deshastha, Chitpavan and Karhade Brahmins.I don't have any issue with GSB or particularly Goan Saraswats being traders, or even being engaged with overseas trade during Portuguese rule in Mozambique. I hope this helps. Jonathansammy (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many sources refer to them as a "trading community". We generally have to paraphrase as perWP:PARAPHRASE. The source uses the word "united":

The Deśasthas, Citpāvans and Karhāḍes were united in their rejection of the brahminhood for the Sārasvatas, and Wagle himself provides evidence of this animosity.

. But I am ok with removing the word as @Jonathansammy: suggests - unanimous implies some formal referandum was conducted. We should remome unanimous and replace it by united or unified. Gaga Bhatt had given them an OK for their claim to Brahmin varna. But Deshpande says that there was a debate in Shivaji's court where they were declared trikarmi. Trikarmi is the ritual status of a Kshatriya or Vaishya(please see the Brahmin page) and personally I am not sure how trikarmi and Brahmin can be used together althoug we can use trikarmi on the page as some sources use it . Also, isnt crossing the ocean forbidden for hindus and did it not result in loss of varna? That being said, it seems that the Shenvi(Saraswat/GSB) have done well even in Shivaji's time - although their emphasis was on learning Portuguese and not Sanskrit like the Brahmins - according to Kantak. LukeEmily (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyThank you@Jonathansammyfor your valuable reply.Even one more editor is doubting the statement.

Since there was no formal referendum was done by these caste ,using these wordings seems something like perception of author Deshpande.Formally/legally there was no declaration about the rejecting Brahminhood of shenvis by other 3 castes

By the below statement I am strongly doubting Deshpandes view(Which is based on British Raj Bahujan author Rao Bahadur bambadekar)

As you said

Deshpande says that there was a debate in Shivaji's court where they were declared trikarmi. Trikarmi is the ritual status of a Kshatriya or Vaishya(please see the Brahmin page) and personally I am not sure how trikarmi and Brahmin can be used together althoug we can use trikarmi on the page as some sources use it

Gagabhatti(Original book) clearly states “Saraswat challenged shenvis and mentioned them as gowda(Vokkaliga) and had issue regarding calling them as saraswat Brahmin.They called them as “Trikarmi brahmin” and non saraswat but Gagabhatt mentioned declared them as “Satkarma brahmin” belonging to saraswat Brahmins clan”.Even all 3 court cases was regarding their “Satkarma brahmin status “ and not as “non Brahmins”.(Trikarmi Varna and trikarma brahmin both are different terms)

We can discuss more on Deshpande statement but as of now the present and main concern is usage of perception in introduction page.Already the same has been written in Varna dispute section and trading has been mentioned in occupation.So I propose deletion of these statements from the introduction page which is no way related to the summary abstract. Udupa0000 (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyUsing sentence like rejection of brahminhood claim requires verdict by learned scholars.Religious Scholars and court opinion is in favour of Gaud saraswats.Since rejection didn’t occurred officially or was no referendum against their Brahmin claim just by the perspective of Deshpande we cannot add statements like this.

The Deśasthas, Citpāvans and Karhāḍes were united in their rejection of the brahminhood for the Sārasvatas, and Wagle himself provides evidence of this animosity.

Here Deshpande cites the word animosity(By Wagle) which means rivalry.So in other wording he meant ”Due to rivalry other three Brahmins were united against Gaud saraswat Brahmins”.(Basis for this rejection?)

So no one can reject others brahminhood claim.So here deletion of this sentence is my opinion.Primarily deletion of this statement from the introduction page is strongly recommended from my side.

Introduction page is only to give brief information regarding community which is anonymously accepted by all,Here you have written Deshpande’s perspective and word “tradition traders” from some book where both are not universally true

@Jonathansammy@MRRaja001@Karanth1234 Please provide your opinion regarding this. Udupa0000 (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah you're right. I agree with you. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 19:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MRRaja001@JonathansammyThank you for your opinion.

@LukeEmily all three users are opposing this statement usage and there is no better reason for using the perspective of a single author without legal/valid/research base(It is neither qualitative analysis nor quantitative analysis).So as per the consensus it’s better to delete this sentence. Udupa0000 (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not the perspective of a single author. The lead has to represent the body accurately.The lead section incorrectly calls them a "Brahmin community" whereas the body shows that some groups such as Shenvis are not universally accepted as Brahmins - not by the British and nor by the established Brahmin communities like Karhade, Deshastha and Chitpavan nor by some scholars. In Goa also they are "generally" accepted, which means not always i.e there are some who do not accept the claim. In kerala also, the local Brahmins do not accept their claim. We dont say that Karhade Brahmin claim is "generally" accepted. They are established Brahmins who have performed all 6 vedic rituals. Shenvis were listed seperately from Brahmins by the British and as per WP:LEAD we need to give a summary of the page. But you want to remove any mention of controversy from the lead which incorrectly summarizes the page. Using this logic, we could make Hindus page a Brahmin community because some of them are recognized as Brahmin. Please also see WP:CANVASS and WP:DEMOCRACY. Since the lead incorrectly calls all subgroups as Brahmin, it is necessary to give one or two exceptions. Kantak has clearly mentioned that traditionally the Saraswats did not study sanskrit. According to another source(not on the page), the Shenvis were declared to be non-Brahmin by a group of scholars from Benaras during the British era(it is not mentioned on the page). Removing any opposition to the Shenvi claim and simply suggesting that all subgroups are Brahmin in the lead section would be misleading the reader. Dont you agree it would be a misrepresentation?LukeEmily (talk)

LukeEmilyLead section should contain only the information which is accepted without dispute(WP:LEAD).Here the information based on some authors(Bombardkars) perception cannot be valid in the lead.Perspective from author should be based on either qualitative or quantitative research this is lagging both.Just see the paper “Pancha gaud and panch dravid(Deshpande)” there he just concluded by stating

Gaud saraswat brahmin and Shukla yajurvedi Brahmins are example of north to south migration where yajurvedi got assimilated and Gaud saraswat didn’t

but you have selected only Bombardkar’s view(Raj era).Incase if they are in OBC category anywhere then you can mention.General category will be only given to people who didn’t suffered social oppression(Hope you know the Indian reservation system).

Shenvis were never declared non Brahmins by any scholars till date.I have a copy of Gagabhatti with me.Even British legal system declared them satkarma Brahmins-Recently I had given reference for that.

Now related to kerala,the book mentions “Daivadnya were not considered as Brahmins by GSB and both were not necessarily considered as Brahmin by nambodhari as they came by sea route which was consider as pollute in kerala ”:Clearly author is stating only because they came by sea route to escape Portuguese the local Brahmins considered pollute(Reason:Sea route Escape).The same book further tells the king of Kerala had given place to construct temple for GSB(Hope it’s clear). Coming to Goa ,you have given one author which mentions “In Goa also they are "generally" accepted, which means not always “-Author meant they are accepted as Brahmins in general.(Please read the book completely).Some reference for you,

The Colonial Periodical Press in the Indian and Pacific Ocean Regions. (n.d.). United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.pp.12

The saraswat who settled in Goa are popularly called as baman and they dominated the social hierarchy among Hindus

As you said saraswat didn’t studied Sanskrit.So please have look at some references,

Larsen, K. (1998). Faces of Goa: A Journey Through the History and Cultural Revolution of Goa and Other Communities Influenced by the Portuguese. India: Gyan Publishing House.pp-417

The Goud saraswat Brahmins has also founded several educational institutions for the maintenance of Vedic and Sanskrit knowledge

Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute. (1992). India: Dr. A. M. Ghatage, director, Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute.Pp-4

Saraswat in mangalore were very dedicated in studying Sanskrit

-

Hope this contradicts your statement. You wrote,

We dont say that Karhade Brahmin claim is "generally" accepted. They are established Brahmins who have performed all 6 vedic rituals.-Checkout konkankhyana,Brahmnadapurana,Even gaitonde states sahyadrikhand was written by deshasthas since they considered Karhade as non Brahmins,Deshpande clearly mentions them as non Dravid-non gaud who slowly assimilated

. Mentioning valid perception by maintaining neutrality is appreciated

.

This article is lagging neutrality as all information is having contradictions readily available.If one author is saying they are not considered as Brahmins many are supporting their claim stating it’s as part of intercaste dispute of Peshwa era.So as per the suggestion(WP:DEMOCRACY) of Jonathansammy and MRRaja001 ^(talk).Giving respect to the consensus I suggest you to delete these contents. Udupa0000 (talk)20:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no consensus and please read WP:DEMOCRACY. We CANNOT say they all are Brahmin if high quality sources do not agree that they are Brahmin. That is a no-brainer. If a subgroup - Shenevis(Saraswats) are not considered Brahmin by some reliable sources, then we cannt say that the entire group is Brahmin. Yes, we can say that they claim Brahmin status.I will reply to your individual comments. We cannot use wikipedia for caste promotion or manipulation. What is the name of your previous account? LukeEmily (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LukeEmily, As castes or more importantly, varna are all human constructs they are all based on claims.And to bolster the claim, or to refute a claim ,one can use the myth of Parshuram to turn all castes except brahmins into Shudras, or make him responsible for introducing new competing brahmins castes to the West coast of India.The scholars you cite are also just quoting history on the GSB dispute; they don't have any divine right to proclaim brahminhood, or lack there of in this matter.Yes, there is no censorship on Wikipedia but please do not use language that can appear offensive.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jonathansammy:, what is the offensive language? Please clarify. Some sources do consider the Shenavis as differnt from Brahmin. Why is that offensive?

varna are all human constructs they are all based on claims - they don't have any divine right to proclaim brahminhood, or lack there of in this matter. That is true for every caste page not just GSB. Are you suggesting that we should not mention varna on any caste page? Yes, there is no censorship on Wikipedia but please do not use language that can appear offensive Please point to the offensive language so it can be corrected. LukeEmily (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is the general tone that is offensive. The article as it stands has disproportionate amount of content on GSB claim on Brahmin status and very little on the different sub-castes amongst them, their culture, their society today, or their relationship with the broader Saraswat communities of India such as the Bengali or Kashmiri brahmins ( fish and meat eating respectively).I know your specialty is on casting doubt on the supposed Kshatriya or brahmin status of various communities of India. You do provide sources for your content but even then it seems like cherry picking. For example, you quote a lot from Deshpande's paper called PAÑCA GAUḌA AND PAÑCA DRĀVIḌA: CONTESTED BORDERS OF A TRADITIONAL CLASSIFICATION. It is a very detailed and long article (26 pages excluding citations) but you picked very selectively from it to make your point on casting doubt on the GSB brahminhood. I think it is clear what I am trying to say.Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is the general tone that is offensive. Please feel free to edit to change the tone - as long as the source is not misrepresented. I have not cherry picked - I have only picked the varna disputes because the article calls them Brahmin by overriding all opinions. I have even added the fact that the skanda puran has called them "handsome". If you feel there is cherry picking from the paper, please add more content from the same paper. I have not stopped anyone from doing that have I? The bottom line if you read the paper is that the local brahmins did not accept their brahmin claim, they modified the Skanda Puran. Bengali and Kashmir Brahmins have a tradition of learning the vedas and sanskrit and performing all six karmas of a brahmin. My specialization is sanskritization. It is not to cast doubt on the status. But we cannot misrepresent what the sources says. Please can you answer these questions about Shenavi(GSB)1)Do you agree that a number of sources like Kantak, Sharmila Rege , Gail Omvedt and others clearly mention them to be different from brahmin? 2)Do you agree the Indian ruler Shahu considerered them to be non-Brahmin? 3) Do you agree that many british sources (even the early 20th century) list shenavis differntly from brahmin? 4)Do you agree that Kantak says that saraswats had a tradition of learning portuguese whereas the brahmins had a tradition of learning sanskrit 5)Do you agree that local brahmins of certain areas do not accept their claims to be brahmin? 6)Do you agree with Sitush about the confusion caused due to saraswats being considred brahmin on wikipedia? 7)Do you agree that the Chitpavan, Karhade and Deshastha are accepted as full brahmins (their origin is irrelevant) by sources? No source seems to says "Karhade claim to be brahmins" - "Chitpavan are generally brahmin , etc? 8)If you agree with 1-7, do you agree that calling an entire group brahmin when some subcastes are not is incorrect? 9) If you do not agree with 1-7 , please can you point out which source I am misunderstanding 10) The non-stop sockpuppetry going on should not be encouraged. Just my 2 cents. LukeEmily (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. if "different from brahmin" then how do these authors classify the GSBs? 2. Please give a source for Shahu's opinion 3. How do the British list them? BTW, that is raj era and therefore not considerd acceptable, is it? 4. Under the portuguese there was advantage in learning the ruler's language. Brahmin administrators, mainly deshastha had good knowledge of Farsi during the sultanate period. Even their Marathi was totally persianized.BTW, do you have any source that says that GSBs shunned Sanskrit learning completely? 5.Just like the kokanastha did not accept the claim of Vasai yajurvedi to be brahmins 6.Please remind us of the concerns expressed by User Sitush 7. The brahmin you mention belong to the panch Dravida group per Deshpande and others whereas the GSB as the name suggests are Panch Gauda.8.Who classifies Shenvi separate from the GSB? 10.I don't who are you accusing of sockpuppetry?, and what stops you from initiating an investigation for that. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jonathansammy:, can you at least answer the yes/no questions? Most sources are already on the page - please mention the points for which you dont have access to the source. Do you not have access to Kantak's paper? If yes, what stops you from giving a simple yes/no answer to 4 before asking more questions? Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmily and @Jonathansammy

1.V Y kantak -Indian Jurist and legal scholar.He was not sociologist nor caste historian.

2.Sharmila Rega-Dalit standpoint perspective writer.

Rege was one of the leading feminist scholars in India, whose work in developing a 'Dalit Standpoint Perspective'^[1]Her particular focus on alternative history writing has given new life to the local and oral traditions of knowledge and cultural practice, by bringing them into public attention through translation projects that build archives of national memory.^[2]

3.Gail omveditt -She was Dalit standpoint perspective writer and anti Brahmin perspective writer.She was criticised as pro Marxist.

Gail Omvedt was an Ambedkarite scholar who contributed immensely to the anti-caste movement.^{[3][4][5][6][7][8]} Omvedt was critical of the religious scriptures of Hinduism (or what she specifically regarded as "brahminism") for what she argued is their promotion of a caste-based society.

4.Bambadekar-He was purely British Raj author.He wrote literature against all Brahmins of western Indian.He believed brahmins were from Central Asia and suppressing non Brahmins.(Pro Aryan theory)

My opinion:

Personally I don’t believe in caste inequality,all are equal not doubt but how can you expect neutral point of view from perspective writers.(Dalit perspective writers write in pro Dalit stance and pro Brahmin writers write in pro brahmin stance).Isn’t it?If any neutral reference is there you can add.

Wikipedia:POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields#:~:text=Articles must have a neutral,edit, after declaring the conflict.

-Goyambabji Rane Goyambab (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmily@Jonathansammy

1)Already answer about their perspective in the previous chat.

2)Shahu never interfered in any caste issue.Neutral reference is expected. 3) Do you prefer British Raj source ? 4)Anyone can learn any language that doesn’t mean they have left Sanskrit.

5)Deshasthas didn’t considered Karhade as Brahmins for their human sacrifice yajna habit(Bhattacharya-2022).So Can we mention this?6)Don’t know much about this

7)No except rule fight.Perspective of other caste cannot be legal/court/official.

8)Not applicable 9) After reading this article I found cherry picking against this caste.

Ex:”Brahmins Rejected Brahminhood claim”-Rejection!.(Bambadekar)

"many Indians, particularly the banyas, the Gowda Saraswat Brahmins began to move to different parts of this maritime space to conduct trade, where they eventually set up nucleus for Indian diasporas"-Trying to equate them with banaya by explicitly mentioning which is no way related to baniya.

“notes that trading communities such as the GSB, when dominating the merchants of Cochin, received exterritorial rights granted by the Dutch.”-Highlight “Trading community and traditional traders to give perspective of vaishya”.(Remaining content in the books!?)

In Kerala, the Gaud Saraswat Brahmin claim to be Brahmins but this view is not necessarily supported by other communities.-Other half part is in the same book Raja gives grant to Brahmins from Goa to construct the temple.

Bombadekar source.-Raj source.They list goes on.

10) Don’t know much about this in such case you can report to the administrators as i read in Wikipedia.

Goyembabji Rane Goyambab (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jonathansammy:, resending the same . can you at least answer the yes/no questions? Most sources are already on the page - please mention the points for which you dont have access to the source. Do you not have access to Kantak's paper? If yes, what stops you from giving a simple yes/no answer to 4 before asking more questions? Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the delay.I have been away from wikipedia for the last few days because of other commitments. Will answer you soon but it will not be a straight yes or no.I will reading the sources you mention fully and then framing my response.Thanks for your patience. Jonathansammy (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deactivating edit request as all participants are either blocked sockpuppets or already extended confirmed hence there's no need for an edit request and if someone who isn't a sock wants to implement this they can do so themselves. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't Bambardekar from Raj era, and therefore his work not acceptable for this article per the rules proposed by user Sitush? Jonathansammy (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jonathansammy:, I already answered this. We are not using Bambardekar source. Bambardekar, a scholar, is being interpreted by Deshpande , a very modern source. Sitush's rule is against using Raj era sources as references. We are not using Raj era references. Please see Rajput as an example of this. We do give earlier opinions if they have been interpreted by modern sources. If that were not true, we would not be able to give to give Gaga Bhatt's opinion on the Shivaji page. And we would not be able to give Rajwade's opinion on the Bhonsale page. Or we would not be able to give Raj era verdicts on the Kayastha page. These are all examples of opinions given in Raj era or earlier interpreted by modern sources. Sitush also pointed out that the community has been mentioned different from brahmin by many sources including Kantak. Please point out issues on this page where a source has been misrepresented and we can correct it. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Are_British_Raj_ethnographers_unreliable. Raj era ethnographers are not reliable because they beieved in race theories, had no training and believed in the dismissed aryan invasion theory. LukeEmily (talk)

LukeEmily and Jonathansammy ,

Here I can find a lot of ambiguity. Deshpande didn’t analysed bambardekar instead he has cited it directly(This becomes bambadekar view-British Raj).

In Etymology you have mentioned shenvi and Gaud saraswats are synonymous.many sources are mentioning them as a subcaste of saraswat/Gaud saraswat. Many references are referring only as saraswats(Chitrapur ,Rajaput ,Gaud )which community they mentioned?.

Author have mentioned rejected.How can Other community reject the status of already proved Brahmins.Rejection is via court or via scholar or in the state government of Maharashtra or Maratha empire or silahara.Which court?

If this much problem is there with shenvi Brahmins why don’t we create a new page for them?

Bhattacharya, J. N. (2022). Hindu Castes and Sects: An Exposition of the Origin of the Hindu Caste System and the Bearing of the Sects Towards Each Other and Towards Other Religious Systems. United States: Creative Media Partners, LLC.page number-89. “Clearly states shenvi Brahmins are a part of Maharashtra Brahmins,occupation being priest and secular persuit.He clearly states these 5 category Brahmins as high caste.Even he mentions the list of fallen Brahmins of Maharashtra (page 90-91)”.Please refer it once.

Goyambab (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Mention this in the starting of occupation.

Mahadji Shinde generally patronised Maharashtra Brahmins Particularly shenvi Brahmins and Deshastha Brahmins.Shenvi Brahmins worked as civil administrators,financiers,Generals and viceroy in shindia dynasty.^[1] Goyambab (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Goyambab:, thanks for your contribution. I will add it shortly. Please note that wikipedia rules require us to paraphrase or give in quotes.LukeEmily (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Write at the starting of occupation.Already paraphrased .

Gaud Saraswat Brahmins were traditionally priests and were very well versed Vedic scholars.They mastered in performing Vedic rituals.Some were involved in secular persuit in which they got success. ^[2] Goyambab (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asian education services is not reliable. They reprint very old books. And who is Chavan? LukeEmily (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmily

Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources-This publisher is reliable and valid.This is not Raj source based book and neither primary source.

Dr V P Chavan is historian and author with expertise in Konkan history(Perspective-Neutral).

More information about book :

This book was first published in 1991.Then within last 30 years it got republished 4 times by different publishers.

Hope there is not ambiguity here. Goyambab (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Goyambab:, I am ok with adding any content - incuding this book but this seems to be a raj era book that has been republished. See Asian_Educational_Services Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyYou can proceed with writing the content as it is at the top of occupation(Already Paraphrased).AES May have republished many books but this book details are clear.1991 -First print and Author(Historian)-V p Chauhan(Still he is alive).He is no way related to British Raj. Goyambab (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done Stale, contested request by blocked sockpuppet. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @LukeEmily and @Jonathansammy https://www.jstor.org/stable/24543602?seq=1

Please refer the above research article.It clearly cites the existence of shahyadrikhand before Dcunha publisher it.Many accounts were mentioned.Peshwa strictly ordered to destroy(Peshwa Balaji a Bajirao) all the copies of shayadrikhand to hide the Origin(Fisherman origin as written in shayadrikhand ).Author cites some instance where Marathas(Army personals)were tortured then followed by deshasthas Brahmins(One was murdered because he had a copy of shahyadrikhada).Author gives account of how Peshwas influenced Shankaracharya mutt of Sringeri.He explains how clearly they suppressed this shayadrikhand with the extent of Maratha empire. Finally in conclusion he clearly cites Peshwas considers shahyadrikhand as offensive for their community so tried to destroy with utter care and finally it remained with non Maratha empire influence area mainly Brahmins. Goyambab (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jonathansammy and @LukeEmilyThis excellent paper from Oxford university gives complete opposite view based on historical evidence(Not just perspective).It explains how Chitpavans and karahade tried to destroy just to hide their origin.As per the paper they tortured Maratha then deshasthas and finally shenvis(Subsection of GSB) to destroy sahyadrikhand.Please go through it completely.

@JonathansammyLet me know should I add this or shall we delete Deshpande?

This paper contains harsh history towards Karhade(Very harsh).So I have avoided adding that part.Waiting for your reply. Goyambab (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Goyambab:, what does it say about Shenavis section of GSB? We can add it to this page if you want to. My general approach is that if something is sourced then I do not have any objections. Origin does not imply acceptance by scholars. Irrespective of origin given in Sahyadrikhanda, which may or may not be true, Karhade and Chitpavan are accepted today by writers as part of the Brahmin community. Karhade and Chitpavan have both performed satkarma which includes teaching Vedas. De Cunha has translated to English- I don't know if he edited any part.LukeEmily (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyI have read a letter in that from

Benares vedic scholars warning Dravid Brahmins(They have mentioned castes) mentioning the full ritual status of shenvis and not to challenge ritual capacity of any saraswat Brahmins in the western coast.

@Jonathansammy Since you are experienced editor I am requesting your opinion.

That book is completely opposite to the Deshpandes view and with the proof letters from history.That reference contains too much harshness towards Chitpavan and Karhade providing proof for their origin.Mainly the origin of Karhade as stated by Chitpavan Peshwas nearest person was very horrible.This May be misused by caste promoted or demoters against Karhade.We can delete both Deshpande content and avoid this Oxford reference (One alternative).If not we can add this as contrary to the deshpandes view.I have avoided the origin part of Karhade and Chitpavan in my content.

So waiting for your reply. Goyambab (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add these statements at the starting of Origin Myth(This has been paraphrased)

Rosalind O'Hanlon Clearly cites the existence of sahyadrikhand even before British Raj.He clearly states the historic instances occurred during Maratha empire.He mentions the usage of Sahyadrikhand by Benarus Brahmins to declare the ritual rights of Saraswat Brahmins of western coast as early as 1630.

Mark wilks served between 1782-1808 writes about the strong rules imposed by Peshwas for destruction of manuscript among the Maratha armies and he even mentions the extent to which peshwas targeted Brahmins having books of chitpavan origin.

”compose a large portion of the ruling characters in the Mahratta state; and in their various predatory incursions into other countries are stated to seek with avidity for the copies of a work containing the history of their origin,for the purpose of destroying it; and the eastern Brahmins affirm that the orders for this purpose given to their illiterate troops have produced a large and indiscriminate destruction of manuscripts.”

According to Rosalind O'Hanlon many local poets in satata court started writing poems based on sahyadrikhand centring origin of Chitpavans and their raise towards post of Peshwa by sidelining rulers.This angered peshwa Bajirao II and ordered to stop any poetry based on Sahyadrikhand.

In 1826,James Grant Duff from the historic letter mentions,

”carefully suppress or destroy all copies of the Syadree Kind,where their origin is mentioned, and a respectable Bramin of Wai was, a few years ago, disgraced by Bajee Rao for having a copy of it”

Rosalind O'Hanlon Mentions the historical letter from chitpavan informant Raghoba of Peshwa,

”The peshwa was so enraged that he ordered all the copies to be called in and burnt by

Mhângs, decreeing that any person thereafter found to possess a copy should be hanged; a sentence which was actually suffered

subsequently by one Deshast Brâhmin”

As per the author despite being precise policing by the peshwas to destroy any existing copy of sahyadrikhand,the copies of sahyadrikhand was survived in Sringeri mutt and colonial achieves. After the fall of Maratha empire,Many Maharashtrian historians concluded that the sahyadrikhand having origin of Brahmins of konkan is authentic book and the peshwa tried to destroy it to hide the origin of their caste.^[3] Goyambab (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Goyambab: where did you want to add it? It is well known that the Peshwa rule was full of corruption. LukeEmily (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LukeEmilyand @JonathansammyAdd that topic in origin after explanation of Basic content of sahyadrikhand(After you mentioned 12 Brahmins came ) or add that after Deshpandes perspective as contrary. Goyambab (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: WP:sockpuppetry — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suspected sock or meatpuppet! Also, Wikipedia:BLUDGEON is applicable in this case. Ekdalian (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear @Jonathansammy@MRRaja001@Fylindfotberserk,

“The Brahminhood claim of the Shenvi GSB was rejected by the Deshastha, Chitpavan and Karhade Brahmins and even the British did not include them in the category of Brahmins”

I proposed deletion of this statement.If Hindus don’t consider them as Brahmins then it can be mentioned but do you think other Brahmins caste who were involved in politics during Maratha empire can be added here.Did this rejection happened officially?Do these three caste have that power to reject brahmin claim of other well establish Brahmin?

Did ever British understood Varna,They just mentioned everything in the perspective of caste then how/why do they consider someone as Brahmins?Hope discussion will be there on this. 2409:40F2:2D:6233:48DF:21D7:2B2B:59CB (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jonathansammy@MRRaja001

“Scholars write that "Shenvi" and "Gaud Saraswat Brahmin" are synonyms”

Please delete this statement which no way related to the truth as per original classification.Shenvi is a part of Gaud saraswat not synonym.Govind sadashiv gurye clearly states in his research about the division among them if you want I can list out main such division based reference! 2409:40F2:102A:654C:540C:A517:5FAF:9E39 (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jonathansammy@MRRaja001

1.

“Historically, Jana Tschurenev states that the Shenvis were a community that claimed to be Brahmins. The name GSB is a modern construction based on newly curated caste history and origin legends”

Statement need not to be conclusive and second one is unsourced.Have a look at it.

2.

”The Brahminhood claim of the Shenvi GSB was rejected by the Deshastha, Chitpavan and Karhade Brahmins and even the British did not include them in the category of Brahmins”-

Redundancy of statement since it is only related to shenvis it can be deleted from headlines.

”Rejected ! Which authority have power to do that except Dharmasabha of Varanasi?”.Dharamsabha decision has been posted by me in the talk section with historical proof. 2409:40F2:102A:654C:540C:A517:5FAF:9E39 (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear @Jonathansammy@MRRaja001

Letters Home: Banaras pandits and the Maratha regions in early modern India,Author(s): ROSALIND O'HANLON,Source: Modern Asian Studies,MARCH 2010, Vol. 44, No. 2 (MARCH 2010), pp. 201-240,Published by:Cambridge University Press,Stable URL:https://www.jstor.org/stable/27764655

one more book from Rasalind O’Hanlon,here she takes the Deshpandes books information and analyses it.

Here author clearly states the caste of some Banarus scholars including deshasthas,karhade etc.Then how come that three caste rejecting shenvi claim part is valid?.Moreover the issue was shenvi are satkarmi or trikarmi as they consumed fish and issue was not brahmin or not !

Secondly the dharma sabha of Banaras without any ambiguity clearly cites them as satkarma Brahmins.In this case on which basis we are mentioning Varna dispute here?

if you want the content of this book let me know

2409:40F2:102A:654C:540C:A517:5FAF:9E39 (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

“Change the Subtitle: Varna dispute to Intercaste dispute” 2409:40F2:2D:6233:48DF:21D7:2B2B:59CB (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear

@Jonathansammy@MRRaja001@Fylindfotberserk,

As the content is clearly stating Gagabhatt and banarus pandit clearly upheld their brahminhoood status(Varna cleared means where is dispute?).Since this is issue between three community then why it should be mentioned as “Varna Dispute” isn’t it “Intercaste dispute”?Here I doubt involvement of Deshathas as they were who gave them deeksha towards Madhwa vayujeevothama matha. 2409:40F2:2D:6233:48DF:21D7:2B2B:59CB (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, Intercaste dispute or Intercaste Varna dispute sounds fair.Thanks for pointing out. Jonathansammy (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear @Jonathansammy@Fylindfotberserk@MRRaja001 I got this information in the same talk page referred the paper(Author Rosalind O’Hanlon),Went through the content in Jstor and I am verifying the information with the page number(Refer the quote).There is no ambiguity in this we can include this in the paper. My opinion:The topic is completely opposite to the information included in the origin and myth.Here author clearly states the origin was not edited instead Peshwa tried to destroy it and gives some letter and other historical proofs. Over to you just waiting for your opinion.

Dear @Jonathansammy@Fylindfotberserk@MRRaja001,

This content is from Oxford publication from sociologist.I am expecting review from experience editors.Let me know your opinion in adding this content. 2409:40F2:1037:B004:84C9:7F2C:7962:9ACE (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rosalind O'Hanlon Clearly cites the existence of sahyadrikhand even before British Raj.He clearly states the historic instances occurred during Maratha empire.He mentions the usage of Sahyadrikhand by Benarus Brahmins to declare the ritual rights of Saraswat Brahmins of western coast as early as 1630.

Mark wilks served between 1782-1808 writes about the strong rules imposed by Peshwas for destruction of manuscript among the Maratha armies and he even mentions the extent to which peshwas targeted Brahmins having books of chitpavan origin.

”compose a large portion of the ruling characters in the Mahratta state; and in their various predatory incursions into other countries are stated to seek with avidity for the copies of a work containing the history of their origin,for the purpose of destroying it; and the eastern Brahmins affirm that the orders for this purpose given to their illiterate troops have produced a large and indiscriminate destruction of manuscripts.”

According to Rosalind O'Hanlon many local poets in satata court started writing poems based on sahyadrikhand centring origin of Chitpavans and their raise towards post of Peshwa by sidelining rulers.This angered peshwa Bajirao II and ordered to stop any poetry based on Sahyadrikhand.

In 1826,James Grant Duff from the historic letter mentions,

”carefully suppress or destroy all copies of the Syadree Kind,where their origin is mentioned, and a respectable Bramin of Wai was, a few years ago, disgraced by Bajee Rao for having a copy of it”

Rosalind O'Hanlon Mentions the historical letter from chitpavan informant Raghoba of Peshwa,

”The peshwa was so enraged that he ordered all the copies to be called in and burnt by

Mhângs, decreeing that any person thereafter found to possess a copy should be hanged; a sentence which was actually suffered

subsequently by one Deshast Brâhmin”

As per the author despite being precise policing by the peshwas to destroy any existing copy of sahyadrikhand,the copies of sahyadrikhand was survived in Sringeri mutt and colonial achieves. After the fall of Maratha empire,Many Maharashtrian historians concluded that the sahyadrikhand having origin of Brahmins of konkan is authentic book and the peshwa tried to destroy it to hide the origin of their caste.^[1] 2409:40F2:104B:83F7:540F:4927:2C85:9F40 (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear @Jonathansammy@MRRaja001@Fylindfotberserk I am keeping historical research proof of judgment from assembly of banarus Vedic scholars(even before Gagabhatt) clearly citing them as Brahmins with full ritual rites.The fish habit is also discussed here.Complete judgement letter from banarus scholars(Including Maharashtrian Brahmins of banarus).Perfect research journal by Rosalind O’Hanlon.

My observation:I found one complaint from Gaud Saraswat Brahmins against shenvis and one from dravid Brahmins against shenvis. Reason they gave:Fish consumption. Judgement as mentioned below applicable for both Gaud Saraswat Brahmins(Sastikar,Pednekar,balavalikar,lotlikar etc) and Dravid Brahmins of the region considering all the proofs.

It is valid to add in Varna dispute section.I am keeping it here waiting for your reply.Two more books are there regarding this.

Rosalind O’Hanlon mentions the issue of 1630 where the ritual status of shenvis were challenged by Dravid Brahmins of Bombay and he mentions the historic judgement from the Assembly of Banaras scholars and kamalakarabhatta(was a member of the prestigious Bhatta pandit dynasty of Banaras, leaders of the powerful Maratha Brahman community that had gradually consolidated itself in the city since the start of the sixteenth century.)which was passed after the deep discussion about shenvis ordering Dravid Brahmins not to challenge the ritual status of saraswat Brahmins of south and the judgement clearly states that they belong to saraswat Brahmins of Gaud and eligible to perform all six rituals duties.The judgement was as follows,

'To the Deshastha, Chitapavana, Karnata,Gurjara and others living in Mumbapuri,Dadambhatta of the Bhatta family, and others from Kasi [Banaras] send their homage and greetings You posed an objection that in your country the members of the Kusasthali and Sashasti families are performing the six karmas. But it is impossible to say that they are ineligible for the actions, since it is seen in the Deccan uplands that they are admitted to the status of ascetics, and everywhere they are seen performing the Srauta and GrhyaVedic rituals such as the Agnihotra. This much is heard from the mouths of the learned.And what is more,Kamalakarabhatta has established the greatness of the fourth stage of life [that of sannyasi, or ascetic] for these castes.They are part of the Gauda category of Brahmins, and to be honoured within their own caste. And everyone has seen that document.’

Rosalind O’Hanlon even cites the incidence from 1631 where the assembly of Banaras scholars revive its great Advaita monastery, destroyed by the Portuguese in 1564. Its spiritual heads had left the town for Banaras, where Bhavananda Sarasvati, sixty-second guru, was then living.Vitthal from shenvi community wanted to take up the headship of the revived monastery himself.The Assembly of Banarus Vedic scholars considered all the parameters and gave the judgement to take up the lead of adhavitha matha.The detailed judgement letter is as follows,

'The pandits' judgement described the extensive enquiries they had made.Who were these residents of Kusasthal, what are their relations,what is their origin, what is their varna, their dharma,their karma?' Opponents of the Senvis had pointed to the fact that these Brahmans customarily ate fish. To defend the Senvis,the assembly invoked the god Parasuram, the stories of the Sahyadrikhanda, and the principle that Brahman difference at this level was legitimate. In fact, the assembled scholars argued,Parasuram permitted all the Brahmans he settled in the Konkan to continue the practices brought with them from other countries,including the eating of fish, and these practices in no way detracted from their prestige as Brahmans.

Rosalind O’Hanlon Cites that a long list of signatures of leading Brahman scholars from Banaras,including that of Kamalakarabhatta himself, was appended to the judgement before it was circulated. ^[1] 2409:40F2:104B:83F7:540F:4927:2C85:9F40 (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read WP:SOCKPUPPETRY! Ekdalian (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EkdalianI went through that link.I saw that user may be sock but the content cannot be sock.This content is from very good source(Oxford publications).I personally went through it and verified(I have given quotes from the page).That’s why I kept this infront of experienced editors in this page. 2409:40F2:1037:B004:84C9:7F2C:7962:9ACE (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear @Ekdalian,

This current section is written by me and reference has been given with quotes.Waiting for experienced editors to review this. 2409:40F2:1037:B004:84C9:7F2C:7962:9ACE (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear @Jonathansammy@MRRaja001@Fylindfotberserk I have rearranged the contents above.I have done my part of work being Wikipedians it’s your turn.Discuss the content and if you feel it as good then add it.

1. Existence of Sayhadrikhand before peshwas(1630) and origin of any caste is not edited(Perfectly verified and added quote page wise) -Regarding sayhadrikhand,As per this that book existed and was not edited,Author has given Historical proof for this(This is completely against to the sayhadrikhand analysis of Deshpande(2008)) 2. Historical letter from Assembly of Banaras scholars and endorsed by kamalakarbhatt(Leader of Maharashtrian Brahmins in banarus) -This section clearly gives historical evidence of final verdict from Assembly of banarus scholars and Kamalakar bhatt mentioning shenvi as full fledged Brahmins.This happened before Gagabhatt,based on this Gagabhatt gave verdict.( Hope this will end Varna dispute ambiguity)

The above two content I.e.Origin and Varna don’t have any ambiguity as per this.

For further clarification you can drop message here.I may reply, not often but I will try to visit this page. 2409:40F2:1037:B004:84C9:7F2C:7962:9ACE (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear @Jonathansammy@MRRaja001@Fylindfotberserk,

Please drop out the review/Comments or consensus regarding above two topics here. 2409:40F2:1037:B004:84C9:7F2C:7962:9ACE (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Gaud Saraswat Brahmin. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the ((EEp)) template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Add in the Varna dispute section

The saraswat Brahmins(Mainly shenvi subcaste) were very successful community in the Mumbai which attracted the hostility of other Brahmins in that region.Rosalind O’Hanlon mentions the issue of 1630 where the satkarma ritual status of shenvis(Sub caste of saraswat Brahmins) were challenged by Dravid Brahmins of Bombay.The author mentions the historic judgement from the Assembly of Banarus Dharma Sabha and kamalakarabhatta(was a member of the prestigious Bhatta pandit dynasty of Banaras, leaders of the powerful Maratha Brahman community that had gradually consolidated itself in the city since the start of the sixteenth century.)which was passed after the deep discussion(about shenvi)ordering Dravid Brahmins not to doubt the ritual status of saraswat Brahmins of south.The judgement clearly declared that the shenvis belong to saraswat Brahmins of Gaud and are eligible to perform all six rituals duties.The judgement was as follows,^[1]

'To the Deshastha, Chitapavana, Karnata,Gurjara and others living in Mumbapuri,Dadambhatta of the Bhatta family, and others from Kasi [Banaras] send their homage and greetings.You posed an objection that in your country the members of the Kusasthali and Sashasti families are performing the six karmas. But it is impossible to say that they are ineligible for the actions, since it is seen in the Deccan uplands that they are admitted to the status of ascetics, and everywhere they are seen performing the Srauta and GrhyaVedic rituals such as the Agnihotra. This much is heard from the mouths of the learned and what is more,Kamalakarabhatta has established the greatness of the fourth stage of life [that of sannyasi, or ascetic] for these castes.They are part of the Gauda category of Brahmins, and to be honoured within their own caste. And everyone has seen that document.’

Rosalind O’Hanlon even cites the incidence from 1631 where the assembly of Banaras scholars(Banarus Dharma sabha) revive its great Advaita monastery, destroyed by the Portuguese in 1564. Its spiritual heads had left the town for Banaras, where Bhavananda Sarasvati, sixty-second guru, was then living.Vitthal from shenvi community wanted to take up the headship of the revived monastery himself.The Assembly of Banarus Vedic scholars considered all the parameters and gave the judgement to take up the lead of adhavitha matha.The detailed judgement letter is as follows,^[2]

'The pandits' judgement described the extensive enquiries they had made.Who were these residents of Kusasthal, what are their relations,what is their origin, what is their varna, their dharma,their karma?' Opponents of the Senvis had pointed to the fact that these Brahmans customarily ate fish. To defend the Senvis,the assembly invoked the god Parasuram, the stories of the Sahyadrikhanda, and the principle that Brahman difference at this level was legitimate. In fact, the assembled scholars argued,Parasuram permitted all the Brahmans he settled in the Konkan to continue the practices brought with them from other countries,including the eating of fish, and these practices in no way detracted from their prestige as Brahmans.

The long list of signatures of leading Brahman scholars from Banaras Dharmasabha,including that of Kamalakarabhatta himself, was appended to the judgement before it was circulated.Both the verdict of Banarus dharma Sabha were unambiguously in favour of Saraswats(Shenvis in particular).The dharma Sabha clearly declared them as Satkarma Brahmins(Eligible for all six duty) by considering all the parameters in depth.^{[3] [4]} 2409:40F2:2A:DB34:C553:374B:3A74:28C3 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear @Jonathansammy@MRRaja001,

check out 2409:40F2:2A:DB34:C553:374B:3A74:28C3 (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have updated the source per sections individually.So let me know if any alterations are required. 2409:40F2:1017:84C3:19DD:59D0:BD2C:E2D4 (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jonathansammy@MRRaja001@LukeEmilyI am not okay with this statement given by user/editor while he undid the changes accepted by administrator,So I am reactivating the request.

added Kantak. More research of sources is needed. It’s not a dispute only between castes. Scholars, society and even the British are involved too. The sources do not say that other than Brahmins, everyone else accepted their claim. The sources make a general statement without specifying opposing community in some cases. There are some scholars like Sharmila Rege and Kantak who also classify them seperately. Please see section details.

1.It was dispute between caste(As I read the article it was caste war in Maharashtra between multiple caste).I have given secondary source in the talk page regarding this.

2.None of the source told that other than marati brahmin caste challenged their ritual status.Even these Caste challenged their satkarma status not brahminhood as a whole. Ref: O’Hanlon, Rosalind (2013). PERFORMANCE IN A WORLD OF PAPER: PURANIC HISTORIES AND SOCIAL COMMUNICATION IN EARLY MODERN INDIA. Oxford University Press(Past and present). p. 87-126. Ref: O’Hanlon, Rosalind (2010). Letters Home: Banaras pandits and the Maratha regions in early modern India. Oxford University Press(Past and present). p. 227-228. (4 books will be updated soon)

3.Scholars cannot challenge their Brahmins claims.As per my reasearch Iravti karvi,Gurye clearly accepts their Brahmins claim. Kantak-gives opposite view but doesn’t deny completely. Deshande(2008) based on bambadekar view gives some view which was opposed by Rosalind O’hanon by giving historical document of Banarus dharmasabha.

4.British mentioned them separately as they never identified themself as just local Dravid Brahmins (as mentioned in many research articles ) anywhere instead they considered themself as Gaud section brahmin but my question is did British knew Varna?

In the above points where is Varna dispute.I can tell it May be perception of author and intercaste dispute.Officially the only Supreme power for Varna or Varna related issue was Banarus dharma Sabha consisting of all Brahmins scholars(Pancha gauda and pancha dravida).I have mentioned the 1630 and 1631 issue of shenvi satkarma or trikarma dispute was official solved by dharmasabha signed by Vedic scholars of deshasthas and many more community of Indian Brahmins Varna scholars. Few quotes from research article where whole Dravida brahmin Vedic scholars too accept the decision.

The whole Dravida community had gathered 'in the Mukti mandapam of Srisvami's temple', and conducted a very thorough investigation. There had been a difficulty, that these Brahmans customarily ate fish. But this was not an insuperable bar. In eating fish, they were simply following the prescriptions of Parasurama, whoallowed all those who came to settle in the Konkan to follow their long established customs. The pandits thus determined that these pancha gaudas were fully Brahmans, entitled to all of the six karmas and hence able to assume the status of a sannyasi, or renouncer, required by headship of the math. The path was thus cleared for Vitthal to assume the headship, under the new name of Sachchidanda Saraswati,his initiatory gurus being the previous head of the math, Bhavananda Saraswati and Laksmana Bhatta

Names of scholars are as follows,

Thirty four names were upended in the judgement,Bhavanandasarasvati, Kamalakarabhatta,Dharmadhikarirambhatta, Agnihotri Raghunathabhatta, Haribhattadiksita,Purandararamacandrabhatta,Aradilaksmanabhatta,Kasipurivasipuranandasarasvati,Anandavana, Hariharashrama, Aradopanamaka Narayanabhatta, Kolasekaropanamaka Mahadevabhatta,Bhavanandasarasvati, Raghunathabhattapandita, Narayan

bhattapandita,Muralidharajayakrsnabhatta,Radheyagopalabhatta,Mayapurvasino Badariyadamodarbhatta, Kedarbhattasunoramaheswara,Godavaritryambakavasino,Ganesabhattakadamba, Anantadaivajnya, Haridiksita, Ramacandrasastri,Tailanganavisvesvarasastri,LaksmanaBhatta,Ganesabhatta Somayaji, Kovaivasudevbhatta, Visvesvaradiksita, Agnihotri Dinkarabhatta, Janardanbhatta, Ambikabhatta, Indoravasisesabhatta,

Yogisvarajayarama,Raghunathakasinatha.

The caste details of each Vedic scholars of Banarus Dravidian Brahmins are given in the Rosalind O’Hanon(2013). If any ambiguity is there in my reply let me know. 2409:40F2:101E:E802:BC85:9441:6F05:EC2F (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Gaud Saraswat Brahmin. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the ((EEp)) template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Delete the below statement in the introduction and in Varna dispute.(1.The context in the reference has been misinterpreted here as “Deshapande(2008) is mentioning the Wagle’s book which is speaking about jealousy during Maratha empire for the post between Brahmins of Maharashtra”.British list information doesn’t have any reference. 2.This source is based on British Raj information by bombadekar. 3.Quote has mentioned Sarasvata but editor has changes it to GSB shenvi violation of WP:V; synthesis)

“The Brahminhood claim of the Shenvi GSB was rejected by the Deshastha, Chitpavan and Karhade Brahmins and even the British did not include them in the category of Brahmins.“ 2409:40F2:3B:66EB:5D03:6140:9CE9:CBDE (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jonathansammy@MRRaja001Please check out the reason and let me know if any changes need to be done. 2409:40F2:3B:66EB:5D03:6140:9CE9:CBDE (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]