Talk:Chitpavan Brahmins/Archive 1

Confusion between articles
1. This article has very strong correlation with another one tited Chitpavan Konkanastha Brahmins. Maybe we should merge these two.

2. This other article has been seriously vandalised by someone who has attempted to discredit the Chitpavans and indeed, insult the community subtly. I have attempted to clean up his act, and remove the bias but that is one of the downsides of Wiki.

RE: This is the strength of WIKI that all facts come out and are not easy to suppress. This article is much improved version of the one titled Chitpavan Konkanastha Brahmins. If I detect that it's getting out of hand, I'll be back, to clean up the act. :o) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.137.34 (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

<> hmm... There was a page on Chitpavan Konkanastha Brahmins earlier. Its "Discussion" section had some very thought provoking information.

It seemed to be lost but I have dug it out. Giving it here for new visitors: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chitpavan_Konkanastha_Brahmins&printable=yes

Do not miss it! <>

3. Third, I agree with one of the comments here that the physical characteristics are only one of the possible identifiers of a Chitpavan. There are many more, most importantly, personality, achievement orientation, intelligence and a positive, liberal attitude, all of which have given the Chitpavan his place in Indian society. I support Mr Patwardhan's POV that lets stop talking about "Gore-Ghare" all the time :)

Artaxerxes07 03:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of ' A Konkan Legend' - An Article by S M Edwardes
There was an interesting article by above name incorporated in Chitpavan Origins section. Some mad person has removed it. However this person has failed to remove the link which is By Ways of Bombay - Chapter XIV " A Konkan Legend" - By S M Edwardes http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/1/0/0/7/10071/10071.htm

Wikipedia is fast becoming a platform of expressing personal opinions and rivalries rather than a repository of knowledge. This I am afraid is bound to diminish its credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.0.180.100 (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Listfarm
I'm moving this list to the talk page as it's too long and doesn't add anything to the article.Toddst1 (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Social Status
Hi All

The article has following

As per Western India in the Nineteenth Century By Ravinder Kumar,

''the deshasths brahmins of maharashtra believed that they were the highest of all brahmins. Upon the chitpavans, they looked down with scarcely veiled contempt as parvenus(A Parvenu is a person that is a relative newcomer to a socioeconomic class.), barely fit to associate on terms of equality with the noblest of dvijas. A chitpavan who was invited to a deshasth home was a privileged individual, and even the Peshwa was denied the rights to use the ghats reserved for deshasth priests at Nashik on the Godavari.''

Ravinder Kumar also states

''prior to the British conquest of 1818, the administration of Maharashtra was dominated by the chitpavans, who possessed greater intellectual agility and political acumen than the deshasths, and who were consequently able to exercise a more profound influence over the region. The community produced men of distinction in politics, in the field of scholarship and in the art of war like skilled diplomat Nana Phadnavis or administrators of integrity like Ramshashtri, or advaitists of repute like Mulhar Shrotee or scholars of distinction like Raghu Achraya Chintaman''

Many people seem to be taking offcense to line who possessed greater intellectual agility and political acumen than the deshasths.

Please note the following

1) These comments are not opinions of the writer of article "Lambodhar"

2) The comments in italics have been taken from book Western India in the Nineteenth Century By Ravinder Kumar. So needless to say that these comments are that of author Ravinder Kumar and not that of any "Chitpavan brahmin" or author Lambodhar

3) Most importantly, Ravinder Kumar is not an Chitpavan Brahmin.

So if any one has issues regarding comment, kindly take it up with "Ravinder Kumar". This article just states what all has been written about chitpavans and does not try to make any judgement or conclusion regarding any topic.

Ironically, people who raise moral issue about the above comment, should also raise issue about comments "they looked down with scarcely veiled contempt as parvenus(A Parvenu is a person that is a relative newcomer to a socioeconomic class.), barely fit to associate on terms of equality with the noblest of dvijas", which people seem to be conviniently ignoring because it suites them.

Regards Lambodhar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambodhar (talk • contribs) 11:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Page protection
I've fully protected the page for a week, because I see the reverting continues. Please discuss your edits here and try to reach an agreement. Cheers, SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Kanishkajoshi/171.70.222.55,

I've copied your comments from [] and addressed them in blue here:

1) let me step back a bit and say a bit about marketing, PR, etc. Members of a community want to portray themselves in the best possible light - why ? practical reasons that people's opinions about them are shaped by what is out there.

I'm not sure PR and marketing of a particular product, organization, group of people/community or any other entity is in accordance with Wikipedia policies. In fact "portraying themselves in the best possible light" is not a NPOV.

2) Of course, each community has competitors (people having power interests), and as such want the same community to be portayed in a bad-light.

This sounds incoherent. Can you please elaborate?

3) Which opinion prevails ? Wikipedia's norms say that "neutrality" prevails i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV. By this i mean that the article should have a 'balanced' treatment of all the viewpoints. Of course this by itself is not enough, i.e. as such, it matters to the people in the community how their community is portrayed i.e. different sections of the article have different importance. There are 3 players here -- community members, competitors and neutral observers. I think that in purview of good PR, the community members should have the first say, but it is very important that the competitors opinions be presented (for NPOV).

I find this incoherent too. I view all contributors from an academic perspective not the three types you describe. Every individual should demonstrate an NPOV.

4) As i see it, you have vested interests in saying that the community is based outside of india etc. (reason: politics) Are you willing/suggesting/wishing to disregard all contributions of this community in the last 1000 years ? Also genetically, the community has genes from INDIA as well. Kindly do not disregard that. Also remember that caste and race are different things.

I deny that I have a vested interest in saying that the Chitpavan community has roots and origins outside of India. I am simply summarizing in the introduction the (far too) detailed evidence presented in the body of the piece. Please provide credible academic evidence to firmly establish the other points you are trying to make.

5) Of course, i am not saying that we should not consider your POV, just that we should move your POV to the criticisms section, because as i see it -- you are still NOT being neutral . You are hinting subtly that these folks are outside of india, and yet amongst the highest caste groups -- how can that be...etc. IMHO a statement that is not what the community wants in the opening statement. e.g. when one talks about the US, one does not say in the opening statement that this is the only country to have used the nuclear bomb -- sure that may be true, but it is not that important to merit being in the opening statment.

It is common practice to talk about the two key attributes - precise location of origin and the exact time of origin when anthropologists talk about a group of people. Further anthropologists talk about these two key pieces of information upfront in the introduction section whenever possible. You are more than welcome to remove the reference to Chitpavans belonging to the highest caste.

6) Plus you are adding no new info (except making political statements) - all genetic links are already present in the genetics section of the article (before your changes) (including the stuff you are saying -- links with Turks, Iranians, Greeks, Jews etc.)

The goal of the introduction section is to provide an overview of what follows.

I suggest not accepting any of your changes (or suggest adding a criticisms section, which will satisfy you as well as NPOV)

I disagree. I have followed all Wikipedia policies very carefully. My changes should be made permanent until further evidence is provided - contradictory or confirmatory such as - "The Chitpavan community hails from Tehran, Iran" instead of "Chitpavan community hails from Iran or Turkey or Greece or...")

I am requesting you to please keep from persistently undoing the constructive contributions I am making. I appreciate this effort to converse and have things sorted out. Thanks. Authentickle (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that we have a duty to reduce 'misinformation' and make this article 'trustworthy'/encyclopedic. So, back to the point : what you are saying about 'immigration group', or turkish/iranian descent may be true, but we have to agree on the following points:

(a) Should what you are saying be placed in the opening paragraph? - i think NO. Putting it up front seems Politics (and my view on this is point (3) above.) It serves a better purpose in the genetics section (point (6) above) - and you agree as well - your version is a shortened version of the 'excessively' detailed genetics section (i share your viewpoint on this).

(b) Can we trust the research paper so much? Is there confirmatory evidence of their paper ? Can you draw such strong conclusions on that ? What makes you so sure about the turkish/iranian descent ? You in fact seem to be tending towards the Tehran, Iran angle as well ? really ? That is news to me? How did you pinpoint this so precisely ? What about similarity with Jews, Greeks ? I presume you have never met either of them to notice the similarity ? :-) have you ?

(c) Your past editing suggests that you have a interest in portraying the community in a bad-light (e.g. comments about "violent", comments about "Chitpavan plot" (do you realize that there are ~1.5 million of these folks ? Generalize, sure, but at least let it have a statistical probability of being correct (i disagree with you on your generalization). That in fact clearly demonstrates that you have a malevolent motive in mind. If you are truly as noble as you are trying to depict, can you say a bit more on what led you to that 'hasty generalization' that has ruined your reputation ?

(d) I agree that not everyone is happy with the Chitpavan community members, and the wikipedia article should address this for NPOV. Let us have a criticism section where you can add all the things you want, e.g. are violent, are latest immigrants, are highest caste groups, etc.)

(e) I would also appreciate if you look at logs and see as to who has been undoing your edits before jumping to conclusions.

Thanks & BR ---Kanishka 05:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

My response follows -

(a) Based on established protocol, there are four non-negotiable pieces of information the belong right up-front in the introduction:

1. What is the current physical location of the group 2. Where did they come from 3. When did the migration happen 4. Current population

As an example, take a look at the Wikipedia pages for Neanderthal, Romani or Homo Sapiens.

(b) The Tehran, Iran comment is a hypothetical example - the point being that science is giving us newer, better tools every year - these tools yield answers that are incrementally accurate. Anecdotal evidence about Chitpavans coming from outside of India has existed for centuries. Present day technologies have established to be true what was speculation a few years back. Better tools will only expedite the process and in the near future, we might be able to tell precise human migration patterns not just for this community but for all other Indian communities and for all mankind. If someone is taking the new information personally, the earlier they come to terms with the factual findings, the better.

The paper does make a firm conclusion about the Turkish-Iranian link.

(c) This has been a learning experience and I will work within Wikipedia policies to provide published research and facts about events that occurred in history with a NPOV. Let Wikipedia make inferences about "bad-light" or whether they are "malevolent".

(d) Sure, we can have a criticism section if you like but I have none to present myself. The above facts should be present in appropriate places - both contiguously and chronologically. This will maintain the flow and structure of the page. The following structure comes to mind:

1. Introduction 2. Origins, Roots and History 3. Prominent Achievements/Contributors (Tilak, Gokhale, Ranade, etc), though this can be brief and should ideally just be a link to their individual pages. 4. Culture 5. Chitpavans in Present Day

A lot needs to be cleaned up. I've already been moving the page in this direction.

(e) My comments were directed at 171.70.222.55. I apologize if you thought of them as being directed to you.

Some of your questions back to you:

1. Given that time and location of origin is a very significant attribute, why do you want to avoid or bury deep inside the text the Turkish-Iranian link? 2. Why do you want to use Wikipedia for "PR and marketing" of the Chitpavan community?

Authentickle (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Authentickle, I'm concerned about your editing here. I've reverted the lead back to the version before your recent edits. Can you give a page number for the source that calls them recent immigrants? You cited Structure and Change in Indian Society by Bernard S. Cohn and Milton Singer. I also wonder why mention of DNA would belong in the lead.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 07:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Pages 399 and 400 say this community were the last to arrive in Konkan and that there's no history of the people prior to 1707. In the Indian scale of history, that is recent. But if you are concerned about the use of "recent", I'm fine with a reference to 1707. The DNA link firmly establishes the location of origin and location of migration (to and from) belongs in the introduction. I will request that you either re-instate the changes or allow me to replace "recent" with 1707 Authentickle (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, I want to add in the interests of clarity that I'm here only as an admin, not as an editor. My concern is to make sure nothing very inappropriate is added again, as was the case recently, because this is an article about living people, albeit not named individuals. That concern apart, I have no interest in the content issues.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 11:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If the source doesn't say recent immigrants, we can't say it either. He says very little is known about or heard of them until 1707. With a sensitive issue like this, you have to stick very closely to high-quality sources, and give a full reference so people can check them. I also can't see the point of mentioning that in the lead. I don't want to get caught up in detailed content discussions, because I'm here only as an admin, but I do need you to recognize that this is a sensitive area, and that your previous editing was problematic.


 * Please read this section of our NOR policy: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This means that it's important to stick to the spirit of the sources, as well as the letter. In other words, don't use sources to advance positions they themselves have not explicitly adopted.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I went trough the policy you mentioned and I now realize and agree I cannot use the term "recent immigrants". Sorry for the problematic edit. I do feel that the lead is the right place for the locale and time of migration. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I respect your presence here as an admin and I'm sure that the fair and unbiased monitoring will help make this article at least C or B class soon. Can you elaborate on what you find inappropriate in my language when I say that Mahatama Gandhi was a non-violent freedom fighter and that his killing was a heinous crime? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chitpavan#Sources Authentickle (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's inappropriate to call it a "heinous crime" in Wikipedia's voice. Not that it wasn't heinous, and not that it wasn't a crime, but it isn't disinterested writing, and what information does it add? My concern is that you're trying to make points about the Chitpavan, rather than wanting to write a neutral, informative article. We should always try to adopt the tone of someone who doesn't care one way or the other. Perhaps you could consider writing a draft in your userspace, e.g. User:Authentickle/Chitpavan, then moving it into mainspace when these issues are ironed out. Just a suggestion. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I am re-writing and cleaning this up in my space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Authentickle/Chitpavan. Feedback is welcome. Authentickle (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Kindly revert Back the page to 13:54, 11 May 2010 203.201.252.132 (talk) (37,286 bytes) (→References)" status. Article was in very "Neutral" informative state as of that date which has been slandered by Authentickle for his own hateful reasons. I am the original author of this page and all items where written in "Neutral" manner with reference for each and every articles" As for the non existance before 1700AD, I would suggest the detractors to visit "Royal Asiatic Society, Mumbai" and see the copper plates found there which mention names of Brahmins with surname Bapat and Ghaisas. If the detractors are really interested, visit people of Konkan and see their "family trees" some of which go back 24 generations well before 15th AD and their location even then is Konkan.". So Authentickle just because u hate this community does not give you write to slander and write rubbish as you dream up in the page." -- Lambodhar

Lambodar - That version of 13:54, 11 May 2010 203.201.252.132 has one citation and all of the external links and references are either self-published websites or non-verifiable or both. Please provide a reference to the Royal Asiatic Society copper plates' claim with detailed publication information including the exact page numbers. I deny that I hate the community. If you expect a response from me in the future, I will ask that you be civil and respectful in your interaction. Authentickle (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

AuthenticTickle:- Based on all the edits you have done, one can come to only one conclusion, you hate that community. And also do not generalize regarding references given for the paragraphs. All the books mentioned for each paragraph are available on google books. If you take some effort you will find them all. Also most importantly all the "Referred" books have been authored by non-Chitpavans. Here's the list based on articles...

I deny that I hate the community. Ethnic, caste or religious or national origin of authors does not matter as long as it is a scholarly/academic work. Please take a look at the latest draft and provide your comments on that draft since that is the version I will be infusing with the main page. Authentickle (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Appearance:- 1) Kolaba District Gazetteers of 1881 :- It was official gazettee published by British India Government and now by Maharashtra Government. It available online ... check it out 2) Linda Cox article was originally published in the February 22, 1970 issue of the now defunct Illustrated Weekly of India. - No link to this article is available except on some websites. This is only reference which you can say "references are either self-published websites or non-verifiable or both". 3)"History of Marathas" by James Grant Duff (vol 1 pg 77) 4)"Indian Caste" by John Wilson,

Social status 1) Western India in the Nineteenth Century, Ravinder Kumar

Genetics 1) Sonali Gaikwad and VK Kashyap for National DNA Analysis Center, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata

Kindly read the books and you will find the references or published papers based upon which they have come up with the thoughts.

We are citing the same sources. However there are plenty of Wikipedia policy problems in the current form of the article:

1. Chipavanism - by Jagannath Dixit is self-published 2. Please provide details with page numbers for the N. G. Chapekar book 3. Is Amhi Sare Chitpavan self published? 4. Is this a citation, if so, please cite at the correct location within the article

Authentickle (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Genetics Also regarding "Genetics", please read the paper completely. It states that on "Paternal" side, the Chitpavans have same genes as other brahmins in India and Maharashtra (Deshastha Brahmins), however they differ on "Maternal" side, with genes originating from outside India. That says it all.

The same result section of the paper states this verbatim: Chitpavan brahmin demonstrates younger maternal component and substantial paternal gene flow from West Asia, thus giving credence to their recent Irano-Scythian ancestry from Mediterranean or Turkey, which correlated well with European-looking features of this caste. Authentickle (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Origins Royal Asiatic Society of India and the "Bharat Itihas Shanshodhan Mandal" sadly do not allow to take Zerox or photographs of the books available with them. However they are open to general public to go and read the books. Go read the book "Saraswati Mandal". It's actual a book written by a non-Chitpavan criticizing "Shata Prashna Kalpa Latika" regarding how the author of that book has just thrown about theories without any proof and looked down upon Chitpavan community. I would have added that information in this article (yes I had done researh before writing the article before you started vandalizing it) however bharat itihas mandal (Pune) did not allow me to take zerox nor photographs. So I cannot give reference neither snapshots of that book on wiki, so I did not include it in the article. Feel free to go down their and read it with your own eyes.

Regarding copper plates and inscriptions, visit Royal Asiatic Society of India Mumbai and ask them to see their old publications (pre 1900). Once book you might also search for is "Indian Antiquary - March 1912 publication".

Please feel free to edit the article and include accurate scholarly/academic citations corroborating the above. Authentickle (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you don't know, Chitpavan Brahmins have a tradition of maintaining a Kulavrutant. Kulavrutant is basically information regarding family tree and information regarding individuals of the families. This tradition they have been following for centuries and now are being published. Pick up kulavrutant for family called Gokhale's. Some of the trees list out 22-24 generations of members living in Konkan. Do the math, they go well beyond 16th century and relate to people living in konkan region.

There is a village called "Adiware" in Konkan. Read it's history. You will find sardar's surnamed "Bhide" who where the governors of that area sometime 11AD. Bhide is a chitpavan surname.

However I did not mentioned it on wiki article as it has no relevance, as the article is supposed to talk only about the community in general (without looking down on other communities) and tell about most famous personalities from that community (All other community articles do the same).

Please feel free to edit the article and include accurate scholarly/academic citations corroborating the above. Authentickle (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Maratha Kingdom Now coming to your point of this community destroying the Maratha kingdom, do some research and read history. Chatrapati Shivaji Maharajah the Great founded the kingdom, his son Sambhaji joined Mughals and fought against Marathas before realizing his folly and then fought against the Mughals and died for that cause. When Sambhaji had joined Mughals and revolted against them, Mughals kidnapped his son "Shahu Maharajah". On Sambhaji's death, Mughals released Shahu but Tarabai did not accept him as king. So there was war between them in which future Peshwa (balaji vishwanath bhat) sided with Shahu Maharajah and help him defeat Tarabai and thus establishing the legal heir on the throne. If you read history, Maratha kingdom was at it's peak power during time of Peshwas, with region from Tanjavore up to Atock (Pakistan) under their control. You have mentioned in your edits about how Peshwas fought amongst themselves and destroyed the Maratha kingdom needs to be mentioned on the page regarding "Peshwas". Why din't you mention that Holkars from Indore attacked Pune (Maratha Kingdom capital) and looted it for 7 days and in turn betrayed the Maratha Kingdom ? Why the double standards here ?

Point is this, could have been mentioned in article but is not done so because this is story of Peshwas and not the Chitpavan Community. Peshwas are subset of Chitpavan community not other way round. So if you want to vent your anger on Peshwas, go to the Peshwas page on wiki and modify it.

You are correct, this belongs to the Peshwa page. Authentickle (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Extremism I would just say this, 1) Spiritual Guru for Mahatma Gandhi was Mr.Gokhale (A chitpavan) 2) Founder of Congress was a Chitpavan 3) NEVER is history of RSS has their head been a Chitpavan 4)Great Dr.Babasaheb Ambekar, when he enrolled in school, he was looked down upon all teachers except two. Surnames of those two teachers where "Ambedkar" and "Pendse"... both Chitpavans. Infact to allow him to study, the purposely entered his surname as Ambedkar rather than his original surname "Ambavedkar". I am not claiming that they where his guide or anything, I am just showing that your generalization of Chitpavans as extremist is wrong. 5) Anandi Gopal Joshi became first women doctor of India on March 11, 1886 when women in India barelt left their houses, forget studying.

Again, please feel free to edit the article and include accurate scholarly/academic citations regarding the Ambedkar/RSS discussion Authentickle (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Bottom Line is, do some research and then come up with edits. And importantly, make the edits at right locations and stop the hate campaign.

My edits are here. I will let Wikipedia admins decide if they are in accordance with Wikipedia policies as I know them. There is no hate campaign, perhaps a 360 degree perspective, that's all. Authentickle (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

-Lambodhar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambodhar (talk • contribs) 09:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Protection lifted
I've unprotected this, but editors are asked to discuss their differences here and find compromises, rather than edit warring. Also, please make sure all your edits are policy compliant, and in particular carefully sourced to reliable sources. Many thanks, SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I will wait for feedback from kanishkajoshi, Lambodhar, other anons who've been undoing my edits as well as from Wikipedia admins before I post from my userspace to the main page. Contents of my userspace are a work in progress. Authentickle (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I will be migrating changes from the page in my userspace to the main page in the next 24 hours. The changes include the following:


 * 1) Removal of the biographies of the several social reformers, freedom fighters and the Peshwas. I might add a 1-2 line summary before providing a link to the appropriate Wikipedia page. New links to Wikipedia pages along with 1-2 line summaries for Nathuram Godse, Gopal Godse, Narayan Apte will be added.
 * 2) Removal of the lengthy Details of DNA Analysis section. A link to the entire PDF document is now made available.
 * 3) Fixes to grammar, spellings, organization of the article.
 * 4) Rewriting of the lead.
 * 5) Rewriting of the Origins and Roots section
 * 6) I might add a paragraph on the assassination of Mahatama Gandhi before redirecting to the appropriate page. The paragraph will likely contain sources stating the support provided by the Chitpavan community to the assassins before and after the murder. It will also include sources documenting the violent backlash against the Chitpavan community after the assassination. Depending on the availability of verifiable and credible sources, I will also add that this school of thought is still supported by some people in India including some members of the Chitpavan community. Some links I may provide are, Gopal Godse's interviews after he was freed from prison (Time  and Rediff ) and a video interview of Godse.

If you have any concerns, please respond in the next 24 hours. Thanks, Authentickle (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Authentickle, the way to write on Wikipedia is basically twofold: (1) we must write for the enemy; that is, we must include positions we disagree with, even strongly disagree with, so long as they are reliably sourced; and (2) we must write about our "enemy's" position and our own in an equally disinterested tone, as though we have just arrived from Mars with knowledge but with no emotion. The ideal Wikipedia article is one where the reader cannot guess the opinion of the writer. If you could aim for that in your draft, that would help enormously.


 * As for the sources you mention, is this a personal website? And who first broadcast the YouTube material here? It would be better if you could find academic historians to use as sources, writers who offer an overview. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi

 * Authentickle, killing of Mahatma Gandhi has no relevance when talking about Chitpavan Community, as by doing so here, you are claiming that whole community with more than 15 lakh members conspired in that plot ? You want to remove biographies of the several social reformers, freedom fighters and the Peshwas (people who did good, not extremist things..) and keep only extremist things done by some members of community shows double standards. It's as good as blaming all Tamilians for death of Rajiv Gandhi. If you want to write about killing of Mahatma Gandhi, write so on different page regarding dealing with that topic. Defaming the whole community does not make sense.

Please note, I have not undid any of your edits so far.... - Lambodhar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambodhar (talk • contribs) 09:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Lambodhar, If you read the latest draft carefully, you will see that I am proposing the removal of zero biographies that exist in the article. For the sake of better flow and organization of the article, the appropriate place for the biographies is a link to the appropriate page (separate pages have already been created). An ideal way would be to have the lead text of the respective biographies appear in the Chitpavan page and the rest of the detailed biography can be accessed via a link. I tried looking up the help pages but could not find a feature that allows automatic copying of the lead. A copy-paste would be static and not reflect the ongoing changes to the lead sections of those biographies. If anyone knows how I can replicate the lead text in the Chitpavan page, please let me know. It is wrong to generalize that the entire Chitpavan community supported the murder of Mahatama Gandhi. However, given that most of the plotters shared this common bond is something that qualifies at least a mention in the page. While their "contributions" were negative, they do warrant the same kind of non-biased, disinterested attention that the other social reformers and freedom fighters get.


 * Also, are suggesting that you will be undoing my edits in the future? I would recommend against getting in to an editing war and that's the purpose of my draft with ample opportunities and time to discuss, agree upon it before posting to the main page. I hope you will cooperate. Thanks, Authentickle (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Authentickle:- Kindly explain me what you find wrong with current article that you are going for drastic change ? All paragraphs refer to books or research done by non-chitpavans. None of it contains any degrading material either for this community or any other community. So why drastic change ? The current document is very unbiased, un-opiniated and neutral and leaves the conclusion to user regarding whether they came from outside or where indians marrying foreigners...

There are several problems with the article in the current state. I'm listing a few:
 * 1) No citations (five of the six current citations are mine - restored to an incomplete, intermediate state due to the blanking). Some examples:
 * 2) The appearance section  has copy-pastes from studies that are opinionated and subjective. By contrast the study that I cite  ("The Chitpavan Brahmins - A Social and Ethnic Study", Irawati Karve, 1989, Pages 96-97, ISBN 8170222354) is an objective data based statistical analysis of some 3097 Chitpavan members from their homeland, the Ratnagiri district.
 * 3) The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs in the Origins and Roots section  does not cite any references.
 * 4) The culture section  also does not have any citations.
 * 5) The pre-independence  and post-independence  sections also do not cite any studies.
 * 6) By contrast my current draft has a total of 15 well researched citations. And this will go up to 25-30 by the time the article is complete.
 * 7) The organization and flow of the article is not very intuitive. My draft  has four main sections. Material that is relevant but not pertinent can be accessed by links to appropriate pages for related information.
 * 8) There are several grammatical errors, spelling mistakes and mixing of Marathi terms with the English language without first defining them. An example After kanyadaan, malabadal is done where in the bride and groom put garlands around each other's neck, along with the observance of offering worship at sacred fire(hom). The groom ties the mangal sutra around the neck of the bride.
 * 9) The whole Gaikwad-Kashyap paper is copy-pasted when a link can be easily provided. That leads to improved readability. Authentickle (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok I accept that probably biographies must remain on other pages with links from this page. The reason I initially added some small part of biographies was to stop people from vandalizing this page. It was to make people aware that people like Savarkar... did more for dalits of India than almost 90% of other reformers. He might be only person in India who must have built temple in which everyone was allowed and a dalit was made priest in it. Only after I mentioned the social reforms work done by emminent reformers of this community, did the vandalizing stopped. People are not aware of History and target community just because they heard something. Let me make this clear, I am not projecting this community as Angels or God like people. This is a community with extremist view, but not extremisn in traditional sense. If they want to do something they will get it done, either by suffering extreme hardships and difficulties or become revolutionaries and freedom fighters. Other side of coin is the conspirators in Mahatma Gandhi murder. Read article about Maharshi Karve to see how many hardships he went to bring in reforms.

Anyway you can add the people invovled in the Gandhi incident and give links to their pages. However mentioning even a paragraph or line about killing of Gandhi is implying that whole community was invovled. MY suggestion is create a topic/chapter called "Famous Personalities" and add all names of reformers, freedom fighters, other personalities under it and mention names of Mahatma Gandhi killing conspiracy people under topic called "Infamous Persons" and provide links to their pages. Also please note, The Supreme court of India honourably discharged Savarkar in this case, which means he was not a consiprator. You can write about that case in Savarkar's page but do not add him as conspirators and under the "Infamous Persons".

Historians document that the majority of murderers of Mahatama Gandhi were Chitpavan and that they received support from some of the Chitpavan before, during and after the assassination. I do not see why we cannot cite that along with citations that point to the fact that this does not mean the entire community supported it. There is a difference here - that they received support from some and not from all. Authentickle (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the citations/references about 1. Chipavanism - by Jagannath Dixit is self-published + 2. Please provide details with page numbers for the N. G. Chapekar book + 3. Is Amhi Sare Chitpavan self published? + 4. Is this a citation, if so, please cite at the correct location within the article

remove them as they are remanants of old page which I forgot to clean up.

I find your concept of 360 degrees change of view a bit irony. Your changes regarding Peshwas where not 360 degrees views but straight forward slander in some context. You ended up mentioning only the internal fight between the Peshwas and how they destroyed the kingdom. Why din't you write about good points ? Do you know, in Punjab, Peshwas where held in high esteem because they where the only hindu kingdom who liberated them from Muslim kingdoms. They got freedom after almost 300 years of deprevation and suffering? Also why did you not mention how Gaikwads, Holkars and other sardars betrayed Maratha kingdom and even sided with British in pulling it down ? Why did you not mention that these kingdoms accepted British as their rulers just in order to protect their land and money and did not take party in 1857 independence war ?

This belongs in the Peshwa page but historians do list nepotism and corruption as two of the most common causes in the court of the Peshwas for the downfall of the Maratha Empire. Here are some references.
 * 1) Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute, Volume 8, V. S. Sukthankar Page 182
 * 2) "Panipat: 1761", Tryambaka Śaṅkara Śejavalakara, 1946, Pages 24-25
 * 3) New History of the Marathas: Sunset Over Maharashtra (1772-1848) Govind Sakharam Sardesai
 * 4) Dynamics of Cultural Revolution: 19th Century Maharashtra‎, J. R ŚindePage 16
 * 5) "Dalits in Modern India: Vision and Values", S. M. Michael, Page 95

Authentickle (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding genetics, it is better the current way of giving paragraph from the research paper directly in wiki and giving link to full paper than just give link to paper and give your own summary or opinion about the findings in paper. That is not good because you will end up giving your opinion which I am pretty sure, wiki won't accept. The current way makes no conclusion or opinion about the findings and allow readers to decide on their own and if interested, they will go and read the research paper.

The authors of the study do make a concrete conclusion about the Chitpavan genome which I will copy-paste yet again Chitpavan brahmin demonstrates younger maternal component and substantial paternal gene flow from West Asia, thus giving credence to their recent Irano-Scythian ancestry from Mediterranean or Turkey, which correlated well with European-looking features of this caste. The can be summarized to something like "The authors perform DNA analysis and conclude that their study gives credence to the recent Irano-Scythian ancestry from the Mediterranean or Turkey of the Chitpavan. Authentickle (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Finally, Again I will stress my point, there is no need to make drastic change in the current page. Also by stating that I have not undid you changes, I meant I have better work to do than enter this undo war. However if necessary I will enter this war to protect the article on which I spent real time and effort in researching and writting. If you observe history, I have always allowed people to edit the article if ther are not vandalizing it. When they start vandalizing it, I enter this nasty undo business. Ideally I would really won't like to enter it. --- Lambodhar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambodhar (talk • contribs) 19:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the many problems listed above, please let me know why we shouldn't proceed on the lines of the draft I have here Authentickle (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Difficult to follow
This is a difficult discussion for others to follow. The different colour is confusing, and it would help if you could both indent and sign your posts. Lambodhar, if you add four tildes after your posts (top left on your keyboard, like this ~ ) that will generate a signature, date, and time. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 05:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin - Thanks for the tip :) Lambodhar (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Slimvirgin, Sorry for the different use of color and thanks for pointing out. Authentickle (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right -- this discussion is really difficult to follow. As far as I understand, there are three issues here:
 * Origin of Chitpavans is debated
 * Alleged role of Chitpavans in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi
 * General structure/content of the article
 * The solution is simple:
 * Origin: Just mention the various theories, without undue emphasis on any one theory. Currently, there is too much emphasis on the paper by Sonali Gaikwad and VK Kashyap. The quotes can be eliminated, and the entire section can be reduced to just one paragraph.
 * Allegations of Chitpavan role in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi constitute original research. Unless reliable sources are presented as references, such content cannot be included in the article. The references should explicitly mention that the community was involved in the assassination. The use of two disparate sources - one saying that Person X was involved in Gandhi's assassination and another saying that Person X was a Chitpavan - would be synthesis, and should not be allowed.
 * General clean-up of the article: I've already cleaned up the article by reorganizing it and removing biographies of people who have separate articles on them. utcursch | talk 13:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Utcursch - Thanks for your support and efforts in cleaning up the article. The final current article is really nice and feels professional. However my only concern is how long it will last as there are far too many people out there with intention of vandalizing this page and defaming the community as it has been happening since 2005 when the page was created first. Lambodhar (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Utcursch, the clean-up and reorganization is really helpful. Thanks for doing that and removing the biographies. I agree with the synthesis. However the community suffered retaliatory violence after the killing of Gandhi at the hands of a Chitpavan and should be pointed out here. I will add that to the history section in a line or two complete with citations. Thanks. Authentickle (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Checking references
utcursch, This reference - Syed Siraj ul Hassan (1989) [1920]. The castes and tribes of H.E.H. the Nizam's dominions, Volume 1. Bombay : The Times Press/Asian Educational Services. pp. 99-103. ISBN 9788120604889 quotes an 1877 work by John Wilson called "Indian Caste" with regard to skin color, color of eyes and origins and states that the Chitpavan settled in Gujarat in pre-Christian era. . It does not give a detailed reference to the John Wilson work, i.e, page numbers, year of publication, edition are missing. I checked the 1877 John Wilson book which is also available in electronic format. I could not find the quote Syed Siraj ul Hassan claims in his book. Do you know if I'm looking at the right edition?

Syed Siraj ul Hassan also says that a similar testimony is offered by Grant Duff in his work which is also available in electronic form. The location Hassan points to does not ratify this claim. Again, am I looking at the right place?

Thanks, Authentickle (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * John Wilson's quote can be found here (Volume 2). "A history of the Mahrattas" is a 3-volume work -- one will have to actually go through it to find the exact sentence. utcursch | talk 06:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is good enough. Just wasn't able to find the right place. Thanks, Authentickle (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Chitpavan Politics
Kanishka has alleged on several occasions about politics in this page without once pointing to the lines or paragraphs he thinks are political. I thought of introducing a sub-section that's dedicated to Chitpavan politics which can be found here. I will wait for 3-4 days to receive feedback before I integrate it with the main page. Thanks. Authentickle (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Authentickle. Not sure if you are deliberately twisting the meaning of what i am saying, or whether what i am saying is missing the mark completely. I simply cannot agree that you are seeing things the way they are. I think that amount of importance you are giving to Peshwes and Godse/Savarkar troupe is ludicrous. All your posts are saying is that they are revealing YOUR POV :-). You also e.g. just revealed that you are 'anti-caste' without explicitly saying so. I am also amazed how conveniently you ignore everything that does not match your POV e.g. what happened to G.K.Gokhale, Vinoba Bhave ? Also I believe i can argue in detail about the caste system (and what it means, what it is supposed to mean, how it is abused, how its different from race etc.) but that is irrelevant to this article (Lets do it offline if you want. I would be glad to talk about my POV about these things :-)) For now, i certainly resist your edits. However, i lack the passion and enthusiasm to craft a new draft right now :-) BR--Kanishka 07:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the best way is to let you do whatever you want, and after you are satisfied, say after 1-2 months, come here and change the article :-). I do see that your POV is of an outsider, and mine is of an insider. In fact, dealing with 1 guy like you indicates to me why people can get violent :-). I think that there is too large a gap between what you see and between what i do. If you passed off your hypothesis as anthropological research, its another example of how flawed this kind of research is. Its funny how you fail to realize how political you yourself are ! :-). Maybe we can frame the article as : Chitpawans from an insider perspective and Chitpawans from an outsider perspective :-). To me your writings are very silly and improper/incorrect on so many things, that its quite a big project by itself to debate all of it :-) To me, Kokanastha brahmans are increasingly becoming like jews - facing people who are stuck many hundred years beyond cutting edge of human understanding, and in turn troubling them for not following their models of the universe. It is as i see it - punishing excellence. Yes, as a community we need to deal with it - today people deal with it via arrogance and politics, for lack of a better technique. Maybe Gandhi's methods are more politically/long-term appropriate. (this is a tangential topic though). I think we ought to talk in our pages, rather than on this page. Thanks--Kanishka 15:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Everything I've posted is well sourced (V) and NOR. The effort to discuss upcoming changes here is to ensure NPOV though you can point out errors in V, NOR as well.
 * If you provide one sound rebuttal and I will be the first one to incorporate it in the article. I agree with the Gokhale and Bhave inclusion and will include material on them in a sub-section titled the Gandhian tradition of politicians in the Chitpavan politics section. If you have any good sources, please post.
 * The Peshwas, Savarkar, Godse form 70-75% of Chitpavan history quantitatively and probably more if you measure in other ways so it's natural that they get proportionate mention.
 * Are you suggesting that you will delete/undo my changes in 1-2 months? That would be against the spirit of the whole WP experience.
 * Caste and racism have been discussed ad infinitum in various HRW and UN seminars over the years. Gradual consensus has been building over the last decade at an international level to have caste oppression of the "outsiders" be identified with racism. Thanks. Authentickle (talk) 04:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * At least I am sympathetic to the dalit cause. However, i unfortunately also think i understand what caste means (ref: Bhagavad Gita), and thus i am also sympathetic to the caste cause i.e. under the pretext of 'anti-casteism'/equality a lowering of standards is something i very firmly oppose. People ought to strive for excellence/achievement, not be pulled-down just to become 'equals'. As to the applicability/veracity of this idea, I think that all societies are caste societies (even the ones that claim they are not), caste being a "label" on attitude etc. I somewhat agree with your writeups just that you are sounding too extreme(harsh), and you have got to tone down. You must try to realize that the folks you are talking about have not become what they have because of peshwes etc, nor has been there money etc. It has been hard work and so many families have risen out of grinding poverty in the last 2-3 generations. How ? Not through nepotism but out of enterprise and work-ethic. Please try to understand this POV. I think you have made Chitpawans the villians, but you do not seem to be ready to understand that there has been a lot of hard work behind where they stand socially today. I do not have a rebuttal right now, but maybe will revisit after a few weeks/months. The general direction you are taking sounds good to me. Let us try to be more objective and fair to the people involved. Thanks --Kanishka 05:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanishkajoshi (talk • contribs)

The young Chitpavan in 2010
I have a feeling that many of the Chitpavan stereotypes are eroding away in the younger Chitpavan (say those in the age group 18-30). If you have any sources showing this, please post here. I'd like to include a paragraph on Chitpavan life in the present day, if there is any such thing in the highly cosmopolitan urban Indian life. Another thing - Linda Cox's characterization - the average Chitpavan has a rather inflated opinion of himself probably applies or applied only to the Chitpavan in Pune, not to those in other cities like Mumbai, Nagpur, Nashik, etc. Anyone have sources on this? Thanks. --Authentickle (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I find that kind of description (personalities, shapes of noses) really quite racist, and I can't imagine seeing it in any other article. Can you imagine: "The average Scot has rather a sharp nose," or "the average Frenchman thinks he's the bees' knees"? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Those descriptions were already in there when I got here. I do agree they are very very racist and I would love to take them off if others are alright with it. We'll also have to drop the the average Chitpavan has a rather inflated opinion of himself topic until the Cox source is verified. Thanks. Authentickle (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we agree about that! Please feel free to remove them. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't mention earlier - what's racist in the Western world may not be racist in India where a comment about these things is made as easily as a comment about the weather and is shrugged off just as quickly. Many of the Chitpavan may actually be proud of their caucasoid personalities - that's the reason why the description was included in the article in the first place. A fair skin tone is is equated with beauty in India and there's a whole commercial cosmetics industry around it. Nonetheless, I will remove it in a weeks time if there are no objections. Thanks. Authentickle (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm unaware of any evidence to support the idea of a "caucasoid personality." I think this article needs to be based on modern scholarly sources wherever possible, if it's going to delve into areas like that. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 11:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have said caucasoid physical features, not personalities but I'll let the original person who added the first version respond with the evidence which should be aplenty. Thanks. Authentickle (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)