Talk:Deshastha Brahmin/Archive 2

Replacing Munja picture
I'm proposing the removal of the current Munja picture on the left and replace it with the one on the right. The newly proposed picture is more accurate and shows a close up view of the special Munja paraphernalia. The one on the left is outdated and looks more like a family picture rather than a Munja picture. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Does the boy belong to Deshastha community ? 74.9.96.122 (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article Shivalli Brahmins says they are Madhva Brahmins from Karnataka. Zuggernaut (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If the boy is not deshastha then we should reinstate the old picture until we find another74.9.96.122 (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't know if Shivalli Madhva Brahmins from Karnataka are the same as Deshastha Madhva Brahmins from Karnataka. I haven't yet removed the picture - I am just looking for consensus. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've posted a query at If we get a positive response, we will include it in the article. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Standard Marathi is the language of Deshasthas
I am trying to include the following line in three articles Marathi (lead), Maharashtra and Pune:

Standard Marathi is defined as the language that is spoken by the Deshastha Brahmins of Pune.

I am facing opposition from other editors who will not accept this. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Maharashtra and provide support so that Deshastha Brahmins do not get wrongly attributed to speaking the language of other groups such as Marathas, Kunbi, Mahar, Konkanashta, etc. Results so far:

'''For your information, Kokanastha and Deshastha brahmin speak the same standard Marathi language, dialect, whatever you want to call it. In fact, it is rural Deshastha from places such as Solapur or Osmanabad district who speak in a different dialect. I agree with you that when the British (i.e. Molesworth) wanted to pick a standard speech, they chose the brahmin dialect of Pune. But to say that present day deshastha and kokanastha, and for that matter other educated Marathi people, speak different dialects is plainly false. Also you should change the sentence to "Standard Marathi is based on the language that was spoken by the Deshastha Brahmins of Pune in early 1800s".74.9.96.122 (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)'''


 * I like your idea of calling it based on. That should also help the others who are objecting to the current phrasing to compromise. Konkanastha in Pune might speak the same Standard Marathi today but their mother tongue is very well documented by several researchers as the Chitpavani dialect. Here's a quote from Katre:The Chitpavani is the mother tongue of the Chitpavans or Konkanasthas found in Ratnagiri, Savantwadi and Bombay Town and Island. They speak standard Marathi for inter-communal intercourse, but reserve Chitpavani for their home tongue. Of course with the newer generations and owing to conditions specified already it is fast disappearing.
 * To suggest that Konkanastha and Deshastha have always shared the same language would be factually incorrect. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My friend, Jagannath, 1966, that is what Katre's reference is from. 44 years is a long time and things have changed. I am 51 years old and never heard my kokanastha relations ever mention chitpavani. My family is originally from Chiplun, the hometown of chitpavans and despite that ,no one in our family ever spoke that. That dialect must have been extinct for generations. Please add the quote from Katre's reference  on the kokanastha article and see the reaction.24.187.26.104 (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Chitpavani Konkani. Some of the words there will look foreign to the speaker of Standard Marathi. No need to add that information to the Chitpavan article - it is already claimed quite emphatically in the infobox in the top right corner and also in the language section Kokanastha. Let's not lose focus. Standard Marathi has been defined as the language spoken by the Deshastha Brahmins of Pune and the like - if you have a comment about that, please participate at Talk:Maharashtra Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Bahinabai Kulkarni
User:Redtigerxyz recently undid my change in the Bahinabai article and is asking me to provide a reference to prove that she was a Deshastha. If you have such a print reference in English or Marathi, please post the details and I will include the citation so we can change back the introduction to "Deshastha Brahmin" instead of just Brahmin. Zuggernaut (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

/* Classification/ Demographics */
Zuggernaut, The word immigrant before parsi is not appropriate because the original article wants to compare genetic make up of four communities which have been resident in Bombay for generations. Indeed, Mastana et al call the people in the study "Native" and were selected precisely for the length of their families residence in the area.

Come to think of it, apart from a few koli, all othre communities in Bombay are immigrants so using that word only for the parsis is not right. Although their community may want to describe themselves as immgrants, the documented history of parsis in India is more than a thousand years old which in any other country would make them as native as it comes !74.9.96.122 (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide the exact quote and text leading to the statement from the "Annals of Biology" source used here. Also, please provide the rest of the authors so we can update the citation. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Anon 74.9.96.122 - I've added several tags to the statement you've inserted in article space. If we are not in a position to remove the tags in a week, we should remove the statement from article space. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Caste System
Are there really four (varnas) groups in Maharashtra ? The Vedic system may have them but in reality, the brahmins of Maharashtra historically only recognized two classes: brahmins and shudras in the varna system. Even Shivaji maharaj had to get the Kashi brahmins to be classified as Kshatriya. If you want to retain most of the new text then you should mention this fact. The caste system was fluid until the british codified it. Shivaji's elevation was just one example. Other castes also went up and down the hierarchy. I don't have specific references here but Ghurye has written many books and papers on the subject24.187.26.104 (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right. I will look up references and re-phrase over the next few days. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I've fixed this, also included the Shivaji example. Feel free to help with any of the other points raised in the peer review. You can find the details here. 04:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hassan Reference Pages 113-114
The Hassan reference used by anon has nothing on Konkanashta-Deshastha relationship. Although it is about the related castes, it doesn't have the claim stated by the anon. Please use different source if you want to include the statement. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This is what Hassan says, "The three sub-castes, Deshasthas, Konkanasthas and Karhadas, were formerly strictly endogamous : but with the spread of western education this rigidity of the caste bond is being slackened, and instances of intermarriages between their members are of frequent occurrence at the present day". When he says present day, he is talking about 1920 or thereabout when the book was published!

Obviously, you are not looking hard, are you ? If you want to stop the edit war on this, keep checking. You have access to the book. 74.9.96.122 (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What version of the book are you using? Please provide details - date of publication and a URL if available online. Zuggernaut (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, found it - the correct page number is neither 540 nor 114, it is 113. Sorry about the removal. Zuggernaut (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

To Do before we re-submit for GA review
to do Zuggernaut (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Gora Kumbhar and Namdev
I haven't yet been able to find sources for the claim about Namdev and Gora Kumbhar being discriminated against in the inter-caste relations section. Given that the persecution of non-Brahmins, particularly anyone who challenged the authority of Brahmins in religious matters of that era, is a part of folk memory, do we really need citations for this? Zuggernaut (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you do, or you will have to remove it for GA. – S Masters (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, will keep looking or modify content if we can't find sources. Thanks for helping out with the copy-edit. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed 7 of the 10 tags. Three remain:


 * Most of the other saints of the Varkari movement like Chokhamela (Mahar caste), Namdev (tailor caste), Gora Kumbhar (potter caste), Tukaram (Kunbi caste) were discriminated against by the Brahmins.[99][100][citation needed] (for Gora Kumbhar and Namdev)


 * With the exception of Rajguru, Pingale, Vinayak Deshpande and Tatya Tope, no notable freedom fighter came from the Deshatha community,[citation needed] whereas no notable saints or literalistic contributors came from the Konkanastha community. Deshathas have produced a series of saints and poets starting as early at the 13th century. That situation resulted in a cold war type scenario between Konkanastha-Deshastha with each side claiming superiority over other.[citation needed]

If anyone has sources confirming these claims, please provide the citations or we'll have to remove the content. Apart from checking the image copyright issues, this is all that remains before be ask for a GA re-assessment. The current peer review is here and the failed GA review is archived here If anything has not been addressed, please feel free to fix. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Remember that all tags have to be removed before nomination as they provide for a quick fail. – S Masters (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Shriniwas Khale
Please check first. Reknown music composer Mr. Shriniwas Khale surely not belongs to Deshasthas. --Arvind Mukhedkar (Music Composer) wrote —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.16.141 (talk • contribs) 11:36, October 21, 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has also put Jayaram Shiledar as Deshastha. I knew his sister and her last name was Jadhav. So again, check your facts before adding these names. It would be nice to have the talented Shiledar family under Deshastha. However, it is not possible to change facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.17.229 (talk • contribs) 23:50, December 22, 2006 (UTC)

Jayaram shiledar married to Pramila jadhav she was his wife. Jadhav surname does not belong to brahmins but Shiledar does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemantbp (talk • contribs) 10:27, March 4, 2009 (UTC)

Pictures
It would be good if someone can upload pictures of the following:

1. A deshastha woman clad in the nine yard sari. 2. Puran poli 3. Munja ceremony —Preceding unsigned comment added by  146.145.214.190 (talk • contribs) 13:32, December 20, 2006 (UTC)

Deshastha by Marriage
We have two non-maharashtrian ladies married to Deshstha men mentioned under "Prominent Deshastha". What do contributors think of that ? Are these ladies Deshastha or not ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.17.229 (talk • contribs) 19:40, December 21, 2006 (UTC)

Kuladeva
the part where it says that no avatara of Vishnu except is kuladeva for Deshastha Brahmins is incorrect. my area was mainly deshastha brahmins and the area's kuladeva was always some avatara of Vishnu. there are other areas too - this community and others also having avataras of Vishnu as kuladevas is a sizeable one within the Deshastha community in Karnataka. please correct this. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by  24.13.91.63  (talk • contribs) 02:04, July 15, 2009 (UTC)

Renominated
Just wanted to let all contributors know that I've renominated the article for a GA review (Ga_nominations). Thanks for all the help in improving the article. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Addition of details of festivals
The recent addition of the details of festivals has the following problems:

Zuggernaut (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC) 24.187.26.104 (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Parts of it may not comply with WP:MOS.
 * 2) The last paragraph is too long and needs to be split.
 * 3) The entire edit may be WP:UNDUE since these festivals are not specific to Deshastha Brahmins. Pretty much all Maharashtrian communities (and all of India in some cases) celebrate/observe them. That goes not just for festivals but also for a number of ceremonies too. Would you get rid of that too ?
 * 4) The content is better off in the respective separate list - List of festivals of Deshastha, Konkanastha and Karhade Brahmins. ditto as previous bullet.
 * 5) A second rationale for WP:UNDUE is that unless there are specific sources that say Deshastha Brahmins were the original community who devised/started observing these festivals, we cannot have so much detail in the article. I will soon get those references. Deshastha being the religious leaders either initiated or gave religious sanctions to the festivals
 * 6) A one line summary for each festival may be alright.It is mostly one line summary 

Renomination
All of the problems pointed out in the previous failed good article review have been fixed and I've renominated the article. Thanks for helping fix the citations and improving the article! Zuggernaut (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Deshastha Brahmin in now GA (finally!)
The article has finally been listed as a good article, almost 6 months after it had its first peer review in August 2010. I want to thank everyone who spent precious time in expanding, improving and copyediting the article, particularly:

anon 24.187.26.104 anon 74.9.96.122 anon 146.145.214.190 user:Shakher59 user:SMasters user:Redtigerxyz Zuggernaut (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Finally! Well done to all who worked so hard to make this happen. Good work! – SMasters (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well done, Zuggernaut. Your attention to detail in insisting on the relevant references for the article  was key to getting it  to this level. Keep up the good work. I also see a less confrontational approach from you in recent weeks. That should help you in getting cooperation from other editors on the articles you are working on. I hope those articles get raised to new level soon. Congratulations. 74.9.96.122 (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the praise. I feel calling a spade accelerates the improvement of articles. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The spellings and dates should correspond to the British variant, since the Deshastha Brahmins are indigenous to India, not the U.S. I have changed the language tag to "Indian English". Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  04:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On another note, Dablinks reveal four disambiguation pages. See here. Kindly fix it. Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  04:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The dablinks have been fixed. I've removed some of the redundant tags for the reasons stated in the edit summary. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not an issue! I just added it for appearance sake. Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  06:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Description of varna and vedas
In my opinion, the "Classification" section is unnecessarily long. I understand that during peer review, someone demanded explanation of basic concepts, and some background is necessary. But some of the content is not necessary. For example, the term "Shudra" is not used anywhere in the article, so the sentence "The fourth caste is called the Shudras and their traditional occupation is that of a labourer or a servant." can be removed. There are more such sentences which have nothing to do with the actual topic of the article.

Since this is a good article, I don't want to remove any content without discussion. Maybe someone who has worked on this article can make necessary changes. utcursch | talk 13:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Can the caste system background information go in the footnotes. is there way of adding footnotes on wikipedia and I am not talking about adding references. I also don't see any reason to have mention of Vaishya and Marwari in a Deshastha article. Jonathansammy (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree 100% too. It is a bit out of place and I added the information reluctantly in response to a review recommendation. Moving to footnotes sounds like a good idea. I will make the change and please feel free to let me know here what else you would like to move to footnotes. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That was quick! Much better now. utcursch | talk 05:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, you have an exceptional grasp of technical knowledge on how to organize information on Wikipedia. Well done. Where do I find information on adding references and notes in Wikipedia way ? Jonathansammy (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:CITINGSOURCES and WP:REFGROUP Zuggernaut (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Jonathansammy (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Rectify the error
Hi, the spelling of 'Maharashtra' is mis-spelled as 'Maharasthra' under Footnote Point No. 8. I am unable to rectify it. Can someone do that? Jn045 (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Genetics of Madhyandin Deshastha Brahmins, and Brahmins in general

 * 1) I have recently added very accurate, latest and greatest genetic information about Yajurvedi Shukla Madhyandin Brahmins. The said group of Vatsa Gotri Brahmins are being currently representative of the Indian Branch of R1b on the familytree dna project's R1b Basal subclads Group. This group provides intput to ISOGCC Y-haplogroup tree construction.
 * 2) An editior named https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jonathansammy is dubiously deleting the edits I make with very hand-wavy reasons...
 * 3) It also looks like the genetics and genetic similarity section of the Deshastha Brahmin page is citing pseudo scientific data for Madhyandin Brahmins. For example it cites a paper/book written in 1951 which measures "physical features" like cephalic index in order to produce similarity between ethnic groups etc... this is known bogus/unscientific method (per current standards) and it is prone to errors and biases.
 * 4) The information I have on the other hand is latest, accurate, and publicly verifiable. Moreover its my sample indicating my group/gotra of people. https://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b?iframe=yresults (Joshi, N93357). A cursory search of Joshi and Shukla Yajurvedi should give you enough hits to know this.
 * 5) The image linked which shows autosomal analysis is analysis of my DNA. And it is done by Doug McDonald (https://isogg.org/wiki/McDonald's_BGA_project). He is a big shot genetic researcher.
 * 6) If need be I can provide details, but for now it looks like this is enough publicly available proof to consider my edits as improving the accuracy of article by moving away from some 1950s pseudo scientific research, to current day cutting edge genetic based evidence. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhil.joshi.d (talk • contribs)


 * It looks like WP:OR to me.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe I have provided research links, what exactly looks WP:OR to you, be specific . User:Nikhil.joshi.d —Preceding undated comment added 08:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You're interpreting info from a website; that's OR. could you take a look here? Thanks.   Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It is indeed original research but, in any case, the long-standing consensus is that we do not include genetic information in individual caste articles. There's a recent example of that at Talk:Ezhava. - Sitush (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am still not sure what is the exact problem in including information that provides more substantive and critically important information about genetics of madhyandina community ? Can you folks provide an actual objection instead of just saying its original research ? Nikhil.d.JoshiNikhil.joshi.d (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * BTW, Thanks you seem to be a reasonable editor, with your edits, atleast half of the poor and incorrect genetic information on Madhyandinas is out of the picture. However, I still feel detection of R1b* (unclassified) on a member of the Madhyandina group is an incredibly important event, especially given that R1b* is rare haplogroup, and that it identifies early Indo European people were present in South Asia region. I am happy to provide all necessary and credible sources. Its also important to note, that the Y-Haplogroup is shared by all paternal male relatives. That is to say, this particular individual and ALL his paternal relatives share the same Y-haplogroup. This is clearly a large number of people with a particular Gotra(Vatsa), and particular Y-Genetics R1b*. Let me know... thanks. Nikhil.d.JoshiNikhil.joshi.d (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Literacy
Does anyone know how to get the source to get literacy of females and males separately? The table on this page gives only the literacy of males(probably).

Also, how about the literacy for other years ? Would be interesting to see how the literacy of brahmins(and others) progressed in the earlier decades during the british rule. Does the Govt of India keep any record of this that we can access?


 * Government of India does not keep records on individual forward castes or sub-castes.Some Wikipedia editors consider British era records to be dubious and will delete them if you add them.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply Jonathansammy. If I understand the reason correctly, Sitush said that many of the British officers writing their opinions on hinduism etc. in government documents etc. were amateurs - not historians, indologists or religious scholars. Hence their opinions on religious topics may or may not be true. I agree with this. However, the mathematical figures (population, literacy levels etc.) are actual calculated facts - not personal opinions. The author of book (cited as source of Brahman literacy on this page) points to the Census of India(1911) table. (in fact, that table is the only original source that will ever be available for this information) I checked the original table in the census and it has more details(male vs female). Is is OK to use it? Tables for 1921 and 1931 are also available on the govt of India website. Acharya63 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no problem in it being used.Do you really need the hard numbers though ? Can't you find mention of literacy in secondary sources ? I have no issues with the 1911 census data being used.Some people,however, others may delete it for a. Being from British rea and b.for being more than a century old.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The secondary sources (at least the ones I found so far) do not give the female literacy in Brahmin castes. Frankly, Brahmins (and Hindus in general) have been falsely accused of keeping their women illiterate. These tables show that although the literacy of Hindu women was less than that of their men, many were literate. Secondly, the above table on this page only gives value of selected Brahmin subcastes. Daivadnya Brahmins and Nagar brahmins who have been present in large numbers are not mentioned. But I am hesitant to create this table - because as you rightly say, someone will just come and delete it. I will try to find a secondary source if possible before creating it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acharya63 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

GA?
There are a lot of broken citations in this article, a fair number of cite requests, and some dodgy phrasing. Is it still of WP:GA standard? - Sitush (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is very useful. It has a lot of good information. Please do not delete anything yet - I will try to find references for non-cited content.How long can remain on wiki without being deleted?Is there some fixed timeline?-Acharya63 (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are misunderstanding. WP:GA is a specific target; not being of that standard will not cause the article to be deleted, nor mean that it is not useful. There is no fixed time for leaving cite request tags in place: it's a matter of discretion, depending on circumstance. A minimum of six months in this case, probably a year. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect values in literacy values for Brahmins and other castes ?
Since this page gave male literacy only(although it says 'adult' literacy), I was also trying to find male+female literacy or female only literacy on the brahmin castes. I did find it in the 1911/1921/1931 census (all details) but could not add it anywhere on wiki since we do not use Raj era sources. However, I noticed that the literacy of deshashtha brahmins in 1931 was LESS than what is shown on this page(1911). That does not make sense. How can literacy decrease from 1911 to 1931? For all others the literacy has increased. Also there might be a typo in the source itself. But something is surely wrong. Acharya63 (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like I was right! It is only for males and the values are incorrect. This source correctly gives the values. https://books.google.com/books?id=2u88AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA102&dq=literacy+of+Maharashtrian+castes+1911 Acharya63 (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed the errors now.. Please review. Added the table for overall( males and females) from the journal. The table published (in the source) has information about other castes too (not from Maharashtra). Editors might be able to use it in other articles. (I am not too familiar with non-Maharashtrian communities) Acharya63 (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Are the tables in the right place in the article? Also there is no discussion on the numbers in the tables.Please fix these issues.I think it is important to keep to a good flow of information in a GA article.Thanks

They probably should be in a new section called "education and literacy". I can add some discussion on the numbers from the sources. The first (male only) table was in the 'classification' section hence I added the 2nd table above it. But you are correct, it should have a section of its own (or it can go in an existing section) with some comments on the numbers. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks., Acharya63 (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This material should ideally be in article on Marathi people.Also it is extremely old. Just presenting the statistics without much discussion is pointless. I have at the moment put it in a section called historic literact rates.Jonathansammy (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Exactly. And I have removed it per my comment about similar material here. - Sitush (talk) 07:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So can we have a consensus on this?
 * 1. I will add ONLY comments from Omvedt on the Deshastha Brahmin(and possibly others like CKP etc.) page ONLY if she has said anything there about them.
 * Ditto for the Leach/Mukherjee source. Else nothing changes.
 * 2. We put the table as well as discussion for all communities from the above sources ONLY on the Marathi people page
 * as suggested by Jonathansammy. Absolutely no table on the caste pages.
 * She does say that the trends were clear so it seems good to have her table on the Marathi people page. And Omvedt, Jafferelot and others
 * have used these particular tables. We however, add her note about the census data.
 * Sitush, as the main editor, please can you confirm (1) and (2)? I will not spend time on this otherwise.
 * -Acharya63 (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am certainly not a major contributor to this or the Marathi people articles, and no-one owns them anyway. However, I wouldn't be happy seeing the info in either because it is misleading and will just attract people who keep fiddling with the numbers. - Sitush (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * sounds good. ok, I will just add the conclusion/ of the sources if relevant - no numbers. -Acharya63 (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * sounds good. ok, I will just add the conclusion/ of the sources if relevant - no numbers. -Acharya63 (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The original table has several entries. This is just a small subset that I extracted out - I think this small comparative subset should stay here - (and possibly on all caste pages - different small subsets comparing with well known or related castes can be very useful) as it gives a quick comparative social(educational) status of the caste in numerical values. The paper does have a discussion and I can add it when adding the big table later this week.

I can add the big table to the Marathi_People page. It is a valid non-Raj era resource (research paper). So it should be valid. Of course if we find the same data in a future paper, we can use it instead - but even then the numbers are not going to change. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Another reason to keep a small subset of the original table here is a person looking for literacy of deshastha brahmins (for example) will go to Deshastha_Brahmin page expecting the value to be there. By default, he/she will not go to the Marathi page.Acharya63 (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * We don't need a table to show the current literacy rate of the DBs. And past literacy rates - certainly those before independence - would not be worth the paper the source was written on. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The image of Brahmins during 1800s
A good source of this information is found in https://books.google.com/books/content?id=xlpLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA86&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U0E1AG6ZsFYQlsEW9T_xHiwe8tFhA&ci=147%2C190%2C771%2C673&edge=0

I would like someone to edit reference on those pages based on this, or, I can do it. I will wait for 2 weeks time, and if no one has acted, I will assume the editor role, and edit the article. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhil.joshi.d (talk • contribs) 04:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If and when you edit,the full citation will be needed.Also,if it was from a British colonial era source then objections may be raised.I would recommend you look for a post-independence reference to substantiate your claims.thanksJonathansammy (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please avoid racist and offensive language
Request to editors of this page: The quote 'nigger' was used to describe Brahmins on this page and it was attributed to some European from Colonial times. I kindly request you to avoid using such quotes as it is extremely offensive and hurtful. I do not know Wikipedia's policy on this or why this was allowed to remain. Acharya63 (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You removed the following (in bold):


 * I think that the sentence is quite clear: "The governor, Luís Botelho, insulted the envoy by calling Baji Rao a nigger." The term "nigger" is labeled here as insulting. And not Deshastha Brahmins in general, but the envoy, was insulted.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The source has a note, which says ""Tratando o de Negro", Kincaid and Parasnis, 261 note, quoting a Portugese authority." "Tratando o de Negro" means something like "How to threat black people" (well, the original is less friendly, of course; I won't reapeat that phrase). Anyway, the source also says that this insult provided an excuse to Baji Rao to conquer Vasai, which he already intended to do.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * According to Nigger, the word "nigger" is derived "from the Spanish and Portuguese word negro (black), and from the now-pejorative French nègre. [...] the first deragatory usage of the term nigger was recorded two centuries later, in 1775." The episode above is situated in the first half of the 1700s, so the translation of "negro" as "nigger" is anachronistic, I think. I've rephrased the sentence. Let it be clear, by the way, that I reject the usage of such terminlogy. Let it also be claer, though, that the governor did use this terminology, according to the sources; ànd that this insult played well into the hands of Baji Rao... So, removing this sentence is far from helpfull.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your work on this issue, as well as the explanation, Joshua Jonathan. But I think there there is a minor typo. It says "grossly insult[ing] the Peshwa's envoy by speaking of his master, Luís Botelho, as a negro." I think it should say "grossly insult[ing] the Peshwa's envoy by speaking of his master,the Peshwa, as a negro." Please correct me if I am misunderstanding. Acharya63 (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm really glad that you appreciate the changes and the explanation. The sentence in question gives only a partial quote:
 * Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   18:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   18:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Why are we writing references to Koknastha Brahmins in Deshastha article, it makes 0 sense.


 * I am not sure when or by whom it was added. I guess someone added it because the topic as a whole talks about Vasai Yajurvedis migration - who are Deshashtas. The original word 'Nigger' is considered very derogatory - hence I objected and originally deleted the line.Thanks.-Acharya63 (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Is the surnames section needed? Should we remove it?
Is there any need to keep this section? These names seem to be common in other castes too and most caste pages do not have such sections. Here are some well known examples:

Deshmukh (also in maratha and CKP): Vilasrao Deshmukh (politician, probably maratha), Chintamanrao Dwarkanath Deshmukh(CKP) British time Governor of the reserve bank of India.

Deshpande (also in CKP and Saraswat): Pu.La Deshpande (saraswat comedian/writer), BajiPrabhu Deshpande(CKP), Murarbaji Deshpande(CKP) - well known army commanders in the 1600's

Joshi - also in non-Marathi castes and also in Koknasthas Dr.Anandibai Joshi, Koknastha, first female doctor

Kulkarni - also found in Saraswats and CKPs.

Personally, I have no strong feelings about this. Only problem is that last names create stereotypes about a caste that might not be true. For example: We do not want Ganesh Joshi from the Shaktiman_(horse) issue to be called a Deshashtha, do we ?He is not even marathi. Acharya63 (talk) 10:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no need to remove this section.Previously,we had a huge table of 700 surnames, including Acharya, with their sub-caste,gotra,Kuldaiwat and the ancestral village.That is long gone.

What we have here is to just give an idea to the readers as to what kind of surnames deshastha have.You are welcome to add (with reliable sources) that surnames, denoting priestly professions of the family, such as Acharya,Joshi, or Dikshit are found among brahmins from other states in India.Similarly,former administrative positions such as kulkarni,Deshpande and Deshmukh are found among other Marathi brahmin sub-castes and castes.ThanksJonathansammy (talk)


 * I agree. Thanks for the information. There is a table for gotras etc. at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Indian_surnames_(Deshastha_Brahmin). The gotra/Kuladevata information there looks pretty accurate (at least for the names/families I personally know). Thanks - Acharya63 (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The same table used to be on Wikipedia before.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Deshastha Brahmin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130809190816/http://www.drbsdombivli.org/drbs_dombivli_history.htm to http://www.drbsdombivli.org/drbs_dombivli_history.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826072937/http://www.drambedkarmission.org/ambedkar to http://www.drambedkarmission.org/ambedkar
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110127142011/http://www.nasikchitpavan.org/customs-traditions.php to http://nasikchitpavan.org/customs-traditions.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Was Shirdi Sai Baba a Deshastha Brahmin
I don't want to add this since I found it only in one source. Does anyone know more about this? Also posted this on Sai Baba of Shirdi talk page for discussion I found at least one source that says this: https://books.google.com/books?id=VqI7IuxwPOwC&pg=PA10&dq=deshastha+brahmin+sai+baba&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixsbT6rJXYAhUI0mMKHUsiAbAQ6AEIJzAA "Immediately Baba intercepted with the remark, “Am I not a Brahmin?” Swamiji also records that the oldest devotee of Sai Baba, Mhalsapati, had been told by Baba himself that he was born in a Yajurvedi Deshastha Brahmin family at Pathri and he was handed over to a fakir as a child." Thanks, Acharya63 (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr. Acharya, Saibaba had a disputed heritage and therefore stay clear of any mention of his caste.

Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * There is a saying in India that you never ask the caste of a Sadhu/Sanyasi.I don't know whether Saibaba can be regarded as one but his way of life or that of a fakir resembles that of a Sanyasi. Jonathansammy (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree Jonathansammy. Thanks - Acharya63 (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

People of India
The "states" series of The People of India has been discussed in the past at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and the consensus is that it is not a reliable source, although the "national" series, which was published by Oxford University Press, is fine. The reasons for this were numerous, including that the states series plagiarised Raj ethnographic sources, often without even acknowledging it, and because it was a political exercise rather than a true anthropological one. - Sitush (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Kamalakara
I have added 'He belonged to a Deshastha Brahmin family" with . The given source does not mention his caste at all. Only his work and that he was from Maharashtra. Hence had to separate out the cited and uncited content. We want scholars and researchers to look at wiki page on deshastha as a reliable reference. Adding uncited content(especially names), ruins the credibility of our page. It makes other credible and true information also appear suspicious.Please avoid this.Thank you-Acharya63 (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

some general feedback
Not sure if everyone agrees but I see some issues with this article and a lot of scope for improvement: 1. Too much content that has no references. 2. Lot of general information on this page has no specific relevance to Deshasthas. The information specific to deshasthas has been lost in this clutter. For example: What does information about Tilak and Ganesh Festival / ShivaRatri have to do with Deshasthas? Tilak was a Koknastha and Ganeshutsav and Shivaratri is celebrated by most Maharashtrians. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Acharya63,most of the information about festivals can be found on pages for the those festivals.But if you point the reader to look up the article on Shivratri to see how Shivratri is celebrated by Deshasthas then all you will get is that Shivratri is celebrated in temples of Maharashtra and that's it.Ditto for Gauri Ganpati celebrated by deshasthas.

The reference to Tilak and private celebration of Ganpati being inspired by public celebration is totally wrong and I will remove it. The article got GA status before the "policy" on colonial era reference being non-RS came into force.A lot of those references were removed in the last two years.I recommend that you look for more recent references to replace the ones removed.Good luck.Jonathansammy (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jonathansammy! -Acharya63 (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

looking for information about Gramanaya between Deshastha Yajurvedi and Peshwas
Does anyone know of a reference that talks of the Gramanyas between Deshastha Yajurvedis and the Peshwas? Gokhale's book (The Chitpawans) as well as some others just mention it but do not go into details. Even if it is in marathi, it is fine. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Just a word of caution here, it's important that we do not use Wikipedia to try and open up old wounds between castes and sub-castes, be it the Brahmins of Maharashtra or any other caste/region in India or anywhere in the world for that matter. This should be obvious to everyone, however worth nothing that this has been the bane of India that has been fully exploited throughout history. Publishing Wikipedia content based on authentic and peer-reviewed research is fine, however, using just about any reference regardless of it's biases or motivations is irresponsible.


 * Hi, I am in 100% agreement with your comment. Yes, we do stay away from biased sources (as they usually have an agenda)- sometimes these are Dalit authors or sometimes people involved in conversions who try to exploit divisions between Hindus to set one caste against another. That is why Sitush (rightly) discourages caste affiliated websites or organizations. This particular information was needed for the Gramanya page - and of course it would not be used unless it came from a WP:RS (usually academic or historical source). Personally, I avoid sources by journalists also(unless there is no other source) - as much as possible - as they are not historians and Indian journalists have been known to be affiliated to various political parties in India. However, imho, I think we should not whitewash history. For example, I am personally ashamed of how the Deshastha community treated saints like Dnyaneshwar(and his parents) and Tukaram based on caste issues - but we cannot pretend that it never happened. Publishing any biased or intentionally provocative content is of course very wrong and immoral. A marathi book, unless it came from an academic source (a professor, researcher or a group of historians/scholars) would never be used for sensitive caste issues(at least by me). These days, any Tom, Dick and Harry publishes a book on the castes without any acknowledgements, citations, references etc and puts forth his/her personal opinions/biases as facts. Using such sources results in either puffery(false praise by distorting history) or too much degradation. In general, I repeat, that I agree with your sentiment and the intent is only to present the historical truth(only if available from an academic source). Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Errors
There are a phenomenal number of reference errors in this article. In particular, at least 20 sources that are named in the bibliography but not in fact cited. - Sitush (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've now cleaned up the uncited sources but there are still a couple of cite errors where a harvard ref exists but there is no source listed. - Sitush (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

In fact, the article is such a mess that I will give it 48 hours and then start removing every single unsourced statement, top to bottom. They can be reinstated if and when sourced. - Sitush (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Language, geographic location
Why is Karnatak/Kanad given special importance in terms of language and Location ? Deshashta Brahmans are found across Gujarath, Madhya Pradesh, parts of Delhi/Rajasthan, TamilNadu etc.... They speak Hindi, Gujrathi, Tamil also. They speak English also. Whats the compelling evidence to include only Kanda language ? Deshasthas are Marathi, Marathi empire had colonies right from TamilNadu, to Karnatak, to Gujarath, to MP. So its clear that they are migrated from their home in around Nashik to these areas. Why create a "special case" for only Karnatak ?--Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Source? - Sitush (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

History section : Still see unscientific information being cited
--Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, I still see lot of colonial time garbage being added to this page. For eg. The only known Kannada speaking Deshastha Brahmans are Rigvedi Deshashta. The only Deshashtas who went to Karnatak went their during Bhosle rule, and not before that.
 * I also see a really broad claim saying that Deshasthas are the same ethnic group as Andhra? Brahmanas, or Karnatak* Brahmans. This is patently false, and easily proved untrue based on endogamy apart from autosomal analysis, and religious rituals.
 * Moreover I still see numerous references to pre colonial pseudo scientific authors(anthropologists* cough cough..) of that time period.
 * There are clearly later and better sources of data available.
 * Why and who is bringing out this unscientific garbage in the history section for Deshasthas ?


 * Where does it say that they are the same ethnic group? Regards, Acharya63 (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Second last paragraph under Classification. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deshastha_Brahmin#Classification Most if not all of it is bogus ! --Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have taken the liberty of removing the offending paragraph.--Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have taken the liberty of editing the language section to include Marathi, which is the original language of these peoples. If we are going to add Kannada, then we should add, Rajasthani, Gujarathi, Hindi and Tamil. Or then, just keep the original language which is Marathi. --Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I need to go do some stuff, but here is a link that will give you some info. Madhyandina isn't related to sandhya at noon ? its name of the rishi who wrote that. https://archive.org/stream/puranavolvii015193mbp#page/n21/mode/2up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhil.joshi.d (talk • contribs) 02:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Why is that a reliable source? And what does science have to do with history? - Sitush (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As its name suggests its PURANA. Its not scientific, its a historical document of hindus. --Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am really struggling to understand anything you write. You said above that there was/is unscientific garbage in the history section. So I ask again: what does science have to do with history? And now, in addition, what on earth are you trying to use the Purana for? You can't expect us to read your mind so either try to explain properly, as and when you have the time, or just do not bother because cryptic commentary will not aid improvement of this article. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No need to struggle a lot. Those two are different points. First is about unscientific, and even culturally inappropriate statements. For eg. Andrha brahmans, Marathi Deshastha, and Brahmins of Karnataka are ethnically same (There are other points).The Puran is regarding some comment about doing Sandhya at noon, therefore they are called madhyandin a nonsensiccal statement. Citing Madhawa Brahman article and saying that they are same as Deshastha etc.. --Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thirdly there is lot of modern data available for athropological classification of Deshasthas, and their genomic makeup among others. We should probably use that instead of relying on thing Iravati Karve said which are just pseudo scientific guesses. In general the use of gazzete and anything written before 1990 when there was no genomic study for scientific purposes is probably destroying the quality of this article. --Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No. You have umpteen warnings on your own talk page regarding use of genetic studies etc. Repeatedly trying to get them into caste articles is behaviour of the WP:IDHT variety and is tendentious. Persisting will indubitably result in a topic ban. And I still do not understand your other points. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "And I still do not understand your other points" Which points ? Be specific, generalizing and giving hand-wavy comments will need to nothing.Threatning a user with Ban, making false comments on his user page are all tendentious behaviors actually --Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

For eg. Andrha brahmans, Marathi Deshastha, and Brahmins of Karnataka are ethnically same (There are other points).The Puran is regarding some comment about doing Sandhya at noon, therefore they are called madhyandin a nonsensiccal statement. Citing Madhawa Brahman article and saying that they are same as Deshastha etc is gibberish. You provide no support for your "ethnically the same" claim, you provide no support for "nonsensiccal" and you say we are citing the Madhwa article when we are not. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am saying "ethnically they are  NOT!!  the same " Do you even read ? --Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not what you said. And, regardless, we appear to have some sources. - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL! who made you incharge of this page ? Now I have serious doubts on them. You cannot understand what people say...that is the very basic requirement I would think. And no, we don't have any sources, just randomly linking any article doesn't make them a "source". --Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A simple question: have you read those sources? Another simple question: if so, please can you quote the relevant bit from them. - Sitush (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)