Talk:Deshastha Brahmin/Archive 3

Incorrect information about Deshastha peoples
''There is a significant Deshashta population in the state of Karnataka, and here, the sub-classification of Deshastha Brahmins is based on the type of Hindu philosophical system they follow. These are the Deshastha Madhwa Brahmins[8] who follow the teachings of Madhvacharya and the Deshastha Smartha[9]Brahmins who follow the teachings of Adi Shankaracharya. The surnames of these North Kanataka based, Kannada speaking Deshastha Brahmins, can be identical to those of Maharashtrian Deshastha Brahmins, for example, they have last names like Kulkarni, Deshpande and Joshi. Intermarriages are allowed between the Karnatak Brahmans and the Deshasthas and so the classification of the Southern India Brahmans into the Maharashtra, the Andhra (Telugu) and the Karnatic are in this respect, more of a provincial or linguistic character than an ethnographic one.[citation needed]' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhil.joshi.d (talk • contribs) 18:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No citations, citations to other wikipedia articles of Madhava brahmans
 * Where is the link ?
 * What so called agenda do I have ? The only agenda I have is to provide correct picture of who deshasthas are.
 * Kulkarni, Deshpande, Joshi are posts, and don't have anything specific to do with any caste
 * classification of south india brahmans into mh, andhra, krntk is provincial not ethnographic ? What are they talking about ?
 * I will give you one day to come up with any iota of evidence to support any of those statements made.
 * Tomorrow I will again remove it.


 * The evidence appears to be there, at least in part. You are not actually contraverting it, merely spouting a load of what you know to be true. That is, you are engaging in original research. Remove it again without consensus and without providing the requested quotations and I will ensure that you are indeed blocked, preferably for a long time. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "The evidence appears to be there, at least in part" ? Really what is it, pray tell, since the article doesn't. Neither does it have any citations ? The only references are to articles of Madhw Brahmans and the other Smarthas, they have nothing to do with Deshasthas. I have a very strong doubt now, on whether you even read what you reference. You can't ban me, since I have strong ,valid points, it will only show your behavior. --Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Moreover you have lied in your above post, stating that you have not linked the Madhwa Brahmans article, when infact as seen above, the only two links are to articles of Madhawa Brahmans and Smarthas, who are not deshasthas, nor do they have anything in common.--Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I had linked or not linked anything. And you are wrong to suggest that they may not exists, eg: see the Frykenberg quote in this diff which clearly refers to the community. The way to resolve this is for you to provide the quotations I requested so that we can take another look. If you cannot provide them then you cannot see the sources and you have no right to remove them. Completely fed up of wasting my time on you. - Sitush (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Madhwa Brahmans exist. They can speak whichever language they want, based on where they stay. They belong to Mysore/Karnatak Brahmin group. I am saying "Deshastha Brahmins" ARE NOT, or rather CANNOT* be MADHAWA or SMARTHA. The Frykenberg's quote proves nothing* Its just a link to Madhawa brahmans which are not deshasthas. Robert Eric Frykenberg can argue whatever he wants... to treat that as a fair quote and disregard the current realities, that those communities have nothing in common is patently retarded --Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think no matter how hard you scratch your head... you won't be able to come up with any credible source that claims Madhwas are Deshasthas. or Smarthas are deshasthas. They are splits that are very old, and they seperated based on their view of brahman, rituals etc... from their on they are their own groups, and they don't intermarry. This is the truth. If you want to say that they are same, proof should be based on ethnic or atleast genetic evidence (which you will find is very different )... neither do they intermarry, neither are their customs the same... on what basis are you making that statement ? Based on some Robert Eric Frykenberg who "argues" that some bramans who spoke marathi were Madhava ? :/ Madhawa brahmins also speak English, does that make them ethnic british ? --Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)--Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * How many more times must you be told that you have to provide reliable sources for your statements? You cannot just dismiss contrary reliable sources because you disagree with them. Are you honestly saying that Frykenberg is not reliable? And have you actually read the sources that the article already cites? - Sitush (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How many more times do I need to tell you to provide reliable sources for "your" statements ? The only source you have is snippet of some text written by some proffessor in America, who is "arguing" against something .... and yes I did see your crafty behavior in re-instating his diff, even though it doesn't follow wikipedia standards. That will not help you !--Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I have already added section with actual references, See below under references part of this article. --Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, stop it. You are running a cart and horses through our policies and also trying to avoid scrutiny by editing while logged out. - Sitush (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

References to the differences between the Karnatak brahmans and The Maratha/Marathi Brahmans
https://books.google.com/books?id=xlpLAAAAMAAJ&dq=madhwa%20brahmins%20bhandarkar&pg=PA82 https://books.google.com/books?id=xlpLAAAAMAAJ&dq=madhwa%20brahmins%20bhandarkar&pg=PA92 I will be using these, as it appears to have lot of proper information regarding the ethnic groups of maharashtra brahmans, and koknastha brahmans, and, the karnatak brahmans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhil.joshi.d (talk • contribs) 22:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * That was published in 1896. It is long-standing consensus that we do not use Raj era sources. - Sitush (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if its 1896 or not, since its not doing any anthropological studies. He is just stating the cast and tribes as they are.--Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=vxMwAQAAIAAJ here is another... you can't just blindly call something that doesn't agree with whatever bogus agenda you have as 'not acceptable', since there will be thousands of people who write the same thing.. since its the truth, and not whatever garbage it is that you write or support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhil.joshi.d (talk • contribs) 03:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No, he is not "just stating the cast and tribes as they are" - he is offering an opinion as to them, That new linked source you raise is also not considered reliable: it is the "states" series of The People of India and has been discussed as such as WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Good Article status
I am really concerned that this article falls well below the standards required per WP:GA. Should we start proceedings to delist it? - Sitush (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delisting process now started. - Sitush (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Mathematics, philosophy and literature
The section titled Mathematics, philosophy and literature is just caste posturing. We have a list of notable people and do not need this one-sided tripe in this article. Not every Deshashtha was great, nor indeed good. - Sitush (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Sitush, I am 100% in agreement with you over this. Otherwise we would have to do this for many castes. Moreover, the only mathematician mentioned in this section has no mentioned in the sources that he is a deshastha let alone Brahmin. Please see my comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Deshastha_Brahmin/Archive_2#Kamalakara. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I have removed Kamalakara. I was unable to find his caste even after browsing a top University library in the US that has a lot of historical tests on India and caste etc(including texts in marathi). If anyone finds a reference to his caste, please add his caste to his wiki page and his name to the list of deshastha brahmins. We need to avoid puffery and synthesis and strictly add only sourced content(preferably with quotes unless the fact is commonly known or obvious) or the page will lose the good article status. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't think this article is under WP:GA anymore. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

concerns about citations added in the last couple of days
I believe the recent citations added by the IP address are insufficient/misleading and the subsequent removals of are causing the source to be misrepresented. These edits are destroying the quality of this page. I went through a few of them and here are some issues.

Example1:

statement on wiki : '''During the British colonial period of 19th and early 20th century, Deshasthas dominated professions such as government administration, music, legal and engineering fields, whereas Konkanasthas dominated fields like politics, medicine, social reform, journalism, mathematics and education. The relations have since improved by the larger scale mixing of both communities on social, financial and educational fields, as well as with intermarriages'''

reference added: page 149 of Selected Writings Of Jotirao Phule

comments: I dont understand how Phule could write about anything in the 20th century since he died in 1890. Also why would he write anything about professions and music etc? Secondly, only the following two communities were classified as being traditionally urban/professional in Maharashtra in Raj era: Chitpawans and CKP (see "The Great Indian Middle Class by Pavan Verma- Page 28 quote on page 28:"Then there were the 'traditional urban-oriented professional castes such as the Nagars of Gujarat, the Chitpawans and the Ckps of Maharashtra...etc..". (Pawan Varma is a history degree graduate and later a press secretary to the President of India.)) Honestly, I can see Phule's writing only partially(will need to visit a library to see it) but here is what it says(Phule's book):pg 149'''" Because the original shudras of the area and the deshathas are related to each other in terms of their customs, colour and their clan Gods, and secondly, till recent times, there was no inter-marriage or intern-dining between the deshastha and the koknastha brahmins. But the Peshwas started the custom of..."''' Wikipedia text completely misrepresents this source and there is too much synthesis.

Example 2: statement on wiki:'''The Deshastha Brahmins helped build the Maratha Empire and once built, helped in its administration. Deshasthas have contributed to the fields of Sanskrit and Marathi literature, mathematics, and philosophy.'''

reference added: Milton B. Singer, Bernard S. Cohn (1970). Structure and Change in Indian Society. Transaction Publishers. p. 399

comments: Fortunately, I own this book and it was easy to check. You might be able to see parts on https://books.google.com/books?id=_g-_r-9Oa_sC&q=deshastha#v=snippet&q=deshastha&f=false Page 399 talks about Chitpawans. Page 398 talks about Deshasthas and here is the quote:"...the desashtha brahmins, who produced most of region's great literary and religious figures..." Again, the wikipedia comment is much more than what the source actually says.

Example 3: statement on wiki: According to the Anthropological Survey of India, the Deshasthas are a progressive community and some of them have taken to white collar jobs

reference added: Impact of Communism on the Working Class and Peasantry: A Case Study of Maharashtra(1986)

comments: I don't have access to this book but it is available in the library and will get it next time. However, the original statement was based on Singh/Ghoshal's "people of India state series" published in 2004. So I am doubtful that this source would refer to it. But maybe it is referring to an older survey. A quote would help in this case.

Example 4: statement on wiki: Other traditional occupations included village revenue officials academicians, astrologer, administrators and practitioners of Ayurvedic medicine

citation added: page 23 Richard M. Eaton, Munis D. Faruqui; David Gilmartin, Sunil Kumar and John F. Richards. Expanding Frontiers in South Asian and World History: Essays in Honour of John F. Richards.

comments: I could see this page 23 on google books. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=h0_xhdCScQkC&q=deshastha#v=onepage&q=deshastha&f=false Here all it talks about Deshasthas bringing scribal and administrative skills and political connections.This is the third example of wiki text saying much more than what the source says.

I think the recent edits by the IP address are misrepresenting the sources as they are only partial citations in most cases. The page number was incorrect in one case. Thanks. Acharya63 (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * IP blocked now as a sock. Edits reverted. - Sitush (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sitush . I will add citations one by one- preferably with quotes. Some of the IP address user citations were OK but will make sure that the text reflects the citation accurately in all cases. ThanksAcharya63 (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

"Since then, despite being the traditional religious and social elites of Maharashtra, the Deshastha Brahmins failed to feature as prominently as the Konkanastha.". Has this edit been done by a Chitpavan Brahmin? Where are the credible citations for a statement such as this? A blanket judgement like this needs multiple credible (statistically-backed) citations, in the absence of which, this just pure slander. Secondly, I am concerned with the neutrality of certain writers who seems to be interested in looking for minute problems only for content in pages other than the one for Chitpavan Brahmins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:72C8:3E00:3020:CF0D:C0DC:926 (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems that there is too much selective usage of certain references in the discussion on the Talk page over here. For example, using a single partial statement by a single author such as "Then there were traditional urban communities such as Chitpawans/CKPs" to claim that only these communities were urban/professional is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. Secondly, many of edits done on the page itself particularly underneath the "ceremonies and rituals" section are without any citation and clearly designed to present Deshastha brahmins in a poor light. It's clear that some authors are engaged in needless puffery and other are engaged in needless demeaning, under the guise of scholarship. It seems that caste-baiting is continuing to thrive on Indian Wikipedia albeit in cleverly disguised ways.

One last note here: It's important for the editors to pay close attention to the updates done by user Acharya63 on the caste pages and cross-check the quality as well as the fairness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:72C8:3E00:9570:A7B1:AF9C:2FFB (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, perhaps you are not aware. I was the one who protested the use of 'nigger' on the deshastha page. I have no interest in promoting any caste over another. I add quotes to most of my edits and I work on all marathi pages(including Maratha caste). I don't know who wrote the statement you mentioned but it is several years old( long before I joined wikipedia).  Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deshastha_Brahmin&diff=374738251&oldid=374630045.  I just checked the history of this page and it seems it was done by some retired editor called Zuggernaut in 2010 - don't know if he was Chitpawan. I have the 'elites in south asia ' book and can check it tonight itself. If it really says that I will add the quote. If not, we can remove it. I think staying in America for so long had made me immune to caste criticism or puffery after I realized that other than Hindus(and politicians in India), no one really cares about caste (and some of my white Christian friends even find the caste system ridiculous).  However, I am 100% against slander and unnecessarily putting down a caste unless some source suggests it. If the above statement is not supported by the source then it is surely slander that just stayed around for 8 years. But I have been reading Christine Dobbin's book(University of Oxford) and she seems to suggest the same thing, although indirectly. For example, she says that before 1850's the only castes that were likely to have higher education in colleges like Elphiston college were the Parsis, Prabhus and Chitpawans.(I can give the exact page number/quote later if necessary)  Sitush is a very senior and experienced editor. Personally, I have great respect for Sitush's editing skills. He is very sharp and quite neutral IMHO. He has reverted changes on the Chitpawan page too (for example a claim that called them an Aryan race). So I don't think he is biased against any caste. In fact, he said his only association with India is that one of his ancestors served the British empire. So he may not even be Indian. The problem is that he is just one person and people keep adding stuff without any citations. So it is natural that he might miss some uncited material. My suggestion is to enforce quotes for anything that could look as puffery or is not obvious. Acharya63 (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Also the urban/rural thing is not defamatory in any way IMO. Most of Maharashtra was rural. And living in rural areas does not mean it is in any way inferior - Deshasthas have produced so many saints that no community in India has produced - so how can they be inferior to Chitpawans?

BTW, California is more rural than New York. (just as an example). But it is considered a better place for intellectuals. Acharya63 (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * About ceremonies and rituals, I have not read in detail but if you find something that is wrong and uncited, please feel free to remove it or mention it here. Uncited material should not be on wikipedia. IMO, there is tremendous puffery going on all over wikipedia for the Maratha caste. That might be because they are more in number. For example, there was a statement on this page that deshastha children prepare images of Shivaji. The reference given was some news article reference to Shrimant Kokate( a maratha who is very openly anti-Brahmin - google him). The article did not mention the word Brahmin let alone deshastha. But someone involved in maratha puffery had added that statement here and no one noticed it for years until I removed it. Also, notice that although the atrocities commited by deshasthas are mentioned in great detail there is only a passing mention of any atrocities against them (like burning of Brahmin houses in Pune ). Acharya63 (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I was living in the US for many years (California) before moving here to Canada and my paternal as well as maternal family is a mix of all the 3 major Brahmin sub-castes of Maharashtra. And I do agree with your White Christian friends that the caste system is ridiculous. However, people do check online these days for reference to their origins and people do trust Wikipedia as the source of authentic information. There is substantial misinformation being propagated online these days in reference to the Aryan/Dravidian heritage, provincial and language origins as well as the caste/sub-caste distinctions. Given the history of India, since independence the government of India has made conscious efforts to get rid of the caste/sub-caste and other divisive labels plaguing the Indian society. However, the information intake these days is dominated by what people see online and the question is not just about presenting such information using certain select references but about verifying it's fairness as well as completeness, particularly given the troubled history of India in relation to caste/sub-caste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:72C8:3E00:904A:8684:4E56:2C41 (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. Please can you point out any information that is uncited and offensive. We can look at it and remove it if it is unsourced. Honestly, I have been simply browsing rather than reading carefully. As another example, where the sufferings of Deshastha Brahmin women are whitewashed is the non-mention of alleged sexual atrocities against the (mostly Deshastha) Brahmin women of Kolhapur(not sure how many people know this). See Bal Gangadhar Tilak and search for Shahu. Puffery is rampant on castes that have a lot of population(Marathas etc). For example, the OBC agitation by maratha (especially the farmers in marathwada) has been going on for so long but there is not a single mention on it on the Maratha page. Nor is there a single mention of many incidents of maratha violence/riots on the maratha page. The reason I work on all marathi caste pages is because I don't think some tiny castes have any representation on wikipedia. Such castes are more likely to get bashed on wikipedia as there will be hardly any defenders. BTW, I just found some good stuff on deshasthas from a good and new source that can counteract the other negative stuff. Will add it later tonight.Acharya63 (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

fact checking
As promised, I did some fact checking about the statement that someone found objectionable : "Since then, despite being the traditional religious and social elites of Maharashtra, the Deshastha Brahmins failed to feature as prominently as the Konkanastha".

The statement is indeed supported by the text on page 98 of the source ("Elites in South Asia by Edmund Leech and Mukherjee(editors)). The article in the book is "Chitpawan Brahmins and the Politics in Western India". It is written by (Dr. Gordon Johnson. See his webpage here https://www.wolfson.cam.ac.uk/people/dr-gordon-johnson He is the deputy vice-chancellor of Cambridge university. The exact quote in the book is is "As the original Brahmin inhabitants of Maharashtra they[Deshastha] were held in greatest esteem and considered themselves superior to other Brahmins. Yet although the Deshastha Brahmins composed the traditional religious social elite of Maharashtra, they have not featured so prominently in recent Indian history as Chitpawan Brahmins"

You can see this quote via google books too Went through the article briefly and the entire article is filled with a lot of praise for chitpawans(including their looks-fairskin and intelligence). On page 102 he uses some census stuff to show that the english literacy rate of Chitpawans was twice as that of Deshasthas. Johnson makes a passing reference to the Prabhus and Parsis and says that they were the best educated communities. But he adds that they were too tiny(in population) to account for anything and does not talk about them further. Christine Dobbins in my opinion has done a better study because she used data directly from educational institutions rather than Raj era officers.

Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * No comment on reliability as I haven't looked at either Johnson or Dobbins but, for your info, someone being deputy vice-chancellor of Cambridge university means nothing in terms of their authority on this or any other subject. It is an administrative post. - Sitush (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Surnames
I have removed the section concerning surnames. We generally do not bother with them in caste articles because of the triviality and the amount of original research and synthesis that goes on. Not to forget plain old unsourced stuff! Furthermore, pretty much anyone can have any name, even though some names may appear much more frequently in any given community, so such sections create the impression of a limited pool of names which is almost certainly incorrect. They're a honeypot of little worth.

In this particular instance, there was indeed some synthesis going on. For example, the Jaffrelot source quoted was referring to the terms in the context of titles, not in their use as surnames. Sure, the two may be connected but he does not say that.

The removal of the link to WikTionary was done by after I raised the issue at WT:INB in a more general context. It was useless in this particular case and, again, it gave a misleading impression.

I still think this article needs a massive clean up. - Sitush (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi MRRaja001. Thanks for your work on adding missing citations to this page. Hopefully we should be able to take this article to GA status this year. BTW, I had to revert one of your edits. I had made almost the same edit a few days back and Sitush has explained why we should not link to that page (above). See my edit here which was later reverted : Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Why no Genetics section ?
https://kundoc.com/pdf-genetic-distance-analysis-among-nine-endogamous-population-groups-of-maharashtra.html

Suggest using that link for genetics of Deshastha in comparison to other Maharashtrian populations.

--Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There used to be a section but in recent years Wikipedia policy has forbidden adding genetics on caste related articles.Good luck.Jonathansammy (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the link where this decision took place. It seems insane to not do that, particularly because it will prove that most Indians are +/- similar in build, and potentially contribute in making castes irrelevant--Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with you. I do not have the link.You can add this information but the person who formulated this policy will in time remove it.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Deshastha Madhwa
Again, there is no such population. Madhawa Brahmins are Kamme, and have absolutely nothing to do with Deshastha. Some Rigvedics moved south during the Maratha Empire expansion period. They are genetically Marathi (although intermixing might have happened over centuries due to lack of other marathis in those regions, and lessening social norms w.r.t caste system).

Article is still a shit show, in terms of presenting facts. --Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Deshastha Madhwas are present in South Maharashtra and North Karnataka. If you don't know, please dont talk on this topic. I did a lot of research on them, practically. Deshastha Madhwa's have both Rigvedi and Yajurvedi separately. Rigvedi's marry only Rigvedi's and Yajurvedi's marry only Yajurvedi's. Mathas belonging to Deshastha Madhwas are Uttaradi Matha, Vyasaraja Matha and Raghavendra Matha and all the acharyas of these mathas untill now are Deshastha Brahmins. Prominent Deshastha Madhwas are T. Madhava Rao and his family, Bhimsen Joshi, N. R. Narayana Murthy, Sudha Murthy, Arni Jagirdars, Purandara Dasa and  many more.  Even Oxford University Press recorded about the Deshastha Madhwas Mathas in this book: () MRRaja001 (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Nor Racism Nor genetics nor Mythology(As mentioned by some users)
As per research conducted by gurve,with respect to physical characteristics it was observed that Deshastha Brahmins were more closer to Mahar caste but far away from fellow Brahmins caste like chitpavans and shenvis with high DI(differential indices).

Feel free to give your opinion here,since I found this information is not violating any of wiki policy. Joshi punekar (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Joshi punekar, The reason it is violating Wikipedia policy is it is using genetics (high DI). Plus it is very provocative. Although wiki is uncensored, such WP:FRINGE statements will attract a lot of edits. Technically, all humans have similar origin. And different castes in same area will have a better match that similar castes in different areas. For example, Punjabi Brahmins will be genetically closer to (so called)Punjabi low-caste rather than Deshastha Brahmins. This is only because they are from the same area. This has been shown by Ghurye and it actually shows that the caste system is man-made. I do not think that anyone literally believes that castes came from different parts of Brahma's body. Evolution is a proven theory. I will show you some statements from some sources (including academic ones) that have other opinions. In the book by Sandhya Gokhale(see below) Deshastha(and two other marathi castes -Chitpawan and CKP) are classified as Aryans by British and Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya(historian)(I know race theories have been rejected but this classification was done based on nasal index being more than 113). Please see some quotes(with references) regarding looks of the Marathi castes below. You will notice that none of them are used on the caste pages. Also some of them do not match with each other. The point is that even in the same family everyone can have different features.


 * 1.Anthropologist Singh(Oxford Univerity Press): The Chitpavan, Deshastha, Prabhu( Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu and Pathare Prabhu) and Saraswat share grey-hazel and light brown eyes which are not to be found in other castes. Similarly these three groups have reddish brown or brown hair, while other people have dark brown to black
 * 2.Sandhya Gokhale in "the Chitpawans": According to historian Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya, Deshastha, Chitpawan, Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu(CKP), Punjabi Khatri and Nagar Brahmin were classified as Aryan due to their nasal index being greater than 113.
 * 3.Sandhya Gokhale in "the Chitpawans":A typical Chitpavan is usually fair of complexion, has a sharp nose and steel grey eyes
 * 4.newspaper article: As Anuradha and I explore the park's elegant fringe, she's greeted every foot of the route by light-eyed, sharp-nosed (features typical of Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu and Saraswat Brahmin communities) morning walkers.'
 * 5. Irawati Karve: In case of Marathas, Anthropologist Karve says that their skin color is generally medium brown and marathas from Khandesh have very dark brown skin. She says many other things about their looks(see Anthropometric measurements of the Marathas by Irawati Karve - it is available online). The entire book is about their looks, nasal indices, hair color, skin color etc.


 * One of the above sources is Oxford University press. But we never add physical characteristics of a caste to caste pages. It gets a little too close for comfort to genetics and as per a consensus (by some senior editors), genetics is not allowed on caste pages.
 * Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice explanation Acharya. Anybody who has a good understanding of genetics will find scientific racism based on phenotype rather baseless. When I see people engaging in 19th racialism of Indo-European origin in far north Europe, I link them to face reconstructions of WHGs and ANEs. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . All these racial theories have been debunked anyways. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Deshasthas are traditionally pure vegetarian
I think we should remove the offensive and inaccurate non-vegetarian reference in Deshastha Brahmin because it is WP:FRINGE (not mainstream). It is offensive but I know wikipedia is uncensored - so that is not the reason. But the problem is that it gives a wrong impression and literally every community can fall in this category - some are vegetarian and some are non vegetarian. You can say that about Muslims too. But Deshasthas are traditionally strict vegetarians - like Chitpawans and Karhades. Joshi_Punekar had added the non vegetarian comment and other comments in April. &#x222F; WBG had reverted them giving a good explanation. Please see their entire conversation below. Also this is the revert that they are talking about = > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deshastha_Brahmin&diff=893343056&oldid=893341907 You(IP) and Acchuta Sharma are making the same edits that were reverted by WBG and others in April. My request to you is to read the conversation below before making any further edits on Deshasthas or diet etc. Any thoughts on this?(please see their conversation below)- I have copied it from. I am completely in agreement with WGB about the diet part. Please can we discuss? Thanks, Acharya63 (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

''-- Revert all 5 edits? --

May I know what’s wrong in mentioning about their diet with citation ? Joshi punekar (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I will explain my revert of in entirety:-
 * In the 21st century, we don't say that Community X resides to the north of Himalayas, Community Y between the Y and Z ranges and so on. Administrative territories are used because they are far more specific and easily identifiable to a reader.
 * That's the reason as to why your addition to lead was a dis-improvement.
 * There was a community-discussion over reliable sources noticeboard that added a paragraph to our guide of identifying reliable resources in scientific areas. The addition states:--
 * It, for all practical purposes, asks us to avoid such stuff and at any case, the book you cited is not remotely close to being a high quality source.
 * And, finally, vegetarian or non-vegetarian food habit. Per your quote from it, Singh notes that the entire community is vegetarian but there are outliers.
 * We are not writing a legal document over here and any such broad characterization is bound to have outlying elements, in this era of globalization. Also, we don't use Singh's work over here--it has been non-favorably received by academics and often mass-plagiarize works of discredited Raj era ethnographers. I have hardly seen any respectable academic in these areas, citing Singh either. &#x222F; WBG converse 19:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So in this case do visit saraswat brahmin page.Recent edits are based on this diet,intercaste marriage etc .Doesn’t it applicable there? Joshi punekar (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:INDENTATION and abide by that.
 * Saraswats are distinct from other Brahman communities, specifically due to their meat-eating habits. This was the core reason, as to why they were placed in the lower rungs of the Brahmanical hierarchy and numerous authors document this. So, obviously the non-vegetarian diet habit and social status deserves a mention.
 * That I am now looking at your broader editing patterns, I am increasingly growing suspicious of your motives and it very much seems that you are trying to right great wrongs. You are effectively trying to whitewash the Saraswats (which duly reverted) by removing all references that speak of their non-vegetarian habits whilst simultaneously setting up a false similarity between the Saraswats and Deshasthas by trying to prove that even the latter follows a non-vegetarian diet.
 * --This is a real good idea and can be placed at individual sysop discretion, per WP:GS/CASTE. &#x222F; WBG converse 19:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Why what happened ?Is this Wikipedia or a group of POV setters as per requirements when needed?If no means apply same method in saraswat Brahmins page. Regards, Joshi punekar (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a chat-board; you need to read the stuff before posting a reply that seems to be functionally identical to trolling. Any more un-indented garbage and I will revert you. &#x222F; WBG converse 19:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

''

please avoid verbatim copies from sources
Recent edits show that some sources have been copied verbatim. Such edits needs in-text citation. Please see WP:PLAGIARISM. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)