Talk:Gaud Saraswat Brahmin/Archive 1

Konkani Wikipedia
Dear Konknni friends,

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

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

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

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

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

The url is given below:

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

Dev boro dees deum! -Deepak D&#39;Souza 07:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Copyvio
Raised via WP:ANI: this edit introduced a large chunk of copyvio from www.gsbkerala.com/gsbhistory.htm. I suggest a revert to the previous version. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out the origination point; quite a time-saver. I have removed the problematic text and placed a warning below against restoration. I did not flatly revert, so that other improvements and changes to the article might be preserved. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

gsbs are spread out in major cities of tamilnadu migrating from tulunad region of karnataka along with bunt community. you can find konkanis in large numbers in coimbattur,madurai and madras for example. 59.93.12.35 (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The surname Shenoy has a legend behind it's origin; that Lord Parshuram settled 96 (Xennai in Konkani) families in the land he reclaimed from the sea – 66 (Sashast) in Salcette and the balance 30 (Tis) in Tiswadi. But then again, this mystic number 96 is not unique to the GSB's. The Kshatriya clans of Mahrashtra are known as Xannav Kuli (96 families in Marathi). Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  10:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Explanations please!

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

Nijgoykar (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Pages affected by the moves include:
 * Gaud Saraswat Brahmin (which should not even exist and is now CSD R2'd)
 * Goud Saraswat Brahmin
 * Goud Saraswat Brahmins of Cochin
 * List of Goud Saraswat Brahmins
 * Category:Goud Saraswat Brahmin
 * Goud Saraswat Brahmin temples in Kerala
 * List of Kuldevatas of Goud Saraswat Brahmins
 * List of festivals of Goud Saraswat Brahmins

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

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

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

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

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

Perceptions of mythology and history
Since it contains irrelevant info do we need these info in this page. Truth should trump (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC) Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


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


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


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

Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Joshi punekar (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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


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


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

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

Joshi punekar (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Disclaimer:
 * D Big X ray ᗙ

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

This one is from NDTV newspaper go through it once ..... Joshi punekar (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have shared reliable source (a book) stating GSB eat fish. Do you have a source that says they dont ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Revisit both the book it doesn’t contain the word Goud saraswat Brahmins instead it mentions saraswat Brahmins that’s it.If you find Goud saraswat Brahmins can you tell me the line number?Bcoz saraswat Brahmins have many subsections even Aadhya Goud saraswat,Citrapur saraswat,Rajapur saraswat etc are there .In North India almost 10 types of sub categories are there so you cannot generalise. Joshi punekar (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * '' D Big X ray ᗙ
 * PAge 35 Para 2 -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

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

 D Big X ray ᗙ  Should I copy paste whole paragraph?Nothing is there which drags GSB there,Instead it gives common statement and probability of Bengali brahmins and saraswat Brahmins .Not Goud saraswat Brahmins Joshi punekar (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read and follow WP:INDENT. The page clearly mentions GSB and explains their diet of fish. Here is another source for the same. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

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

See the above book for contradictions for your statement.Before that tell me how those news paper became citations ?? Joshi punekar (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have produced official government source that says GSBs eat fish. you are posting a cookbook. there is no match. Dont expect a reply if you cant follow WP:INDENT -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 October 2019

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

Goud Saraswat Brahmin → Gaud Saraswat Brahmin – As per WP:CONSISTENT, in line with other relating articles e.g. List of Gaud Saraswat Brahmins and List of festivals of Gaud Saraswat Brahmins Hemant DabralTalk  15:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems likely that 'Gaud' is the better spelling. But given that this change may affect a number of articles it is better to have a discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


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

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


 * I think these might help you in your reasearch mate. Citation1 - Looks like Saraswat river is also known as Gauda. This citation says that they got the name after started following Gaudapadacharya, Advaita guru.[], [] — These citations concludes that the name is not from Bengal. I'll update you with more citations. [] — This citations says that they got the name "Gauda" during the times of Sen dynasty in Bengal -    MRRaja001  (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


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


 * Okay mate! -  MRRaja001  (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Here is the data i found about GSB's language


 * Kerala - (type: Gowd Saraswat), Kerala Citation2 — In Kearala they speak Konkani in different Dialects such as Cochin Gowd Saraswat Brahmin dialect, Quilon Gowd Saraswat Brahmin dialect, Cannanore Gowd Saraswat Brahmin dialect etc., like these there are many dialect spoken by Gaud Saraswat Brahmins in Kerala.


 * Karnataka - — This book/journal says in Karnataka Gaud Saraswat Brahmins speak Konkani with different dialects with  loan words borrowed from Kannada.


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


 * Maharashtra - Maharashtra Citation1.

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


 * I've included these in the recent edit in the lead. Obviously it can be expanded in a new section later. Thank you very much. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This one is predatory source, it triggered a filter, so had to live it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

More examples:

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

This is called upward mobility and it still continues.

Nijgoykar (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


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

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


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

Varna Status
I want to discuss with you regarding this — The Brahmins of Maharashtra, i.e. Deshastha, Chitpavan and Karhade were unanimous in the rejection of the Brahmin claim of the Gaud Saraswat Brahmins and cases were filed in the court against the GSB by different Brahmins in 1788 AD, 1850 AD and 1864 AD.. The citation is talking about Saraswats but you added this in Gaud Saraswats. I think you should remove this from here and add it to Saraswats. Coming to Shenvis, they are a subcaste of Gaud Saraswat Brahmins, this doesn't mean whole community were rejected the status. Author clearly mentioned Shenvis which is a small group amoung Gaud Saraswats. So, be specific. -  MRRaja001 (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , I agree that we have to be specific. Will add Shenvi. Actually, the paper his is referring to by Wagle is about Gaud Saraswats of western India(not Saraswats in general). I am currently on a break. Will discuss more later as I found some more information.LukeEmily (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , the source(Dr.Deshpande) does not give the specific courts. Anyway, this section is incomplete and needs expansion.LukeEmily (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Then get rid of that sentence. Let us not have ambiguity in the article. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Jonathansammy, what is ambiguous? Why is the specific court important? The quote is given and the sentence is part of the peer reviewed academic journal and was accepted in the journal but not acceptable on wikipedia? The only point Deshpande makes is that the three Brahmin communities did not accept the Brahmin claims.LukeEmily (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2022(UTC)
 * , The specific court is important especially for 1788 because the British at that time had jurisdiction over mostly Mumbai.In other areas the Marathas ruled with a very different legal system.Besides, just because it is peer reviewed doesn't mean one can not challenge material published by an author.In natural sciences, new discoveries make the previously peer reviewed material obsolete. Even in social sciences, eminent authors disagree with each other's work.Case in point was [[G. S. Ghurye|

Ghurye]], and his own student, Irawati Karve criticizing each other's work. So please keep an open mind with everything you read.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Jonathansammy, as editors, the only way we can challenge is by providing opposite view by another source. If another source says that no cases were filed we can give both opinions. But we cannot use personal opinions to challenge such a high quality source as Dr.Deshpande. We can add information about courts once we get it but I was objecting to deleting the complete sentence in WP. Karve and Ghurye are both WP:RS, hence they can challenge each other but as editors we cannot challenge a high quality source unless we show it is wrong - in which case we have to give opposing opinions. I am keeping an open mind but I humbly request you to do the same and read the sources provided on the Brahmin talk page and let me know if you think that Sitush's concerns are invalid. The community is definitely misrepresented on wikipedia based on WP:OR. About the cases, even if the legal system, judges, etc. were different, why does it matter here? We are not even discussing the the case or the outcome. If three main Brahmin communities disagree with the claimed Brahminhood of some caste, is it not worth mentioning? Should the complete sentence be deleted just because the source does not give whether the court was British or not? We are not even discussing the outcome. Can so many sources(on the Brahmin talk page) be wrong? We have to be neutral on wikipedia and strictly follow guidelines.LukeEmily (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , why did you add the citation needed tag? It is clearly cited. This is making it very difficult to edit the page if you keep adding irrelevant tags.LukeEmily (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , you said: So please keep an open mind with everything you read. Does this not go against the wikipedia policy of WP:OR and WP:RS is we cherrypick sources based on what we think? ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

, Per Sitush, Raj era sources are not to be used. Bambardekar's work is from that period, isn't it? Also, why aren't you including the outcome of three court cases? I am sure you can find sources other than Deshpande for that, can't you? Thanks.104.148.248.100 (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The source used in wikipedia is Deshpande(2010) not Bambardekar's work in Marathi - hence it is not Raj era. If and when someone finds the details of the court cases, they can be added if needed.LukeEmily (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Since there are so many objections, removed the court case part.LukeEmily (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2022
In the See also section please add Kudaldeshkar Gaud Brahmins also. 42.106.236.132 (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Actualcpscm (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2022 (2)
The History and Varna status sections of the article can include the following information. A separate section on the Eki movement is definitely needed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. The Vishnu Wagh case led to activity in the Shenvis. Gunjikar published the Saraswati Mandala giving a history of the community. Later Gerson Da Cunha published Sahyadrikhanda from Goa and also proposed Konkani as a separate language. The Eki movement soon began to unite all the Shenvi subcastes and programs for interdining and intermarriage were begun. A common origin legend explaining how the subcastes came about was presented in the text called Konkanakhyana. However, since the movement was led by Smartha Shenvis and the Sashtikars and it looked at Konkani as the language of the new GSB caste, the subcastes that were not from Goa like the Rajapurkars (RSB), Kudaldeshkars (KGB) and Chitrapurkars (CSB) stayed away and maintain their independent identity till date. Source-Eki movement by Conlon and Eki-Beki dispute and unification of GSB caste paper by Khandeparkar. 42.106.236.132 (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Additionally, please ensure that your suggestion is written in the appropriate style. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2023
I want to Add some Information in the Varna section from Maratha kaifiyat regarding shenvis with citation.

Madhwahari (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to provide the exact text you wish to add along with the citations. RegentsPark (comment) 14:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2023
“History Page have become messup by mentioning history and analysis of Shenvi which may be or may not be part of GSB SO add this at the beginning of analysis to avoid confusion in the chapter history “ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pondakar (talk • contribs) 12:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sahyadrikhanda and Mangesh Mahatmya allude to migrations of Saraswat Brahmins, constituting ninety-six families, who settled in eight villages of Goa. There were regional variations among the Saraswats, such as those among Bardeskars, Pednekars and Sastikars.In Kalhana's Rajatarangini (12th century CE), the Saraswats are mentioned as one of the five Pancha Gauda Brahmin communities residing to the north of the Vindhyas. Pondakar (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * sock. RegentsPark (comment) 14:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2023
“whole reference speaks about shenvis and not Gaud saraswat Brahmins so better to delete it from this page and add it to shenvi page”

The Brahminhood claim of the Shenvi GSB was unanimously rejected by the Deshastha, Chitpavan and Karhade brahmins and even the British classified them separately from brahmins. Pondakar (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * sock. RegentsPark (comment) 14:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2023 (2)
“ Individual Scholar opinion and British Raj both are not valid so delete this statement or send it to talk till Neutral analysis from Expert author comes if not it may be POV push”

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

Alexander Henn says that "modern scholars have questioned the myth of the northern descent". According to modern scholars, arguing that their origins instead come from local priests who, at some point in history, gained Brahmanhood". Pondakar (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * sock. RegentsPark (comment) 14:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2023(Origin of Gaud saraswat Brahmin_Please add to origin)
According to the  Sahyadrikhanda   of the Skanda Purana, ninety-six Saraswat Brahmin families belonging to ten gotra s migrated to Goa from the Saraswati river basin, along with Parashurama.

Reference to Saraswat names are found in Shilahara s as well as Kadamba copper plate inscriptions. The inscriptions found in Goa bear testimony to the arrival of Brahmin families in the Konkan region.

The Shilahara kings seem to have invited supposedly pure Aryan Brahmins from the Indo-Gangetic plain to settle in Konkan. These castes are the Gaud Saraswat Brahmins and s.

Sahyadrikhanda and  Mangesh Mahatmya  allude to migrations of Saraswat Brahmins, constituting ninety-six families, who settled in eight villages of Goa. There were regional variations among the Saraswats, such as those among  Bardeskars ,  Pednekars  and  Sastikars . The  Konkana mahatmya , from the 17th century CE, deals with the internal rivalry of the Saraswats and strained relations between these groups. In Kalhana 's  Rajatarangini   (12th century CE), the Saraswats are mentioned as one of the five Pancha Gauda Brahmin communities residing to the north of the Vindhyas. Pondakar (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * sock. RegentsPark (comment) 14:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

1.”The Brahminhood claim of the Shenvi GSB was unanimously rejected by the Deshastha, Chitpavan and Karhade brahmins and even the British classified them separately from brahmins. In original reference it is   Deshpande, M.M. (2010). "Pañca Gauḍa and Pañca Drāviḍa: Contested borders of a traditional classification". Studia Orientalia: 108: 45. “ The Deśasthas, Citpāvans and Karhāḍes were united in their rejection of the brahminhood for the Sārasvatas, and Wagle himself provides evidence of this animosity.” Meaning three caste got united in rejecting Brahminhood of saravats due to animosity(I.e.animosity is Rivarly/hate and unanimously is not same as uniting).This statement has repeated two times in a single page and one time in karhade after origin as per shahyadrikhand.How can you give reason for their origin from this caste?(clear POV)  Here as per gramanya all Brahmins fought so why other Brahmins perception is required here? 2.The GSBs were traditionally traders and even as early as the 1400s they conducted commerce across the Indian Ocean. Here it clearly states trading communities like gsb and some other community.Author never uses “Traditional trading” word.This is misrepresented sentence.Mainly Author is not sociologist or historian he is basically Economist.What sort of reference is this.I can give 100 source which calls them as Priest,Administrator,landlords etc.Deshasthas were adminstrators,Chitpavans were farmers.So shall we change their Varna?

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

Hello, The Shenvi are not Brahmins as per many sources although they call themselves GSB. The Guru Parampara is used for claiming Brahminhood as one scholar says. The Deshastha and Karhade Brahmins areundisputed Brahmins - no one disputes it today. But even modern scholars are not in consensus on the varna of Shenvi. The sources are also saying that the GSB manipulated Skanda Puran to improve their status. My research started because Sitush pointed out some inconsistencies about Saraswats in wikipedia. I will reply in detail on saturday or sunday.LukeEmily (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * LukeEmily (talk) Tomorrow if a dalit caste starts claiming brahmin status then who is going to stop them? Other castes may even welcome it because there would be then fewer claimants for reservation quota in India.Similarly,if Shenvi or Devadnya claim brahmin status then in modern times you may dispute it but there are no legal ramifications. My two cents!Jonathansammy (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Jonathansammy, I agree that anyone can claim whatever they wish. And that is their right. But we have to give opposing views of others too. In fact, I feel that the Devadnya page should be renamed to Devadnya Brahmin as that is the common name used by sources. Please also see Rajapur Saraswat.LukeEmily (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmily@JonathansammyClaim and counter claim is seperate thing.Here this page has crossed all the limit.Sitush had set the neutrality norms which was there till 2017 .Now this page is full of perspective than actual information.
 * Karhade,Deshasthas and konkanastha view on saraswat.
 * Nambodiri view on saraswat.
 * Just tell me how can you rely on other caste views?Isn’t that like French doesn’t consider British as British ?
 * Mainly this page is full of negative views and not a single positive view is there.Secondly @LukeEmily cannot come to conclusion after views.This editor is giving view of author/caste and just mentioning the information seems to be POV.This is cherry picking nothing more than that.Main authors like Gurhye’s and Karve perspective had been sidelined.
 * I can come with the same way of mentioning perspective to all Brahmins of Maharashtra(Chitpavan’s social ladder claim,Karhade claim from fallen village to brahmin,Daivadnya’s shudra status under Peshwa towards non shudra ladder) Karanth1234 (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmily@JonathansammyRegarding recent edit of nambodhiri,it clearly states that “Gaud saraswat Brahmins didn’t considered daivdnya as Brahmins and nambodhiri didn’t necessarily considered citing that they travelled via sea.Here sea traveling is prohibited in standard Brahmins like nambodhiri then how come that become Varna question?.Did you added same in sonar page,no right?.Why so obsessed with negative views in this page? Karanth1234 (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmily@JonathansammyThis page is void of neutrality.Sitush clearly advocated for neutrality till date.Daivdnya come under OBC I didn’t find this approach of writing only selected negative articles there,nor in Chitpavan,nor in Karhade.
 * secondly the editor is imagining that Pune Brahmins(Chitpavan,karhade,deshasthas) were masters in deciding other community Varna.The fact is only varnasi Brahmins had that power and GAGABHATT clearly stated the satkarmi status of GSB.Deshasthas were real Brahmins no doubt in that but during ligayat gramanya they clearly
 * claim karhade and Chitpavan of west coast were near to shudras.I’ll add these contents soon with citations.I saw @LukeEmilywriting about GOA ,in Goa even Portuguese called them as bomman.Whole archives are there regarding this. Karanth1234 (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * . I am still waiting for you give a source where you claimed that Karhade Brahmins are not considered Brahmins in modern times. Based on what I have read: Chitpavan, Deshastha and Karhade Brahmins varna is undisputed today. Please also see Kantak's paper "Kantak, M. R. (1978). "The Political Role of Different Hindu Castes and Communities in Maharashtra in the Foundation of the Shivaji's Swarajya". He is saying saraswats studied portuguese and Brahmins studied Sanskrit. Please give quality sources with opposing views if you feel there are other opinions. Thanks, Luke.LukeEmily (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyI am writing complete details about karhade since the source is in Kannada where few authors claim their origin from Portuguese intermarriage and regarding Chitpavan I can give the list of authors who claim them as Bane Israeli .So from these 4 books I’ll rewrite .Even during Lingayat issue they clearly proved the western coast brahmin including karhade and Chitpavan as shudras based on shastra.Well documented,in that stance only deshasthas stands as Brahmin.
 * secondly brahmandapurana was never considered edited even in that karhade has been mentioned as non Brahmins.Anyhow leave these things to me let me write the content of
 * brahmanisation excellently.
 * Your second point is all authors mentioned saraswat seperately from Brahmins the main reason is saraswats never identified and intermarried with local Brahmins they maintained seperate identity.The same saraswat in north are identified as Brahmins as the region is Gaud.Here always they maintained distance from pancha Dravid.But Karhade and Chitpavan who don’t belong to niether panch Gaud or panch dravid try to intermarry with deshasthas to become Brahmans but in Karnataka which was not under Maratha empire they were treated as non Brahmins and denied temple priest activity.I will cite in my article.One more thing for Chitpavan you need not to wait till my article just search good books from google you find this in almost all but karhade you may not get in google as that community was not famous as GSB,Chitpavan,deshasthas,ckp etc. Karanth1234 (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyDon’t you think for these statements like
 * “ Based on what I have read: Chitpavan, Deshastha and Karhade Brahmins varna is undisputed today. Please also see Kantak's paper "Kantak, M. R. (1978). "The Political Role of Different Hindu Castes and Communities in Maharashtra in the Foundation of the Shivaji's Swarajya".”
 * and
 * ”They unanimously rejected Brahmins claim of saraswat”
 * To claim these things you want strong citational multiple references with high impact factor as you are coming to conclusion here.
 * I am from Karnataka and doesn’t belong to any of the above community I can see things in a neutral way. Karanth1234 (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

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


 * Seems this page has lot of POV against this community.
 * Shenvi are a small set of people in Maharashtra who call them self saraswat Brahmin.The fact is this page has given reference of shenvis and generalised information about gaud saraswat Brahmins.
 * Rajapur Saraswat Brahmins are not GSB instead they claim to be a part of Sarawat brahmin same with chitrapur saraswat.
 * I don’t know how come Varna confusion came here?
 * Since policy of wiki is to give the neutral reference and neutral information has been void in this case. Pondakar (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * https://books.google.co.in/books?id=SBWQIDwNWx4C&pg=PA17&dq=origin+of+goud+saraswat+brahmin&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUjuDMvLSCAxViaPUHHQc_Bf0Q6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&q=origin%20of%20goud%20saraswat%20brahmin&f=false
 * Refer this neutral source page 16,17,18 Pondakar (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, the Shenvis are a subcaste of the Gaud Saraswat Brahmin community. Is that correct? The confusion is because how can an entire Brahmin caste have a subcaste that are not Brahmin. Also, the wikipedia page is specifying that the dispute is related only to Shenvis(they also call themselves Gaud Saraswat Brahmin). There is no dispute about the Brahmin status of other subcastes, AFAIK. Did not understand your objection. The problem with this page is that sources are lacking and some are confusing. If you can provide more information about this caste, along with sources, it will be very useful. Both Sitush and I are confused about the pages related to this caste.LukeEmily (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyShenvi claim to be a part of Gaud saraswat Brahmins somecase they claim to be Adigaud saraswat Brahmins(Maharashtra origin).They are called shenvi(96 clan) Brahmin and traced their ancestors towards saraswat Brahmins they were traditionally administrative for centuries this lead to insecurity in chitpavans about Peshwa post which led to Gramanya(Intercaste dispute).The gramanya happened between many community in this time frame.Other Brahmins opposed this claim and termed them as trikarmi as per Bombay court verdict they were termed as satkarmi Brahmins.
 * Gaud saraswat Brahmins are mainly from Goa origin(Madhwa and smartha).They worked as administrators from centuries,Priest in coastal Karnataka,goa and Kerala.Trade during Portugal era.They are satkarmi Brahmins.This community priest coronated Shivaji maharaj.
 * Rajapur saraswat Brahmins and chitrapur saraswat Brahmins hail from Goa claim their ancestors from saraswat Brahmins.
 * yes if you see foreign authors citations there you will find messup.Shenvi/GSB/RSB/CSB/Saraswat Brahmin.
 * I have posted the widely accepted and maximum authors endrosed origin with citation from the original text of shahyadrikhand,Mahatme(old Goan text),Dchuna(First author on this history)etc.That is related to only GSB.
 * If possible remove the content related to shenvis till authentic citation that reduces confusion comes into picture. Pondakar (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmily
 * Hope this clears shenvi part where court officially declared them as satkarmi Brahmins.There was not a single case in the court even for shenvis against thier Varna instead the case was satkarma and trikarma.
 * The Dravida Brahmins, in the scramble for posts and positions, developed antipathy towards the Gauda Saraswat Brahmins, and this rivalry had its manifestation in various places. (In Maharashtra, the shenvis were looked down upon and were described as not Shatkarmis but only Trikarmis, being not entitled to officiate as priests, to teach and accept gifts - danas. But the Bombay High Court during the 19th century decreed that they were qualified to perform all the six karmas). V. N. Kudva (History of the
 * Dakshinatya Saraswats) and Frank Conlon (A Caste in a Changing World) ” Pondakar (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyIf you are genuinely searching for the answer I think I can help you out in this case with history,proof and transition of this group named shenavis.You can ping me if required. Karanth1234 (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyIf you are genuinely searching for the answer I think I can help you out in this case with history,proof and transition of this group named shenavis.You can ping me if required. Karanth1234 (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please recheck your content with citation.

Karanth1234 (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Karanth1234 (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , OK. I will recheck content again, discuss and correct. Also, if you have citations for Shenvi conversion to GSB and how/why/when it happened, please can you share. LukeEmily (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmily
 * https://books.google.co.in/books?id=gdUVAQAAMAAJ&q=sastikar+pednekar&dq=sastikar+pednekar&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDicTCzayDAxWtT2wGHVR6DXYQ6AF6BAgJEAM#sastikar%20pednekar
 * Just for reference I am giving this search result for you.If you are genuinely interested I can redirect to the original articles.
 * saraswats had division like sastikar,Pednekar ,bardeshkar,Lotlikar,balvalikar,shevipaiki,shenavi etc.Interdine and inter-marriage was not allowed.Even today GSB from Karnataka,kerala won’t marry with GSB of Maharashtra(Ingeneral)
 * In Goa by default they were called bammon.The division was Bhatt and Bammon-shenavimam.Bhatt(GSB priest I.e.Sastikar,bardeshkar )and Bammon-Shenaimam(Non priest but brahmin I.e. Shenai and balvalikar).Shenvis we’re invloved in administrative post(Shilahara,Vijaynagar,Kadamba,sultanate,Martha empire,British era ).
 * Then what was the point of issue?
 * Scholars clearly explain this as power tussle.The Brahmins of Goa had unilateral status as they were local without competation.After Portuguese captured Goa ,The Brahmins who came to kerala didn’t had tussle with local Brahmins as they built their own temple,involved in priestly work,trade and self temple rituals.Those who migrated to Karnataka was welcomed by local king and gave land to build temple,they didn’t had political tussle with other Brahmins but they got opposition from advaithis as they had accepted dwaitha matha of Madhwacharya but it didn’t escalated.Even they had built their own temple and involved in priestly work only within madhwas,some involved in trade/some in administration.(Even today in krishna mutt sahapankti is there only between GSB,Deshasthas,Shivalli).
 * Mainly in Maharashtra they got complete tussle with existing Brahmins.First with deshasthas which got resolved after Gagabhatt verdict.(Scholar gives a data regarding intermarry between deshasthas and GSB).
 * During Peshwa rule,they were primarily targeted by Chitpavan as deshasthas and shenvi(Subsect of GSB) were primarily experienced in administrative work and both denied Chitpavans to be brahmin.Deshasthas justified as it was their own land but shenvis were new to the land and didn’t got that much support.The issue was raised 3 times .It reached court and all the 3 times,they were termed as Brahmins.This issue raged when GSB got administrative post in non Peshwa states.
 * Rivalry between shenvi and Chitpavan resulted in Ratanagiri,Malwan village dispute which was taken to control by shenvis.These tussle of power was there till antibrahmanism.(My current research topic how Brahmin was inter-related)
 * Why so much ambiguity?
 * All the citation available in the internet is concentrated with Maharashtra based writers and issues.Shenvais are termed as saraswats but they forget other divisions of Bhatt .Many writers were pro Peshwa writers like bambodkar,etc.The books written in Karnataka and Kerala are maximum in local language so May not available in net.Non of the western authors knew the difference within Konkan.They had mess up this to the level extent.Mainly maximum books are based on gramanya and Peshwa rule.
 * Today if you see any matrimonial portal Deshasthas-GSB preference will there completely.Deshasthas-Konkanasthas will be there if the bride from Pune.Deshasthas-Karhade will be there from Nagpur region.Konkanastha-GSB will be there in Bombay region.These things changes when it comes to Goa,Karnataka,Kerala where marriage with other communities won’t be there in the preference.(My own research -Cross verify Ex:shadi.com)
 * If you are really interested then I can provide complete citations. Karanth1234 (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , please give full citations. One thing is clear from the sources. Not all scholars agree about varna of Shenvis who call themselves GSB. The Shenvis are simply called saraswats in the context of Maharashtra. Hence when the source says "Brahmins, Saraswats and Prabhus" as Sitush pointed out, it means Brahmins Shenvis and Prabhus However, Shenvis were major contibutors to the history of Maharashtra. But local Brahmins did not accept them as Brahmins despite so many disputes. Deshastha and Karhade Brahmin status is disputed. If you have a source that says otherwise, please can you provide full citation with quote? LukeEmily (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyFirstly all Gaud saraswat are not shenavis but I can show some authors mentioning all ”Shenvi as synonym to GSB”(This is impact of Gramanya).Many western author have mentioned it as Brahmins,Shenavis and ckp.The two root cause are there one is they belong to panch gaud and always keep seperate identity from Dravid brahmin second one lies in Maharashtra where they had Clash with already existing Brahmins.During Gramanya chitpavans repeatedly termed them as shenvis(That became perspective that all saraswat Brahmins are shenvis).As I saw they were just called as Bammon in Goa before Portuguese arrival(Reference:Portuguese archive).When they migrated from Goa they maintained identical distance from Dravid Brahmins and called themself Gaud saraswat brahmin.
 * I strongly refer you to read Portuguese inquisition to understand root of this cause.
 * Reference:(From non sarawat and leftist authors seems neutral)
 * Gokhale, S. (2008). The Chitpavans: Social Ascendancy of a Creative Minority in Maharashtra, 1818-1918. India: Shubhi Publications.(Just for search result for you from the above book to clarify the name shenavi in Maharashtra means saraswat Brahmins.(They thought all GSB are shenvis).I.e.Brahmin(Dravid),shenvi(saraswat Brahmin) and prabhu(CKP).
 * Just a snippet for you.
 * https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ez4wAQAAIAAJ&q=brahmin+caste+like+shenavis&dq=brahmin+caste+like+shenavis&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjG64u70K2DAxUER2wGHdJMCIU4ChDoAXoECAQQAw#brahmin%20caste%20like%20shenavis
 * Ghurye, G. S. (1969). Caste and Race in India. India: Popular Prakashan.
 * Just a snippet for you.
 * https://books.google.co.in/books?id=nWkjsvf6_vsC&pg=PA194&dq=brahmin+caste+like+shenavis&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjf2fOg0K2DAxXKTmwGHYBhAXsQ6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=brahmin%20caste%20like%20shenavis&f=false Karanth1234 (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Devdasi/concubine tradition
It is possible that the Devdasis had relationships with others like Karhade Brahmin priests and even British officers but the tradition is associated with GSB not the other communities. Could not find a source that says that Karhade or Deshastha or Chitpavan Brahmins had this tradition. It is unlikely that conservative Karhade or Deshastha Brahmins who did not even eat meat or drink alcohol had this tradition. Yes, there might have been individual members of those communities (like the ancestor of Lata Mangeshkar) who might have indulged in some relationships with the Devdasis but they could have been exceptions. In north India, the non-Brahmin upper castes had women slaves but the Brahmins from the north did not indulge in these activities. LukeEmily (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC) LukeEmily (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @LukeEmilyTraditionally kalavants were associated with temple,singing,dance and flower collection to the god.
 * The traditional Devadasi part was related to Karhade priest of Goa(Lata Mangeshkar is not just exception instead just an example).Just read the Goan archive of Portuguese era.Saraswat Brahmins used kalavants for traditional dance and song training to the girls arriving at the temple,cultural program in the temple etc.
 * Noronha(1999):Dayanand bandodkar was from this community insisted pro Marathi and pro Maharashtra stance.The blame against saraswat Brahmins regarding this was a part of breaking saraswat brahmin and Christian elite tie.The association with Karhade is no way related to politics.
 * “It is unlikely that conservative Karhade or Deshastha Brahmins who did not even eat meat or drink alcohol had this tradition”
 * -This statement is valid only for Deshasthas who have a good origin but Karhade origin is disputed.They are called as community from fallen village of Goa in many religious books,these books were used and authenticated by deshasthas not by saraswat Brahmins (Dchunha,Ghurye).
 * Karanth1234 (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

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


 * @LukeEmilyProbably all South Indian Brahmins had this.(Exception may be there)
 * Soneji, D. (2012). Unfinished Gestures: Devadasis, Memory, and Modernity in South India. United Kingdom: University of Chicago Press.
 * Most cases were in Karnataka,TamilNadu,AndraPradesh,Odisha and Maharashtra.
 * No doubt that north Brahmins didn’t practiced this but north Kshatriya had this system called Dasi.
 * If you go in-depth through the history of Goa this culture came from Karhade priests who migrated from desh(Maharashtra to Konkan).Gaud saraswat didn’t had culture of having sex with devdasis but they treated devdasis as kalavantha(Artist).Please reference the above book.If you want in-depth information regarding particular caste involvement I can share. Karanth1234 (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Ritual status of a Brahmin
Copied this from the Brahmin page The Brahmins were expected to perform all six Vedic duties as opposed to other twice-borns who performed three. A brahmin is supposed to have 6 duties (or at least the right to perform six duties even if he does not do it). If that drops to 3, what is the difference between a Brahmin and other varnas? LukeEmily (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC) LukeEmily (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @LukeEmilyExcellent point,Brahmin need to perform shodasha karma(16 duties) and satkarma(6 tasks).Gaud saraswat Brahmins have their own mutt and temples throughout the Konkan coast where their own community bhats study in their vedapatashala(Mulki,mangalore and north Canara,Udupi and manjeshwar).They perform all 6 karmas(Satkarma).
 * secondly you may think that few were involved in the trade.This was the same case with all Brahmins of western coast where scope is less to become priest(Even during Portuguese rule temples were destroyed-Read inquisition of Goa).Even deshasthas were involved in trade and administration.Chitpavans were traditional farmers.Padhye Karhade were traditional farmers.So throught india Brahmins need not necessarily priest instead they were doing many works.This is why Shankaracharya of Sringeri used two words Brahmin(By origin) and vipra(Currently doing priestly work).
 * Just as per shastras few works were prohibited to Brahmins they should not do that.Any work involving bad sweat touching janiwar(Sacred thread) is prohibited.Daivadnya(Sonars) were doing that work that’s why other Brahmins denied their claim similarly Vishwakarma (I may personally don’t agree degrading any community but that’s what happened).Cross verify my details regarding Gaud saraswat Brahmins.
 * Just one example from Mumbai(Walkeshwar)
 * http://www.gsbkonkani.net/TEMPLES/BANGANGA%20SHRI%20WALKESHWAR.htm
 * Like this you can find very old temples under them.In Karnataka and Kerala where ever they have settlement they build venkataraman temple and Kashi mutt.In Goa priests are from GSB(Bhat) or Bhatt-prabhu(Karhade). Karanth1234 (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilySee in this citation they are speaking about Chitrapur saraswat and they were endorsed directly by Shankaracharya of Sringeri as they belong to smartha(Reference will be available in net if not I’ll redirect).Many reference are available from archive mentioning their arrival from Kashmir during Islamic invasion(They were original Kashmir pandits as per my knowledge) Karanth1234 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , you are not giving citations. Please see this quote about how Brahmin claim was achieved. Priest does not mean Brahmin. For example, Gurav are traditional priests but not Brahmins.