Talk:Gaud Saraswat Brahmin/Archive 2

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * @LukeEmily
 * Existing sentence: There were varna disputes related to the Shenvi subsection of the GSB. The Brahmins of Maharashtra, i.e. Deshastha, Chitpavan and Karhade were unanimous in the rejection of the Brahmin claim of the (Shenvi)Gaud Saraswat Brahmin.
 * As per citation :As per Deshpande,The Deshasthas,chitpavans and karhade united in rejection of brahminhood of saraswatas of westcoast due to rivalry(Animosity).Wagle himself gives the reference for this animosity.
 * Refer the same citation you will find the same difference. Karanth1234 (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , please check. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyThat’s Nice.
 * These Statements have been written in starting of the page .Neither it is dispute section nor occupation.Some contents are redundant too(Braminhood is there in dispute and trade is there in occupation).
 * “The Brahminhood claim of the Shenvi GSB was unanimously rejected by the Deshastha, Chitpavan and Karhade brahmins and even the British classified them separately from brahmins.
 * The GSBs were traditionally traders and even as early as the 1400s they conducted commerce across the Indian Ocean”
 * Is that required on that place? Karanth1234 (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyLEAD clearly states “Important topics and summary”.
 * There is no ongoing dispute even with shenavis too.That’s why I gave the proof of Gagabhatt and Bombay high court decision for you(Both were related to shenavis ).Both are very important one in religious perspective(From Benarus brahmins) and one in jurisdiction perspective considering their origin to all documents.Secondly non shenvi GSB cannot be challenged as they were converted into madhwas by Madhwacharya himself(He didn’t gave Deeksha to non Brahmins).
 * Traditional trading community is very different than trading community(You gave example of one town basrur).With one source and one town can it be confirmed ?.In that case Chitpavan will become shudras (farming )and Kshatriya (Military) .Isn’t it?
 * Advaitha origin-Gaudapadacharya was Saraswat Brahmin.
 * Tattvālokah. (1989). India: Sri Abhinava Vidyatheertha Educational Trust.(Page 89)
 * First seer of Shankaracharya mutt,Sringeri was saraswat Brahmins as I reference few source.(Name :Mandan mishra-Sureshwaracharya)
 * So what’s your opinion on this.Trading cannot be a correct word as foreigners saw that traders not the internal priests.That’s the fact.
 * Karanth1234 (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilySitush had clearly told to keep article neutral.That’s what I am trying to do here.I feel like this article is too much negative towards this page compared to other page.
 * Karanth1234 (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:LEAD. Generally Sitush has said that varna not be mentioned in lead but in this case we have mentioned brahmin even though there are ongoing disputes with certain subcastes of GSB(not all). Many sources call it a "trading community".LukeEmily (talk)
 * , that may be because several sources do not consider shenvi, a prominent subcastes of GSB, as BrahminLukeEmily (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyShenvi is not a prominent subcaste anyhow many source do consider them as Brahmins.Even if you see only online source even then more than 70% source consider them as Brahmins(May mention Gramanya somewhere).Based on 30% of online source you cannot draw the conclusion(Bombardkar-A British era writer).That’s why I have shared Gagabhatt and Bombay court verdict(Covering both Peshwa era and British era).This issue got solved but karhade and Chitpavan’s origin didn’t got solved till date many community refuse to accept them as Brahmins citing origin they consider only deshasthas for rituals (I can share some source if you want,if know Kannada let me know).This can be considered as ongoing.Karhade gramanya didn’t came to any conclusion,Yajurvedi came to the conclusion in Bombay court and benarus scholars too,Daivadnya gramanya didn’t got solved .So neutrality is expected here as you cannot see one community with different lens(As per sitush).Many sources are available offline than online.Hope you revisit the offline sources and alter the content.
 * Karanth1234 (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * How can we say x% consider them Shenvi(GSB) Brahmin and 100-x do not? That would be WP:OR. Is there any scholar in the 20th/21st century that considers Chitpavan, Karhade and Deshastha as non-Brahmin? Do other Brahmins (21st century reject the Brahmin claim of the these three? The issue is only with GSB. Shenvi(saraswats) were the major contributors to the Maratha empire hence very prominent. Please see Kantak's paper. Did some Brahmin religious assembly issue a verdict that Shenvi were full Brahmin? Yes, there is some British court verdict in the 19th century and we can mention it but even in the 20th/21st century there are opposing views. We have sources that some Brahmins do not accept the Brahmin claim of Saraswat. Nor do many academic sources. Yet, wikipedia has overridden this. It is obvious that wikipedia is wrong as Sitush already suspected.LukeEmily (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyPolitics between caste is common.If a person enters my boundary I may not treat him as a equal(If I am insecure-That’s nature of human being).As I read the history of Portuguese inquisition,the whole temples were destroyed and all the community were forced to migrate to the neighbouring unknown states.Now the question is who are these Brahmins(Karhade,Chitpavan-who lag the origin and karnatak Brahmins consider them as non Brahmins)to decide about other Brahmins and how can you rely on their perception?(Many author till date consider gramanya as part of politics).
 * If Banarus(Varanasi) well learned Brahmins reject their status then that will be surely disputed.Currently non of the caste challenge their brahminhood.This is void of Neutral point of view.I have given some reference and content in the edit request(Not edited though).Just refer those two peer to peer journals you will get one idea regarding this.
 * I may be against this but take some source which claims citpavans are not Brahmins instead some consider them as BENE ISREALIS.
 * 1.Keer, D. (1964). Mahatma Jotirao Phooley: Father of the Indian Social Revolution. India: Popular Prakashan.
 * 2.Kullrich, N. (2022). Skin Colour Politics: Whiteness and Beauty in India. Germany: J.B. Metzler.
 * 3.Parfitt, T., Egorova, Y. (2006). Genetics, Mass Media and Identity: A Case Study of the Genetic Research on the Lemba. (n.p.): Taylor & Francis.
 * Just one snippet for you,it clearly mentioned chitpavans as BENE ISREALIS.(Mlech)
 * https://books.google.co.in/books?id=e5p-AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100&dq=chitpavans+are+bene+israelis.&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwir7c-Jg6-DAxWGSGwGHY4qBW04ChDoAXoECAcQAw#v=onepage&q=chitpavans%20are%20bene%20israelis.&f=false
 * 4.Kehimkar, Haeem Samuel. The History of the Bene Israel of India. Israel, Dayag Press, Limited, 1937.
 * 5.Religion and the Legitimation of Power in South Asia. (2022). Netherlands: Brill.
 * snippet for your reference.
 * https://books.google.co.in/books?id=MrxtEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA90&dq=chitpavans+are+low+caste&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjl8ZGrha-DAxX7dmwGHaPnCis4KBDoAXoECAUQAw#v=onepage&q=chitpavans%20are%20low%20caste&f=false
 * Just few reference for you.Here I have not included Dalit literature.Just glimpse for you,Same thing is there with karhade(more than dozen offline source are available).But deshasthas were original Brahmins of that land and in online two book I find that too based on Genetic study.(Which I don’t prefer as it seems more racist).
 * Good through it and let me know.Till date Chitpavan and karhade are not considered Brahmins in South Indian states.In Udupi Krishna mutt only Shivalli,Gaud saraswat Brahmin and deshastha Brahmins are given sahapankti bhojan(Meals together).
 * Karanth1234 (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyYou asked one question there,
 * ->Did some Brahmin religious assembly issue a verdict that Shenvi were full Brahmin?
 * Yes ,1674 brahmin assembly consisting of varnasi Brahmins and Pune Brahmins infront of chatrapathi shivaji maharaj in Rajapur,clearly accepted Shenvis as satkarma Brahmins.(This is what I termed as Gagabhatti).Further issues were only with Chitpavans which reached court.
 * Karanth1234 (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 December 2023
“Write this sentence in Varna Status sub heading”

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


 * Please give quote from source and proper citation of the 1974 source. The  sources Pillai and Kurzon do not support the statement.LukeEmily (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilySure why not.pillai and karzon for the readers to know the background,Peer to peer journal about court case and decision.One more is regarding Gagabhatt and chitpavan,saraswat clash for court judge.
 * I will quote shortly. Karanth1234 (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyI have updated quote from the research article go through it Karanth1234 (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmily3 cases were there
 * 1.Gramanya case that I have mentioned
 * 2.1876(narayan vs Bhat) case
 * 3.1909 (kelkar vs savant case)
 * In all 3 cases saraswat was victorious.Incase interested you can go through this.
 * Now add my content and don’t remove other two reference m,it’s for reader to understand the basic of the issue. Karanth1234 (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilystill you didn’t edited,hope two papers clearly cite the content without ambiguity. Karanth1234 (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

, we can add it to the page - but I am still waiting for you to give full citation - author, paper name- exact page numbers matching quotes etc Right now your citation is: The Indian Economic and social History Review” year=1974,vol-11,Issue-1,pages=17-58 which is incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeEmily (talk • contribs) 11:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The proposing editor has been blocked, thus, the request can no longer proceed without their participation in the review process. Spintendo  04:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2024
->Add this statement at the last of Varna dispute-This was verdict from Vedic scholars of Varanasi headed by Shivaji maharaj.Second was the verdict from court.This gives the final solution for this section.

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


 * Hello, The 19th century decision would not be final since the Brahmin claim of the GSB has been contested by Brahmins and some scholars even in the 20th century. The article by Jyoti Nayak is published in arcjournals.org which is in the Template:Predatory_open_access_source_list hence not reliable. Second, the source by Bendre is a WP:PRIMARY as it is originally written by Vishweshara Bhatta in the 17th century. Manu Palli is a popular historian. Also the source does not use the word Shenvi. No quote is given for the Mendale source. Please give quote for the Mehendale source.LukeEmily (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello @LukeEmily,Historian pillai had mentioned “Gaga Bhatt declared saraswat Brahmins as pure Brahmins” by default in the context of Gagabhatt scenario it is understood that they are mentioning shenvis.Even in this page I found some editor have mentioned saraswat as Gaud saraswat citing the western coast.
 * 17th century Gagabhatt decision was final,Other brahmin perspective should not be a matter here.Even today Saraswats don’t consider Chitpavan and Karhade as Brahmins so it should not become an perspective based article instead it should be based on event or fact.In the state of Kerala Namboodiri doesn’t consider Karhade as Brahmin.In my state Karnataka Shivalli,hawyaka and Sanketi clearly doesn’t consider Karhade(They speak karhadi konkani as their mother tongue) and Chitpavan(They speak chitpavani as their mother tongue) as Brahmins.When a Brahmin enters others territory they would not be considered it’s that simple.
 * I’ll give a very good reference concerned to court verdict.
 * Mehendale quote:
 * Page number 480 Quote:”Shivaji had met Gagabhatt a decade before his coronation in Rajapur to solve the issue related to shenavis regarding their ritual rights.(Same page)15 well learned pandit from Benaras gave vedict in favour of shenavis declaring them as Brahmins.(Same page)The decision at this assembly in April 1664 is prefaced by praise or prashasti from Shahaji and Shivaji to Gaga Bhatt.” Udupa0000 (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/001946467801500304
 * Just refer this journal which clearly states in the state of Maharashtra.Those who came from saraswat including Kshatriya,vaishya etc were subdivided as per Varna and in which Brahmins were called saraswat Brahmin(In particular) and only Brahmins being gaud saraswat,chitrapur(Which was undisputed).As per this article the shenvis are a part of Kudaldeshkar(Aadhya Gaud saraswat).So this article is using wrong page to write content related to shenavis.Saraswat can be of any community if it is mentioned saraswat brahmin then only it is brahmin.Ya I’ll proved the shenvi court case soon.
 * Refer:Kudaldeshkar Gaud Brahmin Udupa0000 (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyI have removed court case which I will add after citing court case reference.Go through the current content and Mehendale source. Udupa0000 (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , Mendale can be added. Rest of the content on the page is properly sourced. If you think we have misrepresented any source, please discuss on talk page. LukeEmily (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyPerhaps for discussion we have enough time and that’s how editing process goes on.At present do add this content exactly at the end of Varna dispute so that readers should not get misguided. Udupa0000 (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

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


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


 * @LukeEmilySee this quote “ Bambardekar, a scholar on Konkan History, does not accept the Gauda or Brahmin claim of the Gauda Saraswats. According to Bambardekar, the Pancha Dravid Brahmins are the original Gauda Brahmins and he cites a verse from the Skanda Puran to prove his assertion”
 * The book Deshpande(2008) uses Bambardekars research.Is it accepted? Udupa0000 (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Did not understand the objection about Deshpande. It is a WP:RS.LukeEmily (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyI really don’t have problem with Deshpande instead in the book he has mentioned the perspective of bambadekar.The view of bambadekar is basically British era and Bahujan literature view.What ever the view Deshpande have can be used but why the editor is using bambadekar’s view. Udupa0000 (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The rule is that source has to be post british era. Then that source is considered reliable assuming other conditions are met. It does not mean that any view before the independence of India should be removed. Otherwise we will need to remove Gaga Bhatt and every other view given before 1947. Look at other caste pages. Also, that view is reflected by Kantak and others as Sitush has pointed out. Bambadekar's view is mentioned in his own words by Deshpande. It is perfectly fine to use it. It is strange that you object to a scholar Bambadekar at the same time pushing some adminstrator(Judge's) view from from the British era - someone who probably no indepth knowledge of caste in India. I dont know what bahujan literature is. Bambardekar was a scholar on Konkan history and probably a Brahmin.LukeEmily (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyGagabhatt was from Maratha era and well learned Sanskrit scholar.During British era/Post independence the jurisdiction was/is caste independence and based on legal proceedings(Proofs).British Raj stated from 1857(Completely-1818).Now the point is Rao Bahadur bambadekar was a saraswat Brahmins I am not disputing his caste.The literature which even he wrote was from British Raj and Bahujan(Sometime anti-brahmin) literature.The literature which opposes the Brahmins and in this process their point of view cannot be neutral.His literature books were not research oriented instead it is speculation oriented please check once.If you allow Bahujan literature of British Raj many books have came to conclusion about the non brahmin status of communities Karhade and Chitpavan.Adding this may change the status of many Brahmin caste.I doubt about usage of Bahujan literature from British era.So better to verify with any administrators. Udupa0000 (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jonathansammy@Karanth1234@MRRaja001Pardon me as I am adding you people for discussion.Based on your activity in talk page I have added you three.Please provide your opinion regarding this. Udupa0000 (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2024
Add this at the stating of occupation section

Traditional occupations of the Saraswat Brahman community are priesthood, astrology (Jyothishya) and preparation of janmkundali .When the Kadambas declined and were replaced by the Vijayanagara rule ,the Saraswat Brahmins were the priests of the famous temples in Goa. In Goa many temples were under saraswat Brahmins.In the state of Karnataka saraswat Brahmins had their own priests and were invited by other caste for rituals. Udupa0000 (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It does not say it was the traditional occupation of Gaud Saraswats. The Singh source says "Saraswat Brahmins" (which could be anything including the ones from Punjab) not "gaud saraswat Brahmins" and you have not given any context for the quote. Please note that it is clear from the sources that the Brahminhood of the north Indian saraswat Brahmins is not in dispute. It is the Brahminhood of the southern/western Gaud Saraswat Brahmins who claim descent from the Brahmins of the north (although modern scholars doubt this claim) that some authors question. Please see the quote below.LukeEmily (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyFirst source is clearly stating saraswat Brahmins were traditional priests.I have added three more references all three speaks about goa(Konkan) and Karnataka(Saraswats in goa is nothing but Gaud saraswat).So there is no point in rejecting this well sourced content.If one modern scholar doubts it’s his perception we need not to accept his assumptions blindly instead summary of many arguments leads to one truth(If I summarise obviously there won’t be doubt about their brahminhood).Majority authors accept their claim of brahminhood as per my knowledge.Coming to your context specific query,by default they are called Saraswats in all documents right from British era to modern authors.Even you have used some reference in the article too..Here the source uses the word Sarasvata instead you have used gaud Saraswats.

From "Pre-Portuguese history of Goa"
 * K S Singh covers whole Indian region,The main paper Emma(Socialistic)covers Goa during Vijayanagar times,Karnataka government gazette covers coastal part and UC LIBRARY goa saraswat. Udupa0000 (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmily G. Pereira (1973) shares his perspective I have already shared counter perspective on this.All four references are there in that quote. Udupa0000 (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Please do not enter your reply before the answer. Please enter it after the answer. The source says saraswat, not gaud saraswat.Were the Shenvis priests?LukeEmily (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyWhere did I mentioned shenvi priest,shenvis were administrators and landlords from past 8 centuries from Shilahara to Maratha empire this is why they were infront of Gagabhatt.I have clearly mentioned exactly saraswat and gaud saraswat as per the respective sources.Please see all the 4 sources.In goa do you find north India saraswat Brahmin coming for priest work so as I mentioned it was your own piece of work where you have mentioned “in western India saraswat means Gaud saraswat”..Section [a] is your note regarding saraswat and gaud saraswat.
 * I am expecting neutral response from you. Udupa0000 (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read the source to get the context of Deshpande's paper.LukeEmily (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyThe samething I am telling in my content too.The context clearly states saraswat of goa and western coast.By default they are Gaud saraswat.Karnataka gazette and Emmi(Socialist) clearly uses the word gaud saraswat.I don’t think there is some sort of ambiguity here. Udupa0000 (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Shadow311 (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyI still didn’t understood your concern regarding this sentence which is perfectly cited.I have even mentioned context,if you feel like we are in deadlock regarding consensus let me add other editors too.
 * Dear
 * @Jonathansammy@MRRaja001@Karanth1234,
 * Please check my content and give your opinion which will be helpful. Udupa0000 (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @JonathansammyPlease provide your opinion regarding my above content. Udupa0000 (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @MRRaja001Please provide your opinion regarding my above content. Udupa0000 (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2024
Mention this in the starting of occupation.

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


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

Bambardekar
Isn't Bambardekar from Raj era, and therefore his work not acceptable for this article per the rules proposed by user Sitush? Jonathansammy (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , I already answered this. We are not using Bambardekar source. Bambardekar, a scholar, is being interpreted by Deshpande, a very modern source. Sitush's rule is against using Raj era sources as references. We are not using Raj era references. Please see Rajput as an example of this. We do give earlier opinions if they have been interpreted by modern sources. If that were not true, we would not be able to give to give Gaga Bhatt's opinion on the Shivaji page. And we would not be able to give Rajwade's opinion on the Bhonsale page. Or we would not be able to give Raj era verdicts on the Kayastha page. These are all examples of opinions given in Raj era or earlier interpreted by modern sources. Sitush also pointed out that the community has been mentioned different from brahmin by many sources including Kantak. Please point out issues on this page where a source has been misrepresented and we can correct it. Please see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172. Raj era ethnographers are not reliable because they beieved in race theories, had no training and believed in the dismissed aryan invasion theory. LukeEmily (talk)

LukeEmily and Jonathansammy ,

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

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

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

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

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

Goyambab (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Shahyadrikhand existed in the same format before published by Dcunha followed by Gunjikar
Hello @LukeEmily and @Jonathansammy https://www.jstor.org/stable/24543602?seq=1

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


 * @Jonathansammy and @LukeEmilyThis excellent paper from Oxford university gives complete opposite view based on historical evidence(Not just perspective).It explains how Chitpavans and karahade tried to destroy just to hide their origin.As per the paper they tortured Maratha then deshasthas and finally shenvis(Subsection of GSB) to destroy sahyadrikhand.Please go through it completely.
 * @JonathansammyLet me know should I add this or shall we delete Deshpande?
 * This paper contains harsh history towards Karhade(Very harsh).So I have avoided adding that part.Waiting for your reply. Goyambab (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, what does it say about Shenavis section of GSB? We can add it to this page if you want to. My general approach is that if something is sourced then I do not have any objections. Origin does not imply acceptance by scholars. Irrespective of origin given in Sahyadrikhanda, which may or may not be true, Karhade and Chitpavan are accepted today by writers as part of the Brahmin community. Karhade and Chitpavan have both performed satkarma which includes teaching Vedas. De Cunha has translated to English- I don't know if he edited any part.LukeEmily (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyI have read a letter in that from
 * Benares vedic scholars warning Dravid Brahmins(They have mentioned castes) mentioning the full ritual status of shenvis and not to challenge ritual capacity of any saraswat Brahmins in the western coast.
 * @Jonathansammy Since you are experienced editor I am requesting your opinion.
 * That book is completely opposite to the Deshpandes view and with the proof letters from history.That reference contains too much harshness towards Chitpavan and Karhade providing proof for their origin.Mainly the origin of Karhade as stated by Chitpavan Peshwas nearest person was very horrible.This May be misused by caste promoted or demoters against Karhade.We can delete both Deshpande content and avoid this Oxford reference (One alternative).If not we can add this as contrary to the deshpandes view.I have avoided the origin part of Karhade and Chitpavan in my content.
 * So waiting for your reply. Goyambab (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2024
Add these statements at the starting of Origin Myth(This has been paraphrased)

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * where did you want to add it? It is well known that the Peshwa rule was full of corruption. LukeEmily (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyand @JonathansammyAdd that topic in origin after explanation of Basic content of sahyadrikhand(After you mentioned 12 Brahmins came ) or add that after Deshpandes perspective as contrary. Goyambab (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: WP:sockpuppetry — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they)   ( talk ) 07:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Suspected sock or meatpuppet! Also, BLUDGEON is applicable in this case. Ekdalian (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Existence of Sayhadrikhand before peshwas(1630) and origin of any caste is not edited in it(Perfectly verified and added quote page wise)-Details
Rosalind O'Hanlon Clearly cites the existence of sahyadrikhand even before British Raj.He clearly states the historic instances occurred during Maratha empire.He mentions the usage of Sahyadrikhand by Benarus Brahmins to declare the ritual rights of Saraswat Brahmins of western coast as early as 1630.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is valid to add in Varna dispute section.I am keeping it here waiting for your reply.Two more books are there regarding this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40f2:104b:83f7:540f:4927:2c85:9f40 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Existence of Sayhadrikhand before peshwas(1630) and origin of any caste is not edited in it(Perfectly verified and added quote page wise)
Dear @Jonathansammy@Fylindfotberserk@MRRaja001 I got this information in the same talk page referred the paper(Author Rosalind O’Hanlon),Went through the content in Jstor and I am verifying the information with the page number(Refer the quote).There is no ambiguity in this we can include this in the paper. My opinion:The topic is completely opposite to the information included in the origin and myth.Here author clearly states the origin was not edited instead Peshwa tried to destroy it and gives some letter and other historical proofs. Over to you just waiting for your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40f2:104b:83f7:540f:4927:2c85:9f40 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Jonathansammy@Fylindfotberserk@MRRaja001,
 * This content is from Oxford publication from sociologist.I am expecting review from experience editors.Let me know your opinion in adding this content. 2409:40F2:1037:B004:84C9:7F2C:7962:9ACE (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Other Discussion

 * Read WP:SOCKPUPPETRY! Ekdalian (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @EkdalianI went through that link.I saw that user may be sock but the content cannot be sock.This content is from very good source(Oxford publications).I personally went through it and verified(I have given quotes from the page).That’s why I kept this infront of experienced editors in this page. 2409:40F2:1037:B004:84C9:7F2C:7962:9ACE (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear @Ekdalian,
 * This current section is written by me and reference has been given with quotes.Waiting for experienced editors to review this. 2409:40F2:1037:B004:84C9:7F2C:7962:9ACE (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * Dear @Jonathansammy@MRRaja001@Fylindfotberserk,
 * Please drop out the review/Comments or consensus regarding above two topics here. 2409:40F2:1037:B004:84C9:7F2C:7962:9ACE (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Recheck this statement
Dear @Jonathansammy@MRRaja001@Fylindfotberserk,

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

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

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


 * @Jonathansammy@MRRaja001

Please delete this statement which no way related to the truth as per original classification.Shenvi is a part of Gaud saraswat not synonym.Govind sadashiv gurye clearly states in his research about the division among them if you want I can list out main such division based reference! 2409:40F2:102A:654C:540C:A517:5FAF:9E39 (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jonathansammy@MRRaja001
 * 1.
 * Statement need not to be conclusive and second one is unsourced.Have a look at it.
 * 2.
 * ”Rejected ! Which authority have power to do that except Dharmasabha of Varanasi?”.Dharamsabha decision has been posted by me in the talk section with historical proof. 2409:40F2:102A:654C:540C:A517:5FAF:9E39 (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear @Jonathansammy@MRRaja001
 * "Letters Home: Banaras pandits and the Maratha regions in early modern India,Author(s): ROSALIND O'HANLON,Source: Modern Asian Studies,MARCH 2010, Vol. 44, No. 2 (MARCH 2010), pp. 201-240,Published by:Cambridge University Press,Stable URL:https://www.jstor.org/stable/27764655"


 * one more book from Rasalind O’Hanlon,here she takes the Deshpandes books information and analyses it.
 * Here author clearly states the caste of some Banarus scholars including deshasthas,karhade etc.Then how come that three caste rejecting shenvi claim part is valid?.Moreover the issue was shenvi are satkarmi or trikarmi as they consumed fish and issue was not brahmin or not !
 * Secondly the dharma sabha of Banaras without any ambiguity clearly cites them as satkarma Brahmins.In this case on which basis we are mentioning Varna dispute here?
 * 2409:40F2:102A:654C:540C:A517:5FAF:9E39 (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 January 2024
Delete the below Redundant statements which is before etymology (Reason:Same Statements are there in Varna dispute section and Occupation section respectively so mentioning these statements at the top redundantly may give false information to the Readers and even introduction is not the place to write these statements)

Udupa0000 (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, agree, especially to the word "unanimously". I doubt there was any  kind of referendum conducted by the Deshastha, Chitpavan and Karhade Brahmins.I don't have any issue with GSB or particularly  Goan Saraswats being traders, or even being engaged with overseas trade during Portuguese rule in Mozambique. I hope this helps. Jonathansammy (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Many sources refer to them as a "trading community". We generally have to paraphrase as perWP:PARAPHRASE. The source uses the word "united":

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


 * @LukeEmilyThank you@Jonathansammyfor your valuable reply.Even one more editor is doubting the statement.
 * By the below statement I am strongly doubting Deshpandes view(Which is based on British Raj Bahujan author Rao Bahadur bambadekar)
 * As you said
 * Gagabhatti(Original book) clearly states “Saraswat challenged shenvis and mentioned them as gowda(Vokkaliga) and had issue regarding calling them as saraswat Brahmin.They called them as “Trikarmi brahmin” and non saraswat but Gagabhatt mentioned declared them as “Satkarma brahmin” belonging to saraswat Brahmins clan”.Even all 3 court cases was regarding their “Satkarma brahmin status “ and not as “non Brahmins”.(Trikarmi Varna and trikarma brahmin both are different terms)
 * We can discuss more on Deshpande statement but as of now the present and main concern is usage of perception in introduction page.Already the same has been written in Varna dispute section and trading has been mentioned in occupation.So I propose deletion of these statements from the introduction page which is no way related to the summary abstract. Udupa0000 (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyUsing sentence like rejection of brahminhood claim requires verdict by learned scholars.Religious Scholars and court opinion is in favour of Gaud saraswats.Since rejection didn’t occurred officially or was no referendum against their Brahmin claim just by the perspective of Deshpande we cannot add statements like this.
 * Here Deshpande cites the word animosity(By Wagle) which means rivalry.So in other wording he meant ”Due to rivalry other three Brahmins were united against Gaud saraswat Brahmins”.(Basis for this rejection?)
 * So no one can reject others brahminhood claim.So here deletion of this sentence is my opinion.Primarily deletion of this statement from the introduction page is strongly recommended from my side.
 * @Jonathansammy@MRRaja001@Karanth1234 Please provide your opinion regarding this. Udupa0000 (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah you're right. I agree with you. -  MRRaja001  (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @MRRaja001@JonathansammyThank you for your opinion.
 * @LukeEmily all three users are opposing this statement usage and there is no better reason for using the perspective of a single author without legal/valid/research base(It is neither qualitative analysis nor quantitative analysis).So as per the consensus it’s better to delete this sentence. Udupa0000 (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jonathansammy@MRRaja001@Karanth1234 Please provide your opinion regarding this. Udupa0000 (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah you're right. I agree with you. -  MRRaja001  (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @MRRaja001@JonathansammyThank you for your opinion.
 * @LukeEmily all three users are opposing this statement usage and there is no better reason for using the perspective of a single author without legal/valid/research base(It is neither qualitative analysis nor quantitative analysis).So as per the consensus it’s better to delete this sentence. Udupa0000 (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It is not the perspective of a single author. The lead has to represent the body accurately.The lead section incorrectly calls them a "Brahmin community" whereas the body shows that some groups such as Shenvis are not universally accepted as Brahmins - not by the British and nor by the established Brahmin communities like Karhade, Deshastha and Chitpavan nor by some scholars. In Goa also they are "generally" accepted, which means not always i.e there are some who do not accept the claim. In kerala also, the local Brahmins do not accept their claim. We dont say that Karhade Brahmin claim is "generally" accepted. They are established Brahmins who have performed all 6 vedic rituals. Shenvis were listed seperately from Brahmins by the British and as per WP:LEAD we need to give a summary of the page. But you want to remove any mention of controversy from the lead which incorrectly summarizes the page. Using this logic, we could make Hindus page a Brahmin community because some of them are recognized as Brahmin. Please also see WP:CANVASS and WP:DEMOCRACY. Since the lead incorrectly calls all subgroups as Brahmin, it is necessary to give one or two exceptions. Kantak has clearly mentioned that traditionally the Saraswats did not study sanskrit. According to another source(not on the page), the Shenvis were declared to be non-Brahmin by a group of scholars from Benaras during the British era(it is not mentioned on the page). Removing any opposition to the Shenvi claim and simply suggesting that all subgroups are Brahmin in the lead section would be misleading the reader. Dont you agree it would be a misrepresentation?LukeEmily (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

LukeEmilyLead section should contain only the information which is accepted without dispute(WP:LEAD).Here the information based on some authors(Bombardkars) perception cannot be valid in the lead.Perspective from author should be based on either qualitative or quantitative research this is lagging both.Just see the paper “Pancha gaud and panch dravid(Deshpande)” there he just concluded by stating but you have selected only Bombardkar’s view(Raj era).Incase if they are in OBC category anywhere then you can mention.General category will be only given to people who didn’t suffered social oppression(Hope you know the Indian reservation system).

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

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

As you said saraswat didn’t studied Sanskrit.So please have look at some references, Larsen, K. (1998). Faces of Goa: A Journey Through the History and Cultural Revolution of Goa and Other Communities Influenced by the Portuguese. India: Gyan Publishing House.pp-417 Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute. (1992). India: Dr. A. M. Ghatage, director, Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute.Pp-4- Hope this contradicts your statement. You wrote, . Mentioning valid perception by maintaining neutrality is appreciated. This article is lagging neutrality as all information is having contradictions readily available.If one author is saying they are not considered as Brahmins many are supporting their claim stating it’s as part of intercaste dispute of Peshwa era.So as per the suggestion(WP:DEMOCRACY) of Jonathansammy and   MRRaja001  (talk).Giving respect to the consensus I suggest you to delete these contents. Udupa0000 (talk)20:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus and please read WP:DEMOCRACY. We CANNOT say they all are Brahmin if high quality sources do not agree that they are Brahmin. That is a no-brainer. If a subgroup - Shenevis(Saraswats) are not considered Brahmin by some reliable sources, then we cannt say that the entire group is Brahmin. Yes, we can say that they claim Brahmin status.I will reply to your individual comments. We cannot use wikipedia for caste promotion or manipulation. What is the name of your previous account? LukeEmily (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * LukeEmily, As castes or more importantly, varna are all human constructs they are all based on claims.And to bolster the claim, or to refute a claim ,one can use the myth of Parshuram to turn all castes except brahmins into Shudras, or make him responsible for introducing new competing brahmins castes to the West coast of India.The scholars you cite are also just quoting history on the GSB dispute; they don't have any divine right to proclaim brahminhood, or lack there of in this matter.Yes, there is no censorship on Wikipedia but please do not use language that can appear offensive.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , what is the offensive language? Please clarify. Some sources do consider the Shenavis as differnt from Brahmin. Why is that offensive?

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


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


 * It is the general tone that is offensive. Please feel free to edit to change the tone - as long as the source is not misrepresented. I have not cherry picked - I have only picked the varna disputes because the article calls them Brahmin by overriding all opinions. I have even added the fact that the skanda puran has called them "handsome". If you feel there is cherry picking from the paper, please add more content from the same paper. I have not stopped anyone from doing that have I? The bottom line if you read the paper is that the local brahmins did not accept their brahmin claim, they modified the Skanda Puran. Bengali and Kashmir Brahmins have a tradition of learning the vedas and sanskrit and performing all six karmas of a brahmin. My specialization is sanskritization. It is not to cast doubt on the status. But we cannot misrepresent what the sources says. Please can you answer these questions about Shenavi(GSB)1)Do you agree that a number of sources like Kantak, Sharmila Rege, Gail Omvedt and others clearly mention them to be different from brahmin? 2)Do you agree the Indian ruler Shahu considerered them to be non-Brahmin? 3) Do you agree that many british sources (even the early 20th century) list shenavis differntly from brahmin? 4)Do you agree that Kantak says that saraswats had a tradition of learning portuguese whereas the brahmins had a tradition of learning sanskrit 5)Do you agree that local brahmins of certain areas do not accept their claims to be brahmin? 6)Do you agree with Sitush about the confusion caused due to saraswats being considred brahmin on wikipedia? 7)Do you agree that the Chitpavan, Karhade and Deshastha are accepted as full brahmins (their origin is irrelevant) by sources? No source seems to says "Karhade claim to be brahmins" - "Chitpavan are generally brahmin , etc? 8)If you agree with 1-7, do you agree that calling an entire group brahmin when some subcastes are not is incorrect? 9) If you do not agree with 1-7 , please can you point out which source I am misunderstanding 10) The non-stop sockpuppetry going on should not be encouraged. Just my 2 cents. LukeEmily (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. if "different from brahmin" then how do these authors classify the GSBs? 2. Please give a source for Shahu's opinion 3. How do the British list them? BTW, that is raj era and therefore not considerd acceptable, is it? 4. Under the portuguese there was advantage in learning the ruler's language. Brahmin administrators, mainly deshastha had good knowledge of Farsi during the sultanate period. Even their Marathi was totally persianized.BTW, do you have any source that says that GSBs shunned Sanskrit learning completely? 5.Just like the kokanastha did not accept the claim of Vasai yajurvedi to be brahmins 6.Please remind us of the concerns expressed by User Sitush 7. The brahmin you mention belong to the panch Dravida group per Deshpande and others whereas the GSB as the name suggests are Panch Gauda.8.Who classifies Shenvi separate from the GSB? 10.I don't  who are you accusing of sockpuppetry?, and what stops you from initiating an investigation for that. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , can you at least answer the yes/no questions? Most sources are already on the page - please mention the points for which you dont have access to the source. Do you not have access to Kantak's paper? If yes, what stops you from giving a simple yes/no answer to 4 before asking more questions? Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmily and @Jonathansammy
 * 1.V Y kantak -Indian Jurist and legal scholar.He was not sociologist nor caste historian.
 * 2.Sharmila Rega-Dalit standpoint perspective writer.
 * Rege was one of the leading feminist scholars in India, whose work in developing a 'Dalit Standpoint Perspective' Her particular focus on alternative history writing has given new life to the local and oral traditions of knowledge and cultural practice, by bringing them into public attention through translation projects that build archives of national memory.
 * 3.Gail omveditt -She was Dalit standpoint perspective writer and anti Brahmin perspective writer.She was criticised as pro Marxist.
 * Gail Omvedt was an Ambedkarite scholar who contributed immensely to the anti-caste movement.     Omvedt was critical of the religious scriptures of Hinduism (or what she specifically regarded as "brahminism") for what she argued is their promotion of a caste-based society.
 * 4.Bambadekar-He was purely British Raj author.He wrote literature against all Brahmins of western Indian.He believed brahmins were from Central Asia and suppressing non Brahmins.(Pro Aryan theory)
 * My opinion:
 * Personally I don’t believe in caste inequality,all are equal not doubt but how can you expect neutral point of view from perspective writers.(Dalit perspective writers write in pro Dalit stance and pro Brahmin writers write in pro brahmin stance).Isn’t it?If any neutral reference is there you can add.
 * POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields
 * -Goyambabji Rane Goyambab (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmily@Jonathansammy
 * 1)Already answer about their perspective in the previous chat.
 * 2)Shahu never interfered in any caste issue.Neutral reference is expected. 3) Do you prefer British Raj source ? 4)Anyone can learn any language that doesn’t mean they have left Sanskrit.
 * 5)Deshasthas didn’t considered Karhade as Brahmins for their human sacrifice yajna habit(Bhattacharya-2022).So Can we mention this?6)Don’t know much about this
 * 7)No except rule fight.Perspective of other caste cannot be legal/court/official.
 * 8)Not applicable 9) After reading this article I found cherry picking against this caste.
 * Ex:”Brahmins Rejected Brahminhood claim”-Rejection!.(Bambadekar)
 * "many Indians, particularly the banyas, the Gowda Saraswat Brahmins began to move to different parts of this maritime space to conduct trade, where they eventually set up nucleus for Indian diasporas"-Trying to equate them with banaya by explicitly mentioning which is no way related to baniya.
 * “notes that trading communities such as the GSB, when dominating the merchants of Cochin, received exterritorial rights granted by the Dutch.”-Highlight “Trading community and traditional traders to give perspective of vaishya”.(Remaining content in the books!?)
 * In Kerala, the Gaud Saraswat Brahmin claim to be Brahmins but this view is not necessarily supported by other communities.-Other half part is in the same book Raja gives grant to Brahmins from Goa to construct the temple.
 * Bombadekar source.-Raj source.They list goes on.
 * 10) Don’t know much about this in such case you can report to the administrators as i read in Wikipedia.
 * Goyembabji Rane Goyambab (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * , resending the same . can you at least answer the yes/no questions? Most sources are already on the page - please mention the points for which you dont have access to the source. Do you not have access to Kantak's paper? If yes, what stops you from giving a simple yes/no answer to 4 before asking more questions? Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay.I have been away from wikipedia for the last few days because of other commitments. Will answer you soon but it will not be a straight yes or no.I will  reading the sources you mention fully and then framing my response.Thanks for your patience. Jonathansammy (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2024
Write at the starting of occupation.Already paraphrased.

Gaud Saraswat Brahmins were traditionally priests and were very well versed Vedic scholars.They mastered in performing Vedic rituals.Some were involved in secular persuit in which they got success. Goyambab (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Asian education services is not reliable. They reprint very old books. And who is Chavan? LukeEmily (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmily
 * Potentially unreliable sources-This publisher is reliable and valid.This is not Raj source based book and neither primary source.
 * Dr V P Chavan is historian and author with expertise in Konkan history(Perspective-Neutral).
 * More information about book :
 * This book was first published in 1991.Then within last 30 years it got republished 4 times by different publishers.
 * Hope there is not ambiguity here. Goyambab (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , I am ok with adding any content - incuding this book but this seems to be a raj era book that has been republished. See Asian_Educational_Services Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmilyYou can proceed with writing the content as it is at the top of occupation(Already Paraphrased).AES May have republished many books but this book details are clear.1991 -First print and Author(Historian)-V p Chauhan(Still he is alive).He is no way related to British Raj. Goyambab (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

❌ Stale, contested request by blocked sockpuppet. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2024
“Change the Subtitle: Varna dispute to Intercaste dispute” 2409:40F2:2D:6233:48DF:21D7:2B2B:59CB (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear
 * @Jonathansammy@MRRaja001@Fylindfotberserk,
 * As the content is clearly stating Gagabhatt and banarus pandit clearly upheld their brahminhoood status(Varna cleared means where is dispute?).Since this is issue between three community then why it should be mentioned as “Varna Dispute” isn’t it “Intercaste dispute”?Here I doubt involvement of Deshathas as they were who gave them deeksha towards Madhwa vayujeevothama matha. 2409:40F2:2D:6233:48DF:21D7:2B2B:59CB (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, Intercaste dispute or Intercaste Varna dispute sounds fair.Thanks for pointing out. Jonathansammy (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 16:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Names of scholars are as follows, "Thirty four names were upended in the judgement,Bhavanandasarasvati, Kamalakarabhatta,Dharmadhikarirambhatta, Agnihotri Raghunathabhatta, Haribhattadiksita,Purandararamacandrabhatta,Aradilaksmanabhatta,Kasipurivasipuranandasarasvati,Anandavana, Hariharashrama, Aradopanamaka Narayanabhatta, Kolasekaropanamaka Mahadevabhatta,Bhavanandasarasvati, Raghunathabhattapandita, Narayan bhattapandita,Muralidharajayakrsnabhatta,Radheyagopalabhatta,Mayapurvasino Badariyadamodarbhatta, Kedarbhattasunoramaheswara,Godavaritryambakavasino,Ganesabhattakadamba, Anantadaivajnya, Haridiksita, Ramacandrasastri,Tailanganavisvesvarasastri,LaksmanaBhatta,Ganesabhatta Somayaji, Kovaivasudevbhatta, Visvesvaradiksita, Agnihotri Dinkarabhatta, Janardanbhatta, Ambikabhatta, Indoravasisesabhatta, Yogisvarajayarama,Raghunathakasinatha."

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2024
Add in the Varna dispute section

The saraswat Brahmins(Mainly shenvi subcaste) were very successful community in the Mumbai which attracted the hostility of other Brahmins in that region.Rosalind O’Hanlon mentions the issue of 1630 where the satkarma ritual status of shenvis(Sub caste of saraswat Brahmins) were challenged by Dravid Brahmins of Bombay.The author mentions the historic judgement from the Assembly of Banarus Dharma Sabha and kamalakarabhatta(was a member of the prestigious Bhatta pandit dynasty of Banaras, leaders of the powerful Maratha Brahman community that had gradually consolidated itself in the city since the start of the sixteenth century.)which was passed after the deep discussion(about shenvi)ordering Dravid Brahmins not to doubt the ritual status of saraswat Brahmins of south.The judgement clearly declared that the shenvis belong to saraswat Brahmins of Gaud and are eligible to perform all six rituals duties.The judgement was as follows, "'To the Deshastha, Chitapavana, Karnata,Gurjara and others living in Mumbapuri,Dadambhatta of the Bhatta family, and others from Kasi [Banaras] send their homage and greetings.You posed an objection that in your country the members of the Kusasthali and Sashasti families are performing the six karmas. But it is impossible to say that they are ineligible for the actions, since it is seen in the Deccan uplands that they are admitted to the status of ascetics, and everywhere they are seen performing the Srauta and GrhyaVedic rituals such as the Agnihotra. This much is heard from the mouths of the learned and what is more,Kamalakarabhatta has established the greatness of the fourth stage of life [that of sannyasi, or ascetic] for these castes.They are part of the Gauda category of Brahmins, and to be honoured within their own caste. And everyone has seen that document.’"

Rosalind O’Hanlon even cites the incidence from 1631 where the assembly of Banaras scholars(Banarus Dharma sabha) revive its great Advaita monastery, destroyed by the Portuguese in 1564. Its spiritual heads had left the town for Banaras, where Bhavananda Sarasvati, sixty-second guru, was then living.Vitthal from shenvi community wanted to take up the headship of the revived monastery himself.The Assembly of Banarus Vedic scholars considered all the parameters and gave the judgement to take up the lead of adhavitha matha.The detailed judgement letter is as follows, "'The pandits' judgement described the extensive enquiries they had made.Who were these residents of Kusasthal, what are their relations,what is their origin, what is their varna, their dharma,their karma?' Opponents of the Senvis had pointed to the fact that these Brahmans customarily ate fish. To defend the Senvis,the assembly invoked the god Parasuram, the stories of the Sahyadrikhanda, and the principle that Brahman difference at this level was legitimate. In fact, the assembled scholars argued,Parasuram permitted all the Brahmans he settled in the Konkan to continue the practices brought with them from other countries,including the eating of fish, and these practices in no way detracted from their prestige as Brahmans."

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


 * Dear @Jonathansammy@MRRaja001,
 * check out 2409:40F2:2A:DB34:C553:374B:3A74:28C3 (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I have updated the source per sections individually.So let me know if any alterations are required. 2409:40F2:1017:84C3:19DD:59D0:BD2C:E2D4 (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @MokadoshiThis well referenced request is waiting from 1 month!Have a look at it. 103.83.29.15 (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2024
Delete the below statement in the introduction and in Varna dispute.(1.The context in the reference has been misinterpreted here as “Deshapande(2008) is mentioning the Wagle’s book which is speaking about jealousy during Maratha empire for the post between Brahmins of Maharashtra”.British list information doesn’t have any reference. 2.This source is based on British Raj information by bombadekar. 3.Quote has mentioned Sarasvata but editor has changes it to GSB shenvi violation of WP:V; synthesis)

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


 * @Jonathansammy@MRRaja001Please check out the reason and let me know if any changes need to be done. 2409:40F2:3B:66EB:5D03:6140:9CE9:CBDE (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I don't know enough about the subject to make a decision, but it looks like @LukeEmily added this sentence recently so they may be able to weigh in here. I have read the referenced source and I agree that the author's use of the word "rejected" is meant to be a synonym for "dislike" and so the sentence of the Wikipedia article is a bit misleading in its current state. However, I am not familiar enough to make a change myself. @2409:40F2:3B:66EB:5D03:6140:9CE9:CBDE you are welcome to provide a specific sentence you'd like it to be replaced with that we can all discuss further. Mokadoshi (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mokadoshi1.The whole article is giving literature review of British Raj Bamabdekar.This sentence is not from deshapande instead from wagle.In his book wagle was speaking about politics between Brahmins of Maharashtra.So if you read completely this statement is void and null here.This sentence is completely misleading.@MRRaja001and @Jonathansammyboth are expert in this domain they can have a look at this.
 * 2.Statements like British didn’t mentioned,they learnt Portuguese,English spanish etc these statements are no way connected to the actual topic.Maharashtra Brahmins are meant for secular persuit,Saraswat were administrators,trading and priest.Chitpavan were farmer,priest and warriors.Deshasthas were priests,diplomats and administrators.
 * 3.The quote has mentioned Sarasvata and here it is shenvi GSB. 103.83.29.15 (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand. Are you disagreeing with what I said above? Mokadoshi (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @MokadoshiWhat ever you said is 100% correct regarding change of context and misleading sentence.I just summarised with depth information to let you know why this sentence to be removed. 2409:40F2:1B:50D6:F10D:13DB:3B9F:B235 (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @MokadoshiThis source is using the word sarsawat and didn’t mentioned which saraswat(Gaud Saraswat,rajaput saraswat,chitrapat saraswat,saraswat of west,Kudaldeshkar etc).Please check isn’t this void of WP:SYN . 2409:40F2:1B:50D6:F10D:13DB:3B9F:B235 (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused, are you (@2409:40F2:1B:50D6:F10D:13DB:3B9F:B235), @2409:40F2:3B:66EB:5D03:6140:9CE9:CBDE and @103.83.29.15 the same person? Maybe just editing from different locations (mobile, work, home, etc)? Mokadoshi (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @MokadoshiThese two are my replies however IP changes with change in network. 103.83.29.26 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for clearing that up. But I think you've missed that I've already said I will not be making a change. This is a contentious topic and I'm not 100% confident in my knowledge. You will need to wait for someone more knowledgeable than me to do it. I know that's frustrating but that's what's fair. If you'll allow me to give you some advice, I believe this will help you get your change performed faster.
 * Suggest a specific "change X to Y" edit. I asked for one above and didn't receive one. This will allow a reviewer to copy-paste it into the article.
 * Keep your suggestions brief. Just quote the sentence that needs changing, the exact sentence you want it changed to, and a reference. You don't need to write too much else. Scroll up and see what else is in this page, there is too much for anyone to read already.
 * Once you've made the edit request, be patient. Do not open another edit request. That doesn't speed up the review, it only slows it down.
 * Mokadoshi (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mokadoshi”Due to hatred the Dravid Brahmins challenged the Brahminhood of Saraswat Brahmin”.
 * Author meant this,he didn’t even mentioned Gaud saraswat Brahmins instead he mentioned saraswat Brahmin(It can be Chitpavan,saraswat,rajapur,Bardeskar).So keeping this statement is void of WP:SYN. 2409:40F2:42:6BED:C055:5973:6FD1:4B50 (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Sock alert
This talk page seems to be another obvious option of POV pushing by the sockfarm of the blocked user ! The page may be protected, if required, in order to prevent persistent edit requests (possibly) by the same blocked user! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear @Ekdalianseems like you are so obsessed with sock puppetry but everything you cannot claim to be sock.This is for your reference,
 * Sockpuppetry takes various forms:
 * 1.Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address
 * 2.Creating new accounts to avoid detection or sanctions
 * 3.Using another person's account (piggybacking)
 * 4.Reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users
 * 5.Persuading friends or colleagues to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry)
 * ->So someone who is requesting edit by discussion cannot be a sock instead the person who disrupt the process with malign intention is a sock.Ip address is showing directly and if not using any account created at the same time to create false propaganda is not a sock.
 * ->This talk page doesn’t belong to anyone so anyone can discuss,edit and go for edit request with valid reference.
 * ->proving someone Sock should not become a tool for POV securing.
 * ->There is no provision of blocking talk page giving the reason POV push,sock etc.It can be done only in the case of high disruption.In this page from Past one month only I am raising and waiting some content to be written as per the source.
 * ->Pusing POV is when sources are not there.When strong source is there opposing that is POV.
 * Hope I have given all Wikipedia rules I have read till date if possible it will help others. 2409:40F2:42:6BED:C055:5973:6FD1:4B50 (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Lede
Why does the lede more or less stipulate that they are Brahmins, Pancha Gauda, and the rest of it? Is there any reason we don't say'...are a Hindu community of contested caste identity', with a brief summary of how a number of historically related jatis were self-federated under a single label (this one) by colonial-era activists seeking social mobility?

This article also needs to explain that the Shenvis were historically the most salient of those jatis, such that in the twentieth century Shenvi remained in use metonymically for the whole superset, especially wrt the caste rank melodrama. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

A reassuring message to my fellow GSBs
The Wanpaoshan Incident of 1931 was used by the Imperial Japanese Army as propaganda to fuel anti-Chinese sentiment; leading to the subsequent 'Invasion of Manchuria'.

The Wikipedia equivalent of the Wanpaoshan Incident for our community is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Joshi_punekar

Majority of the users who have edited this page on both sides of the 'POV' have not been GSBs. 'They' have been controlling the narrative on both sides.

Which is why every genuine source provided by a GSB on the Talk Page has been ignored and any reactionary revert/edit has been deemed a 'sockpuppet'.

If you go through the talk history, you will notice a lot of recent objections being given the 'strikethrough/crossed out' treatment and auto-designated as 'sockpuppets'.

The Offensive Phase of this Information Warfare began on 31st January, 2022 at 07:42 am IST with the entry of @LukeEmily and ended on 17th March, 2024 at 03:21 am IST with @Hölderlin2019 providing the finishing blow.

All these attacks are nothing but backlash for the increase in our arranged/love marriages with 'a certain caste' over the last 10-15 years. AlLightProofVII (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Before speculating on the deep psychology behind it all, do consider that the exact same approach is taken wherever the same situation arises - go look at the articles on Vishwakarma, Daivadnya, Bhumihar, Tyagi, etc. GSBs are just yet another Sanskritizing group. If you have sources you believe are being suppressed; I'll personally take a look if you reply with them. Indeed, you should have done so in response to my post immediately above, in which I outlined the emendations that made sense, and received zero pushback. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * , I have searched the archives of this talk page. The issue about GSB being different from Brahmins and their possible Sanskritization was discussed by Sitush in 2014. Please see Talk:Gaud_Saraswat_Brahmin/Archive_1. Sitush has also raised the issue on another talk page. The wikipedia editors only write what the sources say. If you want to blame anyone, please blame the sources. If you feel a certain source is not correctly represented, please point out the issue. If you want to add more sources, please provide the source and quote. I will be glad to add it. I wanted to add O'Hanlon's views and I tried to access the O' Hanlon source, but jstor is not allowing me access to that article. O' Hanlon is a very good source. Please provide page number and quotes if you have access so I can add them. I will be done with this page when the concerns raised by Sitush about Saraswats are completely resolved. Sitush had do delete some sources due to this confusion. I  do not have much interest in this page and only want to prevent misrepresentation of sources. I do not understand your "arranged/love marriage backlash". Please clarify. Thank you. LukeEmily (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)