Talk:Chitpavan Brahmins/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Removal of Chitpavan Caucasoid characterstics

If anyone has objections to the removal of references to the fair skin, light colored eyes and the Caucasoid characteristics that have been used to describe the Chitpavan in the article, please state your disapproval and reasons you think they should be kept in the article. In there are no objectors, I will remove those references in a weeks time. Thanks. Authentickle (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What are the sources for it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we need sources for dropping text? Authentickle (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

More concerns

Authentickle, the Gandhi section seems inappropriate as others have said, as though a whole group of people is being blamed for it. And this section:

The BBC reports that a small but growing number of young Indians admire and idolize the universally despised Adolf Hitler. Mein Kampf, his autobiography sells the most amongst other memorabilia such as T-shirts, key-rings with his photo or name. A shop in the city of Pune nearly sells 100 T-shirts a month with an image of Hitler on them and a popular bookstore in the same city keeps at least four editions of Mein Kampf. The popular bookstore chain , Crossword, sells three copies per day on an average in the affluent Bandra district of Mumbai.

Does the source mention the Chitpavan? If not, this is a WP:SYN violation. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the SYN violation. It's been removed. I will find an appropriate Wikipedia page/home for this BBC report. Regarding the Gandhi assassination, if you could point to the line/paragraph that you think implies the whole community, I will be more than glad to fix/remove it. Thanks. Authentickle (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it's on this page in the first place is a bit of a red flag for me. Have academics discussed the Chitpavan community in terms of the assassination (attacks against them because of it, etc)? We don't discuss the Holocaust on the page about German people, for example, because it wasn't committed by the German people, but by a subsection of them at one point in time. All the more reason to be very leery of introducing one murder, unless there is evidence that this was somehow planned by the Chitpavan as a people, or that it was seen to benefit them in some way, but I can't imagine such evidence exists. And even if it did, I would be cautious in handling it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Who is the source for this exactly? What is the relevance to the Chitpavan people as a whole that the wives of two particular killers support the killing, and which source is saying it is relevant to the people as a whole?

The last of the immigrant groups to arrive on the Konkan coast from an unknown foreign country and late to emerge from obscurity to integrate with Hindu Brahminism, it is an irony that the Chitpavan community was among the first to embrace the Hindutva ideology which they thought was a logical extension of the legacy of the Peshwas and caste-fellow Tilak. The Chitpavan felt out of place with the Indian social reform movement of Mahatama Phule and the mass politics of Mahatama Gandhi, which they found effette. Large numbers of the community looked to Savarkar, the Hindu Mahasabha and finally the RSS for inspiration resulting in the likes of Narayan Apte and Nathuram Godse who assassinated Gandhi on January 30, 1948.

Vikram Savarkar whose uncle Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was the ideological guru of Godse and Apte endorses the murder of Gandhi by saying the samaj or community has realized the significance of Nathuram's act. The wives of the assassins emphasize that they have no regrets and in fact feel and express pride in their husbands' acts. Reassurance for such feelings comes from the high level of support provided by Pune's closely-knit Chitpavan community.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted to the May 11 version before this series of edits began, and I removed the DNA section from that version because there was no citation and it was a copyright violation.

I find this version (the version before I reverted) worrying because of the emphasis on violence and the Gandhi killing, the unsourced material, and the SYN violations. It looks as though an agenda is being pursued. There have been complaints on this talk page about the editing, a request at RfPP to protect the page, and I've received a complaint by email too.

Each and every edit to expand the article must be sourced to a very reliable source, with no original research, no violations of SYN, no violations of neutrality, and in particular no undue emphasis.

Authentickle you may be right about some aspects of this, but I'm sorry, you're not being persuasive about it. We need to see good sources in a transparent way for anything contentious. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The May 11 version is quite bad in terms of organization, pseudohistory etc. I think we should stick to the June 2 version with removal of contentious stuff about violence etc. utcursch | talk 03:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to go ahead and do that, Utcursch. I'm not familiar enough with it to be able to judge what's what. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Chitpavan superiority complex

I am not sure I understand what was being conveyed here by the use of the words "superiority" and "inferiority" [2]

To me, "traditionally" (all the elders i have seen) kokanastha brahmans had a tremendous superiority complex (note that this is different from trying to prove that one is "superior" (which imo is a manifestation of an inferiority complex)).

Anyone care to explain? Thanks. Authentickle (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This? It is in general a "brahmanical trait". imho the superiority complex that "brahmans" have is because of so-called-emotional-'perfection' (reaching "godliness" (as a feeling) etc.), i.e. being free of things like jealosy, envy, arrogance, greed/lust, hypocrisy etc etc (which are considered social and personal evils) -- thus brahmans are those folks whose attitude is geared towards tranquility of the senses, extremely tuned senses (i.e. not allowing senses to be under intoxication -- because all intelligence comes from the senses) -- and essentially living in the state of god (as a feeling)- such kind of a psychological state often gives rise to a state of "superiority", because one is "detached" from more worldly things. However, lets not get into the intricacies of these things. Today, as i see it, many young kokanastha families/people lack the austerity to qualify for "brahmanism", and thus in today's kokanastha brahmans i often see a sense of superiority that is false (or "made-up"/facade or inferiority complex really). Tamil Brahmans today are better in that sense. I understand that describing a community is tricky business (esp. a community that prides itself on "individualism"). --Kanishka 03:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanishkajoshi (talk • contribs)

Are you suggesting that brahmins (Tamil and Chitpavan in particular) are superior and that other castes like the Kunbi, Maratha, Mahar, etc inferior for whatever the reason? If you intend to include the claim of Chitpavan superiority in the article, I would ask that you provide sources. Thanks. Authentickle (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

 :-) Trick question! Maybe we all can contribute in deflating egos and help everyone become superior (and have superiority complexes), rather than feel inferior, try to compensate and be cruel, sadistic etc. Why fight here ? We live in an age of equal opportunity. Let hope that the most-noble people win . Regards,--Kanishka 20:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversial Content

Please discuss these claims/comments removed from the main article before adding them back into the article.

(many berbers settled in india were actually shipwrecked traders of Greek origin SETTLED IN EGYPT IN PTOLEMIC REGIME.their religion was confused to be a shaiva religion form by locals . they were employed by local officers as PIRATE WATCHERS they did not enjoy high status in society. they were called HERKARU/ HARKARE mean watchers/informants. GRANT DUFF in" HISTORY OF MARATHAS" has refered to this term specifically. Peshva Bajirao 2 destroyed all copies of first version and caused to plant planted story of resurrection of 14 dead persons.south india copies preserved first version translation by GARCIA DA CUNHA DOES SURVIVE. WORD CHITPAVAN does not in that version exist because berbers called themselves as '"EGYPTAAN"which got corrupted to chitpaan &thence due to nasal accent of coastal people to present .

The above legend probably suggests that the ancestors of Chitapavan Brahmins came to Konkan by the sea. The Chitpavan are classified among the Pancha Dravida Brahmins. It is said that the fourteen Deshastha Brahmins of different gotras accompanied Parshuram to Konkan and settled at Chitpolan (modern Chiplun). Their descendants came to be known as Chitpols or Chitpavans. siltation needed.

those on coastal vicinity are dorian types taller than rest pinkish white in compexion .their are some ionian types also in raigadh district with least percentge of light eyes.idol at koleshwar temple kolthare has distinctively non indian features.only two sanskrit texts exst. both refer to their berber origin.(which is a distnct term.) berber most probably refers north african coast on account of port of berbera. indo greek trade used to be via berbera port till berenis port was used after about100 years of ptolemc rule. inspite of overwhelming appearances of foreign looks chitpavans will not admit that they are converts to hinduism.

that is the reason for reinventing origin from kashmir to andhra pradesh as also from sindh/ coast to bihar.some chitpavans known as kilvant in shatprasnakalplatka are now called kirvant brahmins. peshva family was most probably kilvant.that is why BAJIRAO I coined the term konkanastha.one LELE OF ALIBAUG had tried to ostracise kirvant from brahminikal fold only to embarass first chitpavan peshva. antropological charecters of some kirvant still resemble chitpavans however chitpavan still avoid inter marriage with kirvant as aginst deshastha/karhade brahmins. this recearch based on actual observations is being published. Some one named Dandekar wants to remove MY edt . he is not aware that contents are based on1) shatprasnakalplatika of 1690 A.D. a snskrit text by one madhav of rajapur written before peswai .that book finds corroboration in 1) history of Egypt of ptoleMic era.2)article on socotra island from vikipedia itslf. 3)saraswati mandal nirnay sagar press.1884 by R. B. GUNJIKAR AMONGST OTHERS. IF SUCH IGNORANT CHITPAVANS ARE TO BE ASSOCITED TO SIT ON JUDGEMENTS OVER EXTENSIVE REASEARCH BY PEOPLE LIKE ME THEN CREDIBILITY OF VIKIPEDIA WILL BE !!!!!! AT STAKE. Ihave written 2 BOOKS ON THIS SUBJECT WHAT COMPETENCE THAT DANDEKAR POSSES! CAN I KNOW!LEAST ThAT IS EXPECTED IS FOR HIM TO prove EXISTANCE OF MATERIALS BASE ON WHICH SECOND VERSION OF SECOND VERSION OF RESURRCTION OF 14DEAD IS CLAIMED. BAJIRAO 2 HAD DESTROYED ALL sahyadrikhand copies . THIS FACT IS RECORDED IN saraswti mandal. that book is also most likely to be destroyed from bharat itihas mandal very soon.that is why i am contemplating of republication of saraswti mandal from copy in my personal collectionmy marathi book has sold out like a hot cake. non chitpavan scholars have applauded my reasearch . if some chitpavans do not want to admit to be converts to hinduism they can alway. using crimnal way like destruction of books. Chaphekar also mentions their origin from a Rajput warrior caste. Defeated Rajputs never used to return to their homes, he says. A group of defeated Rajput warriors came down to Konkan and settled to start their new life. These men married women from the Ambejogai region. Chitpawanas are related to Kashmiri Pandit community. A large group of Kashmiri pandits migrated from Kashmir to south Konkan via Karachi (presently in Pakistan). It is interesting to note that a 'Bodan' ritual of chitpawanas and 'Kanakipooja' ritual of Kashmiri pandits are similar. Both the communities are Shaivaites. Kashmiri pandits have anthropological origin from Kushans, a race from Europe.

According to one theory, the origin of Chitpavans lies at or near Ambajogai in the Bhir district, where their titular deity Yogeshwari is located.

-- Dandekar (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The content listed above was not removed because it is incorrect. The content was removed because it is very poorly worded, unnecessarily capitalized, misspelt, grammatically incorrect, extremely POV and it flouts almost every standard agreed upon in Wikipedia. If you want to add any content regarding any article in Wikipedia, please have someone help you out on how to present the content in proper English. Also, feel free to edit the sections of Wikipedia that adhere to languages familiar to you, so that you can better present your content in your own language. Also, I have no authority in Wikipedia. I am just an editor such as yourself. -- Dandekar (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Rename to Konkanastha Brahmin

The more commonly used name for this community is Konkanastha Brahmin, not Chitpavan. Can someone please rename the title of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.14.9 (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

POV

Much is wrong with this article. Intead of facts the article is filled with vain comments and unverified claims. Please clean-up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.63.89 (talk • contribs)

I agree but I don't know how to edit correctly some who knows about the topic should!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.145.189 (talk • contribs)

The article is a mess. It is full of caste POV: "A typical Chitpavan is usually fair of complexion... He can be called handsome.", "Chitpavan girls possess good physical features", "Chitpavans came to India from Egypt, while others say they came from Greece", "Chitpavans are generally extremists, hence their behaviour is full of contradiction", "A Chitpavan may sacrifice his life for his country but he will not easily part with his purse", "Chitpavan's are generally assumed to be tidy, clean and industrious". Even the references cited include seemingly POV works Chitpavan writers such as Chapekar, M.C. Dixit, Jagannath Dixit etc. utcursch | talk 09:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And I must add, Patwardhan, very much a Chitpavan last name, is my own last name, and my dad definitely isn't fair-skineed nor does he have gray eyes. And you can't make stereotypes about people's personalities, which this guy has unfortunately done. Also, the spelling and grammar are atrocious.

199.111.189.140 05:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)KMP

This has to be one of the lamest articles on ethnic groups of India, infested with weasel opinions on appearance and intellectual abilities. Please provide references to your sources. Also, please DO NOT paste random posts from anonymous users on various internet forums that have no way of being verified("one elizabeth writes"??? Are you frikking kidding me??) .All such sections have been deleted. Do NOT attempt to reinstate these sections without references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.128.74 (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

---

I want to make a few statements here which might be a taboo, but yes, there is a politics here and it's simple. There are people out there who try to divide the society into halves on the basis of Brahman - Non-Brahman basis by deliberately spreading hatred against Brahmin community with very objectionable language and very questionable issues. And as one of the important source of reference, they are using our very own WikiPedia.

Some of the statements made in this article are subtly misleading. For example A 2005 study conducted by Sonali Gaikwad and VK Kashyap for National DNA Analysis Center, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata, suggests that the Chitpavans may have roots *outside of India, in either Iran or Turkey*.

Here, this is a very well known fact that the lands now known as Iran and Turkey was unquestionably a land of ancient Indian culture, when Brahmins might have originated there. But with this statement, they have been confirming their POV that "Look, the brahmins are Foreigners, rather Invaders who destroyed our land".

अभय आनंद भावे (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If the Persian word Ksatrapavan means a governor or viceroy, then on similar lines what does Chitpavan means?

Many Persian words have been amalgamated into Marathi language. We are so used to it that we hardly notice. What does Chitpavan indicate then? Is it a Persian word too? If the Persian word Ksatrapavan means a governor or viceroy, then on similar lines what does Chitpavan means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.26.177 (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You would need to ask at out Reference Desk as this page is for discussion of improvements to the article, not the subject in general. - Sitush (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Shocking!

How poorly this article is written and reeks of insecurity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.221.25.79 (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Login and start editing. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Genetics

Please remove this section from the page since it cites a non peer reviewed paper hence cannot be a worthy source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.61.155 (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Lambodhar,

Thank you for your inputs to the "Citation Needed" tag I had added.

Please note the following stated in the paragraphs you have supplied:

I quote from this: "In recent study conducted by Sonali Gaikwad and VK Kashyap for National DNA Analysis Center...the following"

M lineages had frequency of 67% in Chitpavan-brahmin.....Besides, their documented history is untraceable beyond 1000 years, further indicating that they were not part of the original Vedic migrations (early Indo-European) on the west coast. Therefore, the present genome analyses provide conclusive evidence of their recent migration, genesis, and expansion after they migrated from “Sopara” (India’s western trade zone) to geographically isolated Konkan-region, where they adopted Konkani language, and cultivated cash crop. Their considerable genetic affinity with Maratha caste further corroborated the prevalent norm that few of the dynamic and intelligent Chitpavans were Brahmanized for performing religious rituals in King Shivaji’s court.

Kindly note the high presence of M. Please also note the mention of untraceable ethno-history before 1000 years, brahminization event and later amalgamation by Maratha. You may wish to delve into the brahminization event resulting in the formation of the Chitpavan community as well as the Scytho-Dravidian genesis of the Desasth-brahmin community, if you so wish to. There appears to be a lot of misinformation on the chitpavans as vedic brahmins, which according to the article, they are not.

Though the article mentioned M as being 67% of the sample size tested for Chitpavans, yet this wiki article has been stating the opposite:

The origins on the maternal side (mt-DNA) are equally surprising. Unlike most other Indians whose maternal origins can be almost exclusively traced to the single macro-haplogroup M (mt-DNA), studies (Kivisild et al. 2003, Gaikwad et al. 2005) indicate that the Chitpavan gene-pool shows the presence of various other Central Asian and European mt-DNA haplogroups, in particular, the U (mt-DNA), H (mt-DNA), HV (mt-DNA), X (mt-DNA), R* (mt-DNA), and N1 (mt-DNA) haplgroups.

Sir, I would think that 67% is high. The presence of U, H, X, R and N1 does not make M lesser than that found in other communities. Moreover, N1 is not confirmed as central asian or european, it is debated more as southeast asian. Same for H and X which are considered / being studied as asian origin. I request the authors of this article to kindly look into the peacock terms used.

Please note that the age of R1a line specifically in India at 36,000ybp is oldest found so far, suggesting migration from east to west (not the other way around), leading Oppenheimer to beleive that India / the sub-continent region might have been its origin. However, when more infomation becomes available or if many more individuals were to be mapped, this too can become debatable. People worldwide are keen to have their land as the birthplace of mankind and of civilization.

And R1a is found in a range of population groups in India. Then there are other populations that cluster with jewish / middle-eastern ones, like paraiyars of the south. Even M can still be debated as either Indian or African origin. However, the peacock terms used in this article can be suggestive of exclusivity like this sentence used: "the Y Chromosome was rare, found only in Konkanastha Brahmins" and "Many still carry the original Y DNA Haplogroup type in Ireland and France".

There appears to be more diversity than exclusivity in most Indian communities. I request the authors of this article to kindly clean up the genetics section.

Thankyou. --= No ||| Illusion = 08:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Mayasutra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayasutra (talk • contribs)

Dear Mayasutra,

Please note that I (Lambodhar) am not drawing any conclusions or any reference based upon the research done by others. So all the "Peacock" terms have been used by the authors in the research document which they have published. The link to the document is mentioned in references. The conclusion based upon the research finding have been left open to the reader. Thats is what the aim of article is, to give all facts, statements, finding and research people have done in this regards. All the comments in "italics" have been taken from some books.

Personnally, I do believe that chitpavans are vedic brahmins. When chitpavans became Peshwas, Deshastha brahmins raised a huge cry over validity of their brahmin hood. Apparently in Kashi, a brahmin conference was held to determine whether chitpavan's are brahmins or not. A pandit from village of "Puntamba" in Maharasthra had gone to Kashi and had proved with some document evidence that Chitpavan's where vedic brahmins. The conglomeration had ended by declaring that chitpavans are brahmins. This story was told to me by "deshastha brahmin" in karnataka who's family had migrated from Puntamba village in Maharashtra. However since I have not been able to find any document/reference regarding this event, it has not been mentioned in the Wiki article.

So as far as cleaning up the article comes, please note I have just written what has been published in the scientific journal. If you want it cleaned, I think the reference link also has email id's of authors. Contact them and discuss with them. If the come with new research document with new findings and errors, the article will be changed according to what they have stated.

Again I am repeating that article is not my opinion but just reflecting what has been mentioned in different books.

Regards Lambodhar

The authors of this paper, titled "Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists", have included "Koknasth Brahmins" in their study-sample. This paper , titled "The Indian origin of paternal haplogroup R1a1* substantiates the autochthonous origin of Brahmins and the caste system", is also an important reference, insofar as the genetics of Indian population-classes, especially brāhmaṇas, is concerned. For more details, apart from those provided in the papers, one will need to contact the authors. Although I am not a formal student of genetics, I would recommend people interested in human genetics to refer to Stephen Oppenheimer's book "Out of Eden: the peopling of the world" for first-hand references and a general overview of the field of human genetics.ThakurPradeep (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Historical references

On page 259 in Studies in Indian Literary History Vol. 2, , the author, Parashuram Krishna Gode, then Curator of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune, has published an article titled "Viśwanātha Mahādev Rānaḍe, a Cittapāvan Court-poet of Raja Ramsing I of Jaipur and his works - Between A.D. 1650 and 1700". Ample proofs and references, corroborating dates determined elsewhere, have been provided therein.
Dr. Rosalind O'Hanlon , in her paper titled "Letters Home: Banaras pandits and the Maratha Regions in early modern India", published in ‘Knowledges in circulation in early modern India’, special issue of Modern Asian Studies, 44, 2 (March 2010), 201-240, has included a section named "The Nirṇayapatra of 1583: Devarṣis and Chipolanas" giving explicit facts corroborating other facts from multiple sources. I have an e-copy of the the paper in my possession. I am willing to share it with anybody who may be interested in referring to it.ThakurPradeep (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@ThakurPradeep: sorry for the delay in responding - I have only just seen your message. I'm not sure what it is you are suggesting here. Are you suggesting that the sources provide material for changes/additions to the article or are you simply saying that there are some other sources that we could use? - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: my turn to apologize for the delay in responding. In response to the following statement, "Very little is known of the Chitpavans before 1707 A.D.", that appears in the section on History on the main page, I thought of adding some relevant information to the known corpus. I am not sure whether this much is enough to change the statement in the main article quoted above, hence the addition in the talk page. Not many first-hand facts about the Chitpavan community seem to be available for free download in the public domain, considering the accessibility of the references cited in the article. There are numerous other historical sources that could prove helpful in addressing the discontinuities in the public's knowledge about the Chitpavan community, especially many about the "barbar" country located on the mediaeval Maharashtra coast between the Tapi river and Vasai (or Bassein, as it was referred to in English literature) or the "barbar" people located in uttarāpatha referred to in the mahābhārata. To respond to your question, I would like to see a section on actual historical - literary/inscriptional - references to the community or to the relevant geographical locations in the main article. But I'm not sure how to do this without compromising the coherence of the article. My cause for concern is that almost all the references cited in the main article, as of now, are protected by copyright and there is no way for a user, who doesn't possess a hard-copy, to actually verify how the claims made on the wiki page follow from the information provided in these references. On the other hand, the sources that I have quoted in the talk section are freely available for download in the public domain. If a new section is not to be added in the main article, then could you or anybody suggest a way out? ThakurPradeep (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Gotras

Listing a hundred or more gotras, almost all of which are unlinked, is pointless. We may as well list every name in the world. In addition, we do not use caste-affiliated sources on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Removing sourced content

It is rarely a good thing to remove content without discussion when that content is supported by a citation referring to an academic source that meets the standards at WP:HISTRS. That's why I have been reverting the recent removals of information sourced to the Cohn/Singer book. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Origins section, which is repeatedly being attacked by anonymous contributors (perhaps the same person) is a statement of recognised myths of origin - no-one is saying that these commonly-held theories are fact. I am not sure why people are getting so upset about it but they clearly ain't discussing before removing things they do not like. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Gandhiji's Assasination

The bit linking the entire Chitpavan community to Gandhi's assasiantion plot is a very sick case of POV pushing. Assuming that the entire community supported the plot because the majority of the plotters were Chitpavans is simply original reserach. That can smply be explained by the fact that in those days people made friends based on the caste of the person. The plotters, undoubtedly people motivated by religious and regional prejudices, were more likely to recruit like-minded people from their own caste and distrust people from other castes. This is similar to the formation of "Italian mobs" in the US. It does not mean that all Italians are born criminals; just that existing criminals found it easy to coax new migrants into crime by exploiting their needs and playing on their common ethnicity. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Deepak:-

Thanks for you support for the point. Also I would like to point out to this article. Assassination_of_Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Assassination

This has list conspirators as

1. Nathuram Vinayak Godse
2. Narayan Dattatraya Apte
3. Vishnu Ramkrishna Karkare
4. Madanlal Kashmirilal Pahwa
5. Shankar Kistaiya
6. Gopal Vinayak Godse,
7. Digambar Ramchandra Badge
8. Dattatraya Sadashiv Parchure
9. Gangadhar Dandavate
10. Gangadhar Jadhao
11. Suryadeo Sharma

From this list Nathuram Vinayak Godse, Narayan Dattatraya Apte, Gopal Vinayak Godse and Dattatraya Sadashiv Parchure are chitpavans. Thats 4 out of 11. To verify go to following site which list out all surnames of Chitpavan Brahmins. Chitpavan Brahmin surnames

So how can Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi be added on this page ? Also reason for backlash against Chitpavan community after killing of Gandhi was because the shooters where Nathuram Vinayak Godse and Narayan Dattatraya Apte, both Chitpavans. So since both where the only persons caught after the assassination, Chitpavan community was targetted. Lambodhar (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph on Mahatma Gandhi's assasination is out of place and nothing to do with entire Chitpavan community,just because 4 of the 11 conspirators belonged to the community

Abcscholar (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Genealogy

Kudos to the person who added the detailed genealogical info about chitpavans. The earlier version contained a biased view propogated by some who seemed enamoured by thought of being associated with a particular group( Cohen jews anyone?) The new additions are much more scientifuc and POV free. I have been meaning to add the info myself, but life happened. Anyway I am really glad that someone took time to do it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.58.160.62 (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The Chitpavan origin story is misleadingly said to be the same as that of Bene Israel community.Also Chitpavans have been well known to be more than around 1000 years,which was recently confirmed by the finding of skeletal remains in Uttarakhand , which have the same genes as modern day Chitpavans. So raising doubts about them being the last of migrants is incorrect.It intends to hint towards a false theory which has already been abandoned.

Abcscholar (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about Content / Too much "Politics" on this page

Im looking at the article on June 24th. In my opinion the article has a few things that i would be happy to find out people's opinions about:

1) I think we should drop the "mythological", "anthropological" , "features"/quotes/peshwas etc. from the introductory paragraph. All of this is covered elsewhere in the document. I know that Authentickle's position is that this is how many other communities have been described. However, IMO this has too much of a political angle here. I suggest simply dropping it. People who want to be political can dig up whatever they want elsewhere in the document. lets try and reduce politically sensitive statements in the important areas of the document

2) in the section "Rise of Chitpavan community" suggestion is to drop reference to Godse (as Godse does not deserve any space here (imho)). How does this sentence give the reader info about the "rise of the chitpavan community" ? I do realize that Godse etc. stuff is argued for and against a lot, but i think that Godse etc. stuff is a very trivial(small) thing that led to the "rise of the community", and the community imo does not need to rely on Godse for identity. Well, one can argue that "any publicity is good publicity", but my opinion on this is that the only thing "kokanastha" about Godse's act is called "individualism". If one wants to generalize the caste imo, what separates folks in this caste from other castes is that the people herein are "fiercely individualistic". Yes, although there may be a few people who still give godse a damn, by-and-large our position, as editors, should be to not give too much of importance to any 1 man and imo this statement is politically sensitive too, and should be dropped, or put into the "criticisms" section

3) I have always felt that this article is highly political (either from within, or outside the community), and although there is really no good way to avoid that, i think that comparisons with Deshastha Brahmins, with Marathas, with other caste folks are "irrelevant" (or should i say "Political"). Although many people are worried about these things, putting it up on a Wikipedia page seems strange. What is the point ? Politics ? If so, lets try to avoid politics here and leave that to real-life/newspapers etc. Lets try not to stir/manipulate people's emotions from this article

4) We have got to create a Criticisms section, because without it, people intersperse criticisms in strange places, making the article strange to read. There is of course going to be difference in opinions about what is more important and what is less important for a "living community", and such debates will continue ;-), but this is what i think about this

Appreciate f/b on these points. If people arent really worried about this, ill try to beat the drum a bit :--) I think we ought to make this article less 'political'.

Thanks & Regards, --Kanishka 00:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanishkajoshi (talk • contribs)

Kanishkajoshi, I am simply following Wikipedia tips for writing articles. Of the lead, the tip suggests

“ The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies...[3] ”

.

I am confounded by the attempts to suppress any material that talks about the origin of the Chitpavan. All content here is based on scholarly work by historians, anthropologists, linguists, etc. who have discussed it ad infinitum. I reject the claim that this is political or sensitive or politically sensitive. It may be perhaps only somewhat controversial because some Chitpavan may (or may not) like to associate themselves with Scandanavians and not with Israel, for example, when in reality we do not have a definitive answer yet. I intend to include in the article attempts made to suppress the story of the origin of the Chitpavan by the Peshwas as far back as in 1863.[[4]] Wikipedia admins, Kanishkajoshi and other editors - if you have any concerns or just feedback, please provide it in this space in the next 24 hours.

There isn't a better place for the Godse reference right now. That's because it highlights the quick rise of the Chitpavan community by displacing other communities. Other communities were upset at this usurpation of power and the violence against the Chitpavan community after Gandhi's assassination was, in part, retribution for that displacement. Needless to say, that is not my opinion but an observation of the author quoted there.

Please explain what you mean by and what you intend to do when you say ill try to beat the drum a bit. Thanks -Authentickle (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Authentickle, as you realize yourself, the points you are bringing up here have deep political significance. If we put up politically sensitive things on Wikipedia people are going to fight for it. Whether you like it or not, real-life involves "politics" i.e. struggle for power. Wikipedia, in your own admission (and i support it), should not be a vehicle for political exposition. Now the questions as i see it are as follows

1) Should we trust sources that have British authors (i.e. authors who were part of the british empire responsible for controlling India) ? Do you really think they were "unbiased" and that had no "political motivations" in mind ? Especially when its anecdotally popular that the british used "divide & rule" as a policy ? (well, it may be true -- though can we be really sure ? Who are these guys who have written these articles?). It may well be not "malice" but sheer incompetence ! how do we know this today ? I think we need independent confirmatory evidence, especially nice if that evidence comes from competitors. Do we have such an evidence ? e.g. evidence from British-raj folks, and evidence from Hindutva camps that match ? or some evidence of this sort ? Point being that we cannot trust any one camp too much. Need confirmation from opposite camps

2) When a person is out to expose "truth", one can basically classify this in two ways (a) Speak the truth. Let it hurt people. if they cannot handle truth, its their problem. (b) Speak the truth. Let it uplift people (or hurt less people). Let every person who hears these words progress to happiness etc. How does one do such a thing ? Simply by being "honest" about the sources, about the trustworthiness of the sources. This is called in simple terms "academic integrity". Integrity/Honesty actually makes people digest "truth" i.e. if one isnt sure about something one must make it a point to clearly describe this uncertainty. (esp with laymen).

Of course what is "truth" is a philosophical question. However as a working-definition what we have instead are possibilities of things being 'true'. Thus remembering that scientific knowledge is statistical (or probabilistic, or fuzzy) and uncertain, i personally follow the second way of exposition (i.e. based on uncertain inferences) and which is IMO i.e. lesser amongst the two evils while talking about science with laymen

As to the current issue of what to include in the doc, and what not to, as i see it. If something makes the life of a community hard, its best avoided, or put in words so that least number of people are hurt. Of course i am in no way suggesting that people should not do politics, "conspiracy theories" etc., just that lets help keep it out of wikipedia. Let them do that as much as they want. Create brochures, open your own website etc. for whatever propaganda that suits their needs, but lets try avoiding it here, and thus im stressing that lets avoid controversies in important sections (such as e.g. the opening lines). We got to put it somewhere e.g. in a Controversies/Criticisms section. Agreed.

3) Why bring up reference to Godse, retribution etc. ? The people in this community are not out to get others, just that it happens so that because of the work-ethic, family culture etc .most folks are today more prosperous than other communities, and thus inviting envy/hatred from less-fortunate folks. Just my 0.02.

Lets try to converge on some ways in which we can remove politically sensitive material from important sections. But i also agree to your point that these things ought to be known publicly, but remember that most readers are not scientists. they do not understand the uncertainty in statements, and this can lead to bigger problems in future. Lets see what others say

.--Kanishka 23:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Kanishkajoshi - Politics - please be very specific and point out the precise section, paragraph and the line within that paragraph which in your opinion is "political". For each line, please also be sure to state your justification/explanation for why you think it is political.

Sources -please name the specific source or sources that you think are biased. I will not disqualify a source because of the authors or the publication house's national origin, age, gender, race/ethnicity, etc.

I ask yet again - please explain what you mean by and what you intend to do when you say ill try to beat the drum a bit.

Thanks. Authentickle (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh well :-) "Beat the drum" is a phrase that simply means "make loud noise" so that people will listen.

Here are a few points that i seem to observe from the conversation/edits:

1. You seem to be upset by usurpation of power by the Chitpawans from others (200-300/more years back).
2. You seem to be upset that politics is/was used to suppress "truth". (And at the same time you seem to blindly believe sources that cannot be trusted on the same grounds.)
3. You seem to be bent on using the fact that Gandhi was assasinated by a Chitpawan to somehow create an impression that this is how Chitpawans think. (your old reference to "violent")
4. You seem to hinting that Chitpawans are not indians, and thus should have no place in the politics of India.
5. You seem to be indicating that Chitpawans associate themselves with Iranians, with Bene-Israelis and try convincing themselves that they better migrate back :-)
6. You seem to be hinting that deshastha brahmans are/were "superior" to Chitpawans. (Now, we have heard that far too often, havent we? :-))
7. You seem to be trying to create an impression that you are balanced and "unbiased" with no political motivations.

I do realize that I’m going ad-hominem, but i think it will help us significantly if you decide to not use your pseudonym and give us a chance to see your reputation as a "researcher". It would be really great for us to see what "camp" you belong to :-) and really how “unbiased” and truly in pursuit of truth you are. I think that all of what you say deserves to be in a "controversy" section, rather than anywhere else. I would also appreciate if do not insult the intelligence of the folks who are reading what you are typing, (I have a suspicion that people are not as brainless as you seem to think :-) )

Whats my point in all this ? I want to

• Help create a culture of discussing things a lot before edits are made. Basically not hurrying into edits.
• Help create a culture of trust/nobleness but without compromising integrity.
• Help kill the culture of politics/upmanship here. Lets leave that to real-life.
• Help to not create an impression that things that happened 200-300 years back affect people too much today. Not only does it appear silly, but in many senses anachronistic/political/bitter.

I definitely appreciate your passion and interest. I am also very interested on what others think about this topic, i.e. i do not want it to remain a conversation between me and you. This is a topic of interest to thousands and we better act responsibly.

Thanks & Best regards

--Kanishka 03:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Kanishka - I view your statements like but i think it will help us significantly if you decide to not use your pseudonym and give us a chance to see your reputation as a "researcher" or It would be really great for us to see what "camp" you belong to or I have a suspicion that people are not as brainless as you seem to think as personal attacks and I ask that you refrain from doing so.

All of your allegations are 100% wrong and are based on unfounded assumptions - I am not upset at anything and I am not hinting anything. Robust and well written Wikipedia policies make it impossible to do so. I make an effort to get rid of my POV and stick to the Wikipedia policies - that is why I post major changes in my user space first, announce it and give ample time for others to react before migrating it to the main page. Thanks. --Authentickle (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you realize that your "certainty" is what is bugging me? This is not how researchers talk ! To me, you appear like a crank (intelligent, but misguided). Kindly do not take my attacks personally as i am not fighting a person, but ideologies i.e. can we accept politics from anyone ? Right now its Authentickle who is doing that. Tomorrow it will be someone else ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanishkajoshi (talk • contribs) 06:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article has too much politics going on. For example if I write on Irish People, I won't write in the introduction itself about IRA or link their 2000 years history directly to their condition in the modern times. Secondly,there are many unverified claims regarding the origin of Chitpavans.If the author is really unbiased , he should spresent all the available origin theories and let the reader decide for himself using his judgement. The article also needs latest references to refine the article. For example 2000 year old skeletal remains have been found recently ,whose genes have been found to match modern day Chitpavans , disproving some other false theories of being latest migrants . Editors should also refrain from using biased words like "usurpation of power ", without any basis, and stick to a neutra stance,if they are objective as they claim. Abcscholar (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Jewish origin fringe theories

Some people are adding fringe theories, regarding the origin of the Chitpavans, suggesting a Jewish origin for them, from Bene Israel tribe. These theories are fringe theories and are not part of mainstream history of Chitpavans. Adding such theories only confuses the readers and presents wrong facts and POVs. Barthateslisa (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Says who? - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Says what? Is there any mainstream theory about them being of Jewish origin? There are even such fringe theories about Kashmiris, do we say that Kashmiris are of Jewish origin in their introduction? Barthateslisa (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

They are not of Jewish origin, is a mainstream fact, the Jew theory requires a scholarly mainstream citation. Barthateslisa (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You are declaring it to be a fringe theory but have provided no support for that, whereas the article does have support for it being a legend and there are plenty of other sources that say the same thing. If we are to be equitable then we would need to remove all legends of origin because, patently, they are absurd unless one has, for example, grown up in the Hindu tradition. And nowhere does the lead section mention this point re: origins, despite your claim to the contrary. Now stop edit warring and discuss, per WP:BRD. - Sitush (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The onus is on the ppl adding the source and theory to present it as a respectable theory. Is there any scholorly basis for the theory? No. It is a POV, a POV of certain individuals that Chitpavans are Jews. And you said "there are plenty of other sources that say the same thing". Where are these sources? Barthateslisa (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No, the burden is to provide reliable sources for verifiability. That is done, and I could any many more modern academic sources that mention it. We do not say that the Chitpavans are Jews - if that is what you think is being said then I'm afraid you are misreading the article. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources include this anthropologist, this professor of history, this encyclopaedia from a scholarly publisher, this from a university press, this one, also from a UP. I could go on.

It may be that the wording could be tweaked but the info is as valid as any other myth of origin. Now, if you want to go to, say, WT:INB or WP:RFC and propose that all myths of origin should be removed from all Indian caste articles then that would be another matter. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• 3O request Greetings, both. Sitush had posted a third opinion request, which I am responding to. This is a non-binding process, and my opinion carries the weight that any other uninvolved editor would. It is my opinion that this dispute is based on a misreading of the article text. The article does not say that the Chitpavan Brahmin community are in fact Jews; it describes a particular theory which says so. The theory has enough scholarly coverage that it requires inclusion per WP:DUE, and I see no necessity for a wording change. If other origin stories exist, then these should be included; the current situation of only a single story (the other paragraph seems mostly etymological) is a little odd. However, no evidence has been presented of any other origin stories, so that point not very important. In sum; the current wording accurately reflects the source material, and no change is needed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, Vanamonde93. Could you just clarify that the current version more accurately reflects the source material than this version? I've given some sources above and I think the current version is both weasel-y and undue in the sense of deflating the idea by making out it is just one person who has said this. - Sitush (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sitush, I took a look at that version. I think that that version of the current second paragraph, about the Bene Israeli legend, is an improvement on this current version; since the article makes it clear that it is a legend, further attribution is indeed unnecessary. However, I'm a little concerned about that additional paragraph ("the konkan region has been inhabited...") because it raises more questions that it answers. When did these people immigrate? where from? etc. If that is the entirety of the available information, then I understand. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Regarding the Konkan region paragraph, I think I have got that book somewhere and so maybe able to improve it. It does "hang" a little bit, although the point seems to be that the Chitpavan were the last major community to arrive. I guess it implies things such as that any influence they obtained ought to be seen in the context of them having to deal with the vested interests of earlier immigrants. But that would need to be verified, of course. - Sitush (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Mainly as a aide memoire due to the protection issue, the Cohn/Singer pp399-400 source should actually include the chapter name - Chitpavan Brahman Family Histories: Sources for a Study of Social Structure and Social Change in Maharashtra - and name Maureen L. P. Patterson as the author. - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Vanamonde93, I think the point is as follows

  The Konkan region has witnessed the immigration of various groups, such as the Bene Israel, Parsis and Kudaldeshkar Brahmins. Each of these settled in distinct parts of the region and there was little mingling between them. The Chitpavans were apparently the last major community to arrive there and consequently the area in which they settled, around Ratnagiri, was both the least fertile and that with a relative scarcity of good ports for trading. While the other groups generally took up trade as their primary occupation, the Chitpavans became known as administrators.

I've drafted this from the cited pages of the source. - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes indeed, this reads a lot nicer, thanks. Perhaps when the protection is lifted this can be added in. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a fringe theory and ahould not be included in the main paragraph.State the mainstream theory first, and then include this theory stating it to be a legend/ fringe theory.

It is misleading to the ordinary reader who may not be aware of this theory being fringe. Abcscholar (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding "Origin" Section of Chitpawan Article

Dear Sir, Information in "Origin" Secion is not proper. Origin of Chitpavan is from Lord Parshurama. They were not immigrants from anywhere. Infact Lord Parshurama's birth was way before birth of jews & christians. There are possibilities that there was Hindu Dharma in Europe and other countries long time before.

Please see this article for your ref: http://www.kokanastha.com/htm/historg.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngurjar (talk • contribs) 17:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed,the origin section needs to be corrected

Abcscholar (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Chitpavan Brahmins/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The claim to be of european orign is what I disagree,The fairness of the skin is because the invading europeans & mughals armies married their women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.221.43 (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 11:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice try dear

Abcscholar (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Roopkund claim

An IP-hopping anon has been repeatedly adding the following claim to the article: An analysis of skeletons found at the Roopkund lake "has confirmed that Chitpavans lived 1200 years back, thus putting an end to all fringe theories regarding their origin".

The references cited are:

• [5] Contains one sentence "Interestingly, since the completion of the episode, Mr Basu says, it has been proved through DNA tests that some of the skeletons belonged to Brahmins from the Konkan region of Maharashtra."
• [6] Doesn't mention Chitpavans
• [7] "He also discovered that some samples showed genetic mutations specific only to Maharashtra's Kokanastha, or Chitpavan, Brahmins."

Ignoring the fact that these are not peer-reviewed results, the references do not mention anything about the origin of the Chitpavans, let alone support a statement like Chitpavans lived 1200 years back. This is just bad original research by the person adding this claim. Please find some better sources. utcursch | talk 01:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Chitpavani

How many Kokanastha speak Chitpavani ? Most of them reside in Maharashtra and speak Marathi. There may be isolated pockets where they may speak Chitpavani but saying that their primary language is Chitpavani, as in the infobox, based on a blog is wrong.ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Mahars

I have re-removed some content about the Mahar people here. The main source is the Sawhinney book, which doesn't seem to be an academic work, and the subsidiary source is a newspaper article that, while accurate enough in saying that the Mahars were a large contingent of the armed forces, seems to miss the point that it was an action brought by the British, not the Mahars, and that the Brits recruited.

I have no problem with the information going in the article somewhere if decent sources are available. It is a very touchy subject. - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

If it helps, my reading of what was said is that there is an attempt to claim that the Mahars were responsible for the demise of the Peshwas. It smacks of caste glorification of the sort that Dalit revisionist historians and activists love. The fact is, the British ran the campaign, not the Mahars. Perhaps the Brits exploited the antangonism between Mahars and Peshwas for their own advantage but, really, the only way to sort this out is to find decent academic sources, not newspaper articles etc. Then the thing can be phrased in a suitable manner. - Sitush (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the sources clearly? Edit what source says...if its "your reading". Provide the sources for your claim.Blueyarn (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Read what I said above. There is no point in me reading your sources because they are not reliable. - Sitush (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

This and this are the sort of thing we should be using, and we should be explaining the nuances. - Sitush (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

people from the film industry

I think Vikram Gokhale, Mohan Agashe , Ashwini Bhave and marathi actor Shashank Ketkar are chitpawans too. Thanks. Acharya63 (talk) 08:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

You are absolutely right but read this policy formulated by editor Sitush on Caste identification before adding these people to the list.[8].Otherwise you are wasting your valuable time.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps. That would explain why Sitush removed Sonali Bendre and Nitin Gadkari from the CKP page. Thanks for the link as I was already searching sources for their caste mentions-Acharya63 (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

confused about Anant Laxman Kanhere

Dear editors,

One source in this Anant Laxman Kanhere entry is : Nigel West - his real name is Rupert Allason and is a conservative from UK.(could be biased)

The question is : Was Kanhere a freedom fighter or not? Please see Anant Laxman Kanhere where it says he was a freedom fighter. There is also Hutatma Anant Kanhere Maidan named after him. If Jackson was indeed a person who had sympathy for the plight of the oppressed Indians, then Kanhere was misguided. But if Jackson was just manipulating the Indians and committed atrocities, then Kanhere was a freedom fighter. One source is this:

Sacred offerings into the flames of freedom - Page 27 by Vande Mataram Foundation https://books.google.com/books?id=ih1uAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=jackson+cruel Pramod Maruti Mande - 2005 At that time an Englishman named Jackson was the Collector of Nashik District. A cruel man by nature, he greatly harassed the people. He used to hold public assemblies to hear the people's grievances, but this was just a show, meant to put a gloss on his despotic administration. There was no justice for the people. Rather, they were subject to great tyranny. Swatantrya Veer Savarkar's brother Babarao Savarkar printed ..

But other sources say he was well liked and soft spoken.

In this case, I am completely confused. Please edit this entry as you see fit. I do not wish to hurt sentiments by simply using the word murderer to describe a brave freedom fighter(assuming the last source is correct) Acharya63 (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Mr.,Acharya, As the saying goes, "One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter".The British will always view Savarkar,Kanhere, Madanlal Dhingra, Bhagat Singh,Rajguru and Udham Singh as terrorists but they are all celebrated in India.Although, they did not say that George Washington was a terrorist,he was called a traitor by the British press of the day.Students belonging to the British conservative party in the 1980s used to call for Nelson Mandela to be hanged. Winston Churchill thought that Mahatma Gandhi should be trampled under an elephant for daring to launch a peaceful campaign for freedom..I could go on but you get the point. Jonathansammy (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Mr.Jonathansammy, I will edit it to mention that Kanhere was an Indian nationalist as the source classifies him as that. Jackson may have been a sanskrit scholar etc. and even well liked but that does not make him an Indian Nationalist as Nigel opines. (Bimanbehari Majumdar - 1966)"Militant Nationalism in India and Its Socio-religious Background", ...https://books.google.com/books?id=BqU9AAAAMAAJ

On December 21, A. M. T. Jackson was murdered at Nasik by Anant Laxman Kanhere. Jackson was a learned Indologist. He contributed many interesting papers on Indian history and culture and was popularly known as Pandit Jackson. His fault was that he had committed Ganesh Savarkar to trial and acquitted an Engineer named Williams of the charge of killing a farmer .Thanks -Acharya63 (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Mr.Jonathansammy, I have edited it to put all viewpoints. But I had a chance to talk to a friend whose grandparents know of the details. Apparently, the story about Jackson acquitting the British engineer in a driving case is not an innocent mistake as the sources make it sound. The story I was told is as follows: Some British folks were playing golf on a ground that is named after Kanhere now. An innocent Indian farmer(some say he was a kid) passing by picked up the ball. This disturbed the game and the british engineer lost his temper. They beat the boy and probably drove over his body. Hence the kid died. Jackson dismissed it as a road accident. Given the brutal mentality of the Brits at the time, I am not even a bit surprised. However, since this is original research I cannot add it to wiki. On the other hand, the source I mentioned in the talk above , does mention that Jackson was a manipulative person. So will add this new source and delete the positive comments about Jackson as some sources disagree. The only thing they agree with is that he was an Indian history/Sanskrit scholar and even soft spoken but that does not necessarily make him a good person. Feel free to edit in any way you see fit..Acharya63 (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Shreeram Shankar Abhyankar

Hi Sitush, I have added the URL that points to the PDF that talks about his caste. The PDF is from a private website. But the website seems to belong to a Professor of Mathematics. Not sure if this was ever published. Is this citation good enough or do we need a better source? Please see http://krishnaswami-alladi.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/reflectionsonabhyankar.pdf Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't find any journal etc that published it. The thing was a speech given at a conference dinner, so it doesn't really have the same sort of peer review as, say, a journal. BTW, the entire list needs to be ordered alphabetically by last name. - Sitush (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and another "by the way". Please be aware that I will one day be proposing that all of these caste lists are deleted. They're nothing but trouble and sources of glorification. It is instructive that, for example, when people try to add criminals to such lists they are almost always removed by other people. - Sitush (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Sitush, what specific castes are you referring to (for the criminal removal)? I know you manage a lot of stuff on wikipedia (a very impressive task ). I will be happy to help you in any way I can in managing any page that has persistent disruptions - so you can focus on others. On the Chitpawan page, most notables involved in any violent incidents are mentioned(all three involved in the Gandhi murder as well as other murders). Most of the disruptions on this page have been related to the Jewish origin theory (that is properly sourced). Please feel free to ping me if you want me to add some page to my watchlist (although I mostly focus on marathi pages). Thanks for your hard work in maintaining all these Indian articles. I personally think having notables is a good idea as historians/researchers seem to refer to them in any research paper on a caste. These days, not many(especially western researchers) are interested in gotras or some religious stuff like that - but in more concrete examples of intellectuals, administrators etc. that a community produced. This IMHO is what makes the Deshastha Brahmin page so good. The notables are scattered all over the page in the description - instead of some non-concrete remarks like "they produced some saints". Just sharing my personal thoughts. But I am OK with either decision(no strong feelings either way). I think the disruptions for the caste lists have started cooling down. But I completely agree that caste lists should have a list of both good and bad people. Anyway, my main aim right now is to get all marathi caste articles to "GA-class". Thanks again - Acharya63 (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

1. Sitush, should I remove him then from the list? Or the citation? Thanks-Acharya63 (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It isn't quite a severe a problem as it would be if the person was alive but if we can't find any other sources then it probably should go. - Sitush (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Sitush, found a lot of sources related to his work but none related to his caste. Hence removing it as per your suggestion. Thanks-Acharya63 (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Lokhitwadi - Koknastha Brahmin or Deshastha Brahmin

His webpage says Deshastha Brahmin but he appears in the list of notable Chitpawan Brahmins. RegardsAcharya63 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

This source says he is Chitpawan https://books.google.com/books?id=pI19BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q&f=false Acharya63 (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)