Talk:Daivadnya

Article issues

• Missing page numbers in references: eg "Hindu Temples and deities" by Rui Pereira Gomes
• Use of primary sources (see WP:PRIMARY): "Manusmruti", "Rajatarangini" by Kalhana. Wikipedia suggests use of secondary sources. See WP:REF for more info
• There is too much emphasis on the gods: Religion should be one of the many sections. See Featured article Tamil people about sections that need to be added.
• "Migrations from the mainland" should be merged in history as it is part of history. Write section in paragraph form, instead of list as it is now.
• "Ancestral worship", "Math tradition and Sampradayas", "Ishta Devatas", "Gotravali and Kuldevtas" need to be merged in "Religion"

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Issues

• Very near to B but still not there. Wiki standards have increased considerably.
• Previous issues haven't been resolved.
• The most important part of any ethnic group article Culture is written in a very haphazard manner.
• Article needs to be restructured. Sections need to be standardized.
• List needs to be removed.
• For a Reference B-class article, check Goan Catholics. Kensplanet^T_C 14:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A letter from Sodhe math pontiff

• In the statement at the Gokarna case, the 33rd pontiff Shri Vishwadeesha Theertha of Sri Sode Vadiraja Mutt has described Daivajnya Brahmins as Mukhamasita Surya Vanshi Brahmins.
• At Hosakeri village near Gokarna, the pontiff of Sode Mutt use to halt at the residence of Burde (Daivajnya Brahmin ) who was the village Patel (chieftain) of Hosakeri. With refrence,the proof of the letter written by the pontiff is as follows:

Shree Swasthi Srimad Udupi Sri Sonde Mutt Sri Vadiraja Guru Peetharoodha Srimad Vishwadheesha Thirtha Padangalauru,

Warm wishes to the Midaje Sime Gokarna shetgar Sanu,Mahabal shetti, Budhiwantha Subraya shetti ,Adigona shettigar ,Ram shetti, Durga shetti ,Shamanna shetti , Hosakeri Sham Appu shetti, Krishna Subraya shetti.

We are at the Admanandana Samvatsara Vaishaka Shudha and under penance, deeply busy with the Puja of Srimad Vadiraja, Shri Krishna, Sri Boovaraha ,Sri Hayagreeva and at the residence of shri Burde at Hosakeri.

In respect, this is to inform you that you are Mukhamasitha Daivajnya Suvarnakar Surya Brahmin, and attain the right of performing Yajna Karma and Shatkarma rituals . We may be able to make you satisfy by giving records of your existence in the Rigveda Purusha sukta ,Agni purana ,Skanda Purana, Manu Smrithi ,and Dharma Shastra etc. Daivajna vedamurthi Narayana Shanker Bhatta,Guddekagal taluk ,Kumta.

“Vishwabrahmakulothsaha” authored by Brahmasri. B.R. Kshirasagara –edition 6, page 139.

Too much IAST and italics

Common undisputed spellings like Ganesha, shudra, Maharashtra, Konkani etc. are unneccessarily spelt in IAST. That is a big readability issue. How many people will know "Mahārāṣṭra" (also spelt in the article as Maharshtra) is NOT a typos of Maharashtra, but something called IAST? IAST is OK in scholarly books for a scholarly audience, but one can not expect the audience of wikipedia be a reader of foreign author's IAST books. I wasted my time clicked on Peśvās and realizing it was plain Peshwas. This hindered my read.

I strongly recommend the author: Change the following back in English

• All place names (Śimogā,Cikkamagaluru,Koḍagu,Davaṇgere,Hubballī-Dhārvāḍa,Belgāv were big diversion), Konkan, Karnataka etc.
• Deity names: Shiva, Ganesha, Shantadurga, Vithala, Vishnu etc
• Popular spellings like Chitpavan, Shett, kshatriya, shudra be reintroduced
• Author names, person names (Notable Individuals), historians
• Languages like Bangla (Bengali), Konkani etc
• Festivals like Ganesh Chaturthi

Every other term is italicised in the article. Remove italics as much as possible

• Remove for places. Things like Scythia
• All people names
• Things like genealogical DNA study

• 5th should be without superscript. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There is too much flowery language and also some personal opinions, and some grammar errors too.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• "They were badly molested by them and tried to degrade them to a level of a shudras in an effort made by the members of the said group to be exclusively called Brahmins." is unclear. who they, who them?
• " brutal extent" is giving a negative connotation to the sentence. Just state the facts, do not give words that form an opinion. A similar case was "Unfortunately, Daivajñas in Maharashtra have forgotten their roots" see Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_that_editorialize.

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• "good food" is a personal opinion of the author, attribute it.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Automated review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 14 kilometers, use 14 kilometers, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 14 kilometers.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), favourite (B) (American: favorite), meter (A) (British: metre), organise (B) (American: organize), recognize (A) (British: recognise), categorize (A) (British: categorise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), anymore (A) (British: any more), any more (B) (American: anymore), jewellery (B) (American: jewelry).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • “In the year [of] 1886”

*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

False etymologies

I removed a spurious paragraph based on unrealiable sources: "Technites,or the artist,as well as the Latin verb Texo,the obsolete Teuxo,now Teukho in Greek ,are derived from the Sanskrit Takṣa.Like Technites stand the eight drgree of lineal descent from Syayambhuva,adam or Protogonus. Tvaṣṭar was the grandfather of Maga and the present Manu." In reality, the Latin texo, the Greek tekhnites (τεχνίτης), and the Sanskrit taksan are cognates (IndoEuropean root *tek-). Tvaṣṭar does not seem to feature the same root (a reliable source has to be cited). The Greek teucho (τεύχω) features the IE root *dheugh- which is also unrelated to *tek-. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

I remain really concerned about this article. It is incredibly complex and seemingly very reliant on obscure sources of dubious merit. I realise that English-language sources may be thin on the ground but, honestly, the number of non-English sources written by seemingly non-notable authors and published by non-notable houses is astonishing. It may need some substantial pruning. - Sitush (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

No one reply as all info is fake Sitush so start your work obviously everything will be in history no need to worry.It is Octobor now your statement dated January so hope wiki policy don't justify this rite? I am particularly showing you wrong statement hoping for your action! Raju Achar (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC) Raju Achar (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Etymology

We say It is possible that Vadirajatirtha bestowed the appellation Daivadnya when many of the community adopted the Madhwa religion under leadership of Vadiraja but there is valid proof for this claim, which makes no sense. The quote that follows the sentence also makes no sense, in that instance because it has two wildly different sources, one of which is not even in English as far as I can tell. - Sitush (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Whole section is not related to daivdnya caste

"The Daivadnyas claim that they came to Goa in the south in 2500 BCE to assist those Brahmins who came with Parashurama to perform yajna (ritualistic sacrifices) and are believed to have settled in various agraharas with other Brahmins.[18][19] That date is disputed, with some scholars saying it was during fourth to sixth century CE, others saying 700 BCE, and some supporting the community's claim of 2500 BCE. Research by scholars like Dharmananda Damodar Kosambi[20] and Bhau Daji[21][22] claim that these mythologies serves as a symbol of the sanskritisation that, then Goan culture experienced with the advent of Brahminical religion to this region but some scholars reject these claims by providing proofs of migration.[23][24][25]"

This whole section and citations speaks about karade,saraswth brahmins and konkonastha not daivdnyas.I have went through all the citations in this paragraph,If possible remove this paragraph built on wrong citation and add caste related stuffs............Anyone can check the above information! Ganesh072 (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I suspect there may be a lot of this sort of thing going on. I am becoming increasingly fed up of waiting for people to respond to queries on this page, including those related to obscure sources etc. I'm not ruling out trimming the article by maybe as much as 90 per cent because it alls looks very odd to me. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi sitush can you please go through the above claimed content by that user once and also many other content has been placed there which don't have valid references.Please delete the content if no one is replying,obviously if it is justifiable they would have done untill now. In the whole site there is no relevant proof justifying the relation of parashuram with this page but they have added simply obviously in wiki fake content cannot be kept for more time.Rite? I have seen your name in many pages ending fake claims but why are you not taking action here,please do Take action if not they will start adding more fake content!! Raju Achar (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

My problem is that I do not have access to a lot of the sources. - Sitush (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Sitush only you can do this !.Please don't entertain these content I had visited all the references here yes majority of them are not refered in digital library and some are not in English.Obviously according to wiki policy these fake contents should be removed.Please do it soon if not in many pages once again vandalised may start vandalism keeping this page reference format as reference (Once again my well formatted contents will be vandalised:( ). Raju Achar (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC) Raju Achar (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

"The Daivadnyas claim that they came to Goa in the south in 2500 BCE to assist those Brahmins who came with Parashurama to perform yajna (ritualistic sacrifices) and are believed to have settled in various agraharas with other Brahmins.[18][19] That date is disputed, with some scholars saying it was during fourth to sixth century CE, others saying 700 BCE, and some supporting the community's claim of 2500 BCE. Research by scholars like Dharmananda Damodar Kosambi[20] and Bhau Daji[21][22] claim that these mythologies serves as a symbol of the sanskritisation that, then Goan culture experienced with the advent of Brahminical religion to this region but some scholars reject these claims by providing proofs of migration.[23][24][25]"

By the way this claim of user:Gowrish seems perfect which ever reference I visited speaks about either konkan creation, saraswat Brahmins,konkonasta brahmin and karade brahmin(I saw mainly migration of saraswat brahmin with parashuram and some researchers giving archeological evidence with some opposing this as brahminism) but I didn't found Daivadnya anywhere!? Lol. My personal point brought me here was sivagama and jyotishya origin which don't have valid references but also they have kept it here I don't know still how many loop wholes are there! If you cannot open documents obviously better to remove since they have given wrong reference they do some tricks like this .Hoping for the same action you took in komati and other North Indian brahmin pages!!! Raju Achar (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC) Raju Achar (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

"Daiva jānati iti daivajñaḥ is literally translated as the one who knows the fate is Daivadnya or "the one who knows about God is Daivadnya", and can be interpreted as the one who knows about the future is a Daivadnya; or the one is well versed in Śilpaśāstra and can craft an idol of God is called a Daivadnya.[5][page needed][8][clarification"

This is one example of some of many exaggerated biased wordings.Actually this means something else but someone has user here and reference is not from any researcher but from caste writer and other references is blank page. Like this atlmost 80-90 percentage of this article is filled with unauthenticated fake contents without reference non valid for wiki standards. So my request is please don't entertain this instead start trimming. ~~ Raju Achar (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• The fact that something is not available online and/or is not in English is irrelevant, since neither matter. What we have here is a situation where you are pointing out problems but someone else clearly thought it was ok, so it is a sort of stalemate. As I have said before, I have grave doubts about a lot of this stuff but I don't think I can remove it so quickly just based on my gut feeling. At best, I need to give time for people to respond. - Sitush (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

27 Jan 2017 is the date where you have asked citation but I didn't find any reply till now but you will take instant action as per my knowledge but why are you delaying here!!Obviously citation is there you can go through it definitely you will find the fakeness of majority of this article.If you are indicating any user: nijg obviously if he have citation let him come giving 8 months to reply? Raju Achar (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC) Raju Achar (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Whole section is not related to daivdnya caste "The Daivadnyas claim that they came to Goa in the south in 2500 BCE to assist those Brahmins who came with Parashurama to perform yajna (ritualistic sacrifices) and are believed to have settled in various agraharas with other Brahmins.[18][19] That date is disputed, with some scholars saying it was during fourth to sixth century CE, others saying 700 BCE, and some supporting the community's claim of 2500 BCE. Research by scholars like Dharmananda Damodar Kosambi[20] and Bhau Daji[21][22] claim that these mythologies serves as a symbol of the sanskritisation that, then Goan culture experienced with the advent of Brahminical religion to this region but some scholars reject these claims by providing proofs of migration.[23][24][25]" At least let's start from this section I personally read all the citaions and found this as wrongly kept sentence here so please go through this sentence and after that obviously you will understand what I am trying to convey(After reading citaion if you find irrelevant info first delete this statement).

You may give time to ambiguous statements but how can you give time for these statements which is appearantly wrong!!!! Waiting for reply or actions Sitush Raju Achar (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC) Raju Achar (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Sonars

I have just reverted here. Thank you for providing an edit summary explaining your contention that there is no connection between the Daivadnya and the Sonars but it does appear to be sourced. Is the source unreliable? Is it misrepresented? The only way we will move on is by discussing the issue. I admit that the entire article is incredibly messy and reliant on far too many sources closely connected to the community but we have to start somewhere in sorting it out. This is as good as point to start as any. When the discussions are all over, I suspect it will be half the size that it is currently because it is ridiculous. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @DiavadnyaInfo: because I am not sure if they're aware of talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

And please note my earlier comment at Talk:Daivadnya_Brahmin#Sourcing above. - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Differences

The Sacred Thread Ceremony: DB YES Sonar NO

Priest that traditionally perform Religious Ceremony: DB Yes Sonar NO

Last names of DBs are totally different from last names of Sonars

There are no marriages between Sonars and Daivadnya Brahmins

Examples of Sonars websites: http://www.ahirsonarhub.com/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunar

DB's traditionally made gold jewelry for Deities in addition to there priest duties; Web link : https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/citys-lesser-known-community-goddesses/articleshow/60871174.cms

Today, Daivadnya Brahmin's are a small community with tremendous contributions to society in many fields philanthropy, science, sports, economics, arts, music etc (check out the notable persons )

This website was an excellent source for information about DBs in English for many years until recent negatively biased additions made all over the article.

I think wiki should get more people from the community involved rather than rely on outsider information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiavadnyaInfo (talk • contribs) 20:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@DiavadnyaInfo: I expect a clear response to Sitush's sourcing question which does not rely on your opinion or else you could be facing a topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The links you supply do not appear to say that they are different. I really think we need to concentrate on the source that is already in the article, as per my note at the start of this section. - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

My revert on 22 April

I have just made a large revert. As previous notes on this talk page indicate, the article is a mess of excessive detail, poor writing and poor sourcing. The last thing this needs is yet more expansion in a similar vein (blimey, the recent stuff even included citations of Enthoven, who has long been considered unreliable). There has clearly been a lot of work put in by one or two people who have a keen interest in this caste and appear to be often oblivious to the finer points of how an encyclopaedia is supposed to operate and the purposes for which it exists. It needs to stop, we need to take stock of what already exists, and we need to prune it drastically. Whether the actual word count goes up or down isn't really the point: the detail is way too confusing and specious. - Sitush (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we could make a start by just concentrating on one section at a time? Can anyone resolve the queries tagged for what is now the "Names" section? And please provide quotations from all of the offline sources? - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The version of "Names" that I have just reverted was then called "Etymology" and "Appellations" - see here. Aside from the obvious problem of citing Enthoven, it also contained a nonsense because the etymological explanation included the word daivadnya in its definition of daivadnya - that is circular. - Sitush (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Old posts archived

I am in the process of archiving a lot of old posts on this page. The ones that make statements without sources and/or ask general questions about kuladevata etc and/or quote ancient primary sources are simply not useful to improvement of this article. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality

Most sources are caste based or Raj era. Also, most academic sources refer to them as "Daivadnya Sonars"(goldsmiths) that call themselves "Daivadnya Brahmins". For example see this simple search : https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Daivadnya+sonar— Preceding unsigned comment added by Acharya63 (talk • contribs)

Upload images of Shishirotsav (Shigma)

How do I upload images of the festivals celebrated by this community in Goa and Mumbai? ComMentist (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Brahmin or not Brahmin

Nijgoykar, I reverted your edit for Brahmin as it was not sourced. See here. Please discuss on the talk page with concerned editors . Also pinging @Jonathansammy: and MRRaja001. I don't know the answer to this as I have not looked deeply into the sources yet.LukeEmily (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@LukeEmily:, Well I came across a court case in Maharashtra where the judges refused to classify a Daivadnya brahmin family as sonar. Being classified as sonar would have allowed them to take advantage of benefits available to sonars as an OBC group. So the law in Maharashtra does recognize a daivadnya brahmin community.[1] I hope this helps.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Jonathansammy:. I think it is on this website too Subhash Gopal Pandurkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 October, 2012. In Karanataka the Daivadnya Brahmin community is OBC. See Karnataka OBC list. Also, the British era census on literacy https://www.jstor.org/stable/saoa.crl.25793239?seq=442 shows the first three columns of literacy and they also use the term "daivadnya Brahmin". Their literacy levels(3 left columns) are not as high as compared to the upper castes hence they probably were classified as OBC in some states. The bottom line is that the Govt of Maharashtra as well as Karnataka now recognize the caste as 'Daivadnya Brahmin'. I have been reading about the Gramanya and it is "strange" how some individuals in the 18th/19th century tried to bring down the ritual status of some castes. Will add a summary from those pages on the talk page. We can decide where to add it. But it does seem like "Daivadnya Brahmin" is their official name.LukeEmily (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy:, should the page name be changed to Daivadnya Brahmin? ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nijgoykar:,@LukeEmily:, As the court report says, they are Daivadnya Brahmin then I suggest we change the article name to be in line with government records. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

OK. Waiting for @MRRaja001:'s opinion. I went briefly through the Gramanya disputes. The dispute ended with the Brahmins religious scholars of Maharashtra denying the Daivadnya Brahmins the Brahmin varna. It is not as if they were even divided in their opinion. Also, other than Karve, another author who did caste related study in Pune writes that they are goldsmiths who simply call themselves Daivadnya Brahmins(will provide quote). Karve writes that there are Goldsmiths of many types, the Daivadnyas simply happen to be goldsmiths who do temple work. Even if we change the article name, can they be part of the Brahmin community if other Brahmins do not agree? The Govt can decide official name but not varna. I do not think they are Brahmins based on the sources read so far, although their name includes the word "brahmin". Will dig a little deeper - it is a little confusing.LukeEmily (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@LukeEmily and Jonathansammy: The court denied to say Daivadnya Brahmin is Sonar. There are many sub communities in Sonar community and Daivadnyas are one of them. There claim is they want Daivadnya caste as synonyms of Sonar caste, how is this possible? This is like saying Deshastha Brahmin is synonymous for Brahmin which is incorrect. Deshastha Brahmin is one of subcaste among Brahmins. Similarly Daivdanyas are one of subcaste among Sonars (Goldsmiths). We don't need to change based on this court order but we can add a statement "Daivadnyas call themselves as Daivadnya Brahmins". No need to change article name. This brings confusion. Some citations to get clarity (Citation 1, (Survey Report on Village: Goa, Daman & Diu, Verna by Government of India), (Maharashtra, Land and Its People - Quote:Among Sonars there are jatis in Maharashtra which call themselves Daivadnya Sonar , Lad Sonar , Ahir Sonar , etc) Hope you understood what I was trying to say. Daivadnyas are not the only one community who are Sonars in Maharashtra and Goa just like Deshastha Brahmins are not only one community who are Brahmins there are also other communities like Chitpavans, Karhades etc. Who are Brahmins. They are claiming that Daivadnyas means Sonars and Sonars means Daivadnyas which is not true. This is like saying Deshastha Brahmins means Brahmins and Brahmins in Maharashtra means only Deshastha Brahmins. Daivadnyas are part of Other Backward Castes (OBC) in states of Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka just like other Sonars. Daivadnya Sonar is the actual name of this community. In Bihar,there is class of Brahmins called Bhumihar who despite their persistent and firm assertions that they are a special class of Brahmins who give but not take alms, are still considered as a non - Brahmin class. All court orders are citing them as Bhumihar Brahmins - Shall we change name of this community also on Wikipedia. If we go on changing like this there is a big list. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 21:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

{ping|LukeEmily|MRRaja001}} If an Indian court calls one subset of sonars as Daivadnya brahmin, then that subset should be known by that name rather than the truncated Daivadnya. I hope this helps.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy and MRRaja001: , Daivadnya are not Brahmins from what I understood after going through 4 sources. Can the page be renamed to Daivadnya Brahmin(Sonars) instead of Daivadnya Brahmin? Based on the quote provided by MRRaja001 from Karve it is clear that she did not consider them Brahmins. i.e. Among Sonars there are jatis in Maharashtra which call themselves Daivadnya Sonar , Lad Sonar , Ahir Sonar , etc. Other sources agree with Karve when discussing their varna. They are a subcaste of the Goldsmith caste. Daivadnya Brahmin(Sonars) will mean they are often referred to as Daivadnya Brahmins by sources but are actually sonars and not Brahmins. Here are some facts about the dispute in 1824. As you may know, Hindu scriptures such as Puranas or other texts were used to settle such disputes. In case of the Daivadnya, one of the texts used was a text by Hemadpant, a Brahmin from the 13th century. The final decision of the Brahmin scholars was that based on the text - Daivadnya are not Brahmins - this decision was never overturned by other Brahmin scholars or any Brahmin leaders like the Shankaracharyas. The Sonars then fired the Brahmin Priests working in their homes and appointed their own priests. The Brahmins tried to get the British to stop the sonars but the British refused to intervene. Such disputes were common but the point is that the decision of the religious council was never overturned. The Sonars did not care about the decision based on the scripture by Hemadpant. But the summary is as per Hindu scriptures they are not Brahmins and the Brahmin scholars explicitly came to that conclusion after the debates and study of the scriptures. The modern scholars (except one) do not classify them in the Brahmin varna. The just use that name(Brahmin) although they are not Brahmin - and hence sources and courts use the same name. We can discuss further.LukeEmily (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@LukeEmily, MRRaja001, Kautilya3, and Joshua Jonathan:,In present times, is there an official body in republic of India that is granted authority on designating varna status on any specific tribe / group / caste / community? I know Indian courts or legislative bodies can designate ST, SC, or OBC status on a community, but I don't think any community is barred from calling itself Kshatriya, or Brahmin. If that is the case, and a community has called itself Brahmin or Kshatriya for more than a century, then I don't see why Wikipedia cannot call them Daivadnya Brahmin, Bhumihar Brahmin, Maratha Kshatriya etc. That shouldn't stop us from discussing the history of their disputed status. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Self-claims are never good enough. We need WP:THIRDPARTY sources to make any statements of fact. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@LukeEmily, MRRaja001, Kautilya3, and Joshua Jonathan:. Would court judgements come under WP:THIRDPARTY, as it happened in the Daivadnya case? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but court judgements are regarded as WP:PRIMARY. So they need to be attributed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@MRRaja001, Kautilya3, Jonathansammy, and Joshua Jonathan:, I think we should change the name from 'Daivadnya' to 'Daivadnya Sonars' or to 'Daivadnya Brahmin(Sonars)'. Jonathansammy, the Varna designation is based on ritual practice as the professions kept varying based on the political situation and social need. There does not need to be any appointed government body to determine varna at any time. A Brahmin has 6 ritual(Vedic) duties and Kshatriyas have 3, I have added some content from Rocher Ludo on the Brahmin page. Please see Brahmin#Vedic_duties. There was never any pre-appointed formal organization to decide varna AFAIK. Only if a dispute arose, scholars at that time debated and a decision was made and sometimes it went to higher levels like the Shankaracharya(in case of Gramanyas). For example, when the Daivadnya dispute arose in 1824, the scholars at the time consulted scriptures, the Daivadnyas also presented their case but the scriptures did not support their Brahmin claim hence the scholars of the time gave the verdict against them. Modern academic scholars have discussed this dispute over 30 pages and have also mentioned what scriptures were consulted. Other modern scholars as pointed out by MRRaja001 also do not support their claim either. Did the Bhumihars follow the 6 vedic duties of the Brahmins? No. For marathas, not only did the Brahmins explicitly give a decision about them not being twice-born but the modern scholars as well as Maratha caste organizations also agree. If you are questioning the ethics of the situation (does one caste have any right to determine the varna of another caste), then I agree with you. I think varna should have always been a voluntary choice and each person should have been allowed to choose his or her varna by following the rituals duties of the Varna. However, that is my personal opinion and historically this was not followed. There is another issue in calling the page Daivadnya Brahmin. Sitush has explicitly stated that we do not put the varna in the lead see this. Changing the name to Daivadnya Brahmin for a disputed case will be equivalent to adding the varna in the lead, so we will have to add more content to the lead to balance it - which might lead to edit wars. I am hence more inclined to call the page 'Daivadnya Sonars' rather than 'Daivadnya Brahmin(Sonars)'. And we can add the Brahmin claim in the page. Please let me know what you want to change the name to. The current name 'Daivadnya' is not correct. Is Daivadnya Sonars OK as multiple sources call them that.LukeEmily (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. We cannot say in Wikipedia voice that they are Brahmins. I don't have a problem with the page title being "Daivadnya" -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nijgoykar, LukeEmily, MRRaja001, and Kautilya3:, Gadgil in his 1952 survey of Pune calls the community Daivadnya brahmin. [2] So do multiple Indian government initiated village survey monographs,here [3],here[4], and [5]. We have already mentioned the court case where the judge refused to equate daivadnya brahmin with sonar. Having said that, I am OK with Kautilya3's recommendation of leaving the title as Daivadnya.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Gadgil refers to them as Daivadnya Brahmins but clarifies that they are a subcaste of sonars who claim Brahmin rank. Was Gadgil a political scientist, an anthropologist, a historian? Not sure of his qualifications.LukeEmily (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I see some modern scholars doing this as well, i.e., accept the term "Daivadnya Brahmin" without judgement, but not treat it as a subclass of Brahmins. We might also do something like "The Daivadnyas, also called Daivadnya Brahmins, are Konkani people...", but then use "Daivadnyas" in the rest of the page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@LukeEmily, Kautilya3 If a community is popularly knows as "Daivadnya Brahmins', the title of the page should also be the same. This will help people in general to find the relevant page. And as far as not treating them as subclass of brahmins is concerned, it is mostly is Maharashtra, and not in Karnataka or Goa where there are significant number of Daivandya Brahmins. Who are we to decide who is a brahmin and who is not? Wikipedia when talking about a particular community should speak about what is popularly known about them, and mention disputes about those if any and not the other way round where you consider dispute to be the truth and then mention popular things. Vernekar123 (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

If title of the page doesn't change to "Daivadnya Brahmin", then one can create another page title "Daivadnya Brahmin" since it is a popular term and this is what is used to refer to the particular community in government documents, for example OBC certificate. This is make "Daivadnya" page obsolete. Vernekar123 (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, if you see the type of language @MRRaja001 has been using in wiki page, it is clear that the person has hatred towards the community we should propose a ban on him/her from editing this page and discount all the edits/suggestions made by the person and also not consider the opinions presented in the talk page. Vernekar123 (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

References

@Kautilya3: I have written about this in the lead section. I think it is not necessary to mention "The Daivdanyas also called as Daivadnya Brahmins" again. Since I have already explained this. What do you say? - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 08:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Confusing though it may seem, calling them "Daivadnya Brahmins" (as sources do) does not mean that they are Brahmins. So, the rest of the lead discussion should remain unchanged.

I believe that another group called "Gowda Saraswat Brahmins" are also in this anomalous situation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Gaud Saraswat Brahmins are Brahmins there are no dispute with them now. Marriages between GSB's and other Brahmin communities is also very common these days. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 12:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and MRRaja001:, I disagree with MRRaja001 and Sitush has also brought up this issue. Kautilya3 is 100% right. The Brahminhood of GSB commonly known as Saraswats/Shenvis in Maharashtra is disputed and Sitush himself has pointed out that they are mentioned separately from the Brahmin caste. Its not fair to just be perfect NPOV for Daivadnyas and be POV for GSBs. Wikipedia cannot say what the sources do not say. That would be WP:OR. Bambardekar, a 20th century scholar on Konkan history completely rejects their Brahminhood and he is quoted by 21st century scholars. About marriage, I do not think your statement is accurate see page 194 of "Being Brahmin Being modern", by Professor Ramesh Bairy(2010). Quote : At the level of the community as a whole, Brahmins might not be incensed by the Saraswat claim to Brahminhood. But a non-Saraswat Brahmin family will not be very keen on proposing marriage with a Saraswat family. Within the association, the latter are accepted; whereas in Dakshina Kannada, they are officially not part of the Brahmin associations. Another quote from same book: Saraswat claim to Brahminhood is still strongly under dispute, particularly in the coastal districts of Karnataka. Some quotes from Deshpande's paper: Q1Bambardekar (1939: 111) cites two documents dated 1863 ad and 1694 ad where the brahmins are listed separately from the Seṇavīs. He argues that the Seṇavīs appropriated the term Gauḍa-Sārasvata only in the late 19th century. He also cites a letter from a Ṥeṇavī scholar (p. 297): “You are certainly right when you say that the term [...] Saraswata is a term of modern origin. Being myself a so-called [...] Saraswata, I may tell you that this term was invented only the other day to suit the conservative mentality of some of my community people.” It may be noted that British administrative documents from the early 19th century Maharashtra always list brahmins and Shenavis as two separate castes, cf. Parulekar (1945; 1951: 26 ff.). Q2:As noted by Dhananjay Keer (1979: 86), the brahmins in Pune did not let Sir Ramkrishna Gopal Bhandarkar participate in a Śāstrārtha-sabhā on the age of marriage as a principal participant, because he was a Sārasvata brahmin. One can read a virulent anti-Sārasvata attack in Bambardekar (1939), who questions their brahmin-hood itself,14 and alleges that they misrepresented the Kannada word gowḍa ‘village chief’ as being identical with the Sanskrit word gauḍa (1939: 174 ff.). Q3:The claim of the Gauḍa Sārasvata brahmanas (= GSB), whether real or imagined, of a north Indian origin is not an obscure historical problem; it is a relevant problem which has been of constant interest to the GSB. Many GSB leaders in the 1870’s and 1880’s have referred to this northern origin to indicate the solidarity of the GSB in contrast with other brahmana groups of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala. In the late 19th century the GSB spokesmen wrote books and articles, gave public speeches, cited documentary evidence in the native Indian as well as English court of law to prove that they belonged to the Northern stock of brahmanas. In this, their claim was in line with their efforts to be recognized as brahmanas, a right which was challenged by the Chitpavans, Deshasthas and Karhades, among others. Q4:The Deśasthas, Citpāvans and Karhāḍes were united in their rejection of the brahminhood for the Sārasvatas, and Wagle himself provides evidence of this animosity.Gupchup(Historian) has mentioned that a subcaste of GSB was officially declared to be non-Brahmin and another subcaste was supposed to have descended from Bhils. Deshpande has also (indirectly) ridiculed the Saraswat apologists by showing that they even tried to prove that Sanskrit was derived from Konkani. Marriages are common in all non-OBC castes these days. In Bengal, Bengali Brahmins , Baidyas and Bengali Kayasthas (all part of so called Bhadralok - elites) have being intermarrying since 1960s as observed by R.Inden(?) - that does not make Baidyas and Bengali Kayasthas - Brahmins. I think Sitush rightly figured it out and so has kautilya. We need to fix things simply by following sources. If different sources have different opinions, we can state all for NPOV.LukeEmily (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: Please come out of your illusion world. Daivadnyas are Goldsmiths. There is no link between them and Brahmins. You're simply trying to portray GSB's as not Brahmins. This is not true. Earlier the community used to eat fish, this was the only reason why they were put aside. GSB's are most established Brahmins in Konkan and Malabar coast. There is nothing to deny with me. I am from Pune and I know many Deshastha, Chitpavan and Karhade families who married GSB's. In case of Daivadnyas, they are Goldsmiths and not Brahmins. These Daivdanyas are even claiming Adi Shankaracharya is a Daivdanya. There is nothing true in their words, they even eat all kinds non-vegetarian foods like their Non-Brahmins counterparts. The case of Bengal Brahmins is different from Maharashtra and South India Brahmins. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 15:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@MRRaja001 and Kautilya3:. I am not trying anything other than quoting the sources. I gave several quotes not my personal opinion. MRRaja001, I will ignore your comment on me "being in an illusion". Please focus on the sources not on the editor. Just as a thought: is it possible that Daivadnyas were originally Brahmins who became goldsmiths for livelihood? Just as Brahmins took all kinds of professions. Anyway, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources not personal observations and research. I really don't want to comment on your heritage or your personal observations(to be honest I had assumed you were GSB since you added the caste based website on that page - but your heritage hardly matters as an editor - although I am really surprised by your opinion). You will also find examples of marriages between Daivadnyas and Chitpavans, or Deshasthas and vegetarian non-Brahmins, Brahmins and Marathas, etc.. The social status rather than the ritual status is probably important these days. The Brahmins in Pune have become progressive, that is good but we have to base wikipedia content on reliable sources. In the west you will find white women marrying Indians and vice versa. Does that mean they belong to the same caste or race? I think you are probably speaking of the GSBs who were Madhava followers - I believe they *are* Brahmins. I am talking about Shenvis and Palshikars who are also part of GSBs. Fish was not the "only reason" that the Chitpawans and Deshasthas and Karhades to reject the GSB claim. I am not trying to promote Daivadnyas. I am only stating both GSB and Daivadnyas were disputed communities as Sitush has pointed out (and as per sources I have seen, I don't care personally). Please note that GSB is a combination of several castes including Shenvis and Palshikars. Do you agree that Shenvi is basically a saraswat(GSB)? Brahmins scholars (when the dispute arose) decided that both these castes(Shenvi and Pal.) were *not* Brahmin, this was based on a Sanksrit scripture called vruddharanya. In fact, according to those scholars Shenvi had Kshatriya (male) ancestry and Palshikars had Bhil (male) and Golaki(low caste Brahmin) women ancestry. The source I have has also quotes the Sansksrit text from the scriptures. This decision came from the scholars in Kashi. BTW, you can find GSB lamb recipes on the web - it is not true that GSB eat only fish - and even Sitush pointed out the cherry-picking on meat for Saraswats. Yes, fish was also an issue but then Kashmiri Pundits also eat lamb. But have they ever been considered non-Brahmins by anyone? If we can mention words like Shudra on a caste page of Daivadnyas that had their own priests and claim to be Brahmins, why can we not even mention the disputes of the GSBs? Shahu was a known Brahmin-hater and he build hostels to promote all non-Brahmin communities (including non-Hindus) - including highly educated communities also? He build both the Saraswat hostel and the Sonar hostel in Kolhapur. He never built a Brahmin hostel. Just FYI. Also, Daivadnyas they are simply goldsmiths, why was their education so high compared to other artisan castes? I feel the truth lies somewhere in between but again the sources don't support my personal opinion. Academic sources agree that Adi_Shankara was not Daivadnya, he was a Nambudiri Brahmin. I think there may be a WP:CONFLICT in your case if you are using personal opinions and family relationships instead of WP:RS. I don't think the heritage of a wikipedia editor matters unless there is POV pushing. I think there is controversial content and varna disputes mentioned on every page I have seen on WP except GSB. This(Daivadnya) page also has words like Shudra etc. I think the editors have used some unreliable content and calling themselves brahmin is POV pushing but even if the caste members have edited it, they have at lest admitted the controversies. GSB is a different case and you said : I am from Pune and many of my family members married GSB's. I request you to not take any controversial sources about GSB personally as on wikipedia we never give our personal opinion. For me the similarity is : Both castes claimed Brahminhood, both castes eat meat, both castes were educated, both castes were opposed by the established Brahmins, both are eferred to as "X Brahmins" by multiple sources. Both castes are differentiated from brahmins by some sources. What is the difference between them in terms of Brahmin status?LukeEmily (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nijgoykar, LukeEmily, MRRaja001, and Kautilya3: I don't see anyone here coming to advocate for the suffix of "Brahmin" after "Daivadnya".Perhaps, as illustrated in this court case Subhash Gopal Pandurkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 October, 2012, it is economically better for a person to be classified as an OBC rather than have any appendage like brahmin or kshatriya added to the name. This way it would be possible for members of that community to get the benefits of government affirmative action / reservation policies in education, and public sector jobs. That perhaps also explains the recent lack of edit wars over varna status. It may have been question of caste prestige during the British era to elevate your community's varna status, but these days economic issues probably trump the former. Just a thought.Perhaps, a new topic for a PhD research project in social sciences! Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

True Jonathansammy. But as far as I can guess, none of us in recent discussion probably belong to this community and some of us are not even Indian so there is no question of advocating based on OBC for personal cause etc.. We are only trying to reconcile the differences in sources. I don't think the varna matters much for OBC classification since many Brahmin communities are also OBC. But you have a point and indeed it will be a good project to research how each community is now trying to show how backward they are. My original suggestion was to use Daivadnya Brahmin(Sonar) as the name of the page to convey that some sources call them Daivadnya Brahmins and some call them Daivadnya Sonars. BTW, in the OBC list of the Govt of Karnataka they are explicitly referred to as 'Daivadnya Brahmins'. But I am fine with Kautilya3's suggestion also.LukeEmily (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nijgoykar, Jonathansammy, MRRaja001, and Kautilya3:, in summary I agree with Kautilya and Sitush. Both GSB(Shenvi) and Daivadnya Brahmins communities have some disputes related to their varna. Both were categorically rejected as Brahmins by religious councils. Most high quality modern sources do not consider Daivadnya to belong to the Brahmin varna, I found only one Oxford University source that does. GSB(Shenvi) are called GSBs and not Gaud Saraswats in most cases. But the varna is disputed even by modern sources since some of them treat them different from Brahmins. The Daivadnya, GSB , Saraswat and Marathi Brahmin needs to be gone through with a fine-tooth comb to remove and POV or WP:OR. GSB/Daivadnya seems to be completely POV , both are using primary sources and caste association sources. I will focus on these two first.LukeEmily (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: Don't stop your research. I am not denying you. I also support you in certain things but the case of Daivadnyas and Gaud Saraswat Brahmins is different. Daivdanyas are Vishwakarma, Goldsmiths or Sonar community. We can clearly see this from the Raj era as well as Modern sources. Marathi Brahmins never marry them, but in case of Gaud Saraswat Brahmins it is different. Even though earlier GSB's were disputed earlier, now there are no disputes between Deshastha, Chitpavans, Karhades and Saraswat Brahmin groups such as Gaud Saraswats. Even marriages among GSB's and other Brahmin communities has become very common these days and is increasing day by day. I know the situation here in Maharashtra. Daivdanyas are considered Shudras, While GSB'S are Brahmins. Reply to this You will also find examples of marriages between Daivadnyas and Chitpavans, or Deshasthas and vegetarian non-Brahmins, Brahmins and Marathas, etc.. — Marriages is a broad term. I am talking about arranged marriages here. Arranged marriages between them as you mentioned is impossible. I am not talking about Love marriages. Hope you understood. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 00:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@MRRaja001 This person seems to have clear agenda to outright denigrate Daivadnya Brahmins and is filled with hatred towards the community. This is evident from the use of derogatory language in his replies such as 1) "These Daivdanyas are even claiming Adi Shankaracharya is a Daivdanya", who addresses any community as These? 2) "they even eat all kinds non-vegetarian foods like their Non-Brahmins counterparts."? - What do you mean by this? Do Daivadnya Brahmins eat pork? And who are these non-brahmin counterparts of Daivadnya Brahmins? (Aside, GSBs eat chicken in Karnataka) And you are talking only about how Daivadnya Brahmins are perceived in Maharashtra, I don't think this wiki page is just about the perception is in Maharashtra. I don't see any citations for how they are perceived in Karnataka. In Karnataka, they are all considered Brahmins. I think since Daivadnya Brahmins migrated from Goa and settled in part of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala, they might have faced persecution from the existing Brahmins in these places more so in Maharashtra (Gramanya existed in this state out of the 3) just out of spite to show some superiority over the people from other parts of the country or those who have different way of living. But this doesn't make Daivadnyas any less Brahmin. You should cite sources for how they were treated in Goa and then say if they are Brahmins or not. I would vouch for a ban on @MRRaja001 for showing such open hatred towards an Indian community. Vernekar123 (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Vernekar123: I am putting forward my arguments with citations. You can also put forward your views with proper citations. Reply to this they even eat all kinds non-vegetarian foods like their Non-Brahmins counterparts."? - What do you mean by this? Do Daivadnya Brahmins eat pork? I have written all about their diet with proper citation in "Diet" section. You can refer to it. Reply to this You should cite sources for how they were treated in Goa and then say if they are Brahmins or not. In 1st and 2nd citations itself there are clear details about their claims in Goa and Karnataka. Daivadnyas claim that they are descendants of Daivdnya or Vishwadnya, the younger son of Vishwakarma. Is this true or not? See I don't have any hatred against any community but I am againt the communities who use Wikipedia to mislead people and promote something else rather than the fact. Hope I answered you. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 08:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@MRRaja001 You still did not apologise for denigrating Daivadnya Brahmins by referring to them as "These Daivadnyas"! Citing their food habitats is one thing vs saying "they eat all kinds of non-vegetarian food" is derogatory in nature. Also the citations that refer to Daivadnya Brahmins are not accepted as "Brahmins", it is mostly in Maharastra as per the citations, then you cannot make a blanket statement like "They claim to be Brahmins and call themselves as Daivadnya Brahmins, however this is not accepted by the local Brahmins.", The first 2 citations, where does it say Daivadnya Brahmin's brahminhood is disputed? I didn't find it in "https://archive.org/details/peopleofindia0002sing/page/738/mode/2up?view=theater&q=Daivadnyas - K. S. Singh (1995). The Scheduled Castes." If you have the link to the pdf, please put the link here. The Vishwakarma theory, I am not sure if it true or not, all I know is that we Daivadnya Brahmins don't consider ourselves belonging to Vishwakarmas. Vernekar123 (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

An aside on Brahminhood

"Brahmin" at its inception was a jati. It was also designated as a varna. This double-existence is probably what led the British administrators to coin the word "caste" for both the concepts and pretend that they were talking sense.

This was not the case with the other varnas. Shudra and Vaishya were always varnas, never jatis. Kshatriya was initially a jati, but by the end of the Gupta Empire, there were so few Kshatriyas that they had to treat it as a varna, and admit new groups of people into it.

What this means for our purpose here is that Brahminhood is hard-wired into birth. People cannot be simply given "Brahmin status", unlike for the other varnas. (Kshatriyas were also not simply "given status", but were given concocted genealogies, thereby maintaining the pretense that the Kshatriya expansion was still birth-driven. But whoever was doing the concoction obviously knew what they were doing! "Vaishya status", on the other hand, is not particularly sought after.)

The upshot is that the Brahmins get to say who Brahmins are. Nobody else does. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I agree with you. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 05:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and MRRaja001:, exactly, I agree. That is why we have to write the issues with both GSB and Daivadnyas on their respective pages.LukeEmily (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)