Talk:Gramanya

Addition of Different Gramanya case and their impact

I have added gramanya in detail community wise,it’s result and further impact.I have tried to normalise the content.Any suggestion for any way of developing this page is welcome.NO POV push accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40F2:101C:3806:5C1D:6C3C:BF50:3023 (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits as they still have many problems. Please keep to the Manual of Style. And don't change the current Citation style (i. e. don't make a Works cited section, when there's already a citation/References section) Nobody (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

(moved from user talk)@1AmNobody24I have seen the sentence and reference two times.Not a single mistake is there can you please point me out if you find the grammatical mistake anywhere.Some reference are following older version and some are peer to peer journal.Now due to complete revert.Already 3 times it have been modified and May lead to the list of vandalism.Please self revert and leave the changes in the talk page which will be completed in next two hours. 2409:40F2:101C:3806:5C1D:6C3C:BF50:3023 (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@2409:40F2:101C:3806:5C1D:6C3C:BF50:3023 Not a single mistake? Example 1: which was not rare in the state of Maharashtra mainly during peshwas rule. Bad grammar and no source, could also be considered WP:OR. Example 2: The Efn in your Deshastha Brahmin and chitpavan section is copied from Deshastha Brahmin. Example 3: All your sections titles use ===...===, when they insted should be ==...==. These and many more are problems you need to address before readding any text. You can use your sandbox to work on it, but don't add it again without discussion or you will be reported for edit warring. Also don't call edits you don't agree with vandalism, that word has a different meaning on Wikipedia. I will not self-revert for obvious reasons and I hope you can see too that you additions need to be improved. Sincerely Nobody (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@1AmNobody24Nice then let me recheck the grammar once again.In this case I’ll add after changing the content.Deshastha page contents have been deleted already,Good reference will remain as it is not against any wiki policy.

Regards, 2409:40F2:101C:3806:5C1D:6C3C:BF50:3023 (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hope this correct works well as I have removed deshasthas page content and reference(Except gramanya).I have Checked grammar completely and references has been altered in traditional way.Incase if any changes are required let me know .

Regards, 2409:40F2:101C:3806:5C1D:6C3C:BF50:3023 (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Stop vandalising

@LukeEmilySorry to say this,second time you are vandalising the content without reason.Seems like you may be against any caste or in favour this doesn’t look nice to revert without meaning for an editor(Even you previous edits are making it clear-Probably against one caste).Talk page is there here to discuss the things.Hope you should not forget that this is Wikipedia and this platform is for all.I have given reference and added the content just by terming someone as sock don’t try to revert the things.If you feel I am sock my IP is there discuss with respective team regarding this. coming to your content,Deshasthas gramanya was solved that’s what I mentioned.karhade(Padye) was not solved if yes give the reference and alter.Saraswat was solved two times (Gaga bhatt) and court case both I have given reference. CKP was solved by Shankaracharya. Daivadnya case didn't got solved if you have reference then add the content.Hope it’s clear 2409:40F2:8:1DB9:74F1:CF8C:4BF6:BC47 (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@2409:40F2:8:1DB9:74F1:CF8C:4BF6:BC47 Please stop using the word vandalism for clear good faith edits. See WP:ATWV Nobody (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@1AmNobody24Good faith edit was those which cited the problem as you did .But this user is not even mentioning the problem and reverting without any justification,user @LukeEmily is taking contents personally as that user may belong to that caste(I didn’t meant to heart any caste instead explained gramanya).As I know Wikipedia is not restricted to anyone but sorry to say this I may be wrong.Before reverting incase if the content have the problem he/she should discussion here in the talk.Monopoly doesn’t look good atleast being editor.Hate towards one caste and obsession towards other caste can’t be a sign of good editor.Isn’t this violating Wikipedia's policy. 2409:40F2:30:3200:ED72:DF49:711B:E608 (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@2409:40F2:30:3200:ED72:DF49:711B:E608 You normally discuss it before the inclusion or after it was reverted (See STATUSQUO, BRD). user @LukeEmily is taking contents personally as that user may belong to that caste That sentence is clear prejudice, don't do that. Also per Wikipedia:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material and per Wikipedia:DUE: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Nobody (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@1AmNobody24No issue for further information just see the conversation of mrRaja and Lukeemily.Well it is non of my business,I am clearly stating my contents are neutral and as per reference.Even then without any reason just by terming someone as Sock if everyone starts reverting then where is the scope for new ideas?

Wikipedia may become factory of WR:POV users.Ex:She mentioned saraswat are not accepted as Brahmins but I have given peer to peer journal and publications which clearly states gaga bhatt and Bombay court gave clear verdict.He/she told deshasthas and karhade have solved issue as acceptable by others if so she can add the information by giving reference.Isn’t it? 2409:40F2:30:3200:ED72:DF49:711B:E608 (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss welcomed regarding the topic

Expecting information about Devrukhe and kramavanth Joshi. 2409:40F2:104C:6028:D12B:1E0:6328:CAE9 (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@LukeEmilyI will be waiting for your justification regarding the allegations you have done against me which is void of Wikipedia policy.You wordings reference is as below

” The content is the same as what a sock was trying to add on other Brahmin pages but was rejected by editors. A gramanya needs to be described in detail to give all views. Cherry picked fringe events for Karhade and Deshastha Brahmins were resolved and they were accepted as Brahmins by other brahmins but for Saraswats the Brahmin claim was rejected by other brahmins. The edit by IP gives a distorted view”

Prove that I am Sock(Refer x-tool) as copying perfectly cited content within Wikipedia comes under it's policy.Deshasthas(yajurvedi) and Karhade(Padye) were contested for their Brahmin claim and I have given reference it’s a part of gramanya(Yes I have told in the opinion of Author that Gaud saraswat and deshasthas these two were administrative Brahmins so this gramanya was political from Chitpavan ).The gramanya content what ever happened cannot be a view of author instead it’s an instance.Prove that Saraswat Brahmin are not Brahmins I have clearly given two main references of Gagabhatt(Leader of that century) and Bombay high courts clear verdict is there that they are Satkarmi Brahmins(Full fledged).When the issue has been ended by court and scholars ,You are sticking on sentence “other Brahmins didn’t accept!”

what it means?

My question is why other Brahmins will or should accepts when their own claim

is contested for the example Chitpavan and karhade origin?whatever is there in origin that will be final.For Chitpavan,Gaud saraswat,karhade origin is described in only one book called shahyadrikhand.Kalhana’s Rajtarangini ,Brahmandapurana and even Maratha kaifiyat(Peshwa era) clearly states saraswats as Brahmins.They have their own guru and shishya Parampara and 90% saraswat Brahmins are Madhwas so this is why Shankaracharya didn’t interfere during gramanya.In madhwavijaya it has been mentioned that Madhwacharya gave Deeksha to saraswat Brahmins personally going to Goa.Till 14th century madhwa deshastha and Gaud saraswat had same mutt in Kumbakonam ,it got separated in 15-16 century)(Can you contradict this?@MRRaja001-This user is expert in Madhwa related topic even I am taking him to loop).

secondly I have seen your all edits in Gaud saraswat brahmin page where you have given completed distorted view as it should look like they are Vaishyas(I can prove that picking and arranging topic distortion where all real information became miscellaneous).I have seen you have given opinion of authors who are not even sociologist.(I shall list it out).

Coming to your edit in saraswat Brahmin page you have removed their main most accepted origin of Parashurama and added some local story of Balochistan applicable to Balochistan saraswat(If exists) and there you have mentioned “low caste”.You cannot mention this sentence based on one author it should be based on multiple author as per sitush guidelines.This is what we call picked information even you forgot that Saraswat Brahmins page contain Kashmir Brahmins,Punjabi saraswat,Brahma Bhatt etc.Kashmir saraswat are those infront of whom Shankaracharya was suppose to proved advaita(Shankaravijaya explains about this and read about mandana Misra ).How about your edits in Lohani caste ?(Let me discuss these in their respective caste as you didn’t mentioned this here).

I will stay and wait for your reply as I cannot see Wikipedia diverting out of its original idea and becoming POV factory.

Regards,

Dr.B.K.Karanth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40F2:104C:6028:D12B:1E0:6328:CAE9 (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, where have I removed the Parshuram origin? It is still on the page along with the drawing of Parshuram! Please check. Even scholars of modern times are not considering Shenvis as Brahmins. Only the ones in north (like Kashmiri Pandits etc.) are considered Brahmins. And maybe some Madhva Saraswat Brahmins. The others like Shenvi are not Brahmins as per many sources although they call themselves GSB. The Guru Parampara is used for claiming Brahminhood as one scholar says. The Deshastha and Karhade Brahmins are 100% pure Brahmins - no one disputes it today. But even modern scholars are not in consensus on the varna of Shenvi. The modern scholars are also saying that the GSB manipulated Skanda Puran to improve their status. My research started because Sitush pointed out some inconsistencies about Saraswats in wikipedia. I will reply in detail on saturday or sunday. LukeEmily (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@LukeEmily@MRRaja001Research should include deep analysis with multiple authors pointing towards single issue.I can show you the list of authors who claim that they are full fledged Brahmins.Didn’t I mentioned Gramanya of deshasthas and karhade.Brahmin status of Karahade is disputed in Karnataka till date.

Here the main point is Skandapurana is the only source which describes the origin of karhade,Chitpavan and gsb l and was used by deshasthas not by saraswats.One author is claiming that it was edited but many are claiming that it’s a original book.How come you mention as them as non Brahmins?.

shenavis-Probably your own reply is still there in chats that you are confused about shenvis and gaud saraswat Brahmins.First get it cleared about shenvis .Mainly gagabhatt and court both accepted their status as Brahmins then why are you adding speculations of authors here?

That’s ok I have seen even economists in gaud saraswat page which sort of research is this,can an economist be a socialist ?

You can see the sitush clearly told the neutrality maintenance.Where is it followed ? Karanth1234 (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@LukeEmilyGuruparampara cannot be used to claim Brahminhood as madhwacharya himself came to Goa and gave Deeksha.Further deshastha brahmin gave deeksha for new muth formation. Didn’t you edits look like one sided ? Karanth1234 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Karanth1234:, you wrote Brahmin status of Karahade is disputed in Karnataka till date.. Please provide a good citation for it. Attacking other established Brahmin communities will not help raise the status of a community that claims to be Brahmin. Shenvis are generally not considered Brahmins(please see the sources) and Rege's book. The British did not consider them Brahmins either. Yes, they can claim to be anything - no one can stop them. But others have freedom of speech too. What economist are you talking about? What is his/her name? Please be specific. Why are you focussed on Gaga Bhatt from Shivaji's time? What about Pune Brahmins? Shenvi Brahmin claim was not accepted even in the 20th century. We only have to write according to the sources. If you feel that the views are one sided, please provide opposing views from acceptable sources so we can add them. I feel opposing views are already given on the GSB page. Skanda Puran has been interpolated for giving Brahmin origin to GSB - and the scholars say that this manipulation has been done by Saraswats themselves.LukeEmily (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@LukeEmilyGagabhatt was a learned scholar of that time who was famous for Shivaji’s coronation.who are Pune Brahmins?Chitpavan-Did deshasthas considered them as brahmin,I can cite bunch of references where they were portrayed as non Brahmins.

karhade-Can you show me a single citation which deny Gramanya against Karhade(Padye,Bhatt-Prabhu).Many authors claim them as non Brahmins.Don’t worry I am developing content for this page which excellent resources.

Deshastha -Truely they are Brahmins no doubt but show me a single dispute initiated by deshasthas against saraswat regarding brahmin status.No doubt their relation was not good due to politics which they did for centuries under Deccan sultanate and Vijaynagar.Based one one scholars view you cannot come to conclusion about Skandapurana,few scholars claim deshasthas altered that to show chitpavan as inferior.So you cannot come to conclusion keeping Lewit,Deshpande into consideration.

Anyhow Now let’s come to discuss,tell me what’s your objection on the content uploaded by me. Karanth1234 (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@LukeEmilyEven now you are speaking only about shenvis my discussion was regarding well established Gaud saraswat Brahmins(Shastikar,Bardeskar,Pednekar).You have given all the references on shenavis .Do they represent the GSB as a whole?Isn’t it void of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view ?Nice to see you and Ekdalian reply at a same time.Anyhow recheck your way analysis regarding GSB.I went through all the references it was solely written on shenavis of Maharashtra.I found that neutral reference was given by @MRRaja001 which you were about to delete.Anyhow I’ll come back there in that page. Karanth1234 (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@LukeEmilyWaiting for your objection regarding the contents.If not by default it will be added back.Hope you will raise your objection about this.Discussions are welcomed. Karanth1234 (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding content back

@LukeEmilyI am adding the contents of my research back seems like your revert is not justified as it is your perception.You can raise the issue if you have strong proof against the gramanya of deshasthas and karhade. Karanth1234 (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey Karanth1234, your edits seem to violate NPOV! Please continue the discussion with involved editors like LukeEmily, and achieve consensus first. Unnecessary edit warring won't help! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@EkdalianThe contents uploaded by me doesn’t remove any edits of LukeEmily.Instead it adds my research separately,hope this clarifies. Karanth1234 (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I would like to hear from LukeEmily! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@EkdalianDon’t forget that Wikipedia is free Encyclopedia .Anyhow that user can express positive discussion but cannot deny just by POV. Karanth1234 (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@EkdalianThats better let the user confirm about the removal of any research work if not I can revert that. Karanth1234 (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ekdalian@LukeEmilyI have kept the issue for discussion if anything exists.These are my contents,content of gramanya are constant and cannot be modified.

Hope if any discussion is there you can raise,If not I’ll revert.Since I didn’t altered anyone’s work and I have given valid references it cannot be reverted without any reason.@MRRaja001(I am taking you to loop:If objection is there)@Jonathansammy(Only person I remember along with sitush,I am taking you to this discussion loop). Karanth1234 (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Karanth1234, why are you so restless! I understand you are a new user; please be informed that we have waited more than a couple of weeks in order to add a single well sourced statement in such contentious articles (in order to achieve consensus)! In your case, it's a question of major changes and experienced editors like LukeEmily have earlier raised concerns! Read WP:SPA, and wait for others' response instead of pinging editors repeatedly! I believe, regular editors here are more aware about this topic, therefore I shall respond only after hearing from them. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@EkdalianHope you should know that I am Wikipedia editor from past 12 years(May be in break from past few years).I know how system works here,I hope you may know that there is nothing called experiences here it’s all about protocol based content with citations. It is all about discussions regarding problems and coming to consensus.Sorry to say this,I had added contents 5 times and got reverted.That’s ok then the person who reverted doesn’t discuss.So the question is what was the reason for reverting and not being administer reverting others research materials without reason doesn’t look nice .Anyhow no worries as I told I'll wait for fruitful discussions with non Point of view pushing editors but waiting time is limited not unlimited. Karanth1234 (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)