Jump to content

Talk:Maharashtra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AMbroodEY (talk | contribs) at 09:36, 30 August 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RfC: Definition of Standard Marathi

My inclusion of the statement "Standard Marathi is defined as the language of the Deshastha Brahmins and the like, in and around Pune." has been disputed. The complete dispute is at: Talk:Maharashtra#Marathi_statement_disputeZuggernaut (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject iconIndia: Maharashtra / States B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Maharashtra (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Indian states (assessed as Top-importance).

In which sense is M. the most advanced state. Figures, facts?

Good start, but let's work on NPOV here.

"Maharashtra is the most advanced state in India". Like the above poster, I'd like to know "advanced" how? Number of cell phones? Poets? Lithium mines?

"It has a glorious history" -- Every place likes to think it has a glorious history. Let's just stick with the supporting facts.

Advanced in India =

We can say tha Maharashtra is the most advanced "Big" state in india as its GSDP is much higher than other states and its is most industrialised state in the country.~~~~

This is also teh state in which farmers commit most number of suicides every year for lack of ability to even feed themselves

I Guess that satifies ur demand for figures

I've added the figures from "Times of India" on the revenue collected from Maharashtra. Mahasrashtra adds about $20 Billion to New Delhi's cofers every year through taxes.

Temp page

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Temp pages for discussion of their use. I've removed the inappropriate message from the Article. Other editors should be aware that there is a Maharashtra/temp, and that this is being worked on in parallel with the article. They should therefore make any additions, excisions, corrections, etc., to both the article and the temp page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Groundnut

This page links to the disambiguation page groundnut, but I'm not sure which sense is intended. Can you help? Thanks. — Pekinensis 20:40, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked it to peanut. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:03, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. — Pekinensis 12:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

State animal

State animal: shekroo (giant squirrel): Ratufa Indica =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

Some of the entries are a bit obscure; what do "2nd" and "3rd" mean in this context? And what does "area magnitude=11 mean? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers are the ranking of the state with respect to population and area. For the magnitude see: Orders of magnitude (area). These fields are modelled on the Template:Infobox Country. See the India and Sweden pages for the implementation. See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian states. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

-

Thanks. I suppose that the worry I have is that the average reader is going to be as puzzled as I was; the box doesn't explain, and the use isn't obvious. Anyone involved in editing Wikipedia infoboxes will probably know, but we need to make it easily understandable for readers. Any ideas how that might be done? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know, the magnitude part is not known to the average user. But on the other hand, most fields are largely static and shouldn't face frequent editing. States are rarely split or created, so the magnitude should be static. Its not possible to add comments to these auto templates; the best thing to do I suppose is to check out the talk page where the link is present to the states' wikiproject. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:33, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

added a new template in the bottom

I have added a new template in the bottom. Any comments??? This could be made dynamic once consensus is rcvd.

The reason for the new template is that there is no single place in the main Maharashtra article where all major cities and districts is located. Also, I think the seal needs to brought down from the infobox

Pizzadeliveryboy 22:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maharashtra derives it's name from Mahars ?!?!?

The earlier revision of the article stated such arrant nonsense as the word "Maharashtra" is derived from the word "Mahar" !!!! As a Maratha, I take severe objection to this demeaning statement. No historian nor any researcher has mentioned this thing. This is somebody's fertile (or, futile) imagination at work. Just check the etymology section on the Maratha page. It gives the perfect etymological origin of Maharashtra. A word like "Mahar", which was used to demean the lower-caste people, a word which is no longer constitutionally correct is being used to describe our holy land, the "Maharashtra". It's someone's ploy of maligning the Marathi public. But we'll certainly not let them succeed.

As far as "Maha rathi" is concerned, it is mentioned in many great historians, scholars and researchers' works inc. Lokmanya Tilak. For your information, "Maha" means great and "rathi" means charioter. So, literally the meaning becomes "Land of the great charioters". New Rock Star 18:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - I was reading it as Maha Ratta and not Mahar Ratta.....Mahar Ratta is surely wrong - I havent found a ref to that POV anywhere except in some personal page in tripod....so that will go. However, rathi too is wrong since the correct word for charrioteer is sarathi, not rathi....rathi means valiant/great warrior.
Pizzadeliveryboy 19:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is one of the possibilities suggested on Maharashtra Govt website itself. Take a look at this link:http://www.maharashtra.gov.in/english/community/community_geo_profileShow.php

Another theory I read somewhere else(I am not sure where but I think it was either the Pearson IAS guide or Manorama year book) was that it is a derivative of the "Rashtrakuta" empire that existed before the Islamic conquests of the Deccan. Given that the Rashrakuta empire was located over western Deccan plateau and included most of modern Maharashtra, I feel this posibility may also be counted --Deepak D'Souza 10:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the references I have added to the statement. These are 1901 Govt. Of india's piblished documents. These are written by Mr. Russel in co-operation with Mr. Rai Bahadur Hira Lāl and by Mr. Riply after discussing with Mr. Bhandarkar. Thank You. There are few more descriptions in Huan Tsnags' diary about the people who resided in this region during his period which is written in Indian Census Report (1901). Please take a look and decide.--Layzyak (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying Mistake made in 1901 (unknowingly or purposefully), when foriegn invaders in india, who never wished localite indians to know their history, ability and traditions so it is easier to tame them, to enslave them; We are still Carrying !!! We are still insulting Maha-Rathi's for internal petty jealousies.

just because one person (Mr Rusell or whosoever) tells us, at one place, we forget 2000 years history that land of Maha-Rathi's have provided Great Ashoka, Empiror SataVahana, Emperor Rashtrakuta and King Shivaji with Best of Warriors. The Land which is so advanced and industrial today. Most funny JOKE is none of these historian are from Maharashtra, how can they be so sure about Maharashtrian history ! and how we know they are not baised.

Term Mahar is not at all demeaning because Maha-r have proved what indeed Great-Warriors they are by helping Shivaji build most swift, quick, robust yet light army. Yet again by helping British defeat Peshwas, when mistake was made to remove them from Maratha army. Mahar's are acknowledged hard-workers, may be reason why this land is was called Mara-Rathi's land in first place.

The fact still remains Indian slave mentality who just because XX person tells him, prefers to call fellow indians:Maha-Rathi's in demeaning way ! No concerns calling Maharashtra land of Maha-rs, But IT MEANS ONLY ONE AND ONE THING - LAND OF MAHA-RATHIs. We don't need Russel / Delhi Gazette to tell us, what Warriors Maha-rs or Maha-Rathi's are. It is already proved it When Satavahana and Maratha Kingdoms ruled more than half of India, when Ashoka and Rashtrakuta recruited warriors from this land. I don't think we need Indian Gazette for that, Do WE ?

Can I request you to put things in correct context in main article. Either say MahaRathi and Mahar both meaning great warriors; and Maha-Rashtra meaning great nation. OR Delete un-necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.86.33 (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audio

I hve replaced the computer generated voice with my own. I feel that the computer voice was not having he proper intonation & that an Indian voice would be much better here. Hope thats not a problem.

Thanks

Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 05:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Culture?

Surely Maharashtra has a substantial cultural identity, so why is there no mention of culture so far in this article?

good idea. suggestions for this section

added by user:tejas81

Second Capital?

An anon ([[::User:24.7.93.43|24.7.93.43]] ([[::User talk:24.7.93.43|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/24.7.93.43|contribs]])) has just added that Nagpur is the second capital of Maharashtra. I highly doubt that this is true, but can someone re-affirm this? I can't seem to find any reliable resources to refute this. Thanks --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 06:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the "second" capital. The winter session of the legislative is held in Nagpur, so it can be called as a winter legislative capital. I've heard reports that Nagpur was supposed to be a "backup" capital, but no sources to back it up. We'll have to revert. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nichalp. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 10:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ("anon") was the person who wrote Nagpur is the second capital of Maharashtra. I grew up in Nagpur and it is correct that the winter session of the legislative assembly is held in Nagpur. I have always believed this ... but here are two references: Govt web site for Nagpur: http://nagpur.nic.in/ - check history section, last line (1960). Maharashtra IT Parks, Nagpur History Page: http://www.maharashtraitparks.com/itparks_about_nag.htm

Later,

- Neeraj,

"Second" capital would be too vague without expanding on the exact status. (Compare with Jammu/Srinagar) Mentioning it as the winter legislative capital would be the correct thing to say. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is far. I made that change.

- N.

Let me rekindle this discussion. Nagpur is in fact the Second Capital of Maharashtra. History has it that Vidarbha had decided to join Maharashtra during the first state reorganization because of Nagpur pact. You can get a complete discussion of this from Indian Governments Rajya Sabha session dialogs mentioned here [1]. Open this link and search Nagpur. You would get it. I would try to find a better proof if you need more. I would changing the status of Nagpur in the article soon if I do not see anymore arguments. If you have anything more drop a message at gppande (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Maharastra the largest state in India?

I see conflicting data throughout the article in terms of size of Maharastra. I do know for sure that Maharastra is not the largest state ofIndia, also as per the area_rank feild my belief seems to be true. But somehow there are places in the article which it be the largest and provide numbers according to the claim. Can someone provide a proper reference about actual size of Maharastra and how it compares to the rest of states in India? Kedar 23:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leading industrial state.

There is a contradiction in the articles refering to the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat. Both are listed by Wikipedia as the countries leading industrial state.

Maharashtra's is India's leading industrial state contributing 13% of national industrial output. 64.14% of the people are employed in agriculture and allied activities. Almost 46% of the GSDP is contributed by industry

Gujarat is a state in the Republic of India. With 19.8% of the country's total industrial output, it is the most industrialized state in India. 141.109.96.97 20:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Although I'm not sure if the numbers are correct, assuming that they are the distinction given to Maharashtra in this article is false.[reply]

Problem with map in Firefox 2.0.0.4

I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.4 and the map is not showing up in the main infobox at the top of the article. If I hover over it, it appears to be a link, and if I click on it I get the map on its page. Other SVG maps, such as for Andhra Pradesh or Karnataka, do show up just fine, but all I see is an empty box where this one should be. --38.115.151.134 22:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Said what?

This paragraph is obtuse:


Prabhu Ramchandra touched this land previously known as 'Dandaka-Aranya' (Deep woods). Shri. Prabhu Ramchndra commenced his attack on Lanka from this land. Over the centuries, gradually this Dandaka-Aranya turned into the sacred Maharashtra. Religion, Philosophy, Technology, Arts, Knowledge, Bravery evolved here for centuries...Many dynasties from Satvahan to Shilahaar including Rashtrakut, Chalukya, Aadhin, Saindrikya, Kalchuri, Vakatak, Kadamba, Pallav etc. ruled Maharashtra rituously. Poets created Kavya-Kailas in this land. Sculptures crafted Kailas-kavya in black stones of Maharashtra.


Touched? Rituously?


and jumbled.


DrLeonP 08:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing the whole paragraph as obtuse. I was about to delete the whole paragraph. but thought I should mention it here first, wait for replies and then proceed to delete. "Prabhu raamchandra" is not exactly fit for history. The rest of the paragraph also sounds like a marketing pitch. The Kavya-Kailas and Kailas-kavya is 'brilliant' word play but not appropriate for wikipedia. I will delete the paragraph in a week if nobody replies with reasons why it should be kept. --Kaveri 19:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Music

HI Kaveri, i have removed the new subsection related to music as it has been already been put under Entertainment. Incase you still want to havea seperate section for music. Then i think you wil have to edit the Entertainment secion too. in my opinion just club them and add your info (Asro 07:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

Well, I wanted to write about all the genres of music, especially classical Hindustani. Maharashtra after early 20th century became an important place for hindustani vocal and has remained so. I wanted to write about that. I think music should be part of culture than entertainment. Also, I was trying to follow the structure of some other states. I didn't pursue it further as I did not have enough time to rearrange the exsting content. But will do that in a week. Will leave a post here about what I intend to do before I actually rearrange content. --Kaveri 17:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

There was an attempt to 'Kannadize' the article. I have corrected the opening paragraph of the article. Please remember we are INDIANS and we should respect the other regions of the country which do not speak the same language as ours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam.khawse (talk • contribs) 21:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forts and Trekking Spots

The list of forts in Maharashtra has been moved to a dedicated list page (needs work) to reduce the size of the article. An enthusiastic editor has also dumped the following list of trekking spots there. I thought it would be a waste to delete them. And so they are moved to below until we can find something better to do with them. - Mayuresh 16:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

101 Trekking spots in Sahyadris

  • Ajinkyatara
  • Ajoba
  • Alang
  • Avchitgad
  • Anjaneri
  • Arnala
  • Asherigad
  • Aundha
  • Ban
  • Bhairavgad (Koyna)
  • Bhairavgad (Malshej)
  • Bhudargad
  • Bhor – Wai (Satara)
  • Chakan
  • Chanderi
  • Chandan
  • Chandragad
  • Chavand
  • Dhodap
  • Dhak-Bahiri
  • Duke's Nose
  • Ghangad (Dhangad)
  • Gorakhgad
  • Hadsar
  • Haji Malang (malanggad)
  • Hargad
  • Harihar
  • Harishchandragad
  • Irshalgad (Irshaal)
  • Jivdhan
  • Janjira
  • Kaladgad
  • Kalsubai
  • Kalyangad
  • Kamalgad
  • Karnala
  • Kawlya
  • Kenjalgad
  • Kohoj
  • Korigad (Koraigad / Koregad)
  • Korlai
  • Kothaligad (peth)
  • Kulang
  • Lingana
  • Lohgad
  • Machindragad
  • Madangad
  • Mahimatgad
  • Mahipat
  • Mahuli (Bhandargad, Palasgad)
  • Malanggad
  • Malhargad
  • Manikgad
  • Mangi-Tungi
  • Moragad
  • Mulher
  • Naneghat
  • Padar (Bhimashankar)
  • Pandavgad
  • Panhalgad (panhala)
  • Patta
  • Peb
  • Prabalgad
  • Pratapgad
  • Purandar
  • Raigad
  • Rajgad
  • Rajmachi (Shrivardhan, Manranjan)
  • Rangana
  • Rasalagad
  • Ratangad
  • Ratnadurga
  • Rohida
  • Sagargad
  • Sajjangad
  • Salher
  • Salota
  • Samangad
  • Santoshgad
  • Sarasgad
  • Shivneri
  • Shivtharghal
  • Shirgaon
  • Siddhagad
  • Sinhgad
  • Sudhagad
  • Sumargad
  • Sundargad
  • Tikona
  • tahuli
  • Torna
  • Tringalwadi
  • Tung
  • Underi
  • Vallabhgad(vallabhgad.com)
  • Vajragad
  • vasai
  • vasota
  • Vandan
  • Vairatgad
  • Veru
  • Visapur
  • Vishalgad

Bombay Skyline

The B/W picture of the skyline is vertically stretched, the buildings are actually somewhat shorter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.179.10 (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


GDP

Tow issues. Number 1: In third paragraph of the introuction of the article, it says that Maharashtra contributes to 15% of Industrial output, whereas in the third paragraph of Economy section, the industrial output is 13%, Which is correct?

Number 2: Reference number three reports "In 2005-06, the state contributed 15% to India ’s industrial output and 12 % to GDP". Reference 4 says "Maharashtra contributes to almost 14.7 per cent of India's gross domestic product and 15.1 per cent of the national income." However the article says Maharashtra is India's most developed and urbanized state, contributing 15% of the country's industrial output and 14.7% of its GDP. Apparently, the big number from both the references have been randomly chosen.

Reference 3 is the worldbank website, which is a third party reliable source. Therefore, I suggest to correct the numbers. Docku (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation GDP share of the state in year 2004-2005 is 13.16 % and for year 2005-2006 is 13.2. However, the data for year 2005-2006 is not complete as it does not include J&K and Nagaland. However it can be said that the GDP is clearly between 13.1 to 13.2. Then why is worldbank reporting the GDP as only 12%? Where did they get that information from? Are they also writing things just arbitrarily? I hope not. In any case, I believe more in MOSPI statistics. Anyone has any opinion? Docku (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GDP/per capita

I guess Maharashtra has the highest GDP/per capita according to this table. Year 2005-2006 data is a reasonable data to include. All that we need to do is to devide the GDP by population. The problem is that we have reliable population data only from 2001. The information is from Ministry of Statistics of Program Implementation. Guess, it is a reliable source. Docku (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maharashtra is not necessarily the richest state in India. A more recent article referring to the data from Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Govt of India. Even some articles in Wikipedia have evidence to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshall1984 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most Urbanised State

According to this article, Tamil Nadu is the most urbanised state in India. This The Hindu article was published in May 2008. In contrast, the reference used in Maharashtra article is from data from 1991. Please correct me if I am wrong. If I am not wrong, we may need to remove the claim. Docku (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Maharashtra being the second most urbanised state is mentioned in the second paragraph of the economy section. Docku (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nikkul has unilaterally modified information without involving in discussion. I hope he will participate in discussion here before involving in such actions. DockuHi 22:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

maharashtra is not richest state of india there are other state has more per capita income then maharashtra like gujarat, goa, delhi and punjab so how could some user take fake data and make vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.185.163 (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maharashtra is richest state in term of GDP not per capita income. I am sure that country/State wealth is measured in term of GDP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KuwarOnline (talk • contribs)
The sources speak for themselves, inlcuding a WorldBank ref:[2]. Do you have any sources which contradict these. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

principal cities

The whole section is written in superlative and superfluos language lacking, in many cases, citations. Guess, it needs some work on it. DockHi 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Maha Vidhan election results.

I think the image is too crude, shows incomplete data - since Maharashtra was formed as a state in 1961 - and no other FA state articles like West Bengal or Kerala have such an image. I think image should be moved to some article which is about elections or article of Maharashtra legislature. --gppande «talk» 16:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Kensplanet (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that a photo gallery be added to show the great symbols of maharashtra. Also the indian state of Bihar has a photo galley and punjab pakistan. So why not Maharashtra.Dewan S. Ahsan 22:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Some aspects of this topic have already been addressed on your talk page by User:Nichalp. Here are some other points:
  • WP:INCITIES and WP:INSTATES are the guidelines governing the articles on Indian states and cities. and do not recommend a photo-gallery section.
  • WP:IG says,
"Wikipedia is not an image repository. The gallery tag is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. ... One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.
  • This is an encyclopedia and not a tourism brochure. Images are added that are directly relevant to the text and add to the readers understanding of the subject.
  • Bihar and Punjab (Pakistan) are poor articles to model this one on; instead you should be looking at the featured articles, which represent the best content on wikipedia. AFAIK there are no featured articles on cities/states (except Delhi and Karnataka, to which you added galleries recently) that have photo galleries.
If you disagree with the points presented by Nichalp or me, feel free to start a wider discussion on WT:INB and WP:VP to propose changes to the guidelines. Note that I plan to remove photo-galleries you added to Delhi, Karnataka etc after this discussion is complete unless we establish a different consensus. Abecedare (talk)
Delhi and Karnataka photo gallery are on the tourism section. I dont see why it should be delited and it can be hidden. There is a hide button for these sections so it makes no sense to erase it. It took me hours of hard work to put these galleries in place and as I states before there is a hide button. So I dont see why. Dewan S. Ahsan 23:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

They should not be there in FAs. Commonscat suiffices. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A photo gallery is not needed here as per WP:IG, also the images in particular sections are more appropriate. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holidays Maharashtra

This is a Best Travel and Tourism portal of maharashtra . . . www.holidaysmaharashtra.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holidaysmaharashtra (talk • contribs) 11:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Divisions of Maharashtra

Can someone please clarify the number of divisions in Maharashtra? Six or seven? Paalappoo (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Right now there are only six divisions [2].
The govt of Maharashtra has already decided to start a new official revenue division at Nanded dividing the existing Aurangabad Division in Marathwada region. The approval has already been processed on 5 January 2009 [3]. The new Nanded division will comprise of Nanded, Latur, Parbhani and Hingoli districts.
But, this new official division is yet to come to effect as of date. Hence, right now only Six Divisions. Nanded will be the Seventh Division. For more details, please see Regions and Divisions of Maharashtra. User:Despardes7 18:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Festivals in Maharashtra

My experience of staying in Maharashtra for 28 years tells me Diwali is still the largest festival in Maharashtra and not Ganeshotsav. In what sence it has been claimed that Ganeshotsav is the largest festival? Number of days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhi shidhore (talk • contribs) 12:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Border disputes

I think its worth mentioning the border dispute with Karnataka for Belgum district in this article. This border dispute article is already present in wiki so it can be linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhi shidhore (talk • contribs) 12:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ List of districts and divisions
  3. ^ http://www.sakaaltimes.com/2009/01/05203541/New-revenue-division-at-Nanded.html

Removed text violating copyright

Text in the section "Buddhist Era" was a near-exact copy of http://www.indiaprofile.com/religion-culture/buddhisminmaharashtra.htm; I reverted the edits recently made by an IP, --MegaSloth (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check style, language, accuracy

Quote 1: "Rajaram's nephew & Sambhaji's son, Shahu Bhosale [...]" Ampersands are not freely interchangeable with 'and'.

Quote 2: "In 1714, Shahu's Peshwa (chief minister) Balaji Vishwanath, helped him seize the Maratha throne in 1708, with some acrimony from Rajaram's widow, Tara Bai." When did this happen?

140.105.47.84 (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marathi statement dispute

Disputed statement: "Marathi as spoken by the Deshastha Rigvedi Brahmin community of Pune is Standard Marathi." Which Marathi is "Standard Marathi" is disputed issue. The cited source of this statement may be a WP:FRINGE theory. We need more than 1 source to prove that a certain Marathi is standard. Also the Maharashtra government [3] does not say that "Marathi as spoken by the Deshastha Rigvedi Brahmin community of Pune is Standard Marathi." --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Redtigerxyz, the reason for my revert was that the first ref added didn't mention the Deshastha Brahmin theory at all. What the second ref really says is that the community was involved in contributing to the grammatical structure of the language as they were employed by the princes and feudal in literary positions. Given that, adding this statement to multiple articles (Pune is another one) doesn't seem right IMO. —SpacemanSpiff 16:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute was over repetitive removal of content that complied with relevant policies including WP:SYN and WP:Sources by User:SpacemanSpiff ([4], [5], [6],[7]) although I am satisfied removing the content per the reason cited by User:Deepak_D'Souza in his edit summary [8]. We all need to follow WP:Goodfaith, especially those with administrative rights. Bhalchandra Nemade is a renowned scholar honored by the conferring of the Sahitya Akademi Award so I doubt WP:Fringe applies to his material. Also, I don't think there's violation of WP:NOR or WP:SYN if we simply cite a source saying that the Marathi of a particular community is Standard Marathi and another source saying that Standard Marathi is used for official government purposes as long as both sources refer to Standard Marathi and not standard Marathi. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the content does not comply with WP:NOR and WP:SYN. You still haven't shown that it does, with references. Combining two different sources that talk about things in entirely different contexts is exactly what is prohibited by WP:SYN —SpacemanSpiff 16:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The very first addition I made may not have complied with WP:SYN. I fixed that [9] and asked you to use the talk page if you had concerns about the corrected content. You completely ignored that and your edit summary shows that you did not even bother to check Nemade as cited [10] and went on to remove relevant content compliant with WP:SYN, WP:Sources, etc. You have removed similar content from other pages like Marathi [11] and Pune [12] ignoring Deepaks comment about keeping it in Marathi [13] Please restore the content to Pune and Marathi. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have frequently heard or read somewhere that Puneri Marathi is the standard dialect. However I am not sure that attributing the Standard dialect to one particular caste (which is bound to cause controversy) based on a single source is a good idea. Nothing covered in ethnologue [14]. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to taking off this content if there is consensus that this is potentially controversial content. However it does not seem to fit the definition of controversial as given in WP:Controversial (the only edit warring I see here is from admins). Also, I cannot agree with WP:Fringe as Nemade is a very well known scholar on the topic and has been honored by the one of the greatest awards the Indian government gives out. I cannot agree with WP:ONESOURCE either because it clearly applies to a whole article. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to this note on my talk page. You still haven't addressed any of the points put forward by the other editors -- WP:SYN - combining two different statements in different contexts in two entirely different books to arrive at one statement here is a clear violation, such topics need multiple credible refs that exactly say what you're trying to, else it is WP:FRINGE. —SpacemanSpiff 03:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your first deletion and edit summary response "such claims need hard references, the book doesn't contain the word "Deshastha" and it says "Standard Marathi" is the official language on P1" shows that you did not even bother to check the contents of the sources[15] because the source clearly mentions "The first problem they faced was which variety was to be taken as standard for description. This they solved by adopting the speech of Deshastha Brahmans of Pune." on the page numbers provided in the citation. On the same page, the source says "The language of Pune Brahmans was accepted as standard."
I find your edit summary response [16] to my request of using the talk page arrogant. Of more concern is your use of derogatory language towards me or my content [17]
For these reasons, I feel you should voluntarily relinquish your role as an administrator. I am requesting that you restore my content to Marathi in the lead and to Maharashtra and Pune in places you feel appropriate. Feel free to correct/modify the content if you feel it's in violation of any policies.
I am also requesting that you apologize for using derogatory language towards me or my content.
Since neither user:Redtigerxyz nor user:Deepak D'Souza have followed up on theWP:Fringe issue, I am assuming they are satisfied with the explanation I've provided. As mentioned earlier, the WP:SYN, if there was one at all, was addressed immediately after your first deletion[18]. Nonetheless, another source that analyzes the issue is Ramchandra Vithal Parulekar; Vaman Pandurang Khanolkar, eds. (1965), Indigenous elementary education in the Bombay Presidency in 1855 and thereabouts: (being a departmental survey of indigenous education), Indian Institute of Education, p. 262
Since we have been unable to sort this dispute yet, and my content is still excluded from the articles, I have requested help from Wikipedia:MEDCABAL Zuggernaut (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to show a bit more patience than that. Just don't take it for granted that because someone hasn't responded immediately that they are in agreement; they could be busy with other things. And going to Meditation cabal so quickly for just one line is definitely overkill. Firstly, about Nemade: the Sahitya Akademi gives awards for literature, not for research. So the award he recived for literature cannot be taken as a blanket endorsment of his research by the Sahitya Akademi. Secondly, without casting aspersion on Nemade himself, lingusitic researchers can be rather one sided in their approach. That is why any such claim, when contested, should be verified by multiple independent sources.
Comming back to the "Deshasta Brahman dialect" bit, there are a lot of questions:
  1. Is this dialect really a distinct dialect as recognised by linguists?
  2. Was it really different when compared to other dialects spoken in the region? Or was it similar to other dialects with a few particular caste-specific terms thrown in?
  3. Assuming it was really different, didn't the decision to pick up a dialect of a particular caste meet with opposition from other castes, such as the numerically superior and politically stronger Maratha caste? I assume that it should have; atleast that is what happened with Konkani.

--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I read somewhere in Nemade or somewhere else that there are 30-40 "dialects" but the variation amongst most of them minor.
  2. There were some significant difference from 1-2 dialects.
  3. I read somewhere in Nemade that there were not political-communal conflicts in this context. Zuggernaut (talk)
ANother thing, issues are taken to the mediation cabal only after there is a consensus among the disputing parties that the issue is going nowhere and that the MedCab is the only option left. Next time you take an issue out of one page, especially to an important forum such as the Mediation Cabal, do have the courtesy to at least inform the concerned edtiorts at least on the talk page and also preferably by sending a message to the editors and giving them a link. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did inform on this talk page, just a few lines above at 22:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC) that this is being taken to the cabal. I went to the cabal not just for the content disagreements but also because of the use of derogatory language [19] and because user:SpacemanSpiff placed an intimidating warning message on my talk page [20] when I have no prior history of such behavior and have always demonstrated that I am willing to talk/discuss.
Please take a look at the table below and that should put an end to WP:Fringe, Nemade's reliability as a source and the whole dispute in general.
Nemade and other sources discuss the three points you bring up above but I will differ that discussion for now since the table in the Sources section below eliminates the need for doing so.
The sources provided should take care of the choice of the words used but it's commonsense to keep in mind the general spirit and the historical background. The first person ever to compose in Marathi was a Deshastha Brahmin (Mukund Raj). The literature is replete with how Deshi of the Pune Brahmins became standard Marathi. Deshastha Brahmins are the oldest Maharashtrian Brahmins. The only other large group of Maharashtrian Brahmins are Konkanastha who are unheard of in India until the 18th century and they spoke a different language called Chitpavani Konkani. Please let me know if I can restore my content to Marathi (lead), Maharashtra and Pune. I intend to use this phrasing: "Standard Marathi is defined as the language that is spoken by the Deshastha Brahmins of Pune."[1][2][3] Zuggernaut (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medcab

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-15/Deshastha Brahmin

Sources

I am providing yet another source so including Nemade, we now have three four six sources supporting the disputed statement. I have provided counter arguments in the third column regarding why I find Nemade a reliable source. The table:

Source Relevant quote/explanation from the source supporting disputed content Justification of WP:Reliable Source
Ramchandra Vithal Parulekar; Vaman Pandurang Khanolkar, eds. (1965), Indigenous elementary education in the Bombay Presidency in 1855 and thereabouts: (being a departmental survey of indigenous education), Indian Institute of Education, p. 262 No quote, only data. Page 262 of the book has tables showing the teachers and their castes. These teachers were trained in one particular Marathi and then they were sent all over Maharashtra to teach that dialect as standard Marathi.
  1. Reputed editorial board
  2. Published by a relevant governmental institution
  3. Cited by numerous other researchers
Nemāḍe, Bhālacandra (1990), The Influence of English on Marathi: a sociolinguistic and stylistic study, Rajhauns Vitaran, ISBN 9788185339788 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) The first problem they faced was which variety was to be taken as standard for description. This they solved by adopting the speech of Deshastha Brahmans of Pune.[4] Nemade has a detailed discussion (section 4.4, pages 98-101) on the standardization of Marathi. He gives and explores the six factors that affected the development of Standard Marathi. The Deshastha Brahmin claim features in one of the six factors. Detailed, expanded quote is here.
  1. The Sahitya Akademi Award (2nd highest award in India) he received was in the same sub-genre as the source being used in support of the disputed statement.
  2. He holds degrees in relevant areas, i.e., linguistics AND literature. He holds Ph.D and D.Lit degrees and is thus a very well qualified researcher. Also, the boundaries between literature and linguistics vanish at these high levels of study.
  3. He has taught at various reputed universities including at the University of London.
  4. He has several publications to his name in areas relevant to the disputed statement. These publications build on work of previous reputed researches. The publications have also been cited in numerous places.
Candy, Thomas; Candy, George; Kalelkar, Narayan Govind; Molesworth, James Thomas (1975), Molesworth's Marathi-English dictionary, Nirali Prakashan, p. Ten, ISBN 9788186411575 The work of the dictionary was undertaken at the behest of Mountstuart Elphinstone who was Governor of Bombay. Marathi was defined as the speech of Deshastha Brahmans and the like, spoken in and around the region of Poona.
  1. The publication has been in circulation since 1831 with several reprints in 1857, 1975, 1982, 1986, 1991, 1994, 1996, 2004, 2005
  2. Numerous other reasons - see next row
Bloch, Jules (1970), The formation of the Marāṭhī language, translated by Dev Raj Chanana, Motilal Banarsidass Publ, ISBN 9788120823228 The dictionary of Molesworth which is the work of a group of local scholars is the best available dictionary of any modern Indo-Aryan language.[5]

The 1831 Candy, et al work was very comprehensive and till now remains authoritative.[6]

From a reputed publishing house on Indology, builds on a plethora of other work, cited elsewhere, scholarly work, etc.
Ghagve, Balshastri; Phadke, Gangadharshastri; Joshi, Sakharam; Shukla, Dajishastri; Godbole, Parshurampant (1829), A Dictionary of the Maratha Language, Bombay: at the society's Press (In McDonald) "This is a dictionary...of the words which appear in the ordinary speech of Deshastha Brahmans and others living in the Maharashtra country" A product of the planned standardization of Marathi by the British Indian government
Nemāḍe, Bhālacandra (1990), The Influence of English on Marathi: a sociolinguistic and stylistic study, Rajhauns Vitaran, ISBN 9788185339788 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) "The pronunciation of the Dehsastha Rigvedi gains prominence"[7] See Bhālacandra Nemāḍe
McDonald, Ellen E. (1968), "The Modernizing of Communication: Vernacular Publishing in Nineteenth Century Maharashtra", Asian Survey, Vol. 8, No. 7, Modernization in South Asian Studies: Essays in a Changing Field In the first dictionary of the Marathi language of 1829, the authors are blunt in identifying that the social group whose speech formed the basis of their dictionary was the Deshastha Brahmans and others elites.[8] Well respected University of California, Berkley researcher; the dictionary itself is another product which is separate from Molesworth but it came from the same office overseeing the standardization of Marathi under the government of Bombay province.

Zuggernaut (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been busy in real life, so have been late in responding. My observations:

  1. Response to "Standard Marathi is used for official government purpose": Neither the Maharashtra government nor the central government (Anthropological Survey of India "Maharashtra" p. 10, Ministry of Culture [21]) say that "Marathi as spoken by the Deshastha Rigvedi Brahmin community of Pune is Standard Marathi". Though both of them talk of variants, both of them DO NOT say that a certain Marathi is standard Marathi. This is surprising if "Marathi as spoken by the Deshastha Rigvedi Brahmin community of Pune is Standard Marathi" was not a FRINGE theory.
  2. About the table:
    1. Ref 1: making a claim that Marathi spoken by a community is "standard" on basis of Marathi teachers of that community is WP:OR
    2. Ref 2: Nemade talks about some "they". Who are the "they"? Also, Nemade does NOT say at least in the quote that "Marathi as spoken by the Deshastha Rigvedi Brahmin community of Pune is Standard Marathi", he only states that "they" chose it. Also Sahitya Akademi Awards are given for specific work(s) of the author. Did Nemade get it for this book?
    3. Ref 3: Some 1831 dictionary using a particular dialect as its standard does not make that dialect is an universally-accepted standard. This reference may not reflect the current standard of Marathi. Books like Marathi p. xliv (1997) by linguist Rajeshwari Vijay Pandharipande and Marathi: Introduction chapter (2009) by Ramesh V. Dhongde, who has also authored Oxford English-Marathi Dictionary, do not say that "Marathi as spoken by the Deshastha Rigvedi Brahmin community of Pune is Standard Marathi". Again such omissions question if this theory is not WP:FRINGE.
  3. Also Deshi = Marathi only spoken by Deshastha Brahmins is WP:OR. Deshi is a Marathi dialect spoken in the Desh, Deccan plateau in and around Pune. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In [22], Ramesh V. Dhongde pp. 11,139 are used as a reference for the theory. I could not find anything saying so on the pages. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The terms Deshastha and Deshastha Rigvedi have historically been used interchangeably by scholars. I will stick to Deshastha for brevity and uniformity. Reliable sources Dhongade & Wali clearly make this statement on page 1: Standard Marathi is the official language of Maharashtra.[23] Reliable sources Nemade (pages 98-101) and Candy et al (page Ten) clearly perform a detailed analysis and discussion of this mainstream, non-controversial and universally accepted view. Their exact statements are given in the table in [24]. The entire quote (answer to "they") is already provided in [25] Does a reliable source have to earn an award for every book for it to qualify as WP:RS? Incidentally, the award was in the same sub-genre that's being used here. He is very well qualified. For details of his qualification as a RS see the third column of the table in [26] The Desh argument was provided to help remind keeping the spirit of the argument in mind. I do not intend to include it in the article. You are welcome however to point out WP:OR or other flaws in that argument as it might be helpful in other distant articles. Candy et al is not some dictionary - it was commissioned by Mountstuart Elphinstone who was a scholar, wrote many books on India and a pioneered the standardization of the language and is still remembered and honored in Mumbai (amongst other things, there is a college named after him). It is easy to dismiss anything that doesn't fit a pre-determined POV as Fringe. I urge people involved in this conversation to be open to change their POVs and we can get out of this and continue work on other pages (I am working on Upanishads, Third Anglo-Maratha War - feel free to contribute there). The Standard Marathi viewpoint is such a non-controversial, universally accepted and mainstream viewpoint that most people don't even notice it in day to day life as is apparent in all newspapers and media all over Maharashtra (I don't intend to use this in the article but feel free to look at [27], [28], [29], [30]) Zuggernaut (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. D'Souza & Zuggernaut, Numerically the Marathas were and are superior. However, when you are dealing with an era when most communities were forbidden to be literate, then the community which holds monopoly on learning, i.e. the brahmins, can influence what is the "standard speech". As to why Deshastha and not Kokanastha accent for the standard speech could be something to do with politics of early 1800s. I am just speculating here. As a deshastha myself, I can say that my relations from different parts of Maharashtra have different accents. Some of my distant rural deshastha relations speak in the same accent as their Maratha neighbours. But overall, our family, including our close Kokanastha relations, speak in the "standard accent". Well, this my two pennies worth to the debate. 74.9.96.122 (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons for that - amongst Brahmins, Deshastha were the most populous and Konkanastha have virtually no history in India prior to the 18th century. Upon arrival in India they spoke a different language, that language was affected by local Konkan dialects and when they finally arrived on the Desh, they adapted the language of Deshasthas though some nasalized usage is still prevalent. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two different disputes are getting entangled here. My dispute with User:SpacemanSpiff involves use of derogatory [31] language and intimidation [32]so let's treat that separately from the content I would like to restore to Marathi, Pune and Maharashtra. I am creating a new section to focus on the discussion regarding whether the content is admissible.
The issue of allegations of use of derogatory language and intimidation is not to be discussed here. This is not the right page. We will focus on the disputed statement's insertion in Maharashtra (first as its talk page) then Marathi and Pune (I have not seen where exactly the disputed statement was added there) afterwards: 3 separate issues. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The statements removed from the Pune and Marathi articles were similar to the one here. Because of the similarity and keeping mind the spirit of the issues, we can club content related issues together. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Marathi dialect dispute

Content I would like to include in Marathi (lead), Maharashtra and Pune:

I am proposing that we follow this 4 step process to bring this to closure.

  1. Reliability of sources. Clearly agree or disagree which sources fit WP:RS
  2. Do the RS' support the content? Analyze content from the RS' to conclude whether it supports the statemet or not
  3. Whether there is a WP:SYN violation when the two statements are juxtaposed.
  4. Agree on whether the statement should be included in the articles as proposed or whether modifications are required.

Step 1 - Reliability of sources

  • Nemade is a RS because of the reasons cited in the table in Talk:Maharashtra#Sources section. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Candy et al are RS because they are a dictionary of long standing repute (reprints spanning almost 200 years), they were originally commissioned by the government as part of an effort in the standardization of Marathi so the British administration could govern the province. Participants in composition of the dictionary were people from various cross-sections of society including Deshastha and Konkanastha Brahmins. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source Zuggernaut Redtigerxyz Deepak D'souza Other users, add columns
Nemāḍe, Bhālacandra (1990). The Influence of English on Marathi: a sociolinguistic and stylistic study. Rajhauns Vitaran Yes, this is a RS ? ? ?
Candy, Thomas; Candy, George; Kalelkar, Narayan Govind; Molesworth, James Thomas (1975), Molesworth's Marathi-English dictionary, Nirali Prakashan Yes, this is a RS ? ? ?
Dhoṅgaḍe, Rameśa; Wali, Kashi (2009). "Marathi". London Oriental and African language library (John Benjamins Publishing Company) Yes, this is a RS ? ? ?

Step 2 - Do the RS' support the statements?

  • Nemade supports the content because he says:

This is a part of the detailed discussion Nemade gives on pages 98-101 (section 4.4) about the six different factors that influenced the standardization of Marathi. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Candy et al also support the statement because they clearly state[33]:
User Nemade Candy et al
Zuggernaut Yes, Nemade supports statements Yes, Candy et all support statement
Deepak D'Souza Example Example
Redtigerxyz Example Example
Other users Example Example
Other users Example Example

Step 3 - issues

  • "Standard Marathi is the official language of Maharashtra." Though the reference is a RS, for official language usage - government sites are the best RS as the government decides what is an official language. They use "Marathi".
IMO, the Dhongade & Wali reference serves the purpose.[34] I understand your POV but I think Dhongade & Wali is just as good a reference as any. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see references in Languages with official status in India like the Constitution of India that give "Marathi" (not standard Marathi) the status of official language.--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are several dialects of Marathi such as Ahirani, Dangi, Samavedi, Khandeshi, Standard Marathi, Warhadi, etc. Standard Marathi has become the de facto dialect and hence any reference to just Marathi defaults to Standard Marathi. This is still unchallenged on [35] the Marathi page "Standard Marathi is based on dialects used by academics and the print media, and is influenced by the educated élite of the Pune region." Zuggernaut (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Standard Marathi is defined as the language that is spoken by the Deshastha Brahmins of Pune. Standard Marathi is the official language of Maharashtra [4]" is WP:SYN as Ref [4] Dhongade does not define Standard Marathi "as the language that is spoken by the Deshastha Brahmins of Pune."
You are right - Dhongade & Wali don't say that. That's why we have to evaluate if it's WP:SYN to juxtapose the two statements. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is SYN as the following definition: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research."--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. We can now just focus on the first statement. "Standard Marathi is defined as the language that is spoken by the Deshastha Brahmins of Pune." Zuggernaut (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parulekar Khanolkar ref is an instance of WP:SYN again.
It' not WP:SYN, it's WP:OR (since we have to interpret the tabular data of castes) so we'll have to leave it out. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Parulekar Khanolkar ref was a ref to part A. Anyway, it is OR. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The theory of Nemade is a WP:FRINGE as not universally accepted or noted (not mainstream view). If it was an universal, popular, notable view, why is it not mentioned by government sites and most scholarly books that refer to Marathi in the context of Maharashtra? Why only 2-3 references (a characteristic of a FRINGE)? Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (initiated Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Marathi) can be approached for validation of this postulate. (applicable to all 3 articles)
Nemade's is a RS and probably the best on the topic, his analysis is well researched, well analyzed and builds on other prominent researchers. Nemade's work has been cited by other scholars elsewhere. The theory is supported by the original government officials who set out to standardize Marathi (Mountstuart Elphinstone's team]). It's not a fringe theory as it is supported by independent sources, it's mainstream and it's universally accepted. The process of standardization is centuries old that's why it perhaps isn't a topic of discussion anymore (These videos illustrate that: [36], [37], [38], [39]) All newspaper media, TV news casters speak standard Marathi. All sources being quoted are RS par excellence. All these fit the definition of what a fringe theory is not.Zuggernaut (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The dispute is NOT if Marathi is standardized, the dispute is about the definition of standard Marathi. None of the "newspaper media, TV news casters" say that the Marathi used by them is "the language that is spoken by the Deshastha Brahmins of Pune". What is done above is SYN again. Standard (dialect of) Marathi is often described in various books as Puneri or Deshi, spoken by people in and around Pune or the Deccan's Desh region, but without the mention of Deshastha Brahmins specifically. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." The mainstream view does not define standard Marathi as "the language that is spoken by the Deshastha Brahmins of Pune". I reiterate: If it was an universal, popular, notable, mainstream view, please explain why is it not mentioned by government sites and most scholarly books that refer to Marathi in the context of Maharashtra? Prove that the definition is mainstream and universal, only 2 references do not prove that it is universal.
  3. "The theory is supported by the original government officials who set out to standardize Marathi": What the British Raj government officials did in 1831 (about 180 years ago) may not reflect the current standard Marathi. Language changes. Research is time-bound. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that statements of independent sources (Nemade and Candy et al) who are reliable and fit all other WP:Sources criterion constitute a fringe theory. Your association with British Raj is WP:SYN. You are implying that the British Indologists had an agenda. The Candy, et al work was done by Indian pandits as noted and it is best in class. It is an excellent source supporting Nemade. Sure things are time bound and language changes but the general direction remains the same unless there is a complete reversal of policy or a conscious re-direction. Unless you can provide sources clearly stating that there was a reversal of government policy to adapt a different caste's language, say Mahars as standard Marathi, we have to go with the last known good data/sources which is "Standard Marathi is defined as the language that is spoken by the Deshastha Brahmins of Pune." Your theory is fringe unless you can provide multiple independent reliable sources clearly stating that there was a reversal of policy to adapt a new dialect as standard Marathi. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pune - it's about the only main language of Pune, it's about the largest group or sub-group of people in Pune and it is of interest to all, so it's very relevant to the article and I don't see it as UNDUE. Same thing for Maharashtra, except that it's about the largest Brahmin caste in the state and it's about their language. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion - unless there is a RS that specifically says "X as spoken by Y is the official language of Z" do not include it. Without a single RS saying this specifically, we are going into OR and SYN territory here. The references currently given by Zuggernaut are not enough to claim "Standard Marathi as spoken by Deshastha Brahmins is the official language of Maharashtra". If this is indeed the case, i am sure there will be much more RS to back this up (not just Nemade's book alone). Please find one such reference and this whole argument becomes unnecessary.--Sodabottle (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. The matter now to be sorted out is only if the first part of the statement is admissable - "Standard Marathi is defined as the language that is spoken by the Deshastha Brahmins of Pune." (comment by Zuggernaut)
I agree with Sodabotle. When the first sentence of the para is going to be put besides the second part, it gives the implicit meaning: "Standard Marathi as spoken by Deshastha Brahmins is the official language of Maharashtra", which both the references (assumed RS) quoted above do not explicitly say (Read SYN). --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I urge participants to fill out the tables in this discussion to establish reliability of sources and other matters. I have already left messages on User:Deepak D'Souza and User:Redtigerxyz's pages on two previous occassions asking them to do so. If there isn't a response, I hope you will not mind if I fill out default responses in the affirmative. If you find it cumbersome to fill out the table, feel free to provide a textual response below and I will move it to the table. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not fill the default as negatives? --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because I believe in constructive, creation-oriented editing rather than suppression-oriented editing as defined in WP:SPIRIT. I am beginning to feel that the spirit of the subject is not being kept in mind and policies are being used only to suppress editing. And perhaps that's because this has become an egotistical battle - having started with one position, the opponents don't want to change their POV despite ample evidence against their position. I will enter a negative response against your name if you explicitly state so. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Step 4 - Result

I request Zuggernaut to respond to my 4 point reply above. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to your four points though some of it is repetitive. Please be open to changing your POV. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allegation Explanation Result
User:SpacemanSpiff claimed that added content doesn't exit in the cited sources[40][41] Simply pointed out the page numbers in the cited source (Nemade) [42] In favor of Deshastha Brahmin claim
User:Deepak D'Souza alleged WP:ONESOURCE[43] Provided more sources [44] In favor of Deshastha Brahmin claim
User:Sodabottle and others - WP:SYN[45] None, agreed that it's WP:SYN to juxtapose the two statements[46] Can't juxtapose the two statements
User:Redtigerxyz - WP:Fringe Thrown out by fringe theory notice board [47] In favor of Deshastha Brahmin claim
User:Redtigerxyz - WP:Reliable Sources[48] Provided justification for why sources are reliable[49] In favor of Deshastha Brahmin claim
User:Redtigerxyz - Specific use of "Deshastha Brahmin" is not allowed [50] Pointed out fallacy of composition and other flaws in argument[51] In favor of Deshastha Brahmin claim
User:Deepak D'Souza - Google search doesn't yield results to "Deshastha Brahmin dialect"[52] Pointed out straw man fallacy in the argument [53] In favor of Deshastha Brahmin claim
References
  1. ^ a b Parulekar & Khanolkar, p. 262.
  2. ^ a b Nemāḍe 1990, pp. 90–101, 139. sfn error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFNemāḍe1990 (help)
  3. ^ a b Candy et al. 1975, p. Ten.
  4. ^ Nemāḍe 1990, pp. 101. sfn error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFNemāḍe1990 (help)
  5. ^ Bloch 1970, p. 38.
  6. ^ Bloch 1970, p. Foreword.
  7. ^ Nemāḍe 1990, p. 139. sfn error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFNemāḍe1990 (help)
  8. ^ McDonald 1968, pp. 589–606.
  9. ^ Dhongade & Wali 2009, p. 1.

Fringe theory for Maharashtra, Marathi and Pune

The British government, in the early 19th century performed a planned standardization of Marathi language in order to govern the Bomaby province. This was done under the leadership of the governor, Montstuart Elphinstone. Bhalchandra Nemade and several other researchers discuss this in great detail when giving an account of the history of the Marathi language. The two dictionaries quoted in the above section were a product of the British governments efforts to standardize the language. I have seen no evidence in literature that the policy of that government was reversed by subsequent pre-independence or post-independence governments - say by attempting to develop a standard based on the language of the Vidharbha people (Warhadi dialect) or that of the Marathas, so on. Unless we have sources that say clearly that another attempt was made to define standard marathi, we'll have to go by the last known good data/sources.

I have claimed that User:Redtigerxyz is propounding a fringe theory [54] by suggesting some invisible hand came in to play to change the direction of development of Standard Marathi and that suddenly sometime between 1831 and present day, the dialect of another caste was chosen for development as a standard.

I urge User:Redtigerxyz to provide sources per WP:Sources to discredit my claims. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said before that "Standard (dialect of) Marathi is often described in various books as Puneri or Deshi, spoken by people in and around Pune or the Deccan's Desh region, but without the mention of Deshastha Brahmins specifically." Read read my comments, before making allegations.

The definition ("Standard Marathi is defined as the language that is spoken by the Deshastha Brahmins of Pune.") proposed by Zuggernaut alienates other residents of Pune, emphasizing on one particular group; giving the impression that it was solely the language of that group. Candy et al also writes "the speech of Deshasth Brahmans and the like, spoken in and around the region of Poona." I suggest the definition as "Standard Marathi is defined as the language that is spoken by people in and around Pune.", which encompasses the definitions of Nemade and Candy. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major flaws with Redtigerxyz's proposed statement and arguments stem from the fallacy of composition:
It streams from WP:SYN. No synthesis here. The references say it explicitly.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Reliable Sources High level, generic sources. The sources User:Redtigerxyz has provided are high level, generic sources, i.e, their focus is not on the development or history of Marathi. ASI book has a completely different focus, i.e., the People of India and has nothing to do with the history of Marathi language. The same is true for the remaining sources. Compare this with the sources I have provided Talk:Maharashtra#Sources - all of them deal very specifically with the history, development or modernization of the Marathi language.
Please check your facts. Rajeshwari Pandharipande and AnSI [56] also has linguists. Pandharipande and The Imperial Gazetteer of India use Deshi implicitly. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OR. Keeping in mind that the caste system has been illegal and outmoded for more than 3 generations now, Redtigerxyz's suggestion that my proposed statement alienates other residents of Pune is WP:OR. This is especially true for the Brahmins of Maharashtra for whom the sub-caste boundaries have virtually vanished.
"This is especially true for the Brahmins of Maharashtra for whom the sub-caste boundaries have virtually vanished.": If that was the case, then the word Deshastha is not needed. Right? The definition proposed by Zuggernaut alienates all the Konkanstha Brahmins like some of the Peshwas, the Karhades etc. who influenced the culture and language of Pune. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spreading misinformation in Wikipedia's voice. Generalizing and providing generic information when detailed studies have been performed to track down and identify the very specific sub-caste from which the standard was derived is spreading misinformation via Wikipedia. Generalizing to Pune implies that Standard Marathi is based on the language of other castes in Pune such as the Maratha, Kunbi, Mahar, Mang, etc. Standard Marathi is clearly and definitely not that according to the very same sources you have provided.
The dialect called Deshi was used as standard Marathi, say the references. That is not misinformation. The references does not define it as the language of any caste. The misinformation would be implying that Deshi was the language only of a certain caste. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Detailed, focused studies have identified that Standard Marathi is based on the elite or Brahmins. Within the Brahmins, multiple independent sources confirm that it is based on the language of the Deshastha Brahmins and the like.
  • Molesworth wasn't the governor. Elphinstone was. Literature is rich about the efforts of the Elphinstones government to commission people like Molesworth, Candy, Ghagve, Phadke, Joshi, Shukla, Godbole, etc to standardize Marathi. This effort was carried out under a specially designated office with it's own budget, staff, etc.
Provide proof from official British Raj that this theory is true. The Imperial Gazetteer of India does not say this.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Redtigerxyz's proposed statement is a victim of the logical fallacy of composition in that it generalizes from "Deshastha Brahmins of Pune" to simply Pune, giving the wrong impression to the reader that Marathi spoken by all other castes/communities was included in Standard Marathi.
OR. No proof in the references that a such a generalization has occurred. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose to chose from one of the two factually accurate statements which eliminate the fallacy of composition. These are supported by in-depth, focused studies in the direct area of the disputed statement.
  1. Standard Marathi is defined as the language of the Deshastha Brahmins and other elites from Pune.
  2. Standard Marathi is defined as the language of Pune's Deshastha Brahmins and the like. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried my best to look for sources that match your claim and found that there is a very serious problem: No single book defines a "Deshastha Brahmin dialect". Most searches in Google books state something like this: "the dialect spoken in Pune is considered to be the standard". Not one single book directly links the standard dialect to "Deshastha Brahmin dialect". And the reason is not hard to find. There is no such dialect[57]; atleast it does not form a distinct dialect as recognised by linguists. The most I can agree based on everthing that I have read is that Pune, as the cultural heart of Maharashtra played a major role in its development and that the Brahmins there had a signigficant influence on the development of Marathi by virtue of their monopoly on education. But this does not automatically translate into a statement that their dialect was the standard. Such an inference is purely synthesis. Especially when the alleged "Deshasta Brahmin dialect" isnt recognised as a distinct dialect. The map in this book [58] only refers to a "Desi" dialect which is consistent with all other books I found. Nemade is the only one who makes a specific claim. Molesworth's ME dictionaly also links it to Deshasta brahmins" but it is not an excusive link. Note the language: "Marathi was defined as the speech of Deshastha Brahmans and the like, spoken in and around the region of Poona." which definitely states that the standard dialect wasnt exclusive to the Brahmins alone. It also states that words from Konkani, Rajapuri and Wadi were included. So , Standard Marathi is not exclusively Deshastha Brahmin Dialect(even if you can prove that it is a distinct dialect). As of now the claim is still very weak. Period. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Deepak D'Souza is committing the straw man fallacy. He has introduced his own new term "Deshastha Brahmin dialect". He's then attempting to weaken the credibility of that term (and supposedly of my content) by showing a Google search doesn't yield results. I propose a choice of two very well-sourced, historically accurate statements:
  1. Standard Marathi is defined as the language of the Deshastha Brahmins and other elites from Pune.
  2. Standard Marathi is defined as the language of Pune's Deshastha Brahmins and the like.
The references including linguists and government (Indian government and British Raj) call it - Deshi: the language of Pune, not of certain castes. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this discussion has been going on too long and in loops. We should resort to formal mediation. I propose we wait until Friday, August 27 and then take that route. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I propose Wikipedia:Requests for comment instead. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zuggernaut and D'Souza, "Marathi was defined as the speech of Deshastha Brahmans and the like,. Question is who is the author talking about when is says, "the like". "The like" from that period can only be other brahmin sub-castes such as kokanastha or Karhade or the other educated caste of CKP resident in Pune. Standard Marathi is also regarded as the "white collar" urban speech or even the "brahmini" speech. An encyclopedia is there to present facts as they are and not to be "politically correct" as some others have implied it should be.Anandbharti (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anandbharti - I am in agreement with you. There is anecdotal evidence for the like being Konkanastha Brahmins, Karhade, educated CKPs but none of the authors are willing to explicitly say so. So I would still go with a statement like "Standard Marathi is defined as the language of the Deshastha Brahmins and other elites from Pune". But we have a bigger issue here with since User:Redtigerxyz is implying that all other castes like Mahar, Mang, Kunbi and Maratha contributed to Standard Marathi without presenting sources. And User:Deepak D'Souza is moving the discussion in a wrong direction by proposing a new term "Deshastha Brahmin dialect". Zuggernaut (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming about "anecdotal evidence" is OR. I am not intending on defining standard Marathi in terms of castes. Please do not interpret my comment that way. I proposing that standard Marathi be defined in terms of the dialect it is based on - Deshi - the language of Pune, as defined in these references. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Marathi dispute - new phase

User:Redtigerxyz's allegation of WP:Fringe was thrown out by the relevant board [59]. I am starting this new section so we can discuss User:Redtigerxyz's new allegations against the inclusion of this content:

User:Redtigerxyz is now claiming that the Deshi variety/dialect of Marathi is Standard Marathi.

(1) User:Redtigerxyz's strategy is to ignore the detailed and specific sources and instead rely on general sources. Researchers have worked hard and zeroed-in on the smallest sub-group of people, i.e., Deshastha Brahmins and the like, in and around Pune as the source of Standard Marathi. User:Redtigerxyz needs to disprove this by producing sources that say, for example, Maratha caste's language was used in standardization. Instead User:Redtigerxyz has introduced the general term "Deshi" and equated it with Standard Marathi. All that the sources provided by User:Redtigerxyz do is they establish that the terms "Standard Marathi" and "Deshi" can be used interchangeabily. The six sources I have provided have done an under-the-microscope study and concluded that Standard Marathi comes from a very specific sub-group of people belonging to a certain caste and belonging to a specific geographical region. Why should we ignore this and instead adapt the very broad term "Deshi" which includes many groups and many geographical districts, the Deshastha Brahmins and the district of Pune being one of the many. The sources User:Redtigerxyz has provided for this are peripheral to the subject with their main focus being either the people of Maharashtra or the wide, general scope of the Marathi language. They study the subject amongst other subjects from 20,000 feet. Compare this with the sources I have provided (Talk:Maharashtra#Sources) which study sociolinguistic, stylistic and modernization ascpects of the Marathi language under a microscope. (2) Another allegation User:Redtigerxyz has made is that since sub-caste boundaries have vanished, we no longer need the word "Deshastha". I do not agree. Vanishing of caste boundaries should not prevent us from providing historically accurate information backed by reliable sources in accordance with WP policies. Also, documentation of Chitpavani Konkani being the mother tongue (and not Marathi) of the Konkanastha (Chitpavan) Brahmins is replete. (3) The third allegation made by User:Redtigerxyz is about Elphinstone and Molesworth, the information for which was already provided in the Molesworth dictiorary, page Ten in the table here Talk:Maharashtra#Sources. Here it is again: [[60]]. I have made a request for comment. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from User:Zuggernaut: Nemāḍe, Bhālacandra (1990), The Influence of English on Marathi: a sociolinguistic and stylistic study, Rajhauns Vitaran, p. 98, ISBN 9788185339788


no where has Nemade explicitly defined standard Marathi as "the language of the Deshastha Brahmins" He has only said that the language of Deshastha Brahmins affected the standardization of Marathi. No source provided in Talk:Maharashtra#Sources. Please provide a concurrent reference that defines explicitly that Standard Marathi as this.
Reply to allegation 2: I have NEVER said that caste boundaries have disappeared. To contrary, it is you, Zuggernaut [61] who said: "This is especially true for the Brahmins of Maharashtra for whom the sub-caste boundaries have virtually vanished." Please check your facts before making allegations. "If that was the case, then the word Deshastha is not needed." does not imply that I said that caste boundaries have disappeared or I have supported the view that caste boundaries have faded. The references I provided including linguists Rajeshwari Pandharipande and Dadoba Tarkhadkar, "the Panini of Marathi" say that the Pune dialect/Deshi dialect from Pune was considered standard.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Redtigerxyz has cherry picked Nemade's quotes and ignored the relevant quote:
I have countered all of the allegations of WP:Fringe, WP:ONESOURCE, WP:SOURCES by providing appropriate information and yet User:Redtigerxyz continues to push a particular POV even after an external, neutral board such as the fringe noticeboard ruled in my favor.[62] Why should we exclude the disputed content from the articles anymore?
"Pune variety" is yet another name for the same dialect and doesn't do anything to warrant exclusion of my content. Caste system has been illegal and outmoded for more than three generations but we still need to report accurate information. So the inclusion of the word Deshastha is not only apt but irreplaceable. All that the sources provided by User:Redtigerxyz do is they establish that the terms "Standard Marathi", "Deshi", "Pune variety" can be used interchangeably. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the quote you quoted about too. I just wanted to point out that Nemade refers to the dialect called "Pune variety". It is the references I quoted that say that Deshi dialect, spoken in Pune and around, is considered Standard Marathi. This definition of standard Marathi they provide. The fringe noticeboard has not ruled in anyone's favour. A proposal by Zuggernaut in this matter was also rejected. IMO, the definition of standard Marathi should be defined in linguistic terms as based on the Deshi dialect. I will wait for RFC comments, before I comment on this page again. Bye. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Redtigerxyz alleged WP:Fringe against my content shown at the top of this section. User:Redtigerxyz's allegation was thrown out by the fringe theory noticeboard [63] so why should we simply accept User:Redtigerxyz's POV and continue to exclude my content? My content has been lying in talk-space and out of article-space for more about 3 weeks now. I am a newbie on Wikipedia whereas all of the people I am defending my content against are experienced users such as User:SpacemanSpiff, an admin, User:Deepak D'Souza another very experienced user and User:Redtigerxyz who has been around very long. In fact User:SpacemanSpiff has left a warning on my talk page to block me regarding the very same content.[64] I feel intimated because if I go ahead and include content in Marathi lead, Maharashtra and Pune, I might be blocked. I welcome help from any other editors or admins who can insert the one line above in the three articles. I will take off the content if the RFC [65] comes back negative. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zuggernaut is just exhibiting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The issue was not "rejected" at WT:FTN, rather identified as a content dispute. Simply accusing other editors when ones own sources don't support the statements is ridiculous. The Nemade ref clearly states that the Pune variety was the basis for standard Marathi, subsequently stating that the upper classes dominated the education . Clearly this is a case of one user blatantly POV pushing and trying to hide that by accusing others of POV pushing. As for the other points, a vast majority of sources out there clearly state that the Puneri or Deshi variety is Standard Marathi. Britannica states "the standard form of speech is that of the city of Pune." Simply put, a vast majority of the scholarly sources, including the other encyclopaedia record it as such. My first revert was of [66] edit where he quotes this book, pages 11 and 139. Page 11 is about "Nasalization of vowels" and page 139 is about "Noun formation: suffixation", nothing relevant to the content added; and he accused me of many things for that revert. Unless Zuggernaut can discredit all the sources that refer to Puneri/Deshi as standard Marathi and why his stray mentions and synthesis should be accepted as gospel, this is a case of POV pushing. —SpacemanSpiff 20:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WT:FTN clearly threw out User:Redtigerxyz's allegation stating unambiguously that it's not a fringe theory.[67] It is now a content dispute where experienced Wikipedia are not following WP:Goodfaith and are acting against WP:SPIRIT. User:SpacemanSpiff quickly (within 2 edits) slapped a block warning on my talk when I had clearly communicated to him that we should talk first. I have an outstanding dispute with against User:SpacemanSpiff [68]] so I will let that dispute resolution process speak for itself. User:SpacemanSpiff claims that he is an admin who is open to recall (scroll down this diff [69]) but won't step down, nor will he take off that claim from his user-space. I ask yet again to give up the use of his administrative role and the tools that come from that role. All that User:Redtigerxyz's sources do is they establish that Puneri, Deshi and Standard Marathi are synonyms. Puneri means "from Pune" or "of Pune" in Marathi and "Deshi" means "of the country" in Marathi. The sources I have provided clearly give the history, origin and the basis of Standard Marathi. Once again SpacemanSpiff, consider stepping down as an administrator. Zuggernaut (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just respond to this nonsense once because it keeps coming up again, I am not going to step down because someone is upset that I'm not open to their POV edits. Period. I'm not going to waste my time discussing that nonsense, but once again, no, you have not proven anything yet, other than of course that you have a point of view and that everyone else is wrong according to that. —SpacemanSpiff 20:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to give it another try to see if you had realized your mistake and were willing to apologize and step down - you are free not to do so but I would ask that you remove that claim from your user-space. If you change your mind, feel free to apologize and step down anytime and I will be more than happy to withdraw the dispute resolution case [70]. As far as the content dispute goes, all these have been exhausted WP:Fringe, WP:ONESOURCE, WP:Sources, WP:OR so the way I see it is experienced users don't want to change their POV and User:SpacemanSpiff doesn't want to admit his mistake of wrongful removal of my content without checking sources (histories and edit summaries show it all). The content I have presented for inclusion is backed by 6 high quality sources and the sources clearly and unambiguously support the content. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents

As someone who is a non-Brahmin Maharashtrian I can vouch for the fact that dialect of urban Pune is indeed considered to be 'posh' or 'proper' and yes indeed given Brahmin predilection and indeed dominance over education, it is conceivable that Brahmins of Pune may have had disproportionate influence over Puneri marathi, the dialect (it is in all fairness an "accent" rather than a dialect) is no way exclusive to Brahmins of Pune.

At the end of the day what are the users pushing for the POV trying to prove anyways? That Maharashtrians are still regressive and retrograde and hence even unable to overcome their petty caste pride? Well good job in that case... AMbroodEY Reloaded 09:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maharashtra&oldid=381849278"