Talk:Deshastha Brahmin

@Fylindfotberserk: Already discussion about this took place on Marathi Brahmin talk page. I think we don't need to discuss about it here again. What do you say? - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 23:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This @Fylindfotberserk: user is biased, look at this guy's constant and deliberate edits on this page with fake, poorly sourced "newspaper sources" . I want you Vikram Vincent, Sitush, @Jonathansammy:, User:Chariotrider555, User:AustralianRupert guys to take strong action against this person. Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Sid.ghodeswars: Do not restore your version, discussion is far from over. @MRRaja001 and Anthony gomes 92: It doesn't look like there was a consensus at Talk:Marathi Brahmin regarding the percentage of the Brahmins, with some people calling the 10 percent an exaggeration and at the same time 3-4% being an old data. In the current version of the Marathi Brahmin doesn't even mention the pecentage figures. I'm removing this contentious info for now from the article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CIVIL. There was no consensus in Talk:Marathi Brahmin either which MRRaja001 referred to. On the contrary to what you are manipulating out of MRRaja001's comment here, he and User:Acharya63 were in support of addition of the 9-10% stuff, while @Jonathansammy: was skeptical about it. The current version of Marathi Brahmin page do not have any percentage mentioned. It is better not to have it (3-4%) based on 1930s source. Also pinging @LukeEmily: - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I have pinged Admins and popular users let them decide you are biased or not by going through your deliberate edits and comments you put here on the talk page. Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm This talk thread is not for discussing my bias-ness. Instead POV pushing your changes without consensus is biased. You are crossing the line of

WP:CIVIL. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:INB. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, for population related questions I have inclination to trust government sources. Those are usually authored by multiple people. Anthony gomes 92 (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Fylindfotberserk "You are crossing the line of WP:CIVIL" this statement of yours I will take it as threat and will seek further actions against you. Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Citations to say that Brahmins are about 8-10% of Maharashtra state population:
  • Research:
    • "The Brahmin who form about 8% of the population of Maharashtra" - (Book: Irawati Karmarkar Karve; Yashwant Bhaskar Damle, Group relations in village community, Deccan College Post-graduate and Research Institute, p. 9)
    • Again Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, published a book in 2007 with the updates of population. (Book:Anthropology for archaeology: proceedings of the Professor Irawati Karve Birth Centenary Seminar. Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute. 2007. p. 158. While comprising only 9% of the Maharashtrian population, the eight endogamous Brahmin castes studied by Karve and Malhotra).
  • News & Magazines:
    • Outlook Magazine which says Brahmins are about 10 percent of Maharashtra population.
    • Daily News Analysis says "Brahmin leaders claim that their community accounts for an estimated 8-10% of Maharashtra's population across linguistic divisions and sects."
    • Pune Mirror, India Times says Ghaisas guruji said, “Brahmins make up 9 to 10 percent of the state population."
    • The Indian Express says "It is widely believed that people from the Brahmin community are well-to-do. That is not true. Almost 60-70 per cent Brahmins are poor, especially those living in rural areas,” said Anand Dave, president of Pune district unit of the Akhil Bharatiya Brahman Mahasangh. The mahasangh said that Brahmins make up 8-9 per cent of Maharashtra’s population, which is around 90 lakh."
    • Frontline, The Hindu says "In the numbers game, which is so crucial in influencing government policy, Brahmins do not do as well as Marathas. The Brahmin community forms about 9 per cent of the State’s population as opposed to Marathas who constitute about 30 per cent of the population."
    • Republic World says, While speaking to Republic TV, Akhil Bhartiya Brahmin Sabha’s Pune wing head Anand Dave said: "We welcome Maratha reservation but there is a misconception about our Brahmin community. People think that we Brahmins are well off but that’s not true at all. There are approximately 1 crore Brahmin population in the state. Out of this 1 crore, nearly 80 percent population is socially and economically backward".
    • India Today says, "For record, Brahmins contribute to around 10 per cent in the population of Maharashtra".
    • Economic Times also quotes Anand Dave - "Dave also said they would be soon meeting the Maharashtra Backward Class Commission to pitch for their claims. According to the latter, the state had around 90 lakh Brahmins and 70% of them are below the creamy layer, which means they would be eligible for reservation benefits."
    • The Free Press Journal says - "The Brahmin community has around 8 percent share in the population of the state which is around 90 lakhs."
    • Times of India says - Vishwajeet Deshpande, a functionary of the Samaj, said that the Brahmin community comprises 8% of Maharashtra's total population of 11.4 crore." — I think these citations are enough to say that Brahmins are about 8-10% of total population of Maharashtra. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 08:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MRRaja001: Well, 8-10% seems to be a widely sourced number in newer references. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Yes you're right. Seems like the Maratha groups such as Sambhaji Brigade are not happy with this numbers. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 08:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These newspapers are highely biased . In Maharashtra, people will die laughing if one says Brahmin population is 10% . You can find thousands of villages and towns without a single Brahmin household. Brahmin make 4 to 5 % of Maharashtra , 10% is an exaggerated figure using "Media houses" and "Newspapers". Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses reliable sources not personal opinions and news agencies like Indian Express and The Hindu are considered reliable as well as the researches by Karve. You've also removed sourced content in Mahar article and replaced it with your unsourced personal commentary. That's not how Wikipedia works. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fylindfotberserk Dont bring what I did on other pages here, stick to the discussion. Regarding your allegations, we have been discussing it Talk:Mahar here from last week and not a single word i wrote without a proper source. You better live in your limits Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stick to the discussion? Did you bother to see your past comments here? You brought a differnt article Marathi people article in the discussion and calling me names is not part of discussion either, which you did. Also you seem to have a POV, in the Mahar article you removed sourced content on the history of the people, that's what I said. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fylindfotberserk Marathi people has direct connection with the discussion that is why brought that topic here, Unlike you who brought irrelevant mahar article here this is ridiculous. Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every article needs to be independently sourced. It is core policy of Wikipedia. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am less inclined to trust caste organization leaders like Dave, many caste leaders have a habit of inflating their numbers to emphasize their strength. This is done by leaders of almost all the castes. Number 4% is from 1930 census and is old and Lele (1990) revived these numbers through his analysis in the 90s. It is hard to trust that number as a present-day representative of the Marathi Brahmin population. I am also less inclined to believe that the Brahmin population is increasing relatively faster pace than other communities (jump from 6% in 60s to 9% in 2000s). Being upper castes, they live on average the highest standard of living in the society - which is usually associated with low birth rates. My personal opinion is go forward with the last known government source on this which is Maharashtra Gazetteers. Also, Sid.ghodeswars, I would request you to please maintain civil tone in your conversation here, accusatory/confrontational tones are not helpful. Anthony gomes 92 (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Anthony gomes 92: FYI, it is not just Marathi Brahmin population. It is the population of Brahmins across linguistic divisions and sects in Maharashtra. That means it also includes Brahmins who migrated from other states too. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 23:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MRRaja001 That 9% number for Deccan College PGR Institute 2007 book is taken from this 1968 article by Karve and Malhotra and it is about 8 endogamous groups of Marathi Brahmins, not the migrant Brahmin population. 1970 Maharashtra Gazetteers says Brahmin population with other priests is 6%, where Karve is again involved as one of the Authors. Karve really does not look that reliable on numbers. Now Brahmin caste leaders say 10%. I have not seen castewise census number post 1931 census, except for SC and ST sub-caste population. In the 1931 census, their number was under 4%. I am not particularly opposed to the 10% number but with the above information it just does not seem reliable. I am leaning towards the 1970 Maharashtra Gazetteers 6% number. Anthony gomes 92 (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Anthony gomes 92: The first book "Group relations in village community" was a research work by Irawati Karmarkar Karve and Yashwant Bhaskar Damle. What we can say is Brahmins are more than 8% in Maharashtra at Present. Just analyse one thing, in 1931 census Marathas were 23.2 percent and now they are 30%. Coming to Brahmins, Brahmin leaders are claiming that the population of Brahmins is Between 8-10% and not exactly 10%. You are saying, According to gazette Marathi Brahmins were 6 Percent in 1968, then they must have increased now. Because the Brahmin leaders are quoting the percent of different linguistic Brahmins in Maharashtra and not just Marathi Brahmins. Let's see what the survey says - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 06:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@MRRaja001 and Anthony gomes 92: Typically ranges are mentioned when in a situation like this in Wikipedia. Wouldn't it be better to mention it as 6-10%, based on the the 1970's gazette and the newer sources, and leaving it to the readers' judgment? As for the newer sources coming from the caste leaders, the numbers are fairly constant, suggesting they have some basis. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MRRaja001: Is it possible that some native Brahmin groups like different Saraswats were left out in the 1970s gazette? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Yeah, you're right. I agree with you. In Maharashtra gazette they might have left Saraswats. But in "Group relations in village community", a research work by Irawati Karmarkar Karve and Yashwant Bhaskar Damle - Saraswats are part of 8 endogamous groups of Brahmins. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 06:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MRRaja001 I am not saying percentage of Brahmin population relative to overall population might have increased. It might have or might not have, we don't know that. Latest government source which provides us brahmin population is Maharashtra Gazetteer 1970, that is all I am saying. BTW, about the book, I was talking about Anthropology for Archaeology (2007) book from Deccan college PGRI and not the one by Damle. @Fylindfotberserk I am fine with 6-10% range. Anthony gomes 92 (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Anthony gomes 92: The Maharashtra Gazette book which you're referring "Maharashtra, Land and Its People was published in 1968 and it was republished in 1970. The content of the book in 1970 is same as 1968. Anthropology for Archaeology (2007) is not written by Karve. Karve died in 1970, how could she write in 2007. It was written by Subhash R. Walimbe, P. P. Joglekar and Kishor Kumar Basa in 2007 with updates to the data of Karve (1968). - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 07:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MRRaja001 I never said that Anthropology for Archeology (2007) book is written by Karve, don't know where you are getting that from. What I said is this - "That 9% number for Deccan College PGR Institute 2007 book is taken from this 1968 article by Karve and Malhotra and it is about 8 endogamous groups of Marathi Brahmins, not the migrant Brahmin population.", i.e, the numbers that are quoted in that book are taken from Karve and Malhotra's Journal Article (about 8 endogamous Marathi brahmin castes) published in 1968. Thanks! Anthony gomes 92 (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Anthony gomes 92: Looks like huge research took place on these eight Brahmin groups. If the eight groups, the Deshastha Rigvedi Brahmin, Chitpavan Brahmin, Karhade Brahmin, Devrukhe Brahmin, Madhyandhi Brahmin, Saraswat Brahmin, Kanva Brahmin and Charak Brahmin are 9% of Maharashtra population, then the Brahmin Sangh claiming more than 24 groups as 9-10% of Population should not be wrong. Perhaps the percentage should be more than this right. Then why shouldn't we mention 8-10% as Brahmin population in Maharashtra. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 08:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[3] In this 1970 Maharashtra gazetter source brahmin population is mentioned as 6% but the same source says "In Maharashtra, the scheduled castes form 5.63 per cent, of the population." How accurate is this source cause in 1930 consensus Mahar alone were 8% of the population and in Scheduled caste there are other caste like chamar , Mang. And Maharashtra government gives 13% reservation to Scheduled Caste so their population must be above 13% . Provided this we can verifye the given source's authencity. So, till we dont have authentic source it's better not to have Brahmin population on this page Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you bringing that British era source again and again for comparison? There were multiple consensuses at

WP:OR comments like "if X caste was at a higher percentage then Y caste must be lower". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

[4] this source is not british source it is government source I am pointing out how unauthentic this source is specially its statement "In Maharashtra, the scheduled castes form 5.63 per cent, of the population." this makes its authenticity questionable. Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC) .[reply]

I was pointing to your comment→ "How accurate is this source cause in 1930 consensus Mahar alone were 8% of the population and in Scheduled caste there are other caste like chamar...". No need to compare the 70s data which is far reliable than the British era 1930s sources which are deemed unreliable in Wikipedia. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay forget for a while 1930 sensus . The Maharashtra government gives 13% reservation to scheduled castes from 1950 according to their population. And your source says "In Maharashtra, the scheduled castes form 5.63 per cent, of the population." Any sensible person will immediately know that there is something wrong with your source. So why consider such sources as authentic one. Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back up you claim with sources, besides people getting the benefit of reservation is not the same as the real percentage of Scheduled Caste groups. Any sane Wikipedian knows that mixing two separate infos to deduce something else =

original research, which you seem to be alluding to. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

That would be a printing mistake, because the quote you are providing is in Page:76 of that book "The Brahmins together with other priests formed about 6 per cent of the population of Maharashtra." If you see page 82 it is said that "Maharashtra like the rest of India was an agricultural society made up of the following sets (1) about 70 per cent. people engaged in food procuring, (2) about 8 per cent. priests, (3) about the same percentage feudal lords, (4) 10 to 12 per cent artisans, (5) 4 per cent traders, (6) a few entertainers, and (7) a sprinkling of people not adjusted to the agricultural community. This is the picture as it existed around the beginning of the century. Before describing what the society is in the 1960s, certain other features need to be understood." Just analyze these, if priests were about 8% before 1960's at the beginning of century that means lets say 1901, how did they quote Brahmins along with other priests formed about 6 percent in page:76. Isn't this a mistake - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 11:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[5] This is data from Ministry of Social Justice Department. It clearly says Scheduled Caste population is 12% in Maharashtra. Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you see the note. It is according to 1961 census. By the way, why are you bringing up this Scheduled caste thing here. The discussion is about Brahmins in Maharashtra.- MRRaja001 ^(talk) 11:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to the topic Sid.ghodeswars, no need of bring other castes and deviate from the topic. This is WP:OR. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fylindfotberserk Please go through your comment where you are asking me "Back up you claim with sources, besides people getting the benefit of reservation is not the same as the real percentage of Scheduled Caste groups:" to answer this I gave that ministry data. Scheduled caste population is enough to proove that the given source is unauthentic. Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sid.ghodeswars: Census of India 1961, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Maharashtra in page 26 they are clearly saying that, "The population of Scheduled Castes in Maharashtra is 2,226,914, which is 5.63 per cent of the total population of the State." Hope you'll stop discussing about Scheduled Castes here — the above source of "Maharashtra, Land and Its People" is Yauthentic. By the way, this citation which you provided, which is saying Scheduled castes are 11.8% is according to Census of India, 2011. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 13:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

okay 1930 consensus says population is 4% and 1960 consensus says population is 6% If one has to add population related data on this page I will agree with "4 to 6 %" range . Scheduled caste population is mentioned as 5.6% because they did not count Buddhists as Scheduled caste. Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sid.ghodeswars: DO I have to repeat it 1000 times? 1930 = British Colonial period. British Colonial period = British sources. British sources are not considered reliable in Wikpedia. Forget about adding 4% here. And refrain from bringing other castes into the discussion, keep on topic "Brahmins of Maharashtra". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fylindfotberserk So it's better we dont add any population data here, and wait for "Authentic Consensus Data" provided by government on Brahmin population. Forget that I will agree with figures provided by highely biased 'Newpapers', 'Media Houses'. I can give thousand of articles and incidents to proove that "Medias and Newspapers" are biased. Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what kind of POV you are trying to push calling media houses "biased", but there is no blanket ban on news articles (On the contrary news agencies like Indian Express, The Times of India are very much considered reliable, visit RSN consensuses for that) nor sources posted by MRRaja001, but there is a blanket ban on British sources, if not refering to the particular British related topic. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MRRaja001: Regarding your analysis here, I tend to agree that it seems like a printing mistake. Since there are other sources mentioning a lower limit of 8%. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Since 8-10% seems to be a widely sourced number in newer references. Lets stick to this ranges until we get census data. (Another book published in 1983 is also saying Brahmins are 8% of total population) What is your opinion? - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 23:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree to that. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, I'm adding. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 11:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article says, and I quote, "The Deshasthas are historically an endogamous and monogamous community for whom marriages take place by negotiation. The Mangalsutra is the symbol of marriage for the woman. Studies show that most Indians' traditional views on caste, religion and family background have remained unchanged when it came to marriage, that is, people marry within their own castes, and matrimonial advertisements in newspapers are still classified by caste and sub-caste." Sources cited for the above (Bahuguna, and Srinivasa - Raghavan) are both from Hindu businessline website.Is that considered a reliable source / publication? If not that we will have to look for alternate sources. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]