Talk:Mahar

Commented out text from header section;

"IS THIS REFERRING TO THE MAHAR SPECIFICALLY??????? OR TO DALITS IN GENERAL????? IF THE LATTER5 THIS IS TOO MUCH A DISCURSION. These people were forced to be untouchable and people who are treated inhumanly by caste Hindus.^[1] Their economic status changed after joining British Army and some left their untouchable traditional jobs.

Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Cant see your cite but, this article is about "MAHAR".Blueyarn (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NOR. Unsourced will be removed. Blueyarn (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This section goes on and on about Sai being Nana Peshawa, without giving any reference. Even with a reference, how is this relevant to the article on Mahars? As for the rest of the section about 500 Mahars defeating thousands in Peshwa army, it completely misses the historic context of defeat of the Peshwas by the British. Yes, the untouchability and brahminical rituals (karmakanda) perpetuated by the Peshwas, and their influence on Mahars in specific and Indian sociopolitics in general are relevant topics that need discussion, but as things stand, the whole section reads like rantings of a bitter conspiracy theorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.15 (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This section does not contribute anything beyond an unsourced "just so story" to the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.15 (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: This could be the article in which you are interested. This article is a start class article, you can improve it if you are interested. --Human3015 knock knock • 22:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But this needs the attention of someone with a background in sociology. The one sociological work I have read, Vijay Prashad's Untouchable Freedom, does not talk about Mahars. -Mohanbhan (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Does the Kulkarni source actually support all of the long list of varied occupational roles that are given in the article? I cannot see the entire source and I am concerned that various things may have been added to the list over time without actually verifying to the source. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, at least part of it seems to be a copyright violation of the Britannica source. I now wonder whether the Kulkarni one really only supports the watan claim, in which case we may have an issue because I don't think Kulkarni says that all Mahars (or even most) received those land grants. - Sitush (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tiven2240: regarding this edit, are the Mahar even present in the other states of India in any significant numbers? I understand what you were trying to do but there may be a better way to deal with cramming that amount of detail into the lead section.

Also, I am going to remove the script - please see WP:INDICSCRIPT. - Sitush (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: thanks for your edits. As per current I don't find them in more than I've mentioned in the article, if find any sources that they exists in other states too I'll add up in the article. Happy editing :) --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 16:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I will simplify it later. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush:, According to the Indian census of 2001, there were 64 Mahars in Arunachal Pradesh, Its reference is available in this article. Please, refer to the reference in the table of the Mahars population by the states. Thank you. Vijay bramhane (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Vijay bramhane (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

All of this details for 10s and 100s of people in a state seems daft to me. We don't need a table and can convey the general picture much easier using prose. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The states and territories with the highest absolute population are "major" areas compared to those with lower populations. I do understand that the population density in Goa is particularly high but density is not the way in which most people read the word "major" in this context. That's one reason why I reverted the recent anon edit. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://literarism.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-mahar-movements-military-component.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Is Mahar Encyclopedia regarded as a reliable source ? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Jonathansammy, No definitely not, here they are suggesting that they are just mirroring other encyclopedias? This article needs huge transformation. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 13:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nowthatsk: Much of the content added by you is poorly-sourced: British Raj-era ethnographers are not great sources, as discussed several times on Wikipedia (e.g. see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 172#Are British Raj ethnographers unreliable.3F). The 19th century caste activists are not an acceptable source either - please limit your sources to modern scholarly works. Also, you're indulging in original research: for example, here you added some beef-consumption-related sources which have nothing do with the Mahars. utcursch | talk 00:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It was perfectly resourced Before one of names of mahar was mehar nobody gave a damn about this minor mistake i fixed it but an idiot reverted all of fully sourced details which i added to this page I fixed mehar to mehra. mehra is clearly mentioned in government records Nowthatsk (talk) 05:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Why British Raj-era ethnographers are not great sources? they are Unreliable were they uneducated? or thry were ruling over other country were no mahars were present and they imagined look there in india there should be a caste called mahars, dude the people who have ruled and lived in India studied alot about indian peoples while you can read most of the things they have wrote were asked by local mahars and part of their research. i am not saying trust every thing you read. i don't even trust what gods would say, but the people who were involved in that era with those people or got some information somehow, in 16th to 19th century, are considered Unreliable in wikipedia terms who would be know what has happed in that time if there no visible, readable, et CETERA Proofs. look the beef things was to give a light on how Untouchables and minorities are treaty in india by hinud castes, while there many sayings and beliefs in the society that Untouchable were beef eaters and was treated as Untouchables by hindus because they were beef eaters i know there wasn't mentioned mahars. but the article about the Untouchables Nowthatsk (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Utcursch you removed everything without even reading the Citations. you removed Myths of origin tab which i created by me, in that tab we could have added myths of mahars origin so people could look at the myths what are myths are

'Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives that play a fundamental role in society, such as foundational tales. The main characters in myths are usually gods, demigods or supernatural humans. Myths are often endorsed by rulers and priests and are closely linked to religion or spirituality. ' Source Wikipedia, Well When the origin of mahar word is debatable why shouldn't we add the origin is debatable, you removed the this phrase 'the origin of mahar word is debatable.' we should add the other perspective too. not Only hindu castes perspective when their caste system treats other communities which are avarna as Untouchables. even Untouchability is debatable topic. but you can find different origins theory. we should give add other theorys regarding mahars and their origin add too. you can read Citations you can find enough evidences about a aspect of their culture as well, which is not added to mahar wikipedia page don't you thing it will give a whole new dimension if we add mahar culture, their myths, And all the Verifiable things we could. Nowthatsk (talk) 07:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Please forgive me for the typos,bad grammar, and bad english. peace Nowthatsk (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you are going to make a series of edits that contain poorly-sourced content or copyvios with some well-sourced content, you can't expect people to spend time on separating wheat from chaff.

As for works by British ethnographers, this has been discussed several times in the past, by several editors, at several places: these are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. These works are antiquated sources that contain obsolete theories: some of them classify entire groups of people as Criminal Tribes and glorify others for socio-political engineering. I've already linked to a WP:RSN thread: if you want you can start a new discussion at WP:RSN or WT:IND. But please don't simply restore content sourced by these sources: this amounts to edit warring. utcursch | talk 01:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The things you removed were important information about mahars, you added mehar again and mehra is clearly written in governmental document. later you removed the thing Jyotirao Phule States Jyotirao Phule is a celebrated personality in Maharashtra. he's one of the first social activists who worked for dalits and girls when hindus specifically Brahmins didn't allowed readings learns to Untouchables Jyotirao phule start teaching Untouchables, you can read entire article you can find mahars were treated as Untouchable hindu society while with british they Under British rule, the Mahars became aware of the scope for social and political advancement Their traditional role had been low-status but important in the village system. Nowthatsk (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Being a celebrated personality does not make him a reliable source of history or etymology. Opinions of caste activists - whether Brahmins or Dalits or anyone else - are not acceptable sources for these topics. You can take this to WP:RSN, if you wish. utcursch | talk 01:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

There are only few researches has done on the mahars, I will try to contact indian government and request them to conduct a deep research on mahars history and origin. while i will be adding things to mahars page. you look senior, can you suggest me what things I should keep in mind while adding stuff to wikipedia? Nowthatsk (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Modern scholarly journals and books are a good place to start. Go through WP:TUTORIAL, if you haven't already. utcursch | talk 00:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

These Discusions happened with administrators earlier.

1)Before Peshawa (Madhawrao II) rule Mahar were not considered as untouchables. As Mahar did not do any polluting work.

2)Maha + Ari = Great Warrior or Opponent. (Sanskrit Meaning)

3)Bhangi cast is present in maharashtra from centuries which does street sweeper's work.

People who oppose it can add their points here. Raje Ranveer (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Where did these discussions take place? With whom? - Sitush (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Would be good to link to the sources to back up the claims. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 07:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The Mahar encyclopedia article does not qualify as a reliable source due to its sources. All but one of the sources the encyclopedia.com article cites are unreliable. British Raj era sources are not considered reliable for castes, and neither is the works of caste activists like Ambedkar. If you can find a modern, reliable, academically published secondary source, then it can be placed here. See WP:RS, WP:HISTRS, and . Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Also since its copypasted it violates WP:CV. Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ghoshpreet singh: Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ghoshpreet singh: I have reverted your edit in the history section since the changes violate WP:RS. Might be better to find other sources to substabtiate. Vikram Vincent 15:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I noticed OR within the article. Will have to find secondary RS to replace them. Vikram Vincent 07:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Discuss Mahar Untouchability Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy:

Internally Mahars had hierarchy amongst subcastes . Higher subcastes used to treat lower subcastes as untouchables. Probably chokhamela belonged to lower subcaste of Mahar. Hence was denied the entry of temple.

And also in the history other than chokhamela we don't have any evidence prooving Mahar being untouchables.All untouchable related incidents happened during the period of Peshwa. Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Sid.ghodeswars, Hindu society treated any community or person that worked with dead animals, processed products such as leather from dead animals (chamar and Mang), disposed off dead animals(mahar), disposed off human waste products(bhangi) as untouchables. We don't know when it started but certainly well before the Peshwa. Hindu society even now makes menstruating women untouchable in some parts of India. It is hypocritical and callous of the wider hindu community to have made these communities responsible for society's dirty work and then declared them untouchable but we can not change history. I don't know what purpose is served by denying the fact that untouchability was not practiced before the Peshwa. The Peshwas did not rule large areas of present day Maharashtra. These regions were ruled by the Nizam of Hyderabad or the Nagpur Bhosale. How were the mahars treated in these regions? According to a book written in 1938, the Nagpur Mahars were treated as untouchable at that time. The Peshwa never had any power in that region.^[1]

@Jonathansammy:

I agree with you Untouchability was there before Peshwa rule we don't know when Mahar treated as untouchables.

But Mahar's traditional occupation was to defend village boundaries and not the "disposing dead cow"

"Disposing dead cow" they adapted later and many subcastes of Mahar were not involved with this work.In many villages of Maharashtra Mahar did not do this work, some other caste has to this work.

"Disposing dead cow" is not the reason why Mahar were treated as untouchables.It is the habit of eating cow's meat that made other people treat Mahar's as untouchables and we don't know when Mahars started eating cow's meat. This habit of eating cow's meat can be found in all subcastes of Mahar. May be during the famine of 1200 or 1300 they started eating it.

All I am saying Untouchability is recent phenomena to Mahar's so when one says "historically Mahar's treated as untouchables " reader gets impression that Mahar's were as untouchables right from the start which is not true for Mahars. Many scholar believes that Mahar were ruler and due to "political defeat or simply defeat" they were pushed down in the social hierarchy. The references that you provided are written after Mahar became untouchables, they do not talk about when and why Mahar became untouchables. We should at least mention the reason (eating cow's meat) and Untouchability is new to Mahars. Reply here what you think about it. Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy:

Any update from your side ....! We have to add Mahar lately became untouchables and it was due to "eating cow meat" Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Sid.ghodeswars, please provide reliable sources to back up your claims. Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

[[User:Sid.ghodeswars], I have no source on when mahars were assigned the task of disposing off dead cattle. The raj era book on the community talks about the mahars jealously guarding that right and especially from the mangs who had interest in the animal hide for making ropes.As it says in the article, animal disposal was not the only task /duty of Mahar watan. Compared with other balutedars of the village they performed many varied tasks. Also untouchable or not, mahars served in the armies of the sultanates, the moghals, the maratha empire, and the East India company. Even during peshwai, the oppressive policies started only towards the end.There is also an example of a mahar family holding the patilki of a village near Wai.^[2] They also worked at times as agricultural labourers.^[3] In a nutshell, the history of mahars is more complex than painted in the article.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy:

Yes Mahar's history is too complex and very less has been written about their origin and who were they in ancient times by historians. They had no special skills like Potter, Chamars (shoemaker) etc. But they are blessed with ancient martial and horse riding skills.

In Maharashtra many local Marathi writters with historic evidences came to the conclusion that Mahar's were original Patels of Southern part of Gujrat ('Lat Pradesh') and Original Patils of Maharashtra but Kunabi (todays Maratha) who used to tile Mahar's land (farm) as a farmservent eventually politically defeated Mahar with the help Brahmins. Kunabi became new Patil/Patel of villages and Mahar's were kept as "Village Boundary Defenders". Many Mahar from Gujarat moved to Maharashtra. The military designation of Mahar was "Parwari" ."Parwari" is corruption of word "Pattawari". "Pattawari" was village headman position till Mouryan Empire. The names Patels and Patil are derived from "Pattawari". Unfortunately no well known historian took the note of this part of Mahar's story. Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Sid.ghodeswars, User:Jonathansammy please provide reliable sources to back up your claims. Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sid.ghodeswars, please sign your posts.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy:

Before reverting consider having a discussion regarding the content I added I can upload the "screen shots" if you need. Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Author clearly mentions here, Nowdays due to Mahar's duty of removing dead cow Mahars counted as untouchables we should consider removing "Mahars being untouchables historically" else one should provide authentic source to back up their claim of "Mahar being Untouchables historically"

Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy, Chariotrider555, Sitush, and Utcursch: Today user Sid.ghodeswars added unsourced content and removed sourced content with a dubious edit summary about "screenshots" and "discussions", etc. I don't see any consensus for such removal here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there was no consensus taken. I repeatedly asked for reliable sources to back up claims, but they were never provided. I am going to revert the removal of sourced content until reliable sources can be brought forth to contradict the statement that Mahars were considered to be untouchable. Additionally, it is extremely difficult to follow any conversation going on here given the way the users are writing here. Chariotrider555 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Screenshot I had added but bot removed it saying "non-free content" I can add screen shot again or one you can go through the "Mahar Folk" book to verifye what I added Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 10:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Chariotrider555 please go through the "Mahar folk" book I dont have time to add screenshots. If you revert my work without going through the source I will take the matter to higher wikipedia authorities. I hope you understand Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sid.ghodeswars: It is your WP:BURDEN to provide sources in support of your content, not for others. And stop threatening users, when you are at fault for not going as per core policies of Wikipedia. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk It seems you guys are lazy that I have to put screen shot to proove that I am not adding something which is not there in source. And who gave you the autherity to revert changes without going through sources and which policies of wikipedia it is written that one can revert the changes without going through provided sources. I dont hesitate to take matter to higher wikipedia autherities. Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You are making WP:UNCIVIL comments repeatedly. And I didn't revert your changes. And you failed to understand basic Wikipedia policies. Next time you'll be reported. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying to you . I am saying to people in general who are reverting the changes without going through the source. So, first action must be taken against those who are reverting changes without going through source . That is a violation of wikipedia policy. I will also report people who are voilating wikipedia policies. Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sid.ghodeswars: If people revert your edits and restore to the long-standing version, doesn't mean you should revert back without gaining a consensus in the talk page. This is basic WP:BRD rule as well as WP:STATUSQUO (restoration of longstanding version in case of dispute), which you seem to be violating, engaging in edit-warring. As for your UNCIVIL comments, even if you didn't direct it towards me here, I take offense to this as a member of the Wikipedia community, not to mention your uncivil behavior directed towards me in the other page. So take heed of it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk I have enough sources to change longlasting versions. Regarding your constant allegations WP:UNCIVIL I have screen shots where you threatening me with actions on other talk pages . You came here on this page to take revenge of the edit I made on Deshastha Brahmin page I have enough evidences to proove the same So, you better first follow WP:CIVIL policies Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Revenge? You are the one calling people lazy, biased and making threats. And in this page I saw you removing sourced longstanding content. You do not WP:OWN this article, understand that. Consider this your last warning. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah :Revenge, you are constantly threatening me with actions WP:CIVIL , WP:UNCIVIL one can see from your previous comments too, I have enough evidences I will put them in Wikipedia court if I have to. Sid.ghodeswars (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Present day Vidarbha region has the highest percentage of Mahar community. Historically apart from the traditional roles, they were also involved in weaving and other occupations.^[1] This information should be added to the article. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I think 30 Million population of Mahar is exaggerated figure. Can someone provide me reliable sources to verify the mentioned figure Mohmmud Khan (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Prem Mathurr, Hi, can you help me with above question ?? Mohmmud Khan (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mohmmud Khan I only studied history of scheduled castes like Mahar, Mang etc. User:Jonathansammy , Vikram Vincent are old mentainer of this page they might be able to help you. Prem Mathurr (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Are the names to be presented as UPPERCASE? Vikram Vincent 14:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Vikram Vincent Hi, There is no need to have it capitalized . If it is looking awkward you can change it accordingly Thanks Prem Mathurr (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Prem Mathurr I noticed the capitalisation and know that only abbreviations are uppercase. Don't have the time to undo all that work :-) Vikram Vincent 14:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Vikram Vincent Okay I will change it Prem Mathurr (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Jonathansammy Why did you revert my edits calling sources to be Raj Era ?? The sources I provided are government sources and Author "Syed Siraj-Ul-Hassan" is renowned historian his opinion and study is accepted on most other wikipedia pages. You need to read about "Syed Siraj-Ul-Hassan". Prem Mathurr (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The source you cited in from 1938, and therefore from British raj era. Per consensus reached /policy formulated, references before 1947 are not considered reliable.See hereYou are welcome to add back the content using a more recent reliable source.Thank you.Jonathansammy (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

What is problem adding "Syed Siraj-Ul-Hassan" renowned historians study, His study is published in government it must be authentic enough isnt it ? If the contents are consistent I dont think there should be any problem accepting it. And for Mahar caste no government conducts study as for government Mahar caste in Maharashtra doesnt exist. It has officially became "Marathi Buddhists or NeoBuddhists" Prem Mathurr (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Prem Mathurr You can not delete sourced material. I am going to wait for other interested editors and administrators to weigh in before reverting.Jonathansammy (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Jonathansammy I went through the earlier sources no mention of "Historically Mahar treated as untouchables" but someone is intentionally trying to push that into the article anyhow. I won't allow this "systematic degradation" of some caste. I have also provided 1998 source. "The Mahar folk" book also support that Mahar did not do pollutiing work and nowdays due to duty of "disposing dead cow" they were treated as untouchables and they historically hold high status where in dhobi cleans his clothes, other castes give them groceries, Mahar ride on horse, Barber cuts his hair not to mention their religious imporance. Most importantly in Solapur and Pandharpur district they were not treated as Untouchables even during the Peshwa rule. All these things are aligning with whatever I wrote. You present you analysis here to support what you are intetionally trying to push into the article. Prem Mathurr (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Prem Mathurr If you are right then the Mahar community was never oppressed, and should not be treated as dalit or categorized under the scheduled caste category, correct? Also if they were not oppressed then obviously Dr.Ambedkar was wrong in asking them to abandon Hinduism, correct? I would be interested to learn what your objective in rewriting history. I look forward to your reply.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Jonathansammy First of all I am not rewriting the history I already have said/agreed they were treated as untouchables and it was due to removing dead cattle work. So obviously they are Dalit and included in scheduled category What made you think that I am rewriting the history ??? On this article I wrote Historically Mahar did not do any pollutiing work they occasionally did removing of dead cattle and hence they are treated as untouchables What objection do you have for the above statement ?? You are free to refute it with authentic sources. Prem Mathurr (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I wish to add maharwada of elloracaves cave no. 5, please research on it also mahars are decendant of vrittra of Rig veda the enemy of Indra the vedic god as vrittra was serpent 🐍God and mahars are nagas. Ferocious93 (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

What is wrong in using just one word, i.e. Carrion to describe meat from a naturally dead animal? My cited source had the word in four places, and also included Ambedkar's call for the Mahar community to refuse to dispose off the dead animals, or to eat the meat.If necessary, i can add quotes from the source.Comments.Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)