User talk:LukeEmily

hey luke brahmins were vaidyas since Vedic ages.this is not Bengali Baidya related where they can draw from various varnas.Rigveda 10.97.6 describe the vaidyas as Bipra(Brahmins).I think you are following my edits.that thing was present in brahmin page since very long.I just renamed it to ayurvedic vaidyas from ayurvedic physicians.dont revert it. Nobita456 (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not a caste article it is a varna article.Vaidyas are Bipras(Brahmins) revert your edits.Nobita456 (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I am getting concerned with your edits. Vedas are primary sources and Rigveda was added last year for the ayurvedic professions. We cannot write accountants for example because most accountants like Kulkarnis were Brahmins.LukeEmily (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It is about their profession.Brahmins often take Vaidya profession.I have sources.Check Vaidya article and even I have many others.and I am not citing rig veda directly as a primary source check this https://books.google.co.in/books?id=dkmmmlClm5wC&dq=Baidya+bengali+sarasvata&pg=PA110&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false P.110 Nobita456 (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I know luke you are not familiar with Indian system.but at least believe in my good faith edits.Nobita456 (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

If rigveda mention Vaidyas as brahmins will you still not write it?? Nobita456 (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• all Vaidyas are Brahmins but not Brahmins are Vaidyas.source is already given in Vaidya article where they were mentioned suppirior to Brahmins.Please revert your edits.and It is a sacred profession not a random profession, should be there in Brahmin article.Nobita456 (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

all Vaidyas are Brahmins but not Brahmins are Vaidyas. Simply not true. I just showed you sources few hours back that most vaidyas are *not* brahmins but you deleted those sources from the Vaidya page. Are Baidyas brahmins? No. Why did the Bengali Brahmins classify physicians in Bengal as Shudras for 700 years if the Rigveda said otherwise? Only a few Vaidyas are brahmins. Being a Vaidya involves dealing with blood and bodily fluids, would most brahmins be comfortable with that? Rigveda has only two varnas - priests and kings. And it is a primary source. Brahmins are called the priestly/teacher caste not the physician caste. You are desperately trying to promote the Baidya indirectly across wikipedia. Initially I supported you because I assumed good faith but I am now completely in agreement with Ekdalian with his allegations about your POV pushing. LukeEmily (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Read the source that is provided in Vaidya article. Vaidyas first have to become brahmins,then after studying ayurveda they can be called as Vaidyas.my all edits are sourced,I don't edit without source.check the source which I added recently in Brahmin page.Brahmins are often associated with sacred medical profession,from vedic times.and as I told you before this is not about bengali baidyas.plase think a little. Nobita456 (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• check all sources and make your decision Luke.thanks Nobita456 (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobita456 , you can check this source.^[1] Link is page 44. It has a complete different view although it quotes from Charak samhita.LukeEmily (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Malocm McLean is a businessman not a scholer.remove his book.thanks Nobita456 (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Luke, Daivadnyas are not Brahmins. They are part of the Vishwakarma or Sonar community. Their Brahmin claims were even rejected by prominent scholars such as Karve, Lele and Naik in their research works. Don't add them to Marathi Brahmins. Go through these research papers Citation 1, Karve Research Citation, Maharashtra, Land and Its People, Hindu Society: An Interpretation, From Ancient to Modern: Religion, Power, and Community in India -Oxford University Press, Pangat, a Feast: Food and Lore from Marathi Kitchens. They claim Brahminhood but they are not considered as Brahmins by Other castes including Brahmins of Karnataka, Goa and Maharashtra. See this they are even claiming they are higher than Deshastha, Konkanastha and Karhade Brahmins. Iravati Karve clearly did complete research about this community and published them in many of her books. Do you know one thing they are even claiming Adi Shankaracharya is a Daivadnya even though everyone knows he was born to Nambudiri Brahmins. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 05:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks MRRaja001, for the sources. That source I added seems to be a fringe opinion. I agree with you. I also checked a source on Gramanya and a group of Brahmins scholars had declared both the GSB - shenvi (the nonvegetarians) and the Daivadnyas as non-Brahmins. In case of Shenvis(GSB), there was a court case later that "resolved" the issue but in Davidnayna nor was there a court case nor did the Brahmins change their verdict. In fact, you can read the quote given in Khatri#Rajasthan,_Gujarat_and_Maharashtra. Treemungalacharya was a sonar. So you are correct. Claiming ritual status higher than the mainstream brahmins of Maharashtra without any proof is absolutely strange. I will try to read up on them and their disputes, but for now, I agree with you.LukeEmily (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

MRRaja001, FYI, some of your sources are not WP:RS. Although I agree with you for now based on the other sources I gave a cursory look. Will dig into this more later.LukeEmily (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily Except this citation; all are very good citations and meet WP:RS. Anyways I am ready for discussion on this. Thanks - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 07:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

MRRaja001 ^(talk) and LukeEmily When it comes to caste, different social groups have tried to claim brahmin, and more often, kshatriya status. In present times, who decides what a community's ritual status is, or that matter for a person? If, for example, a non-hindu community decides enmasse to do Ghar Wapsi and become Hindu then would they be able claim a brahmin or kshatriya status? I am sure they will prefer a higher ritual status than shudra or ati-shudra. This may be hypothetical at present but given the current situation in India, I am sure it will become a reality. Any comments? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Jonathansammy, I think we should mention all views given in reliable sources. Their own claim, was there any historic decision by Brahmins as well as what the modern scholars say about the ritual status now(do they have sacred thread ceremony or not). Raj era historians are less reliable. I have not investigated into Daivadnyna community. I do not think we should be blanking out sourced content as long as the source is reliable. I was concerned because this was from an academic source and Oliver Godsmark is a scholar on Indian history - his PhD was in history of Western India. About differing views, Rajputs is a perfect example. It is well known that they were simply tribals or peasants and after gaining political power, started linking themselves with some old Kshatriya races. However, Brahmins of the area (unlike in Western and south India), were generally poor and benefitted from this Sanskritization, hence they supported it. On the other hand, I was recently working on two Bengali caste articles and learnt a few things - it is now well known that the non-Brahmin Bhadralok's of Bengal probably have a significant Brahmin component but due to the absurd two varna system in Bengal(if you are not a Brahmin, you are automatically a shudra) system,Bengali Kayastha and Baidya, whose literacy rate was high were classified as Shudras only because they were not Brahmins. But if you look at the Baidya article, all views have been added. To answer your question specifically, we should not decide anything - we simply quote the sources.LukeEmily (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily Thanks for a quick reply.Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@LukeEmily and Jonathansammy: The caste system is very rigid. Jonathansammy this doesn't apply to only Brahmins the other communities who are not doing their prescribed duties prescribed by Varnashrama also do not belong to that varna. These established norms are very difficult to change. This applies even now because priests in most of the temples and the people who know shastras are still Brahmins and the people who are claiming to be Brahmins are impractical. Coming to Kshatriyahood, these Rajputs who came somewhere from Europe established themselves as Kshatriyas in the Northwest region, because of this the people who are of the same origin who came along with these Rajputs, who have similar surnames as Rajputs are still claiming to be Rajputs to further claim Kshatriyahood. So, claiming is different from the established fact. LukeEmily, Adding all the communities which claim themselves as Brahmins or Kshatriyas cause a lot of confusion and the article becomes clumsy. Moreover, these same communities which are claiming to be Brahmins never come to fight against non-Brahmins who are degrading these Brahmins. They just want their status to enjoy in society but never want to support Brahmins. Coming to the political scenarios these non-Brahmins who are claiming to be Brahmins always support these non-Brahmin protesters. Moreover, Brahmins are the ones who are suffering because of these things. When the Anti-Brahmin movement took place what were these people who are claiming to be Brahmins doing, did they support Brahmins? Where are these non-Brahmins who are claiming to be Brahmins when the 1948 genocide of Maharashtrian Brahmins that followed M K Gandhi’s assassination happened?. The Marathi Brahmins whom we have mentioned in the Marathi Brahmin article are the ones who suffered in these contexts not Daivdanyas or other non-Brahmin communities who are claiming Brahmin status. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 16:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear MRRaja001Lots to talk about. Per Ghurye, the caste system was not as rigid before the British arrival. The British ethnographers / census takers wishing to "pigeonhole" people either deliberately, or inadvertently made the caste system rigid. Also in their desire to group the thousands of communities in the four varnas made so many artisan communities to claim Kshatriya status either through their respective caste sabhas and or the court system. These turn of the 20th century events will make a good Wikipedia article in itself. Many artisan groups have also created stories based on the Parashurama story. I once heard a story from a man from a Gujarati barber caste about their "Kshatriya status". During genocide against the Kshatriyas, a group of Kshatriyas, in order to save their lives, disguised themselves by picking up the trade of shaving. Indirectly, I have heard of other artisan communities, mainly Guajarati, with similar stories. Most of these groups have been using the term Kshatriya or Arya for nearly a century now.^[1] Now coming to the 1948 violence against Maharashtrian Brahmins that followed M K Gandhi’s assassination, given the current demographics of Maharashtra, and the political priorities of different parties, I doubt that there ever will be any official inquiry on the matter.For example, highlighting Hindu on Hindu violence wouldn't fit the BJP's narrative of "hindu unity", and the "bahujan samaj" wouldn't like publicity given to the 1948 crimes of their forefathers. Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy: Rigid in my sense is not Varna but in terms of profession based Jati system. These Britishers don't know the difference between Varna and Jati. They Mixed up these two and made a big mess out of it. In Maharashtra priesthood was a traditional profession of Deshastha Brahmins, Chitpavan Brahmins and Karhade Brahmins. These are profession based classification rather than Guna in case of Varna system. Coming to 1948 genocide Enquiry on 1948 genocide will never happen until Brahmins come into power. Many Brahmins are poor in Maharashtra now, Maratha-Kunbi community is the richest community and holds 75-80% of Lands in Maharashtra but they have reservations too now. This is the reason these Maratha-Kunbi community are trying to portray that Brahmins are only 4% of population but the fact is Brahmins are more than 9-10% of total population at present. I want to clarify few things here. Mainly there are two divisions among Brahmins throughout India — Pancha-Dravida (Maharashtra, Gujarat and South India) and Pancha-Gauda (rest of India including North India). Other than the list in this, all others who are claiming to be Brahmins are not Brahmins and this is the rigidity and how close knitted this community is. If at all they want to marry they'll marry only with the Brahmins who are listed in this and others are automatically avoided and are not considered Brahmins. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 21:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy:, creation of Parsuram story for themselves by some caste has no value unless that story is part of the Hindu scriptures and that story is accepted as the origin of that caste by Brahmin religious leaders such as the Shankaracharyas(they will accept it if it part of the scripture as Brahmins cannot reject their own sacred scriptures). The 1948 genocide was not investigated by any Indian governments as far as I know. I do not follow Indian politics but I do not think the BJP was in power at the time after the genocide. Not a single person was punished after the riots. I read Patterson's paper and the primary target were Chitpawans. Deshastha and Karhades got caught up in it too. It is likely that some non-Brahmin people became victims too especially if they had surnames common to Brahmins as the hooligans were not experts in identifying castes. But I don't know. I will comment on the other parts later.LukeEmily (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey luke, I am requesting you to assume my good faith edits. I don't want to demote a certain caste. I am just protesting against the POV pushing by Ekdalian, nothing else. I don't have any personal Envy on Kayasthas. Personally, I think they are well educated and did a good contribution to build this modern Bengal.For their high literacy rate I also think they were unfairly degraded by priestly Brahmins from their original varna, but these Aryan theories are clear racism by Ekdalian, The book of Banu was a doubt for me and now see TB also raised concerns on it . This was the reason to put that book in RSN a couple of times. Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Also please go through this book https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Be3PCvzf-BYC p. 257,258. This was the reason the whole migration considered as a folklore by historians and I also opposed that migration. Nobita456 (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobita456 , I agree that Aryan theories should be removed. I think there is a lot of caste wars going on between the Bengali castes (such as Braidya, Bengali Brahmin and Bengali Kayastha) and most editors such as Sitush, TB and myself are really tired trying to resolve conflicts between editors. From what I read, Bengal has only two varnas (Brahmin/Shudra). I think Bengali Kayastha fall in the Shudra varna as per at least some sources. Since wikipedia is not censored, their Shudra status needs to be mentioned. Not sure of Baidya because if they wear sacred thread, then they cannot be shudra but sources are contradictory. It is a bit confusing for someone who does not have context. Anyway, all that editors want is that you and EkDalian work together to resolve disputes amicably.LukeEmily (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that you can work on other articles of your interest for some time. Then you can start on caste related pages after may as admins suggest.LukeEmily (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello LukeEmily, can you please check my latest version of Bengali Kayastha, which has been reverted by WikiLinuz. I have taken utmost care to avoid any racial element but still keeping the same in line with what the sources say, as also suggested by you. Please drop your remarks in the relevant talk page section! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ekdalian, please see Aryan race. These theories have been discredited. You described the Bengali Kayastha and Bengali Brahmin group as Aryans in your edit which may be sourced but the entire theory has been discredited. Also, there is some blanket ban on anything related to genetics on caste articles. Race comes too close to genetics. I don't have any objection to the non-Race related content. Please can you work with Satnam , TB and WikiLinuz for the other issues.LukeEmily (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Luke, i don't have any grudge against any community, but the thing is Daivadnyas don't have proper stand on what they are claiming. It is well known that they are Goldsmiths community. They call themselves they have descendand from Vishwakarma. If they have descendand from Vishwakarma how can they become Brahmins as per logic. After that they started claiming they are Brahmins but are there any proofs for this. Do you know what this community is called in Konkan region — Konkanastha Rathakara (Sankara Jati means mixed caste of low ritual status). This is the only reason why I started discussing about them. But the case of Saraswats of Western India is different from this. Hope you understood. Sorry mate! - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 18:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi MRRaja001, no need to apologize buddy. Sorry for not replying earlier. I really don't have grudge against any community such as GSBs either and I have nothing for or against the Daivadnyas either. Yes, I think Daivadnya page needs fixing as mentioned by Sitush. There were minor challenges to Vasai Deshastha Brahmins but they were not unanimous by the Brahmin community. The GSB(Sehnvi) status is not as clear as Deshastha or Karhade Brahmins whose Brahminhood has been universally accepted by other Brahmins as well as scholars. You can read some quotes on the Brahmin talk page. Shenvi was the subsection that came most in contact with the Maratha empire. I did not know about Konkanastha Rathakara or what it means. One question is - why do they(Daivadnya) have their own priests if they are not Brahmins? But I agree based on what I read that most sources disagree with their claim to be Brahmins. We can discuss more when I return from the break(see my user page)LukeEmily (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily Daivdanyas adopted many things from Brahmins during Maratha times. They have their own priests but they also employ Karhades as their priests in Konkan region. Whereas other communities consider Daivdanyas as Rathakara, the people who were born with union of low caste women and high caste men or high caste women and low caste men (Sankara Jati). This is the reason why they are called as Konkanastha Rathakaras. Other communities never employ Daivdanyas as their priests. Hope I cleared your doubt. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 03:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi MRRaja001, the Rathakara refers to Chariot maker and not goldsmith? From what I have read so far from many sources neither Daivdanyas nor GSB(shenvi) are Brahmins. GSB are generally more accepted as Brahmins and Daivdanyas are not. The GSB caste was formed in the late 19th century to counteract the Chitpawans, Deshasthas Karhades who were denying their Brahminhood. They based their origin on Sahyadrikhanda, but if you read what is written there is it very derogatory to established Brahmins like Karhade Brahmins. Hence many do not accept the authority of this part of the Sahyadrikhanda. It is said to be a later interpolation. Brahmins had to sacrifice a lot in olden times to live according to the caste rules. Priests did not generally made much money. One of the reasons that Brahmins were respected was not just their knowledge but their spiritual life and dedication to God. In fact, there are small communities that were more educated than the Brahmins. Despite this, Brahmins had the highest ritual status. That is why most Brahmin communities will challenge claims by other communities to be accepted as Brahmins. It is not always a case of political rivalry. Shenvis were generally traders by profession. I understand that you have some GSB relatives and there is no intent to disparage anyone. But we have specified that the varna issue was only for Shenvi not all GSB groups. After all, we are only going by sources not personal opinions. I have nothing against any community- just want to make wikipedia accurate. Unfortunately, there are too many sources that to not agree with the Brahminhood of the GSB(Shenvi). I don't know if you had a chance to read the quotes at the end of Talk:Brahmin#Brahminhood. Sitush has brought up issues with both these communities multiple times. But it can be written in a more sensitive manner. One question: Is there some sort of rivalry between GSB and Daivadnyas because I was checking the edit history by Nijgoykar and he was the one adding Brahmin on the Daivadnya page and also writing that GSB are not Brahmin. He is partially correct about GSB as I found some sources that say the same but he is incorrect about Daivadnyas being Brahmins. The case of GSB(Shenvi) being Brahmins is not as clear cut as that of Deshastha. You can try replacing GSB in the quotes given at the end of Talk:Brahmin#Brahminhood with accepted Brahmin communities like Deshastha/Karhade and see how strange the quotes will sound.LukeEmily (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: First of all GSB community was not formed in the 19th century. These might be written by authors who have half knowledge about the community. I will give you a analogy, In the 15th Century - 16th Century, Raghuttama Tirtha, Peetadhipathi of Uttaradi Matha, a Deshastha Brahmin, initiated one of his disciples Narayana Tirtha and founded Gokarna Matha. Similarly, In the 16th century Vijayindra Tirtha, Peetadhipathi of Kumbakonam Matha, initiated a Gaud Saraswat Brahmin - Yadavendra Thirtha and founded Kashi Math. All the Gaud Saraswat Madhwa Brahmins are followers of these mathas. So, by this, you should understand that GSBs existed way before the 15th Century. The Shenvis whom you're quoting are part of the Gaud Saraswat Brahmin community but this doesn't mean all GSBs are Shenvis. Now coming to Daivdanyas, they are Goldsmiths and are not related to Brahmins at all. These Daivdanyas are called Konkanastha Rathakaras because there is also another theory which says they are descended from Rathakaras of Anuloma and Pratiloma. Rathakara means Chariot but recent archaeologists found some inscriptions that say Rathakaras are artisans and are born out of Anuloma and Pratiloma marriages. So, they are considered Sankara Jati by other communities. The main reason why they are degraded is that there are many origin theories on this community and is not concrete. Hope I answered you. See these videos Video1, Video2, Video3, Video4, — Satyatma Tirtha Swamiji, a Deshastha Brahmin and present Peetadhipathi of Uttaradi Matha inviting Vidyādhirāja Teeth of Gokarna Matha, a Gaud Saraswat Brahmin. Think practically if they are not considered Brahmins will they invite them in this manner into Uttaradi Matha, the matha founded by Jagadguru Madhvacharya himself with Padmanabha Tirtha as its head. In fact Madhva Vijaya, also says Madhvacharya converted many Gaud Saraswat Brahmins into Madhva faith when he visited Goa. So, by this, we can say they existed before the 13th century in the Konkan coast. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 05:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi MRRaja001, please forgive me. I did not mean to offend. I will reply to you tomorrow. If you feel strongly about it, I will not work on that article any more.LukeEmily (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

No, there is nothing offending here. You're doing a great job. I don't want to stop you. Keep going. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 23:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I changed the varna section name to make it explicit that only shenvi is discussed. I actually agree with what you say about other GSB.LukeEmily (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

That's great, Thanks for being to the point. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 23:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi MRRaja001, there is no question that the Madhva GSB are Brahmins.LukeEmily (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 23:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

MRRaja001, Do you have any sources that state that all Smartha are Shenvis or all Shenvis are Smarthas. I understand only Shenvis eat fish, is that correct? Can we discuss a little more of the community? I will not make any more edits(other than protect existing content) on the community page unless my concepts are clear. I have put Shenvi in bracket of every controversial statement in the text in varna section, so that it is very clear to the reader. About the matha you mention above, the controversies do not apply to them as they are not Shenvi.LukeEmily (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmilySorry for late reply. Coming to point, Shenvis are not just those who have the surname Shenoy. They also adopted other GSB surnames such as Kamat etc. As per my research, these Shenvis gave Shenoy surname to other GSBs as the title for some competitions. So, to be clear we cannot say all GSBs with the surname Shenoy are Shenvis. So, only GSBs know who are Shenvis among them. No other can tell about them except they themselves. So we cannot say just Shenvis are Smarthas. Kavle Matha (Gaudapadacharya Math) is also the oldest Matha of GSBs which was founded by Gaudapadacharya himself who was guru of Govinda Bhagavatpada who was guru of Adi Shankara. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 08:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

In reference to this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LukeEmily&diff=1082751082&oldid=1082750883, you left an unencylopaedic and borderline rude comment which was swiftly deleted? Why is that? ThanksRuudVanClerk (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

RuudVanClerk, Because I got your message and check the edit history of the Koeri page. You reverted the changes twice and are warning me with the 3RR? Is that correct? Anyway, I am not going to revert it now but someone else will since you have violated wikipedia consensus mentioned by Sitush (I had mentioned it in the edit summary). edit: "Look who is talking" means that you yourself are doing that - and is not rude but pointing to the facts.LukeEmily (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

It is good that you now understand. What do you mean by “someone else”? This could be linked to possible meatpuppetry.RuudVanClerk (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

RuudVanClerk, No. By someone else I mean literally "anyone else" who edits wikipedia. If no one reverts it, I might do it myself after 24-48 hrs. The reason is because there is a consensus on wikipedia that I pointed you to here. No editor can violate a long established consensus. See this diff . Please understand this rule. LukeEmily (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I recommend that you self revert based on Sitush's comments.LukeEmily (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear LukeEmily; regarding recent removal of quote on Rajput article here diff It was a accidental revert not anything intentional. At times editing through a computer is quite tough. Re; this quoation removal was not in bad faith. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 16:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Packer&Tracker, I understand, it can happen while copy pasting.LukeEmily (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, I think removal of the below text on the Lohana page was unneceassary.

There are views of them being Vaishya but they were originally Kshatriya.^[2] Historian C.V. Vaidya confirms this in his book, History of Medieval Hindu India in which it says that the Lohanas appear to have been originally Kshatriyas.^[3] They also had a king called Agham Lohana who ruled Brahmanabad in Sindh.^[4] They were frequently portrayed as a military caste in Prithviraj Raso.^[5] The community could be traced back to 300 BC.^[6]

Why are you removing such edits? Are you trying to erase the important Kshatriya history of the Lohanas? As the text The Jornal of Sind Historical Society says, "A quick glimpse of the Lohana shows that they belong to warrior class."

Your reasons for removing this text with its citations (sources) are and I quote, "please do not use Raj era - pre-independence non-academic sources or race theorists for caste articles."

 • Do you realise that The Journal of Sind Historical Society is an academic source? Do you also realise that these are not Raj Era sources, these sources are from Indians themselves.

 • Prithviraj Raso is a very important epic in India. The Lohanas were part of this epic as warriors. Why are you trying to dissolve their Kshatriya heritage.

 • The Chachnama which is another epic refers to Agham Lohanas dynasty. Why do you want to remove the Lohana's Kshatriya Heritage?

 • We use epics as sources in various wikipedia pages such as the Rajputs, including Prithviraj Raso itself.

 • How are these race theories? They are certainly not, since Lohanas in these sources such as Chachnama and Prithviraj Raso are portrayed as rulers and warriors. Hence the designation of Kshatriya. The Lohanas did not come up with these things and write these epics themselves so these are not race theories written by race theorists.

 • Of course epics that were written, are before the Raj Era, and they are still used as sources.

Please stop this unnecessary removal of edits.

Harsh54 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Although there are views of them being Vaishya but they were originally Kshatriya.^{[1][unreliable source?]} Historian C.V. Vaidya confirms this in his book, History of Medieval Hindu India in which it says that the Lohanas appear to have been originally Kshatriyas.^{[2][unreliable source?]} They also had a king called Agham Lohana who ruled Brahmanabad in Sindh.^{[3][unreliable source?]} They were frequently portrayed as a military caste in Prithviraj Raso.^{[4][unreliable source?]}

Now you have marked the sources of this text with the tag, "Unreliable source?"

Your reasons stated were and I quote, "tagged with unreliable sources. Harsh54, we can discuss on talk page. Raj era implies that any publication before 1947 (even if they are Indian). Vaidya believed is now disproven race theories and has been called hopeless by modern historians. For non-contentious issues, there is usually no problem with pe-Independence sources. Please see WP:HISTRH. Modern high quality sources are needed for such extraordinary claims. Please find modern sources."

LukeEmily, what is so hard to understand? Anyone else nor I are making "such extraordinary claims". I don't think you have read or studied the epics such as Prithviraj Raso or the Chachnama, since if you had read and studied them you would have clearly seen the history of the Lohanas are warriors and rulers. Rulers and warriors are designated Kshatriya.

If you had read the Prithviraj Raso you would have come across the Lohanas being warriors, in the Chachnama you would have come across the Lohanas being rulers such as Agham Lohana who ruled Brahmanabad in Sindh.

Hence, I am not making "extraordinary claims" by adding the Lohanas as Kshatriya, since it is clearly evident from the epics such as Prithviraj Raso and Chachnama that they once were Kshatriya.

The epics such as the Prithviraj Raso and Chachnama are pivotal to Indian Culture. Please stop erasure of history and kshatriya heritage.

Harsh54 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Harsh54, please can you sign your name after your post? I am not planning to remove Kshatriya claim. I will add the Kshatriya claim with more scholarly sources. I have not read the texts you mention, and I do not know if an English translation is available, but they are considered primary sources. I looked at the respective pages of the books on wikipedia and both pages discuss the accuracy of the books, and their accuracy is disputed. Nevertheless, for caste claims such as Varna etc., a modern source is preferred, to counteract any other modern opinion. Please see WP:HISTRH. About Raj era references, please discuss with Sitush, as to why they are unreliable for contentious issues. Indian Raj era "scholars" who believed in British caste related racial theories of Aryans etc. are not reliable either. Anyway, let me replace it by reliable sources as per WP:HISTRH and I will keep the claim that the community claims Kshatriya origin based on the sources I have seen so far. The sources you have cited are about a century old.LukeEmily (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lohana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bhatia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily, in your response to my previous posts you mentioned and I quote, " I have not read the texts you mention, and I do not know if an English translation is available, but they are considered primary sources. I looked at the respective pages of the books on wikipedia and both pages discuss the accuracy of the books, and their accuracy is disputed.

Thank you for acknowledging that you have not read the Prithviraj Raso or Chachnama

Thank you for acknowledging that they are considered primary resources.

You say that their accuracy is disputed when you read their respective Wikipedia projects but did you literally read the second paragraph on the Wikipedia page of Prithviraj Raso in which it says, "It is debatable like any other historical text in the world."

As the last sentence on the second paragraph on the Prithviraj Raso Wikipedia page says that "It is debatable like any other historical text in the world" infering to the fact that Prithviraj Raso's historical accuracy is disputed just like the accuracy of any other historical sources in this world.

Whether the historical source is ancient or modern their historical accuracy always remains disputed to an extent, since everything is not accurate nor precise. Even in science, there is a degree of inaccuracy no matter how many precautions you to decrease the amount of errors. This is because human is to error.

So my question to you is, Isn't the historical accuracy disputed in most historical sources and not only in the Prithviraj Raso?

So regardless of historical inaccuracy as is the case for most historical sources in the world, the Prithviraj Raso is a very important epic that shows the Lohana as warriors and hence their Kshatriya heritage.

Harsh54 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Harsh54, I am only following the rules of wikipedia of not using primary sources. You can refer to the accuracy section on the same page of Raso.LukeEmily (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi LukeEmily, regarding Anirudhh55's edits, please keep WP:3RR in mind. For reporting stubborn disruptive editing, WP:ANI and WP:ANEW might be better noticeboards, as it rarely comes with an intent to damage the encyclopedia and is thus usually not "vandalism". {{subst:Template:GS/alert|sasg}} may be interesting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree, Thank you for your help. My apologies for reporting it to the wrong noticeboard. LukeEmily (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

As it led to action, "wrong" would be an overstatement, though. :) No worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I had added the nomadic tribe status in the article which has been getting consistently removed. @LukeEmily: has argued that the sources are talking about only J&K and rest are not into that profession. However, what I didn't mention that nomadic profession is followed by all Gujjars and it is the only profession. I mentioned it along with already mentioned pastoral and agricultural activities. This nomadic profession is followed by them in the whole Himalayan belt {Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand (India), Azad Kashmir(Pakistan)}. (Reference: ^[1][2][3]). And, this region constitutes a large chunk of Gujjar population (source:^[4]), so can't be ignored. Hence, I urge to not remove my referenced articles. I wanted to add this on the Gujjar article's talk page, but couldn't, so I'm writing to you directly. Regards. Iamritwikaryan (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Read your post on Gurjar talk page and answered it there. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey luke, I hope you are doing absolutely fine. You are doing fine work in caste related articles, so can you please check the Bengali Kayastha article which was a matter of dispute from so long? The neutrality of that article is still not right in my opinion, where literature and puran part is completely missing unlike Baidya article. since you have so much experience in caste articles I am requesting you to please review and rewrite that article, Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you know Hindi If yes then this is a book published by Lucknow University which was published in 1953. In which Lohana are clearly called Kshatriyas. Add this if it seems reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.105.198 (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Please can you provide translation of the line in english? Who is the author of the 1953 source? Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Lohana is the name of a caste spread in western India, Sindh and Kutch. Formerly they were Rajputs of Rathor dynasty. who were expelled from Kannauj to Sindh. Later they came to Kutch.

Author: Vipin Vihari Trivedi, Publisher: Lucknow University 117.228.74.177 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The Rajput mention is already there on the page. Is Trivedi the author or a translator? I have no objections to adding this if it is his own conclusion but I think it is already mentioned in another form.LukeEmily (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

If you don't know Hindi and Sanskrit then why are you editing the history of any Indian race? It means you have some ulterior motive. 117.228.63.96 (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Before editing wikipedia I did not even know what Lohana was. I did not know if it was a city, plant or caste. So how could I have ulterior motives?LukeEmily (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Since you are back, though i am less active and will just revert vandalism, i think you will do some work, so this one for you. :) Admantine123 (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Admantine123. Actually I am taking break very soon -in a day or so :-). On second thoiughts, will work on couple of articles that are plain wrong and then take a break. LukeEmily (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

BTW, Admantine123, I meant to write. The bread was delicious  :-) but I do not eat meat. But I love ice-cream, coffee, fruits, feel free to send them my way next time :-) Thanks,LukeEmily (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey luke TB is mentioning the Varna of Baidyas in the lead. Kindly check that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LukeEmily/reference

Hi LukeEmily.. please note that Nobita456 has been indefinitely blocked; you may check the discussions here, User talk:Bishonen, resulting in the block. You need not ping Nobita any more! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the update @Ekdalian:. I went through the history - ban was related to some personal attacks I think. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are right; Nobita possibly started personal attacks after being banned from Baidya & Bengali Kayastha articles! On a lighter note, Nobita used to like you a lot, and used to call you 'Luke'! Ekdalian (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Dola Pratha. It is difficult to ascertain the birth and origin of such a practice as it existed as far back as 'dalit memory' can...

This source talks about Dola Pratha, can you copy quote from it , so that i can add it on that article, as presence of case of particular village is cited as pretext to remove the sourced content. Plz, copy a big part explaining it, so that any mistake like it's prevalence in a particular village do not occur. Admantine123 (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi I saw your edits on Jats, I was just planning to add another reference to it where many communities is used. The certain region in the edit summary is not correct as jats are mostly found in Rajasthan ( the Rajputana), Punjab, United Provinces. These are the regions where 95+% jats live. Akalanka820 (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I have modified it to make it sound more general after adding another reference. Akalanka820 (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Rather than deleting it, you can put it on pages of those communities. I hope we cannot have two logics on Wikipedia, one for X community pages and other for Y. Akalanka820 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

since you are removing it, you must add it before to other community pages and only after that remove it there. Otherwise revert your own edit to the last best as of now till the discussion on other matters are over. Akalanka820 (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Dear LukeEmily, the section is already small and not bulky enough, so not needed to have separation till now. Akalanka820 (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Also there is a discussion on the topic, till then request you not make any contrary changes to your liking. Akalanka820 (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Akalanka820, I am not making any changes to the issues related to the topic under discussion.LukeEmily (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This article Bihari Ahir has a lots of problem from top to bottom including misquoting of reference, poorly referenced material etc. I removed WP:RSCASTE, other such. But it needs a lot of work there. Akalanka820 (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey LukeEmily, sorry to disturb you. According to your advice, I have initiated a discussion in WP:DRN regarding the Karana-Kayastha connection. You can find it here. Thanks. Have a great day. Regards, Satnam2408 (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC).

Sure, thanks Satnam2408. I will comment there but you can also ping other editors who were involved in discussion such as Sitush, TB etc. , just in case if they want to comment.LukeEmily (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey LukeEmily, according to your advice, I have already informed them. TrangaBellam was avoiding S.Asia-related discussion and refused to do so in the near past when Ekdalian requested him for discussion regarding Banu; hence I was avoiding disturbing him. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Eknath Shinde became CM, cheers Admantine123 (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

LOL, not much interest in Indian politics. Also, a teetotaler but thanks :-) Cheers @Admantine123:! Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Dear, LukeEmily I came here to inform you that a consensus regarding the Karana-Kayastha connection was achieved. You may check it in the WP:DRN. It would be included in the Bengali Kayastha article. When I came, I saw that the previous citations were repeated whenever a new section was created. I have deployed reflist containers in every section where sources were cited. Remaining all are intact. I have not changed anything else. You may check the edit history. Have a great day. Thanks. Regards, Satnam2408 (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Satnam2408 and Ekdalian:, I did not check the details but thank you for working together to resolve this. FYI, "National Integration in Historical Perspective" (page 124) by Rabindra Nath Chakraborty mentions the Brahmin origin/status of both Baidyas and Bengali Kayasthas. It says Baidyas were considered Brahmins at one time and the Bengali kayasthas may have descended from Nagara Brahmins who settled in Bengal. You might want to take a look since you both work on Bengali articles. I am trying to stay away or reduce involvement in caste related articles at least for some time until I finish some work on the long overdue Niti Shatakam and Vairagya Shatakam(gathering sources for now) that I have been planning since 2020.LukeEmily (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, it is regarding these edits. The IP is a sock of User:Prince Of Roblox, and have been adding these sources and content before in other articles. It would be nice if you could replace/update those news sources with scholarly sources. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Fylindfotberserk:, sure. Will try to find some sources. Also, are you familiar with Rajapur Saraswat Brahmin? What is this community? Is there another community called "Rajapur Saraswats"? This book by Singh^[1] says that Rajapur Saraswats are Dalits but I am not sure if it is a different community. That community "Rajapur Saraswats" (non-Brahmin) does not have a page on wikipedia. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The only familiarity is that I've seen it linked in Sachin Tendulkar's article (which needs to be removed per self-identification policy). There are many WP:FORKS it seems. The Rajapur Saraswat Brahmin article seems to be one such case, forked out of the larger Saraswat Brahmin article, and skimming through it looks full of original researches. The original version of it , is totally unsourced. If possible, it should be merged back to the main article. I don't know about the Dalit caste either. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Fylindfotberserk: Many of the statements in saraswat and Daivadnya related articles are WP:OR. I am not too familiar with either of them but have been looking as sources and it seems that several authors have pointed out that in the south GSB were a trading community and only claim descent from the Gaud Saraswats of the north which the local Brahmins did not accept. It is not an established fact. Sanskrit scholar Deshpande has even pointed out a Sanskrit verse that has been sloppily interpolated(his words) to make their claim look genuine. Any article that uses low quality sources for extraordinary varna claims is generally a suspicious article. Hopefully, we can get an expert who knows more about these communities. Sitush has also expressed concern for both articles in the past as per the talk pages. There is also a Rajapura community which is OBC. Not sure if it is different from Rajapur Saraswat.LukeEmily (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You have added this but didn't specified which area ? Here- [], it is very important to note that a lot of the people from this community fought against British in 1857 in the Gangetic plain Even there were many such revolts in late 1700s. There are books on those leaders who took part in the revolt. It would be better to clarify the state/region which has been talked about here. Akalanka820 (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Akalanka820, OK. Agreed.LukeEmily (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi you added this-[], the writer on page 109 is clearly talking about 1870, in the top line he mentions. Can't have everything what a writer says on a community page? By this attempt we will have whole book pasted here. I have removed it in good faith. Akalanka820 (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The sources in Rajaraja I, Rajadhiraja Chola, Rajendra Chola I, Rajendra Chola II says they were Shaivites, but it is being hijacked by some editors' POV. Please take a look into it. 2409:4073:4E0A:37A9:A9DB:DBBC:AB1B:5FC5 (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, if you are interested, please join the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu mythological and devotional cinema. 2409:4073:4D81:8F4:78AC:BD2E:F197:F02E (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Please use the ping function and do not copy the user-name from signatures. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I know that both are not the same, anyway its about the R1a1 Y-DNA of Z93 Z94 Lineage who are found in both the Brahmin caste and in some few roma men. So why I and all male Members of my family have then the same y-dna like a brahmin?, DNA tests shows clearly north india Because roma is said came once from India. Rom baro (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Many Rajputs originated from South India, such as the Rathor Rashtrakutas, Solanki Chalukyas, and Rajputs such as the Guhil Chauhans originated from southern Rajasthan, the Gurjara Pratiharas and Parmar Rajputs also originated from southern Rajasthan, who later fought the Turks. After reaching Khyber and Potohar, some Rajputs mixed up with Indo Hunnic people (due to marriage relations with Indo Hunnic women) 103.206.177.49 (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Many articles with the topic name "Pawar" , "Puar" and Panwar are in poor state. I can see use of poor unreliable sources to put the pseudo historical fact on Wikipedia. I have tried to remove some of them. Since, you are more aware in this topic area, you can check them. Thanks.Admantine123 (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The article Rajputra has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rajputra is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajputra until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Lithopsian (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	We feel blessed to have an editor like you. Your advice, quick response and all your efforts to improve an article are appreciable. I have learned a lot from you. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Satnam2408:. But I am not that good or competent as most other editors (such as TB). My knowledge is limited to mostly varna mobility rather than a specific caste. I wish I could help more on some topics. Actually, you deserve the Barnstar much more than I do for your patience and understanding. I personally feel that the Baidya article has a bit trenchant mentioning of the word "shudra" - many times. Once or twice should have been enough. The more appropriate title for the current article is "Baidya as per Scriptures" rather than "Baidya". I think we should discuss on how a balanced view could be presented.LukeEmily (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I just saw this message, and felt that I should respond! You are no less than TB; everyone has their strengths & weaknesses, and you have your own set of skills; you are one of our best editors! I would like to mention here that Satnam2408 has been doing pretty good as a comparatively new editor! Cheers. Ekdalian (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Ekdalian. You are one of the Best editors I have ever seen.Satnam2408 (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)

I hope, now LE will remove that frustrated template from his user page, as now many editors are praising him for his edits. There was a time when he used to be criticised by others, who had some sort of bias or affiliation with any of the caste group present here on Wikipedia.Repeated attacks forced LE to become less active here.-Admantine123 (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words @Ekdalian:, @Admantine123: and @Satnam2408:.LukeEmily (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

, if you get time, please go through page 218-20 of this source and let me understand the context in which various caste groups are booked by police during Non Cooperation movement. I read some of the pages and understood that during non Cooperation movement, some castes are participating in it and they are becoming strict in enforcing the code of non cooperation, meanwhile, punishing the violators of those codes. In the meantime, a group attacks police (colonial) and people from various castes were booked by colonial authorities. If it is to be used on a caste page, how should we go ?-Admantine123 (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Admantine123:, sorry for the late reply. I will go through it. ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Can I have your mail id, so that we can discuss some of the content outside wiki.-Admantine123 (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Admantine123:, I could see only some of the pages. which caste page are you planning to add it to? Even if it is mentioned it will be probably better to mention it as a single statement without going into detail. I don't have email associated with my wiki account but will add one in the future. However, please feel free to post on my talk page directly. LukeEmily (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, did you format the citation in this INB comment for the comment itself or is it from an article? Curious because no way should we be using any source from 1968 which speaks of genetics - it is obviously not going to be reliable. I'd be surprised if any useful genetics studies of castes & tribes had even taken place then, and the human genome wasn't mapped until decades later. So any conclusions are likely based on discredited theories of anthropometry, scientific racism etc. If that source is used anywhere, it should be replaced, regardless of the supposed academic standing of Gadgil & Karve. - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush:, I copied it from a conversation earlier(2022 or 2021) but it is on the Kunbi page as a citation from at least a decade. Please see this 2012 version. Although the citation is present, it is irrelevant to the text i.e. the text does not mention genetics. I will remove it from the page. I am aware of not using genetics on any caste pages and had no intention of using that citation anywhere. Will add something about not using genetics on my "consensus" page where I have mostly copied your comments from your various chats- here User:LukeEmily/reference Thanks. LukeEmily (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Mr. LukeEmily, why you removed the Gavli and Koli from this article. The source is already available in the book name Wages of Violence: Naming and Identity in Postcolonial Bombay By Thomas Blom Hansen on page number 31 with the texts as The exact empirical boundaries of the Maratha caste cannot be estab lished without looking at the past in terms of the present. Nineteenth- century sources allow several interpretations. In the District Gazetteer of Thane from 1882, for instance, Kunbis, Agris and Kolis were all described as discrete castes, and yet, within each, elite layers were called "Maratha- Agris," "Maratha-Kolis" (115-29), and so on, which indicated the use of the Maratha label as a symbol of superiority even within caste groups not connected to Marathas in endogamous terms. In the District Gazetteer of Pune from 1882, Kunbis were described as falling into two classes, Kanbis and Marathas, that could not be clearly discerned (p. 284). In the 1931 census Marathas and Kunbis were lumped together in one category & link is here [] as 4th reference in article. KoliMarathaKolhapure (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi there!@LukeEmily Since you are actively editing Indian castes and related topics. I am requesting you to also check the page Ror Dynasty which was deleted earlier. Recently the page was recreated by a user who was eventually blocked for his disruptive behaviour. Thanks for your attention. Regards, Nirmohiji (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Have a look at these changes. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your ever watchful eye, @Fylindfotberserk:. I think Ekdalian restored the page to its proper version. Regards, LukeEmily (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Something happening with my interface. When I try to thank, it rollbacks. Thinks are jumbled. Thanks and welcome . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, one thing. Is this addition correct. This new user is a caste POV pusher. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Check these changes, thanks. Pinging @Admantine123:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

D you think this needs to be banreverted considering the recent SP activity? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk:, yes I agree. The sock misrepresented what was written by Lewitt, however, another diligent editor Ekdalian already made the reverts.LukeEmily (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear Emily, Please read that community page once.Except negative point nothing is there and that points are misleading as shenvis doesn’t represent GSB as a whole.The source is not giving full information instead it is selective approach.Even the information provider has reached the extent to question the Varna status with random authors name without research background.So open the page for editing as many valid and high level source are there.That page looks more like the page of shenvis than GSB. Pondakar (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear @LukeEmilyI hope you know the importance of Wikipedia.Anyone can add the information based on the correct reference.I wonder how can you delete the information which is correctly cited without any discussion,Just by mentioning someone’s name you cannot delete the information written by me with the correct reference.I know you may belong to any Caste in that or you may hate some caste or you may have point of view against/infavour of any caste.But while editing you must be neutral.So don’t take anything personally(WP:OR)(WP:POV).Even I have mentioned from where I have copied items and which book I have refered,My IP is available right here don’t you think tools can be used Incase of any socks.So revert the content and don't involve in vandalism.Mr.@EkdalianI am taking you to loop as I saw you are active in that page. 2409:40F2:8:A3F0:5D14:7DA3:50D3:EC15 (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey LukeEmily, wishes you a happy and prosperous new year. I hope this new year brings you joy, success, and wonderful moments with your loved ones. Here's to a fresh start in the year ahead. Thanks, — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 18:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Happy new year to you too @Satnam:. LukeEmily (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Have a look at this, which was added because of an edit request . The person requesting may by the sockfarm we know. Please check. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Fylindfotberserk:. Defintely a sockfarm. Not sure what to do about this. There is a new user on the Gaud Saraswat Brahmin talk page too. They all seem to have the same agenda to remove anything controvertial.LukeEmily (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Both as well as few other accounts got blocked in the latest SPI. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Have a look at this regarding this edit. Looks POV. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk:, Thanks. I agree with you. This lead is full of POV , some using questionable sources as well as WP:UNDUE. Not all sides are given. An the lead has too many details. The lead also indirectly mentions their Kshatriya varna claim although most authors call them vaishyas and by profession they were traders. We need to fix the article. Sitush had mentioned once that he is going to clean up this article. But we can at least clean up some sections - especially lead. LukeEmily (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Knows too much, even this. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello LukeEmily.. I would like to inform you that I have reverted your good faith move only in order to maintain uniformity! Look at the parent caste Vishwakarma (caste). Another example from the same group is Rathakara! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure @Ekdalian:. Thanks. I do not think that other Brahmins accept them as Brahmins. They just claim to be brahmins. But the reason I had made the change was because I noticed Indian courts as well as newspapers and sources like Singh(oxford University version) referring to them as "daivadnya brahmins". This is a case of WP:COMMONNAME but we can discuss later on talk page. Thanks.LukeEmily (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Gaud Saraswat Brahmin, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Dear @LukeEmily,

I know that you have removed my recent edit due to lack of sources or citations...

However, I belong to the community myself, and so I had confidently added information. I do not wish that misinformation be spread about my community.

Even though point-of-view details must not be added, I feel that you could undo the revert you made.

I suggest that you use the ^{[citation needed]} template for all the unsourced information, if you wish.

I want my edit to be brought back, because the information on the current page is insufficient.

For example, it mentions that this is just a "Hindu community", though the pages Saraswat Brahmin and Gaudapadacharya Math clearly mention this as a branch of Saraswat Brahmins, which I added.

You could take some info from this blog , if you do not trust me. I do agree, however, that it does not count as a reference...

Your act of reverting my edit could hurt the sentiments of my fellow RSB members.

So, please bring back my edit, because the current information is insufficient and partially misleading. You can add the ^{[citation needed]} template if you want, but I request you to add the information.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

 Felixdor  (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Concerns about Monopoly in contentious topics page(Caste page). Thank you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 13:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@LukeEmily You can explain or caste your opinion for this move discussion of Talk:Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty#Requested move 7 August 2024.? 2402:AD80:13A:41ED:1:0:B23B:D3AA (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, do note that edit summaries are only to describe your own edits, not to humiliate other editors like you did here. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin:, simply pointing out or reminding in the summary the views of senior editors like Sitush and admins is not an intent to humiliate anyone.LukeEmily (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello @LukeEmily. I have a reliable source. The book " Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: history, art, and traditions in Tamilnāḍu " is written by T. Padmaja. T Padmaja is a researcher in Department of ancient history and archaelogy in University of Mysore. This book is a academic source publised under University of Mysore. In the page 33 Author mentions that Ahirs are known as Ayars in Tamil (one of the Indian languages). Author also mentions how Ahirs migrated to tamilnadu and established their kingdoms and in inscriptions these Ayars/Ahirs mention they are from Yadava/Yadu lineage.[]. 2409:4085:8D1D:8CAC:0:0:81C9:8504 (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

can you please provide inputs in ahir clan talk page,,,, sourced academic contents are constantly removed , kindly check Drisha herjee (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Ekdalian (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Ekdalian (talk) 11:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello LukeEmily: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello LukeEmily: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Abishe (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I admire your poise and perseverance throughout the Rfc LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @LeónGonsalvesofGoa:! LukeEmily (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: Hi, I noticed you reverted my recent edits. Before reverting, please check all the references I added, not just the single book you've been using. The sources I included contain content about Shudra and Kshatriya, which are clearly mentioned in the cited material.

If you have concerns about specific statements, it would be better to discuss them here on the talk page rather than reverting without engagement. The references I added are not duplicates and provide new scholarly input to the topic. Please review them carefully before reverting again.

Thanks. Orthodox Yash (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Orthodox Yash I had checked your given sources, and all those are correct. @LukeEmily should not revert your your edits.

Thank you.--Kambojahistory (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)