Talk:Madhva Brahmin

Importance

This article is to give a brief idea of who are Madhwa Brahmins and the rituals followed by them.

Please donot make every article a base for attacking people/governments/organizations. We have blogs to meet that purpose. This is an info center, with facts that are verifiable. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhiran (talk • contribs)

Sourcing

We do not use sources from the British Raj era in caste-related articles, nor should we use the "states" series of The People of India, which basically plagiarises those Raj sources. Both these issues have been discussed time and again by the community, including at the reliable sources noticeboard. The consensus is clear and of long standing so please stop adding that sort of thing back into this article. Find some modern academic sources instead. - Sitush (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society (Bangalore)., Volume 83 has also been cited recently but I am pretty sure it was used from a Google Books "snippet view". Such views do not provide sufficient context for us to evaluate what is being said and thus also should not be used. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

History of the Dvaita School of Vedānta and Its Literature: From the Earliest Beginnings to Our Own Times is reliable, as far as I can see. I removed it because I am struggling to understand the direct relationship between the sampradaya (which is what it speaks of) and the Madhwa Brahmins. Are they actually synonymous? I don't think so. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

We said Shivalli Madhwas/Shivalli Madhwa Brahmins/Tulu Madhwa Brahmins are Shivalli Brahmins who are followers of Dvaita philosophy of Madhvacharya and provided a couple of sources. One of those - the "national" series of The People of India]] - is ok to use but, honestly, that sentence is gobbledegook and I cannot see the source to fix it. - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of Madhwa Brahmins

List is very short, as is the article. Merging makes sense at this time (and the target article should be moved to Madhwa Brahmin because we use the singular for castes etc). Sitush (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Frykenberg

Although the Frykenberg quote here was reinstated by me because it does appear to be in the cited source, I cannot actually see more than a snippet view of that source, we lack the full cite detail (article title etc) and I really do not understand what the quote means because it has no context.

We've had a bunch of stuff added in recent days, such as the above, which clearly come from some other article because the accessdates show 2007, 2008 etc. Little of it actually made any sense, so I took the lot out pending clarification. - Sitush (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Why just because you want to keep the paragraph in the Deshastha Brahmin article ? What kind of editor does this ? --Nikhil.joshi.d (talk) 02:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

No. Because Frykenberg is a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Language restricted to Kannada!

First reference clearly states that the mad was of Goa( and coastal india) and Maharashtra speak Konkani and Marathi respective.Here there is not importance given to that language. Joshi punekar (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

B.N Krishna Sharma(2000) which is first reference gives the detail about this. Joshi punekar (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Demographics section

The demographics section is horrendous and misleading. It suggests that all members of each community - Kannada Kamme etc - are Dvaita followers but in fact the quotes from the sources often suggest otherwise, ie: that only some of each community are followers. The entire section needs to be rewritten and the number of uses of the word brahmin needs to be reduced dramatically. - Sitush (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Sitush:, i figured this out. Hope this helps. - MRRaja001 (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

That works much better, thanks. I'm not a fan of having more than a couple of cites after a statement because it can look like "ref bombing" in some cases and in this case makes it trickier for the reader to determine which source supports which community's entry in the list. But it is way better than it was. - Sitush (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Madhwa Brahmins page

Hi @Sitush:, i think we need to change the page name from Madhwa Brahmins to Madhwa Brahmin and also new assessment rating is required it's showing stub Thanks - MRRaja001 (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't get much involved in assessments. And i get very confused about whether article titles should say "Brahmin" or "Brahmins". I'm guessing there is some guidance somewhere, so if you link to that in the summary when you move the page it should be fine - can't imagine it is something controversial that needs to go through WP:RM. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Madhva Brahmins to Madhvas

Hi @Sitush:, I am thinking to modify the content on this article. Because I came to know that there are many communities that follow Madhvacharya after my research. So I thought it is not fair to say only about Madhva Brahmins. Should I create a separate article for the whole Madhva community as Madhvas or Sadh Vaishnavas or change this article to Madhvas and write here itself. What is your opinion on this? What is your opinion on this? - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 16:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)