Talk:Bengali Kayastha/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Major work required for improvement for the Bengali Kayastha page

@Dinopce: This article needs much improvement with addition of material such as their historical mentions in different edicts, secular and administrative texts and a section for Prominent Bengali Kayasthas. Currently it looks like a regressive article dealing only with divisive material. There has been so much achievements by their philosophers, poets, historians, archaeologists, preachers, freedom-fighters and scientists but one is disappointed upon reading this is article to find little to no mention. Indians have looked upon this particular group to lead us in scientific and modern thinking but this article looks regressive. @Dinopce:, since I too am currently free during the Nationwide lockdown, I will also try to improve it but you seem to know the group much better than I do, so do take out some time and contribute here. Dinopce and other editors who would like to contribute, do make sure that you provide sources for each assertion to avoid edit-warring and for the benefit of all of us including me. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@User:Nikhil_Srivastava Yes. You're right. The accomplishments made by the Bengali(Chitraguptavanshi) Kayasthas are numerous. None of those have been mentioned here. There was no need to separate this Bengali Kayastha group in particular. They're afterall Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas only!

Merging the article with the Kayasthapage would be a better thing to do.

I second this motion.

Dinopce (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@User:Nikhil_Srivastava The division of Kayasthas are CK(inclusive of Bengali Kayastha) and CKP.

Why further separate the Kayasthas based on state or province? Swami Vivekanand said the words"...ruled half of India...". He meant CKs and not Bengali Kayasthas!

If Kayasthas are to be separated based on province,then it will lead to separate pages like Bihari Kayasthas,Andhra Kayasthas,UP Kayasthas etc.

It's redundant to use such a practice.

This page should be merged with the Kayastha page!!! Dinopce (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@User:Nikhil_Srivastava This discussion should be brought to some old editor's notice! Eg:Bonadea

You should write to Bonadea's profile page. Dinopce (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dinopce: Then you probably are not aware of the strong sense of Bengali identity linked to the Bengali literature and culture that exists in its followers. In my opinion, one should wait till the suggestion comes from Bengali Kayastha editors. Anyways Bengali Kayastha have been considered one of the three major sub-groups of Kayasthas. Also they are numerically very large and have a different origin theory though linked to the Chitraguptvanshi Kayasthas. It is therefore advisable to let this page be a separate one for the numerically and culturally extremely strong Bengali Kayastha sub-group. @Sattvic7: You may also look this up for I know you have great skills to find sourced information and only let the sourced ones stay. This will also expand the horizon of your knowledge and add variation to your Wikipedia contributions. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand the Bengali Identity and the literature part!

What I don't understand is the fact that Bengali Kayasthas are an off-shoot of CKs. Separate identity part is mentioned in the Kayastha page in the 1st para.

Why should we dedicate a separate page to this? If somebody wants to dedicate a separate page to this,then he/she should also mention the same part in the Kayastha page as well. This is my question.

Dinopce (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Kayastha=superset

Bengali,CK & CKP=subset

Venn diagram approach. Dinopce (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Bengali Kayastha surnames → Bengali Kayastha – Its quite clear that this article is about an entire community known as "Bengali Kayastha". It doesn't deal with surnames alone. Owsert (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with the requested move. This article is indeed about the 'Bengali Kayastha' community. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support to reflect scope of article (also, superfluous disambiguation). ^walk victor falk ^talk 16:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge?

This article should be merged if thereis in fact any content at all that is not already at Kayastha or Kulin Kayastha. It serves no useful purpose, since most Kayasthas are in Bengal anyway. What we have here is just another exercise by a Kayastha-obsessed SPA. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

True. Dinopce (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent Revert

Hi Sitush,

Please note that this is not an article on Kulins. This is a generic article on Bengali Kayastha. Please stop this disruptive editing. Every line from any article can be dropped citing some reason or the other. That violates the essence of Wikipedia. Moreover, you have yourself edited this article before. I am not the only editor. If you have any concerns, please discuss here. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

See the above section. 90 per cent of this article is about the Kulins. They are the only named subcaste. Go figure. I could adopt an alternate approach, since it is mostly copyright violation and close paraphrasing. Would you rather I did that? It would have the same outcome but leave a black mark on your name. - Sitush (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, 90 per cent after removing this again. You've now reinstated that pseudo-science after it has been removed by at least two different people. The statements are based on a 1932 publication that used the discredited theories of scientific racism, via anthropometry. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the height of disruptive editing. You are now so obsessed with deletion of facts that you have even removed a paragraph on inscriptions that verify the existence of the Bengali Kayasthas and the surnames used by them. Inscriptions have got nothing to do with your so-called 'pseudo-science', right? But then, who cares? Among 26 surnames mentioned there, only 3 or say 4 belong to the Kulin Kayasthas. And the numbers are obviously directly proportional. Kulin Kayasthas, for your information, just form a minor percentage of Bengali Kayasthas. Most of the Bengali Kayasthas are non-Kulins, and there are n no of reliable sources to support that. You have never even bothered to go through the sources mentioned in the article on Kayastha, which you edit on a regular basis.

Copyright violations can be handled, you know. If that is the issue, you could have mentioned, and I could have re-written those statements in order to avoid copyright vio. And finally, who are we to judge what is history or 'pseudo-science'. You are now referring to those anon editors, who do not even have the guts to come up with a named user, and among the two, one has even mentioned that this part is politically motivated. So now, we will even pay attention to such absurd comments by anon editors. You are logical enough to understand that we are not qualified enough to judge statements by an eminent historian, and call it 'pseudo-science' or whatever! Relevant statements regarding the origin of the Bengali Kayasthas must be presented here, and in case there is any counter opinion either related to the inscriptions or the analysis/suggestions regarding the information available from those inscriptions, that may be mentioned as well. You are not supposed to interpret the suggestions, you may place any counter analysis or opinions or suggestions by other historians, that's all. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Surnames are trivial and dubious in caste articles, by long-standing consensus. WP:FRINGE covers the rest: we've long stopped citing the scientific racists and the source isn't that great, describing research from 1932 "recent". If you edited more widely, instead of obsessing about Kayasthas and cherrypicking sources for glorification of that end, you'd know this. For example, Andre Wink has been massively cherrypicked with regard to the varna status of the entire community. You're a POV-pusher , plain and simple, and no amount of fancy words will change that, - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, I am reinstating the portion on the inscriptions, which has got nothing to do with your concerns. For the suggestion part by Historian Bhandarkar, I would request you to place counter opinions, and will wait for your response. We cannot be authoritative, please cite sources to validate the point that such analogies are discredited, or any other counter argument. In case we still fail to arrive at a consensus, we can always opt for Dispute Resolution or involve other neutral parties. Please stop being personal. You know, several editors have attacked you personally, which I highly disapprove. I had incorporated that paragraph where Dr Bhandarkar has suggested based on analogies and research, and you, in fact, had edited the same. It is really strange that you didn't raise your concern at that juncture. Now, when an anon uses the term 'pseudo-science', you say its 'pseudo-science'. Please cite reliable sources to establish that such suggestions cannot even be mentioned. We are not here to pass judgments, please provide counter opinions by other notables. Or else, let us have the same yardstick, and remove all such contents from all articles concerned. This logic should then apply on all articles like Alpine race and Caucasoid, and not just selectively. And, last but not the least, in case you have more recent sources on the same topic, please come up with the same. We are referring to a source that was published in 2005, which in turn mentions about the opinion of a renowned historian. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, though I had a lot of faith on you as a neutral editor covering a wide range of articles, you have let me down. If we can sort this out here on the talk page, it would be great! Otherwise, let us involve neutral parties, and opt for Dispute Resolution. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see your earlier note of 23 April above, sorry. You can take this dispute wherever you want but please note that just because other articles are wrong doesn't mean we should perpetuate the "wrongness" in this one. I agree entirely that there are problems with other articles but this is the one we are dealing with here.

We err on the side of caution here, which means that it is not necessary to provide an alternate to something that is disputed. The burden is on the person who adds the information to ensure that it is verifiable using reliable sources, that it is relevant, that is is balanced in the context of the article subject etc. That burden lies with you, not me, but if you cannot recognise that there is a massive consensus against using Raj era sources and sources that pretend they are reliable then you are, I am afraid, misguided. Raj era sources and their methods etc are only reliable as statements about themse4lves, not about the subject. Playing games of connections with names is pointless, playing games of connections based on an entirely discredited racist methodology is only relevant is you couch it carefully, which includes pointing out that the methodology is no longer considered acceptable by the wider academic community.

I've been at DRN etc before about such issues and I've never "lost" yet but the choice is yours. Frankly, any modern academic who takes the opinion of a scientific racist at face value (ie: without qualifying the problems) doesn't deserve their status. They are no better than, say, David Irving. There are all sorts of "crackpots" out there. Many of them are or have been professional academics and, yes, there may be times when it is appropriate to mention their opinion. However, in mentioning such opinions we need to note that it is outside the mainstream.

But before you try WP:DR, please tell me more about Bhandarkar. Can we see a CV? Can we see evidence of him being widely cited? Etc. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Sitush for your explanation. Honestly speaking, this is what I expect from you. I have mentioned earlier that I have great respect for you, and I didn't really expect this edit war with you. You may say that I am a WP:SPA or whatever, but the fact of the matter is that unfortunately I don't get time to get involved because of my professional compulsions. And I am a perfectionist, you will never notice any lousy work, or incorporation of statements without citing sources. I started contributing on caste related topics after an extensive research on the same and because of my interest on human evolution, etc when I discovered that the last 1000-2000 years of our origin are missing in Wikipedia, may be because of limited references and limited no of contributors on such topics. Hope, I will be in a position to contribute more actively on a wide range of topics soon.

Now, coming back to the discussion on this article, I will surely provide you more details about Bhandarkar. Please let me reinstate the last best undisputed part of the article, which has got nothing to do with Bhandarkar. In case of concerns like copyright vio, etc, please let me know, so that I can take care of that. Let us have a constructive approach, and I always believe this is applicable to any article. Very soon, I will come up with more about Bhandarkar, so that we can discuss about the disputed part. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

When the content is agreed upon, it can go in. For example, the lead section as written prior to yesterday was simply dreadful English phrasing. It also relied in part on a source published in 1896 as support for a statement about the present day: it is akin to using the same source to say that the British Raj governs India and we cannot do that because, of course, it no longer does. - Sitush (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sitush, discussions on historian Bhandarkar make sense only when you reinstate unrelated, reliably sourced and undisputed parts like the paragraph on inscriptions. Removal of sourced content without any justification is not acceptable, and especially by a senior editor like you. And, as I have already mentioned, every line from every article can be removed on some context or the other. That violates the basic philosophies of Wikipedia. And please understand that none of us own this platform. This is not a personal blog. And neither you, nor me would live for ever and protect these pages. That is precisely the reason I mentioned WP:DRN. And look at your statement! You said you have never "lost". Its not about winning or losing dear, my responsibility is to bring to the notice that this is not acceptable, there ends the matter. Even if the article does not exist, how does it affect me; I already have the knowledge, only reason we protect a page is because we want others to get the information, which may not be easily available. It is not my sole responsibility to protect an article on Wikipedia; I am not that obsessed.

You have mentioned in the other discussion that "we know that Andre Wink is at least one authority who has said that Kayasthas were considered to be shudra". I don't know, why a logical person like you fail to understand that this is not contradictory. Like you all are now considering the period when the "highest caste" status was applicable, I must remind you that most of the reliable sources mention that the Kayasthas were degraded to shudra status (when two caste system was introduced, Brahmins and Shudras, and Kaysthas & Baidyas were placed at the top amongst so-called Shudras) during the Sena period, some even mention Buddhist influence during Pala Empire and non-adherence to orthodox Hinduism as the reason. That may be debated, but the period is not. And, this has got nothing to do with Andre Wink's statement related to their origin that the Kayasthas (in Bengal) have evolved from a class of officials into a caste between the 5th/6th century AD and 11th/12th century AD, the component elements being putative Kshatriyas, and for the larger majority, Brahmins. Same page 269 clearly mentions about the influence of Buddhism, and also the fact that "they obtained the aspect of a caste perhaps under the Senas". You don't need to put in great effort to understand the difference between caste status (accorded by the Senas) and the component elements (starting from 5th/6th century) which led to the formation. It is really strange that you still keep harping on the same issue.

Lastly, you also talk about Raj era sources all the time. You need to understand that caste was an important aspect at that time and that is why most of the research and books available belong to that period. Now, urban and educated people hardly bother about caste in Bengal or in India, so there would hardly be recent research or recent books, and therefore the number of such sources would be very limited, if at all.

If you still fail to understand, and disagree on reinstating the parts removed (other than suggestions by D R Bhandarkar), then discussions become meaningless. Please mention here, if you have any concern regarding the same. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

All I asked was for more information about the author and for a more rounded resentation of the facts. I can't see the former in your response and I can't see any support for the latter, although you do talk about it at length. You'll note that there has been some involvement from other people both on this talk page and the article itself. That includes at least one person whom you approached for help. Right now, it doesn't look like we're progressing at all. - Sitush (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Please let me know if you have any concerns regarding the part explained above, which has got nothing to do with Bhandarkar ('Discovery of North-East India' is authored by Suresh Kant Sharma & Usha Sharma). I believe, then only we can proceed. And, for your information, I didn't ask for help. I would always encourage other opinions. As already mentioned, it is not my sole responsibility to protect an article. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The author is Kanaklal Barua, the editors of the 11-volume set are the Sharmas. Barua is citing Bhandarkar's 1932 pseudo-science stuff. Who is Barua? Surely not the Kanaklal Barua who apparently died in 1940? And who the heck was Bhandarkar that makes him so reliable even though he used theories that have long since been dismissed? And why is it that the Sharmas seem effectively to be reprinting pseudo-scientific & otherwise speculative associational crap written at a time that we know produced a lot of dodgy historical/anthropological research etc? So, who are the Sharnmas? Can we not find a modern source that doesn't rely on weird notions of scientific racism and philology etc? If the Kayasthas are such a significant community then I would expect to see more recent research and, indeed, there is ... but it doesn't seem to mention these Raj era people. I'll try to do more digging around myself becuase I really do believe that if the recently removed stuff is so relevant then it will have been examined well inside, say, the last 30 or so years.

As an aside, the fact that Barua calls Bhandarkar's theory "recent" does make sense if we assume that Barua wrote it somewhere between 1932 and his own death in 1940. It doesn't make the source any more reliable though. - Sitush (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sitush, please let me know if your digging exercise has yielded any new stuff. Otherwise, let us move ahead with the discussions. Let us take up one paragraph or one issue at a time, and let's come to a conclusion. As I have already explained, there is no contradiction in Andre Wink's statement, and since Andre Wink is reliable, can we have the lead as it is, i.e. "Between the 5th/6th century AD and 11th/12th century AD, the Bengali Kayasthas evolved as a caste from a category of officials or scribes, its component elements being putative Kshatriyas and, for the larger majority, Brahmins". Though few reliable sources mention about the original stock that eventually formed the caste, one example is as follows

[this], National Integration in Historical Perspective by Rabindra Nath Chakraborty (Mittal Publications, 1985) clearly mentions on Page 124 that according to the smritis he has mentioned, the Kayasthas of Bengal "were descended from Nagara Brahmin who had a large settlement in Bengal in the eighth century AD".

There are other sources as well that refer to the inscriptions and historians like Tej Ram Sharma, who have mentioned that there is a considerable Brahmin element in the present-day Kayastha community of Bengal, refer [this] Page 115. If you have no issues with the lead, then we can proceed and discuss about the inscriptions and then last but not the least, about Dr Bhandarkar. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll look at your links, thanks. I've found nothing myself yet. We're not having your suggestion as the lead, though: it is a copyright violation. - Sitush (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW, are we tlaking about the same bit of Wink? I'm referring to this, if you can see it. - Sitush (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand the copyright violation issue, which needs to be addressed. I asked whether you agree with the content. The link you have just provided is the relevant part. This page clearly mentions that the Kayasthas were ranked as Shudras (when they were recognized as a separate caste by the Senas, then only the question of caste status arises), but also categorically mentions that Kayasthas were not regarded as a caste originally, but was a functional group or a category of 'officials' or 'scribes' and evolved between the 5th/6th and 11th/12th centuries AD, "its component elements were putative kshatriyas and, for the larger majority, brahmans, who either retained their caste identity or became Buddhists while laying down the sacred thread". My point here is, this reliable source clearly distinguishes between their caste status and their original component elements; therefore this is probably the most important statement when we discuss their origin or history of evolution as a caste. I hope you 'll agree with this. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sitush, great to see your name in the ToI article. I hope you will agree with the above content, then we can move on and discuss about the early inscriptions. I believe you have gone through the links I have provided. There is no second opinion regarding the origin of Kayasthas in early Bengal. Tej Ram Sharma has discussed in details about the office of the Kayastha during the Gupta Empire in Bengal, and the 'considerable brahmana element', since it was mostly Brahmins (some even specify as 'Nagara Brahmin', as provided in the other link above) who assumed the office of 'Kayasthas' in Bengal. Therefore, can we rephrase the statement of Andre Wink and avoid copyright violation. Can we have something like the following as the lead - The functional group of officials and scribes, comprising mostly Brahmins and some Kshatriyas, which formed the office of the Kayastha starting from the Gupta period in Bengal, gradually evolved from a functional entity into a caste between the 5th/6th and the 11th/12th centuries AD. Please suggest. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to formulate something but it is a holiday weekend here in the UK and I'm having to spend time with my visiting brothers and their families etc. Even though I can't hear a word that they say, which makes it a very frustrating experience. I'm making mistakes on Wikipedia as a result. I may not be around much until Tuesday. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, no issues. Hope you spend some quality time on this weekend. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sitush, awaiting your suggestion.... Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've been thinking about it, off and on. For starters, we really shouldn't be saying that sort of thing in a lead section. Secondly, I'm still unable to come up with something that covers all angles and does involve close paraphrasing or worse. We may end up having to use a quotation and if that is so then we've somehow got to get everything in there without engaging in synthesis. "Everything" means stuff other than claims about Brahmin connections which, after all, are mere etymological speculation: there are, for example, many people called Smith across the world but very few of them are smiths and we'd be hard-pressed to ascertain that their ancestors ever were. - Sitush (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we are not supposed to engage in synthesis. But, on the other hand, we must mention what these reliable sources say. I don't think, we can call this etymological speculation, and the 'smith' example you 've cited is not applicable here. This is purely history, and we are referring to early origin or formation of a community as mentioned by historians. We are not supposed to interpret or judge statements from reliable source(s). I believe, we can only merge related statements or place counter statements (if any). In case you have encountered any counter opinion regarding the origin (not caste status, which has various interpretations) based on any reliable source, please share the same. Thanks for your efforts. Ekdalian (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sitush, I understand you must be really busy for the last few days and that's why we could not proceed. Honestly speaking, nothing is absolutely perfect; let us come up with the lead section describing the early formation of the community based on the reliable sources available. I had already framed one, you may alter or modify the same, or come up with a better composition altogether, so that we can discuss here, arrive at some sort of consensus and close it. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sitush, I am rephrasing the lead section, and incorporating the content, considering your long absence from Wikipedia. Hope you will come back soon, and we can discuss further on constructive improvements. All suggestions from other editors are equally welcome. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have reverted the edit. "Absence" of one editor" does not men "consensus". --Tito☸Dutta 12:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello TitoDutta. Please share your concerns. I have already explained on your talk page. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• If you want me to reply here, post here, and not at my talk page. It is what you posted at my tallk:

Please discuss if you have any issues with the lead section. The statement is reliably sourced, that too citing two reliable sources. The main concern of Sitush was copyright vio, which has been taken care of. Please go through the references at least. As a senior editor, you can understand, we cannot keep the lead section blank for ever. Even Sitush has never questioned the reliability of Andre Wink or Tej Ram Sharma. I have always maintained that all editors (especially seniors like you) are always welcome to suggest constructive improvements. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

My first and the biggest concern is, I can see no sign of any agreement or consensus. You wrote

I am rephrasing the lead section, and incorporating the content, considering your long absence from Wikipedia.

— If Sitush's absence is the result of this re-insertion, then that is no reason. "Absense" does not mean "concensus". Not only copyvio, Sitush raised multiple issues including reliability of sources. And you did not make any edit in "lead", we cannot keep the lead section blank for ever — it is not blank now. --Tito☸Dutta 13:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, what we were referring to as the lead, is the lead statement for the History section. Sitush has himself mentioned here that Andre Wink is reliable, and we both had reached consensus on Tej Ram Sharma's statements in our earlier discussions. Now, in his absence, if you have any valid reason to remove reliably sourced content, you are welcome to discuss. In fact, I have great faith on you as a logical and neutral editor. Please note that Sitush could not come up with any counter opinion, as evident from the above discussions. It would be great if Sitush joins back the discussions. But since he has not left any message, therefore we have to move on. Please go through the sources cited, and let me know, if you have any issues. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Your comments, specially the last one I quoted above, indicate that you are trying to reach a quick consensus citing Sitush's absence. It is not acceptable. Sitush is not the only editor. Sitush had directly told you You're a POV-pusher , plain and simple, and no amount of fancy words will change that
  You may do one thing, go and try to get a second and/or third opinion from an "trusted" editor of the community, I may suggest few names User:Drmies, User:Bishonen, or ask any admin you like. --Tito☸Dutta 03:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that Sitush could be a great editor, but the way you are quoting him gives the impression that he is God!! And whatever is his personal opinion must be true. It is true that I have contributed on a narrow range of articles, but I have all through maintained the policies and philosophies of Wikipedia. Moreover, as far as this article is concerned, many senior editors and probably admins have informally reviewed the article when it was in its original state. Anyway, I 'll request the trusted editors of the community, as you have mentioned. Please let me revert the article to the original state (replacing copyright vio), and then request them to review the article. Otherwise, it would not make much sense. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to its original state (replacing copyright vio part) so that it can be reviewed by admins as suggested by User:Titodutta. I would like to request User:Drmies and User:Bishonen to please review the article and share their valuable opinions. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Curious

Which source mentions Bengali Kayastha is among the highest of Hindu castes in the region. I am myself a Bengali Kayastha, but did not know it, I am just curious, can someone quote the relevant portion of the source? --Tito☸Dutta 11:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Page 1 of the Inden source says it, although I've just had to fix the url because that was pointing to p. 133. "This study gives an account of marriage and clan rank among the highest castes of Bengal ... Many of the higher castes of India have historically been ordered into ranked clans or lineages. The highest Hindu castes of Bengal, the Brahman or "priest" caste and the Kayastha or "writer" caste, are no exception to this widespread pattern."

I'm sure that I've checked the other cited source recently also but I can't see that at GBooks and will have to dig out my hard copy - maybe later today. - Sitush (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, thank you. Tito☸Dutta 12:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• We may actually have a bit of a problem with the other source. It says "The other aspect of the pre-colonial Bengali society, which Niharranjan Ray’s study had conclusively shown, was that since the Gupta period, as a settled agricultural economy expanded in Bengal, the linkages between caste and class became more visible, with those providing physical labour losing status to those who refrained from it, but controlled land, such as the Brahman, Kayastha and Baidya, the three traditional uchchajati (higher castes) of Bengal."

Clearly, it is referring to the status of a more than 200 years ago. Furthermore, we know that Andre Wink is at least one authority who has said that Kayasthas were considered to be shudra, which seems at odds with what we say in the lead. It is the cherrypicking that has been my bone of contention with these Kayastha-related articles for some time now but I keep meeting up with SPAs and lose the will to research the topic in detail. Obviously, I need to find the time because SPAs are rarely ever a good thing on caste articles. - Sitush (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Remove it, it is incomplete and misleading. --Tito☸Dutta 14:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Review

Okay, I took a look at this, and the related, articles. I'm not going to review it. I checked one source, for the following sentence:

"Early history shows the Bengali Kayasthas as a functional group of officials and scribes, comprising mostly Brahmins and some Kshatriyas, which formed the office of the Kayastha during the Gupta period in Bengal, and gradually evolved into a caste between the 5th/6th and the 11th/12th centuries AD"

The reference says:

"The Pala, Sena and Varman kings and their descendants - which did make claims to kshatriyahood - almost imperceptibly merged with the Bengali caste of the 'Kayasthas', which also ranked as shudras."

I can't check the second source for this sentence, but the Wink-source does not support this line in this way. And why is the shudra-status not mentioned?
Given Sitush' scrutiny, I guess his removals were correct. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I've restored Tito Dutta's version. The hsitory-section is duplicated at Kulin Kayastha, so may as well be removed. And the info in the lead can be moved to Kayastha, and supplemented with the info on the Shudra-status. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Joshua Jonathan, have you seen that the same page 269 mentions "Sanskrit sources ...... do not yet regard the Kayasthas as a caste in any sense, but as a category of 'officials' or 'scribes'. Between the fifth or sixth centuries (when we first hear of them) and the eleventh-twelfth centuries, its component elements were putative kshatriyas and, for the larger majority, brahmans ......" What you have read refers to the caste status later during the Sena Empire, when the Senas recognized them as a caste (mentioned in the last line of the same para). And please note that the caste status varied, and almost all reliable sources mention the Kayasthas as the highest castes along with Brahmins in Bengal later on. This source (Page 269) clearly distinguishes between the caste status and the component elements which formed the community in early Bengal. Moreover, it would have been better if you could go through the other source (by Tej Ram Sharma) as well. Please check if the following link opens and please go through Page 115 this, if possible.

Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't, I'm sorry. I've also tried by copying the book's title an using it for a search, but that didn't work either. Anyway, I think there'very little substantial that warrants a separate page. Sorry. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, some more

"It has been suggested that the inscriptions verify that the Bengali Kayasthas and the Nagar Brahmins were originally the priests of Alpine Aryans and that this probably accounts for their comparative pure state until now." This is not worthy to be included in an encyclopedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The miracles og Google: "So there is every probability that a number of brahmana families were mixed up with members of other varnas in forming the present Kayastha and Vaidya communities of Bengal." (Sharma p.115). Not exactly the same as "comprising mostly Brahmins". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• I was alerted by a ping on Bishonen's talk page. It is clear that the content in the article "referenced" to Discovery of North-East India is again just a copyvio, restored again in this edit. This subsequent edit removed another copyvio, from the BRILL book Al- Hind: The slave kings and the Islamic conquest, but it left the other (bigger) one intact. Now, Titodutta made this revert, whose edit summary I find a bit problematic, since it should have pointed out the copyvio problem. (I don't know if Titodutta was aware of that; I can't go and read this entire talk page discussion since it will make me cry, probably.) So, speaking with my admin hat on, I really have no choice but to remove all those edits from the history, and I suppose we start from scratch, whatever scratch may be--I have yet to go through the entire history to see when these were introduced. But I urge contributors (I don't know if Ekdalian introduced this content or not) to be very wary of copying and pasting. It is NOT OK to copy and paste, and revise in a subsequent sentence.

  I say all this having only skimmed Joshua Jonathan and others' comments on whether the article text is in fact properly referenced by the sources provided, but going through some article edits I saw things that made me doubt this. That's not my prime concern at this moment; I'm merely noting it, if only to support the careful perusal of the article and the sources. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Not actually the copyvio issue, what I have been pointing out— absence of one editor (Sitush) does not mean you have got consensus, as he wrote Hello Sitush, I am rephrasing the lead section, and incorporating the content, considering your long absence from Wikipedia. Hope you will come back soon, and we can discuss further on constructive improvements. — here is my objection, I am not saying, Sitush was right or Example was wrong, I am trying to say— "these" issues were challenged, were being discussed, but I can not see any consensus to add these in article. If second or third opinion suggests, they can add it back. --Tito☸Dutta 15:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• No they can't because it's a copyright violation. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• OK, I've gone back quite far in the history, and now my eyes are getting tired (this is why these copyvio issues are so irritating: one really needs to check every individual frigging edit, and compare it to the sources). Sitush, maybe you can have a look at this one, to see if that is kosher or not. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I've also copy-violated now... ; anyway, checking the sources was interesting. I've made some corrections. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This->Multiple versions of this legend exist, and while some historians consider this legendary story to be baseless, others consider this to be nothing more than myth or folklore which lacks historical authenticity. is a bit confusing- on the one hand the legend is baseless, on the other it's not true. There's a citation for each "viewpoint" as well. Any ldeas? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sincere apologies for copyright violation

Thanks for pointing out this serious mistake. Sincere apologies. Honestly speaking, I had stressed on reliable sources, and I should consider the lapse on my part as a serious offense. I shall take care of this in all my future edits. Ekdalian (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Starting from scratch

Hello Joshua Jonathan, TitoDutta and all editors concerned,

Copyright violation was a serious lapse on my part (and I have considered it as a serious offense), but the statements were reliably sourced. The statement "The office of Kayastha was instituted before the Gupta period (c.320 to 550 CE), the Kayastha ranking as shudras." is incorrect. During the Gupta period, the Kayasthas represented an administrative role, and not a caste, as mentioned in the source, therefore there's no question of ranking. There's a lot of scope for constructive improvements and hope we can work on the same. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• No, like Sitush I have also started believing, you are just a POV pusher. Last day, when I asked to get second opinion., you used my comment as a way to revert back to your dirty version. Now, again you are trying to get into the article. --Tito☸Dutta 13:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Such immature statements are not expected from a senior editor like you. I had categorically mentioned that the version is 'temporarily' reverted for review, and I was the one who requested the administrators/editors you mentioned so that we get a neutral point of view. I never questioned your intention. The previous version based mainly on my contributions and some by Sitush was rejected because of copyright violation, not based on content. Please explain your comment 'dirty version'. Do you know what a 'dirty version' is? You are degrading the level of discussions here. And please note that I have not been banned to contribute on any article, and that applies to this as well. You may disagree on issues, but stop this personal attack. I 'll continue to be polite and welcoming towards co-editors, irrespective of whether they agree or disagree with me. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• You told, but stop this personal attack and you told Such immature statements are not expected. If you don't understand what "dirty version" is, go and check the edit history and the deleted versions. I'll not waste any more time here, but I'll monitor the article. Tito☸Dutta 16:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

My statement indicates respect for a senior editor as well when I clearly stated that this is not expected from you. This doesn't amount to personal attack. Anyway, if it hurts you, I 'll withdraw it immediately. And it is obvious that a responsible editor will keep on monitoring an article in which he is involved in some way or the other. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent revert 18 May 2014

Sitush, its great to see you back, but not so great to see you indulging in the same old practices of disruptive editing here. It is obvious that most of the editors edit articles of their interest, and they have their own POV. You are no less a POV-pusher, and this is applicable not only to this article. Your edit pattern clearly shows your intensions, and any admin may go through the edit history (one needs to go long back) of other related articles e.g. the Revision history of Kulin Kayastha and the relevant talk page discussions clearly show that you are a POV-pusher as well, and you have left no stone unturned to establish your point of view. As far as these articles are concerned, not a single neutral editor will be able to call you unbiased.

I would like to urge you to stop this disruptive editing. You are not above historians, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and please note none of us is supposed to remove reliably sourced statements on the context of being introduced by a POV-pusher. WP:SPA also endorses the view that there should not be any discrimination. If you keep on violating the spirit of Wikipedia, I believe there are enough checks and balances on Wikipedia to stop you.

Right from the beginning, your POV has been simple, we do not need a separate article on Bengali Kayastha. Initially, you were not even aware that Kulin Kayasthas are only a small fraction of Bengali Kayasthas, and I had to explain you on the talk page of any one of these related articles. Now, you are trying to push your POV and remove reliably sourced content from this article in order to make it redundant, and this is not acceptable. This article is now in its development phase, therefore removing the section on Kulins citing the reason 'undue here unless other Bengali variants get a mention here' is absolutely unfair. Other Bengali Kayasthas will soon be mentioned here citing relevant reference. You and all editors concerned are most welcome to contribute towards constructive improvements, and obviously such sensitive topics will have different POVs, that would rather help us strike a balance. Statements incorporated must be weighed based on relevance and our policies like WP:RS etc, and not the individual who edited. Playing a negative role is always easy, you know; please stop this and let us be constructive.

Last, but not the least, I would like to thank administrator Drmies for reviewing the article, pointing out such a major lapse and yet playing the constructive role by suggesting us to develop the article from scratch. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Ekdalian, you may disagree with Sitush, but to call his edits "disruptive" is not correct, I think. And I'd also raised the question if this mythology-section should be in this article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It is true that the mythology part makes sense, when other variants are mentioned, as pointed out by Sitush. But you need to understand that the article is in development phase, and relevant content will soon be added. Apart from this, removing valid content (which actually makes the statement complete) from a reliable source citing the reason 'Stop this pov, please ....' and previous edits of this article and related ones, indicate disruptive editing. Anyway, thanks Joshua Jonathan for sharing your opinion. Ekdalian (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Subcastes

Hi Ekdalian. I think that the new section on subcastes needs more introduction and contextualization, like "The Kayasthas" are diveid into subcastes, which developed..." etc. To take myself as a reference-point: I have no clue what subcastes are, and why they are important (or not). Probably most Europeans (and Americans) don't. So, we need some help in understanding this information. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, Thanks for your input. Ekdalian (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, not exactly what I mean... Nevermind, I'll also give it a try later. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the '13th century'

Hello Joshua Jonathan.. honestly speaking, this is a minor issue. But when you say that the source says, 'In the 13th century', the Pala, Sena and Varman Kings .........., are you referring to the reference to 13th century in the previous statement, as mentioned in the source? Ekdalian (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right; I've corrected the sentences. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation

We do cite this source but we miss the most important bit of what it is saying. I'm sure that it was once in either this article or the related Kayastha pages. Can anyone explain why it should not be here? - Sitush (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your concern. This is one version of the Adisur legend related specifically to the Kulins and therefore mentioned clearly in Kulin Kayastha. And since this is considered to be a legend/folklore having no historical authenticity according to a number of historians, and multiple versions of this legend exist, hence that part is covered in details in the article on Kulins. In fact, that is precisely the reason why we have a separate article on Kulin Kayasthas. This article has links to Kulin Kayastha twice, including the one in 'See also' Section, so repetition of the content hardly makes sense. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent Edit - Nov 2014

As I've said in the past, this article should be merged anyway. We have a ludicrous situation here and it seems generally that it is you against the world. The likes of Tito and JoshuaJonathan have regularly expressed concerns, not just me. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, neither Joshua Jonathan nor Tito Dutta has ever expressed any concern regarding merging the article. You may go through this talk page; it is you only who proposed a merge for this. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I said they had regularly expressed concerns, not that they had wanted a merger. - Sitush (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You may please proceed and propose formally for a merge; we will all accept the outcome. But as long as the article exists, you cannot simply remove that particular Section, based on the inputs of not just one, but a number of historians. As I have explained on my talk page, this was a consensus version; and please note that the Section is not just a list of surnames, rather its more about the history of origin. Please discuss your concerns regarding the Section, so that those can be addressed. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, I should mention here that no one has expressed any concern after the new version of the article was written from scratch. And please note that I was not the only contributor as far as this version is concerned. In fact, we must acknowledge the contributions of other editors, and especially that of Joshua Jonathan in rebuilding the article. As regards this Section 'Surnames and origin', the valid issue of copyright violation that was raised when the previous version was in place, has been addressed. Removing a key Section and the opinion of several historians from the consensus version unilaterally is not acceptable. As a senior editor and one of the most experienced ones, you are always welcome to express your genuine concerns or other suggestions, if any; and I am sure that all such concerns will be addressed. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You know what my concern is: we do not list bunches of surnames, we just don't. They are regularly removed from other caste articles without objection. The list is trivial, especially when it relates to something from 1400 years ago that might give a misleading indicator for current practice. We don't add stuff just because it has been researched. - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You know well that this section is not just about a list of surnames. Yes, we do not list surnames as such. This section relates to the history of origin, and obviously if the caste originated 1400 years ago, historians discussing the origin are bound to go back to that period. Trivializing the views of historians based on concrete sources like the inscriptions mentioned will rather deprive the readers of our encyclopedia from some very relevant information. Why will this information give a misleading indicator for current practice? The section clearly mentions the respective periods of the inscriptions and has got nothing to do with current practices. Rather, the current status of the Bengali Kayastha caste is also discussed in details in the article. If one goes by your logic, someone may also say that why should we go back 800-900 years and discuss the so-called myth regarding the Kulins or Kulinism (as introduced by Adisur, whose existence is questioned by historians). No one can dictate how long exactly we can go back in history; it depends on the relevance, and the period when a caste (as in this case) or a group of people were first identified to have branched out. For example, if you look at Nuristani people or the Kalash people, you have to go back to the pre-Vedic era; if we talk about Indus Valley Civilization, historians go back to the Bronze Age, and so on.

Coming back to this article, we are discussing about a caste/group that started being segregated and identified separately as a functional group 1400 years ago, and we have n number of reliable sources to support that. Isn't it relevant to put forward the views of historians regarding their origin 1400 years ago? Even, as per our policies, we are not above the historians; there is no scope for original research, and you cannot discard the views of the historians only because you think it is trivia. Rather, you can add any counter-opinion by other historian(s), if any, in order to have a neutral point of view. You may suggest whether we can rename the section as 'Early origin' or 'Early history' or any other appropriate name or merge it with 'History'; you may also suggest if we can add or drop anything in particular; but no one can ignore the contents of this particular section, which discusses the opinions of well-known historians regarding the early origin based on concrete evidence like inscriptions. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

We already have at least three historians' views on when the caste formed, and they seem generally to agree with each other. How many more of the same opinion do we need? - Sitush (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This section is not meant to corroborate the views of other historians on when the caste formed or the component elements, and yes, they seem to generally agree with each other. Most importantly, this section points out the peculiarity that the Bengali Kayasthas continue to use the family names which were used 1400 years ago. This is not a list of surnames (which we generally remove from caste articles), but sort of a tradition/practice which the Bengali Kayasthas continue till today (hardly observed in any other community), as pointed out by historians like Barua and Bhandarkar, and that's why deserve special mention. Just like we mention any religious or socio-cultural practices of communities followed for hundreds or thousands of years, we should mention this particular tradition which is quite unique to the community. Apart from this, the section also throws light on the early history of the community, which is not covered by the other historians (mentioned above); and since the information is specific and relevant apart from being endorsed by a number of historians, I strongly believe that we would be able to do justice to the readers if we provide the details available in this particular section. I hope you will agree with this. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, awaiting your response and consensus on the same. Hope I could address your concerns. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe you are ok with it. In case of any other concern, please let me know. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Add one, lose one. And the names are not going in, per standard practice. - Sitush (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, I don't really understand what you want. We arrived at consensus above that the section 'Surnames and origin' will be incorporated, without mentioning the list of surnames. And that's what I did. Regarding the other edits, either I quoted the source or stated what the source says; otherwise the statements you had incorporated were selective and amounted to original research. This is not about my POV, rather the edits were meant to present what the sources say. Please explain the rationale behind reverting the edits. As mentioned by Bladesmulti, I am providing the links of differences on my talk page. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been edit warring this crap as is fairly normal for you. Where is the consensus in this thread? I'm not the only one who sees you are something of a POV-pusher when it comes to Kayastha-related content, eg: Tito Dutta has said the same, only a few threads up from here. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, don't digress from the issue. Rather, you are edit warring in spite of arriving at consensus above regarding incorporation of the section 'Surnames and origin'. Didn't you say above "Add one, lose one. And the names are not going in, per standard practice", categorically mentioning that the section can be incorporated without the surnames. You are well known for pushing your POV for years when it comes to Kayastha and related articles like Kulin Kayastha; therefore I can bring the same charges against you. This personal attack is not going to help.

Coming to your suggestion regarding judicious use of quotations on my talk page, I was compelled to use quotations, since interpretation of the source and statements added amounted to original research and synthesis. You could have improved that part or suggested me on this talk page regarding constructive improvements if you had the right intentions. You know, reverting the edits is supposed to be the last option. This is totally unacceptable, especially because a senior editor like you is involved. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus. Read what was said in April/May above and in particular note how Tito tried to explain things to you.

Aside from not understanding that policy, you also clearly do not understand WP:OR. You've been around a fair while now and you've had a fair few people express concern regarding your edits. If this is going to carry on then there might well be an issue relating to sanctions. I suggest that you make yourself familiar with WP:GS/Caste before things really go off the rails. I don't want that to happen because you have also demonstrated that you can be a very helpful contributor. - Sitush (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Please talk about recent discussions, don't unnecessarily go back to April/May. I fully understand WP:OR, and you know well that I am well aware about the caste sanctions. Please refer to the above discussions. Please be specific, and respond to my question: didn't you agree today only (as evident above in this thread) after lengthy discussions for the last few days that the section, 'Surnames and origin' removed by you recently, can be incorporated minus the names. Yes or No? Ekdalian (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You added surnames and you added more of the same information as already exists. Our articles are not intended to be battering rams: a reliably source statement is reliably sourced and very, very rarely does it need to have umpteen others sources that are saying the same thing. Probably not all of what you added was bad but I'm not sifting through it on the article - we sort it out here first. And some of the new stuff was in fact dreadful, eg: I'm sure you know that we do not use Enthoven. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I never added surnames, please check the revision history. What we had agreed is that I will restore that section, as it was, minus the surnames; and that's exactly what I did. If you had reservations regarding Enthoven, you could have mentioned earlier, when I repeatedly asked you about your concerns. You know, I have great respect for you; and probably that's why I trusted you; I am really fed up; if you don't allow me to reinstate the section that you agreed after such lengthy discussions, then there's no point discussing it further. Otherwise, it would lead us nowhere. Let us involve other neutral parties/admins then, and let them decide. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The IP who happened to be editing at the same time as you (and who also reverted me in support of you) added specific surnames; you added [1], most of which is as much use as a chocolate teapot. I didn't agree to what you did, before or since, and the last time you called for neutral people to take a look it looks like you then went and did your own thing anyway.

There are doubtless other people watching this page. Instead of rushing about trying to force your way less than 24 hours or so after someone replies, give them more of a chance to have a say, please. A week, at least, is common. As for Enthoven, well, you've been editing caste stuff for long enough now that you should be aware of how we deprecate Raj ethnologies. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The IP who edited the article was indulging in vandalism and probably incorporating the surname 'Gayen' wherever he could (as evident from his contributions), which is not even a Bengali Kayastha surname; let's not discuss about him/her. As far as Enthoven is concerned, if he says 2+2=4, and you say we won't agree, then I am really sorry; his statement is used as a supporting one, moreover he has categorically mentioned in the source the Bengali Kayastha surnames along with those once used by the Nagar Brahmins, which can be verified as well. I don't agree with you when you say that we should wait for others' views; we have been discussing this for long, and anyone interested would already have expressed their opinion; after all, this is an open discussion. Anyway, all opinions are welcome. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(with apologies again for stealing Drmies' thunder) I had a brief look, and the salient parts for me from Sitush are "There was no consensus" and " Instead of rushing about trying to force your way less than 24 hours or so after someone replies, give them more of a chance to have a say, please. A week, at least, is common". When two people have strong differences in content, it can become quite hard to break that logjam, but I am prepared to believe Sitush simply wants to wait for a good third opinion so consensus can be gained. From a cursory view (and that's all it is) it seems a little odd for an article on what appears to be a geographic area to have specifics about surnames, so I'd be more inclined to take Sitush's version, but this isn't my area of expertise so I wouldn't pay too close an attention to what I'm saying. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, you must be aware that I had posted on Drmies' talk page requesting for another opinion. But probably, the number of editors, working on caste/ethnic groups & all, is too small, and we have not received any "good third opinion", as mentioned by Ritchie333. I would like to thank Ritchie333 for his observation, in spite of the fact that this is not his area of expertise, as stated by him (in fact, Ritchie333 thought this article is about a "geographic area"); anyway, we must thank him for his efforts. Now coming back to our dispute, I would like to mention here once again that personally I have great respect for you, Sitush; that doesn't mean we 'll agree on everything. Before we try WP:DRN, I would like to ask for your last opinion. Being senior as a Wikipedian, what do you suggest? Can't we be more specific in our discussions (avoiding personal attacks and lengthy discussions), and address each other's legitimate concerns and arrive at a consensus version here only? Or else, do you think, we had enough discussions, and we should move on? Awaiting your suggestion. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned a week and I would rather stick with that. I've had an awful lot going on recently and I am pretty exhausted from it all and also a bit jaded with Wikipedia itself. A few more days will do no harm and I would suggest that you review the entirety of this page because there was indeed no consensus for inclusion and you were told this by other contributors, not just me. You might also want to consider whether, for example, we should list some common names found among English people at some article about a region in England. Who does it benefit? Why?- Sitush (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It's been a week now Sitush, and I look forward to a constructive discussion. What you have mentioned above regarding concerns expressed by other contributors, is clearly not the case, which may easily be verified from this talk page date stamp and the revision history of the article. No concerns were expressed after incorporation of the section. Anyway, this is not what we are supposed to discuss. I understand that you have mentioned the example of listing common names found among English people of a particular region just as an example only; because you are more aware than anyone else that India's socio-cultural background is completely different from that of England, and that is why we have to handle so many cases of vandalism especially when it comes to articles related to caste or ethnic groups. It would be relevant to mention here that surnames are still relevant in the Bengali society, and are also used to determine & segregate groups for reservations under the SC, ST, OBC quota (as per Government's reservation policy in accordance with the Constitution), for which the Brahmins, Kayasthas, Baidyas and some other upper/middle castes are not eligible. Now, coming back to the dispute, I have clearly mentioned before the importance of this section, after which you agreed and said "Add one, lose one. And the names are not going in, per standard practice."

Let it be the starting point of our discussion. Are you ok, if the surnames or family names are dropped from the section? Though these are specifically those last names which are available in the inscriptions (6th to 8th century AD), as mentioned in the source, and are "exclusively used by the Bengali Kayasthas" for centuries till date. This is not just a list of random surnames used by the Bengali Kayasthas. Surnames like Bandopadhyay (Banerjee), Mukhopadhyay (Mukherjee), Gangopadhyay (Ganguly) are associated with Bengali Brahmins only; Sengupta, Dasgupta specifically belong to Baidyas; similarly the surnames mentioned are used by the Bengali Kayasthas. I strongly believe, we would not be able to provide authentic information to the readers if we do not mention the history of surnames which are being used by the Bengali Kayastha community for the last 1400 years as an integral part of their tradition, and more so since it throws light on their early origin. Please let me know your opinion. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not getting into a wikilawyering situation about this - you've twisted things even in your statement immediately above. Just draft whatever you think is appropriate, dump it here and we can take it from there. I'm surprised that the likes of Tito have not turned up, given that they were adamant you had no consensus last time round, but so be it. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the last version of the section; I assume this to be the consensus version since no other editor expressed concern (in spite of being active at that point of time) when it was incorporated.

Inden gives a detailed list of clan names or surnames used by the Daksina-radhi Kayasthas. Historian Kanaklal Barua also mentions these surnames while referring to the Nidhanpur inscription (610 AD) of King Bhaskaravarman, the Tippera inscription (663 AD) and the Neulpur copper-plate inscription (around the end of 8th century AD). The names of Brahmins, mentioned in the above inscriptions, in whose favour the Kings made grants had the surnames, which Barua says "now belong almost exclusively to the Bengali Kayasthas", and the surnames mentioned are as follows: Adhya, Bhuti, Chandra, Datta, Dama, Dasa, Deva, Dhara, Ghosha, Kara, Kiri, Kunda, Mitra, Nandi, Naga, Patra, Pala, Palita, Prabha, Rudra, Vappa, Vardhana, Vasu, Vara, Sena, Soma. Historian D. R. Bhandarkar pointed out that these surnames were used by the Nagar Brahmins of Gujarat in the recent past. Enthoven says that "out of the thirteen Sharmans of the Nagars no less than ten are found as family names among the Kaysathas of Bengal". According to Barua, Alpine Aryans entered India as part of Aryan immigration during the third millennium BC. It has been suggested that the Nagar Brahmins along with the Bengali Kayasthas were originally the priests of the Alpines.

The names mentioned above are the ones mentioned in the source. Let me know if you actually want to drop the names. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources

• Inden, Ronald B. (1976), Marriage and Rank in Bengali Culture: A History of Caste and Clan in Middle Period Bengal, University of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-02569-1

You know that isn't ok. I've already explained why and you are doing the battering ram stuff again. I've a good mind to withdraw from this discussion because you have consistently demonstrated bad faith. - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This talk page discussion clearly shows that I never demonstrated bad faith. Rather, you agreed to something, and have withdrawn from your stated position. I have dumped here the last complete version, as per your suggestions (what I think as appropriate), and you were supposed to take it up from there. Anyway, you can always opt out of any discussion; that is your discretion. Let me know, whether this applies to this particular dispute regarding inclusion of this section, or the other two valid edits as well. If you don't want to discuss about the other two edits as well, let me know whether you would like to take up even such minor content-related edits to WP:DRN; and you have yourself said - "Probably not all of what you added was bad but I'm not sifting through it on the article - we sort it out here first." Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

For starters, nothing from Barua or Enthoven is reliable. We do not use sources from the Raj era, so those must go. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You know well, all Raj era sources cannot be altogether thrown away as unreliable. Barua should not be considered as unreliable. Anyway, as you know, consensus does not always mean unanimity. Therefore, in order to address your concerns, we can use other additional sources belonging to post-Raj era, and re-write the part.

Let me know your opinion as far as the other two edits are concerned. I have tried to improve the statements attributed to Wink and Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, so that we can state here what the authors actually said; you may suggest as well. Hope we will respect each other's concerns, and will be able to sort out our differences; and come up with a somewhat improved version for the sake of our readers. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

We are dealing with one issue here, which is the crap you have quoted above. I'm not being deflected by your refusal to accept that only you are content with the thing nor by other concerns you may have (we can sort those out later). We do not use Raj sources, so please redraft with that in mind. - Sitush (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated reply, Sitush. I was not very active on Wikipedia during the last week due to personal reasons. Anyway, coming back to the discussion, I could gather some post-Raj era sources corroborating the facts stated by Barua. But, I believe we should keep it aside for the moment, and take it up later, since you are already calling it "crap", and we have strong differences as far as that particular section is concerned. Please let me know your opinion as regards the other non-contentious edits are concerned, so that at least we can resolve those and move forward:

1. edit1 - Quoting Shekhar Bandypadhyay from the source; you may please check the source, this. If you want me to paraphrase the same, I have no issues.

2. edit2 - Stating what Andre Wink says; please check the source, this.

Let me know, if you have any concern regarding the same. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Awaiting your response/suggestion. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Maulik origins

We vaguely show the origin myth for Kulin. What is the equivalent for Maulik? At the moment, it looks a bit undue and should probably be replaced with a simple sentence that links to the Kulin article. - Sitush (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

We have a separate article on Kulins, and the links to Kulin Kayastha are provided for further details. As such, we have no equivalent origin myth associated with the Mauliks. Only reliably sourced and relevant information related to the Mauliks are provided. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You miss my point. Is there nothing known about mythical origins for Mauliks? Do they specifically not have any? - Sitush (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Maulik Kayasthas are the majority of Kayasthas in Bengal, and already resided when the mythical king Adisur is supposed to have imported five Kayasthas, who later became 'Kulins'. Therefore, there is nothing mythical associated with the Mauliks. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Source? I've also never come across a caste group that doesn't have a mythical origin. I find it difficult to believe that of the many hundreds (probably thousands) that I've looked at, this one is an exception. - Sitush (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. It is in fact really difficult to find a caste group that doesn't have a mythical origin. Ekdalian (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Moulik an alternate spelling or another branch? I suspect an alternate. - Sitush (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

'Moulik' is an alternate spelling only, rather the way it is pronounced in Bengali. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll do some digging on that spelling. - Sitush (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Eaton

Great, great: where Ekdalian writes "represented "the region's surrogate Kshatriya or warrior class"", Eaton writes "became the region's surrogate Kshatriya or warrior class". That's the kind of subtle interpretation that you should avoid. Also, snippet-search is not the best way to use sources... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, this was purely unintentional. While paraphrasing the same, I had used the word "represent"; you have rightly pointed out that there is a subtle difference between the two, and I will take care of that. Thanks for your input. The url provided is modified so that others can easily view the same; this was not the result of "snippet-search". You are always welcome to share your concerns or suggest improvements, and I am really glad today to hear from you. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You're a gentleman, I appreciate that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Keeping your edit almost intact (added Chandra dynasty, as per source), I have added Eaton's view, and aligned with source the statement attributed to Sekhar Bandyopadhyay. You may please go through the same, and suggest any constructive improvements or simply express your opinion/observation or concern, if any. Best Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Snippet views

Dear Sitush, verifiability does not necessarily mean that the page should come up from Google books, amd you have yourself mentioned this previously during some talk page discussions on a caste article. You know, snippet view is considered acceptable in almost all caste articles unless you can show that the context signifies something else. If you can find hard copies of the books, you may check; or else these are accepted on good faith. Our objective is to include all related opinions as per WP:NPOV and not to be selective. Please let me know how we can incorporate the same. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You are plain wrong: snippet views have never been acceptable on caste articles because they very often result in a misrepresentation of the source due to lack of context. The sources are often discussing particularly complex issues. This has been discussed time and again and on those occasions where a snippet was challenged it has almost always turned out that the hardcopy version said much more than the snippet. - Sitush (talk) 11:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I have the Bandyopadhyay here somewhere and will fix the cite request when I find it. - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean, if I want to incorporate Simhadri's statement, I 'll need a hard copy, and share the page or related pages with you? Ekdalian (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I mean that you cannot rely on snippet views. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have just checked my copy of Bandyopadhyay, reading it for a few pages before and after the one that we cite. Our presentation is correct in context, although Bandyopadhyay is actually saying that it is the opinion of Niharranjan Ray. Nonetheless, we may have a problem due to close paraphrasing and, bizarrely, simultaneously incorrectly quoting. I wonder if Moonriddengirl might give her opinion?

The source says

since the Gupta period, as a settled agricultural economy expanded in Bengal, the linkages between caste and class became more visible, with those providing physical labour losing status to those who refrained from it, but controlled land, such as the Brahman, Kayastha and Baidya, the three traditional uchchajati (higher castes) of Bengal.

We say

after the Gupta period. Referring to the linkages between class and caste in Bengal, he mentions that the Kayasthas along with the Brahmins and Baidyas, refrained from physical labour but controlled land, and as such represented "the three traditional higher castes of Bengal".

- Sitush (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I had checked earlier, and I do agree with you. Thanks for your efforts. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for merging the article with Kayastha

I would like to formally propose a merger of this article with Kayastha. As pointed out by Melotown and as reflected in his last edit, the parent article i.e. Kayastha has a lot of sourced information on Bengali Kayasthas, which is missing here. Since Sitush had proposed a merger earlier and has already expressed his concerns regarding duplication of information available in the article on Kayastha, the best possible option seems to be merging the same with 'Kayastha', in order to have a fuller and better article. Requesting all concerned to share their opinion. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Apologies for the late reply - I fully support the merger as described by Ekdalian.

Thanks.

Melotown (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Hi Ekdalian and Sitush - just following up on this. Given that we all appear to support a merger, can we begin to implement it?

I'm happy to take the lead, but given the long-standing work and credibility of both of you, it might be better if one of you were to do so.

Let me know what you think - thanks!

Melotown (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Melotown. Since no one has expressed any concern, I believe we may now go ahead and implement the same. Let's wait for any closing comments from Sitush. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed some disputed content

As per discussion on User talk: Sitush and after this comment of Sitush,[2] I have removed some disputed content. Heba Aisha (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Heba Aisha: I respect your motives. However, until we reach a consensus here as to the removal of the old source and the addition of your sources, let's not bring any changes. Let's not revert each other's edits until we have reached a plausible conclusion through open discussions here. I invite the rest of the editors as well to look into the same. Let's us have a proper discussion. @Sitush: :@Ekdalian: :@EdJohnston:

Here are some substantial diffs: [3] [4]

--Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Of note, traditionally, the Hindu community in Bengal was divided into only two varnas: Brahmins and Shudras.[5]

Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

One bit is very simple, has long-standing consensus & requires no further discussion: neither Sadasivan nor Vivekananda have been accepted as reliable sources for caste matters on Wikipedia for many years. I am not getting involved further - these Kayastha articles really should all be nuked and rewritten because there have been far too many people editing them with conflicts of interest. - Sitush (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sitush: :@Heba Aisha:

Here are the following points on my part: 1. The varna section can't be placed there even before the history section, that is, right next to the opening section. For it's a sensitive matter. 2. GK Ghosh, like Sadasivan and Vivekananda, isn't a reliable source either. I am open to anything neutral coming out of some social scientist or historian.

Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 06:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Sitush is clear and yes vivekananda should be removed too, now its you who are involved in WP:OWN behaviour by not including new sources like taylor and francis.Heba Aisha (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Heba Aisha: I am not at all against these two sources. These two are plausibly reliable sources.

Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Why are u reverting Taylor and Francis then. Actually, we gauged that this is nothing but a WP:POVFORK, those who can't edit Kayastha have chosen it for caste promotion. Let community decide, I have nominated it for delition.Heba Aisha (talk) 07:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Heba Aisha: Not at all. These later sources are conspicuously plausible. I have never had any objections to them at all. You should certainly include them and place the varna section rightly, if the deletion request is rejected. Most probably, the request is going to be rejected, Heba Aisha. So yes, let's wait for some time; you can add the content thereafter. Don't be disheartened.

Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

AfD will fail. It needs to be merged, not deleted. - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2021

Gorezka46 (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Prabhupada was from Subarna Banik caste, not Bengali Kayastha.

Hello to all who are engaged in this page, I want to bring to your notice a wrong input. I am seeing Prabhupada has been listed under notable people of both Subarna Banik and Bengali Kayastha. I checked the sources and found out Prabhupada was actually from Subarna Banik. Please review this and remove his name from notable people list of this page. Thank you. Regards, Chanchaldm (talk) 04:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Chanchaldm.  Done. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2021

My suggested edits are all in the opening paragraph: 1) Add a hyperlink for "India" 2) In the second sentence:

  a) Change "scribes and administrators" to "scribes, administrators, and ministers" to align with the description on the broader "Kayastha" Wiki page 
  b) Add a comma between "Bengal" and "along"

4) In the third sentence:

  a) Change "In the colonial era" to "During the British Raj" and add a hyperlink for "British Raj" 
  b) Change "who" to "which" (you are referring to the castes, not the Bhadraloks)
  c) Add "today" after "West Bengal"

Opening paragraph in its current form: Bengali Kayastha is a Bengali Hindu who is a member of the Kayastha community. The historical caste occupation of Kayasthas throughout India has been that of scribes and administrators;[1] the Kayasthas in Bengal along with Brahmins and Baidyas, are regarded among the three traditional higher castes[2][3] that comprise the "upper layer of Hindu society."[4] In the colonial era, the Bhadraloks of Bengal were drawn from these three castes, who continue to maintain a collective hegemony in West Bengal.[5][6][7] Melotown (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Response:

1) Add a hyperlink for "India": we generally don't add hyperlink for countries like India,

2) In the second sentence:

a) Change "scribes and administrators" to "scribes, administrators, and ministers" to align with the description on the broader "Kayastha" Wiki page: May sound like puffery; please provide additional reliable source.

b) Add a comma between "Bengal" and "along":  Done

4) In the third sentence:

a) Change "In the colonial era" to "During the British Raj" and add a hyperlink for "British Raj":  Done

b) Change "who" to "which" (you are referring to the castes, not the Bhadraloks): No, I believe, we are referring to the Bhadraloks.

c) Add "today" after "West Bengal": redundant.

Thanks, Melotown. Ekdalian (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Response:

Thanks, Ekdalian.

Re: your comment to suggested edit 2a above: "May sound like puffery; please provide additional reliable source", the source for the edit is actually already in the existing source material (Arnold P. Kaminsky, Roger D. Long (2011). India Today: An Encyclopedia of Life in the Republic. ABC-CLIO. p. 404. ISBN 978-0-313-37462-3. Retrieved 4 March 2012.) -- it reads: "Kayasthas... occupied the highest administrative offices in many early medieval Indian kingdoms, serving as ministers and competing with the Brahmans for these positions."

Melotown (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey Melotown, I used the word 'additional' above. Basically, the Kayasthas in Bengal must have served as ministers and occupied the highest administrative offices historically, but as you are aware, the Bengali Kayasthas in fact were the rulers and ruled Bengal for hundreds of years, which is mentioned in the History section (the Pala, Sena, Chandra, and Varman dynasties/descendants). If you want, you may elaborate here citing more reliable source(s). Thanks, again! Ekdalian (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Ekdalian, the sentence begins, "The historical caste occupation of Kayasthas throughout India..." -- emphasis on "throughout India"; "Bengal" is not mentioned. Because of the India-wide reference, it either makes sense to add "ministers" (based on the existing source), or, conversely, change the sentence to begin, "The historical caste occupation of Kayasthas in Bengal..." Thanks for your responses to this thread! Melotown (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done, Melotown. Ekdalian (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of other castes in modern section of varna status

Hey Ekdalian in this line Sanyal mentions that due to the lack of Vaishya and Kshatriya categories in Bengal, all non-Brahmin castes of Bengal, including the Bengali Kayastha and Baidya are Shudras. Despite this, these two castes are called "higher castes" along with the Brahmins as their social standing is high the Varna status of Baidya is also included along with kayastha, However you know that varna status of Baidya,specially in modern section is disputed.Wikilink to Baidya is already present in this article.I would request you to dedicate this article for Kayasthas only, as it is done in Baidya article (dedicated to varna status of Baidya caste only). If varna status of Baidya is also included then under WP:NPOV we have to include alternative views of the Baidya and Kayastha castes as well, this would make the article boaring. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Satnam2408, thanks for pointing it out, though I am aware of the same. The varna status of these two non-Brahmin upper castes is related, and that's why LukeEmily possibly wanted to mention the same in the article on Baidya. The section has been marked as disputed now; let's wait for the conclusion there; based on the consensus there, we shall decide for this article as well. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Satnam2408, Ekdalian, yes, Baidya is irrelevant here. I unintentionally copied the entire sentence by rephrasing it. I agree with the removal of Baidya varna here as it is disputed ( and not shudra). Ekdalian, thanks for removing it.LukeEmily (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2022

Some sources of this article does not support Wikipedia terms.I would like to contribute to this article to make it better. Nobita456 (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Cannolis some sources are raj era and violating WP:RAJ.I want to remove them. Thanks Nobita456 (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Write out which ones specifically you find questionable and reopen the request then. Also note that WP:RAJ is not policy. Cannolis (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean to say the source is under WP:RAJ,I know it is not a policy.according to WP:RAJ you cant cite british raj era sources.not only that the author was also a British administrator,which is not reliable for this type of articles.assume my good faith edits and please let me edit this article to make it better. Nobita456 (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey Nobita456 as you have pointed out,I have checked the article and find that the source of John Henry Hutton is a British administrator of WP:RAJ category.here is the original publication detail.I have removed it.Thanks.Satnam2408 (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Satnam2408. Nobita456 (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Took a look at this since Nobita456 asked me to look into it on my talk page. John Henry Hutton was a professor/anthropologist at Cambridge - when he published the 1st edition in 1946. But the book cited is the third edition, published in 1961 (Hutton, John Henry (1961). Caste in India: Its Nature, Function, and Origins. Indian Branch, Oxford University Press. p. 65.). see here https://www.indianculture.gov.in/ebooks/caste-india-its-nature-function-and-origins. First edition(1946), 2nd edition(1951), 3rd edition(1961), 4th edition(1963), Hutton died in 1968 after which the book was only reprinted (not a new edition) in 1969. Given that the book in the citation is the 3rd edition by the Professor of Social Anthropology in the University of Cambridge and he published that new edition post independence by Oxford University Press, it is not WP:RAJ. The first edition is irrelevant as this is a new edition, not a reprint. @Ekdalian:, @TrangaBellam:, what do you think? LukeEmily (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC).

Even the number of pages is different the latest edition has about 30 more pages than the 1st edition. So definitely different books.LukeEmily (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Ok use it.satnam please revert your edits. Nobita456 (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to LukeEmily.It was a mistake.Satnam2408 (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks LukeEmily for the detailed explanation. Ekdalian (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Satnam2408 please remove Hutton, senior editors raised some serious doubts regarding that book. Nobita456 (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Origins

Hey, LukeEmily I want to make a separate section "origin" where we can discuss Puran views on Kayasthas by modern historians like it is there in baidya article. are you happy with that? Nobita456 (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nobita456, of course no objection from me - you don't need anyone's permission to edit wikipedia but we all need to follow WP:EDITCONSENSUS. I do not have too much information about that community or any other Bengali community(learnt a lot from the Baidya page). But you can go ahead if you have the sources.LukeEmily (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Social status

POV pushing to equate kayasthas with baidyas and brahmins in social status. no doubt kayastha has high social status but no source mentions that they have the HIGHEST social status(if you guys have please provide it here). but in baidya case, they mentioned as (along with brahmins) the HIGHEST social status enjoyer.so LukeEmily please make changes in your edits. Thanks Nobita456 (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

which edit are you mentioning? I have made only 4 edits on this page - that is because I don't know much about it(my first was in august 2021 where I removed Kshatria from lead and last was this year where I added an academic source for shudra). The most edits have been made by EkDalian - 143, Sitush(86) and Joshua Jonathan. Please see Bengali_Kayastha#top-editors. Are you talking about this line In Bengal, between 1500 and 1850 CE, the Kayasthas were regarded as one of the highest Hindu castes in the region.[14]? I don't know who added it of if it is accurate but it was there years before I even started editing. Pinging EkDalian.LukeEmily (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I am talking about this " The Hindu community in Bengal was divided into only two Varnas: Brahmins and Shudras. Hence, although the Bengali Kayasthas and Baidyas enjoy a high social status along with Brahmins, their ritual status was low " it is looking like baidyas and kayasthas are the same in social status but in reality, they are not equal in terms of social status. Baidyas and Brahmins are the HIGHEST social status enjoyer in Bengal. Nobita456 (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

OK. Got it. I am ok with the change but we need to source it. The source here says

All Jatis in Bengal were fitted into these four broad categories, Brahmins, clean Shudras, unclean Shudras and untouchables; there were at least fourty-one jatis in Bengal.Two caste groups, Kayastha and Baidya enjoyed a very high social and political status along with the Brahmins, although their ritual status was rather low.

The given source does not mention their relative position and puts all three in the same bucket for social status. But there may be a source on the Baidya page (for example highest education) that compares the education of the communities. Are you suggesting we add that here? I am ok with it as long as other editors are ok. Or can you suggest another source? We can add other opinions too.LukeEmily (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Technically you are right LE.but Baidya and Kayastha's varna status is disputed. Baidyas along with Brahmins are regarded as the HIGHEST Hindu caste of Bengal followed by Kayasthas. higher castes like saha,mahiswa,sadgop also have high status but Kayasthas are superior to them undoubtedly. I can even provide many sources regarding my statement. Nobita456 (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No WP:SYN please, Nobita456! LukeEmily, this is not an article on Baidya, we are not going to mention about Baidya literacy rate here; we are also not here to debate who ranked slightly higher (in fact, there’s difference of opinion among historians as well). BTW, the statement In Bengal, between 1500 and 1850 CE, the Kayasthas were regarded as one of the highest Hindu castes in the region. was constructed by Sitush, I believe. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

"I can even provide many sources regarding my statement" please don't ignore this line of me before causing me of WP:SYN. can you provide one source that mentions Kayastha as the highest Hindu caste along with brahmins? Nobita456 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

For lukeEmily

hey, LukeEmily see this book by Kumar Suresh Singh p.36 describes exactly what you wanted to hear from me on my talk page. He is describing the social status of the castes see

"In social status, the Baidya enjoy top position among the Bangali, followed by the Kayastha, Saha and so on. Karmakar, Subarnabanik, Poundra Kshatriya, Namasudra, and Jogi generally concede that they are hierarchically lower than the Baidya and Kayastha"

. I also have many sources that describe Baidyas and Brahmins as the HIGHEST Hindu caste.but there is no source that describes Kayasthas as the HIGHEST caste. Nobita456 (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is sourced. I did not check the source but if that book is reliable, we can add this statement. Ekdalian ? thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Just check who is Kumar Suresh Singh and check the details of that book.this book is not only realiable but this is a very HIGH-QUALITY source. Nobita456 (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

K.S. Singh (and the entire POI series) is notoriously unreliable. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I have not really probed into the (contested) details. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam Luke is already aware of that and he also made me aware of it. Tanga check my talk I provided Ramkrishna Mukherjee and Sunandan Roy Chowdhury also,which also give the same opinion like K.S singh,Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• The varna status of baidyas were disputed from mediaeval era.remeber what dutt said? they were force to give away their sacred thread but despite that many baidyas did't give the right of being twice-born and continued wearing their sacred thread.but we could not find sources that mention Kayasthas wear that sacred thread from mediaeval era and they were twice-born.so varna status of Baidyas were disputed hence removed from this page.details are already there in Baidya main article.Nobita456 (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm..source quote is different?LukeEmily (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't quote him,just described the summery given by him. Nobita456 (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobita456 made this change [6], Ekdalian, please can you comment on this? I think this edit is POV as it implies that Baidya and Brahmins were somehow in the same bucket regarding ritual status, which is not true. The source says:

All Jatis in Bengal were fitted into these four broad categories, Brahmins, clean Shudras, unclean Shudras and untouchables; there were at least fourty-one jatis in Bengal. Two caste groups, Kayastha and Baidya enjoyed a very high social and political status along with the Brahmins, although their ritual status was rather low.

. Do you agree with the edit by Nobita456? I don't agree - because we need to WP:STICKTOSOURCE. If there is some source that has the relative positions of Baidyas with other castes, we need to cite it. Nobita has mentioned another source in this section but it needs to be cited to give another opinion. Nobita456 says I didn't quote him, just described the summery given by him but I did not see any such summary. Maybe I missed it in the source? Nobita456, what is the page number for the summary in the source? We need to add that page number. BTW, Nobita , I am very familiar with the caste system and have read a lot of academic literature on Sanskritization, Rajputization, Varna debates in parts of India, etc. What I said was that I was not very familiar with Bengals castes like Baidyas, Bengali Kayastha, Kulin system etc etc. although I have learnt a lot recently. ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• LukeEmily the quote of Dutt (P 70) is

  But in places like Srikhanda in Burdwan district and Senbhum in Manbhum district the Vaidyas did not give up the right of wearing the sacred thread.

- See this section of vaidyas were not ritually low, Brahmins degraded Baidyas but many Baidyas did not accept that. and also in Kulanjis and Inscriptions, they were mentioned as Ambasthas and Brahmins. so Baidyas were low in ritual is disputed. Nobita456 (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey LukeEmily, I have gone through the user talk page of Nobita456; honestly speaking, I am tired of WP:OR like the one mentioned above. Baidyas' ritual status has been covered in details in the article on Baidya, we don't need to prove anything else through WP:OR/WP:SYN. As already pointed out in their talk page, if there is a reliable source, which talks specifically about the social status being different from Bengali Kayasthas (not caste ranking & all, which is also disputed, though it hardly matters in this context), then Nobita456 can surely present it here. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian please dont push your POV.you always try to equate kaysthas with baidyas.Do you have any source that mention the ritual status of kayasthas in mediaeval era? Nobita456 (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Your edits are really problematic, as pointed out by admins, and no one is interested in such vague comments (above). Mention what you would like to change here (must be relevant to this article) and supporting sources. Ekdalian (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Baidyas ritual status was dispted since mediaeval time but Kayasthas were ritually low in that time.so dont include the ritual status of baidyas here,this article is about Bengali Kaysthas.Thanks Nobita456 (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This is reliably sourced content added by LukeEmily. There are many references to Kayasthas in the article on Baidya, since these are related articles. Why should we remove reliably sourced and relevant content, just for your sake?? Ekdalian (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

You can't cite a single source against a disputed matter in an another article,there is a whole section in the Baidya article that describes their ritual staus.I explained that to luke.let him take the decision,Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Medieval varna status

Hey, lukeEmily I want to mention what purans said about Kayastha. there is no mention of medieval varna status of them. are you ok with that? Nobita456 (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I answered you already in Talk:Bengali_Kayastha#Origins. Add anything using WP:RS and work with other editors. You can copy their Shudra mention from the Baidya page as a start since that is consensus. Feel free to ping me if there are disputes but otherwise I am not interested in any new stuff in Bengals caste articles. I will fix the Baidya page as promised on the talk page. I will also watch these articles(Bengali Brahmin, Baidya, Bengali kayastha) as I realize there is POV pushing but other than that I am not interested in adding any edits on these communities unless I see that there is too much POV or Raj era sources. LukeEmily (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily see Ekdalin again reverting my edits of the medieval era.Ekdalian I am not copy-pasting I am using Sanyal's journal. Nobita456 (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Please discuss with him directly on the talk page.LukeEmily (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian and Nobita456 , additions - are well sourced IMO. Please can you two discuss the edit in this section since it was reverted? See [7]. LukeEmily (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalin you know that you don't have sources that put Kayasthas above Baidyas,but I can easily prove Baidyas are above kayasthas. so without making it more toxic I am not going to add that.Nobita456 (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• and why did you revert my edits? even luke approved that. they are well-sourced. don't revert anything because you don't like it. Nobita456 (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Like TrangaBellam wrote somewhere, reliably sourced doesn't guarantee inclusion! This is an encyclopedia after all! Consensus is more important. Why would you like to include such a section, in order to make it more contentious? Is such a section usually found in all Indian caste articles? Why Nobita456? Is the common reader interested or else is it usual? Why? Ekdalian (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Mediaeval era varna status is important. Nobita456 (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• So you didn't raise your concern when trangabellam input this purans and litratures in baidya article.if theses information are there then it should also be here also. luke and Satnam please give your opinion also. Nobita456 (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Kayastha as a caste group in Bengal can be traced from mediaeval era.Then, it is necessary to mention their Varna status in mediaeval era also. A reader in search of their varna status in mediaeval Bengal should not be disappointed. Its relevant in this context. Varna status discussion has started from colonial bengal, no information of mediaeval era! I agree LukeEmily. I don't have any objection in this. In Bengal, this type of article structure is common, as we can see in Baidya page.In this discussion, Sitush already pointed out it's relevancy. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I am pulling myself out of this discussion. After reading Sitush's and TB's comments - I neither oppose nor support the inclusion of the Puranas. Sitush says It is all relevant but the key generally, I think, is to be aware that trenchant labelling is rarely good and rarely right.. Please discuss with them directly. Thanks,LukeEmily (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Ekdalian, LukeEmily and Satnam why Kayastha's varna status of mediaeval era is not given,I addded mediaeval era views but Ekdalian reverted that.Why the varna discussion has started from colonial era,Does Kayastha as a caste group formed in colonial era? Nobita456 (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily has pulled them out of this discussion. I strongly oppose such a separate section, since there is no such convention (in spite of all castes originating prior to the medieval period), and everything (including the medieval sudra status) is already well covered here. In the article on Baidya, the 'History' section is divided into different periods, there's nothing like 'Medieval varna status'. As I have already mentioned, no other caste article has any such section (not even Baidya), and we have a detailed section on 'History' here as well, and along with the current section on varna status, every point of view has been covered as per WP:NPOV. Even in the Modern section, historians/authors have mentioned their medieval (without using the word) varna status before mentioning their current position in society. Sorry, Vanamonde93 for my earlier statement, which you have rightly pointed out not as "something that belongs in a collegial editing environment". Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

We don't have what kayasthas are mentioned in Puranas and literature. Purans and the literature played a huge role in Bengal, which should be included. Nobita456 (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Sitush, In varna section only colonial view and Modern view of varna is given.I want to create a separate subsection to incorporate their varna status in medieval era as described by then literary sources. As directed by you caste's varna status is fluid and hence a categorised approach should be given there. Nobita456 (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Two most notable puranas of medieval Bengal mentioned about Karana, which later became (or merged with?) Kayastha. Majumdar and Ray also used this term. I think that is a important information that should be included in this article.Chanchaldm (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Right Chanchaldm it should be included also.you can add them by yourself.I think we definitely add the mediaeval varna section for that. everyone is agreeing except Ekdalian for some specific reason. Nobita456 (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobita456, you are providing misinformation, sorry to say. @Vanamonde93: please note that Nobita456 just had a discussion with Sitush (possibly the senior most editor here on caste articles) on his talk page; Sitush clearly disagreed with the proposal, and advised Nobita to gain more experience before editing such contentious areas! Still, Nobita has mentioned above, "everyone is agreeing except Ekdalian for some specific reason". Ekdalian (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

First of all your explanation is not satisfactory,and your reason behind not including that mediaeval is still unknown to me.all editors satnam,luke(initially), Chanchaldm agreed with me except you.and Sitush said he is unable to understand the whole circumstance as he is using wikipedia app right not which is not soo friendly and sitush didn't tell me to not write that he told me to write after getting some experience( I already explained him I will use academic sources) . I would have initiated a RSN (advised by vanamonde) but most of the editors already agreed with me. and provide the diff where I provided missinfomation.Nobita456 (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I can understand, why LukeEmily has pulled themselves back. Its becoming tedious. I have read, Majumdar that there is a relation between Karan and Kayastha.In some Literary sources Kayastha was identified same as Karana. However Majumdar says that karana later merged with kayastha.Colebrooke identified kayastha and karana were interchangeable .This information seems missing here. I agree with Chanchaldm. This need a little elaboration in this article. Mediaeval literary sources can be used only,if that are interpreted by modern schollars. Thanks.Satnam2408 (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Right satnam, Chanchaldm also mentioned about the same. karana is totally missing in this article which is so important to the Kayastha history. mediaeval karana views are not there in this article. Nobita456 (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I have already pinged Vanamonde93; pinging @Bishonen: please note how Nobita is misrepresenting Sitush, who clearly wrote on their talk page (regarding Nobita's proposed section), and I quote, "I don't understand why a separate section would be required." Further, Sitush says, "Unless I have misunderstood things, I also do not see how starting an RFC would be helpful. You appear to be in a minority of one, you are fairly inexperienced & limited in your interests, and those several peoplewho differ from you do have considerable experience in the wider caste-related sphere. I can't stop you from raising an RFC but I do think that you would likely be wasting your time & that of everyone else, especially when taking into account also the long history of sockfarms etc at such articles." I think this is enough! Ekdalian (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Sitush clearly said he is using wikipedia app which is not user friendly that why he cant judge the situation.other editors Satnam, Chanchaldm,Luke( initially) all agreed with me(admins can check their comments) .Ekdalian you are making irelivent comments here. I already explained my the reason why Mediaeval sub section is important. Satnam and Chanchaldm also pointed out their views regarding Mediaeval karana part and its importance to this article.Nobita456 (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Chanchaldm, Satnam2408, we can have a separate discussion regarding the Karana connection, and incorporate valid information, if required. BTW, Colebrooke was removed by LukeEmily as unreliable, along with proper reason as edit summary. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This caste was mentioned as Karana in Brhmavaivarta and Brihaddharma puranas. The scribe caste in Orissa(had historical relation with Bengal) is still known as Karana. Did Karana of Orissa and Kayastha of Bengal have any historical relations? Did the karanas of puranas later become Kayastha? Were Kayastha and Karana terms used interchangeably at some point of time? Or was Karana merged with Kayastha? This questions may arise to a common reader's mind. Since we have reliable sources regarding this, these contents can surely be included( either in history or in Varna section).

Also I didn't get why Tagore's opinion is relevant in Kayastha article, since three specific Surnames only mentioned.(Not directly related to this thread, but I would like to know the reason in separate thread). Thanks.Chanchaldm (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• I don't have more energy to expend on this dispute, so I hope this will be my final comment. I will not evaluate any content myself; that's not the role of of admin, and I'm not interested in the underlying content. If there's issues with source misrepresentation, please take them to WP:AE. There is clearly not consensus for this content at the moment. Nobita, if you still want to add some version of it, you need to figure out a compromise that Ekdalian can agree to; and if that proves impossible, either drop the issue or open an RfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Caste ranking

Luke, not only the Ramakrishna Mukherjee 1975 source you may also refer to this Western University, Indian Nationalisms by Sunandan Roy Chowdhury (2017). he mentioned the caste ranking please check it. Nobita456 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Caste ranking must be avoided. It can spur an indefinite caste war. This is the main reason I have always expressed concerns on addition of Baidya and Kayastha in Kayastha and Baidya articles respectively.These castes can be compared from nearest Varna by citing reliable sources.However,I am completely agreeing with Fowler&fowler,regarding Hutton.Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I also don't want to include caste ranking but if Ekdalian cites an old book saying Kayastha is next to brahmins, then I don't have any other option to include caste ranking. the last edit is good in my opinion.Nobita456 (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with Satnam2408; no caste ranking please in both the articles! Everyone is aware who initiated the same. If there was the slightest objection, I would have removed the controversial part from Hutton's statement, which I have done now! Ekdalian (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Karana connection

Hey Chanchaldm, please mention the content you would like to incorporate along with the sources supporting the same. Regarding Tagore's statement, the author has interpreted that it is meant for Bengal (Kayasthas) in general, therefore the same has now been attributed to the author. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Chanchaldm and Satnam should we add the Purans views of Kayastha or not? and please give your views about that specific medieval era varna section that I mentioned. Nobita456 (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobita, in case you missed what Vanamonde has mentioned on the proposed 'Medieval varna status' section -- "There is clearly not consensus for this content at the moment. Nobita, if you still want to add some version of it, you need to figure out a compromise that Ekdalian can agree to; and if that proves impossible, either drop the issue or open an RfC." Hope you understand!! Ekdalian (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thats why I asked for them to be clear,lets wait for their opinion,thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey Nobita456 I personally have no objection to it as it seems valied to me. After reading Sanyal,Nihar ranjan Ray,Lindsey Harlan, I have observed that Karana and Kayastha may be identical.Karana is mentioned in the Purana, which enlisted the castes of Bengal.Majumdar mentions a number of mediaeval literary sources, that described kayastha's Varna status.Although Majundar identified that karana was later merged with kayasthas. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Different castes aren't different races. The origin of castes in bengal can be properly explained from puranas upapuranas , vallalcharita etc. I have seen the mention of Karana term in multiple sources. Recently I was reading Jyotirmoyee Sarma and got some historical perspectives- In Bengal it's most likely that Kayastha had developed as a caste in the tenth century AD. Before that Kayastha and Karana terms used to refer to same occupational group (not caste) comprising people from different Varna or backgrounds. But Brihad-dharma and the Brahma-vaivarta Puranas mention was made of the Karana caste, but not of the Kayastha. It is probable that at the time these volumes were written the term Kayastha had not become acceptable as a proper caste name. Karana was then the established name. Kayastha term came in prominence after the end of Hindu period and Karana term gradually became obsolete. In the Vallal-Charita the Kayastha caste was described as the best of the sat shudras.

I actually liked the style of presentation of Baidya article, and there are some contents and resources that can be brought here. Since the style presentation is different in this article, relevant informations can be presented in Varna section or history section, or both, or a new section of Origin can be created, if you have enough information.Chanchaldm (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Rightly said Chanchaldm we should mention about karanas,even in Baidya article we described Ambastha as well. also the ballalcharita and purans views are important, thanks for your opinion. Nobita456 (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment to create a sub section medieval varna status

The Kayastha caste of Bengal formed as a group in the medieval era, where many Purans and literature gave their different views regarding their varna.Purans and literature played a significant role in Bengal's caste system. In this article, we already have a section regarding their varna status with two different subsections Colonial and Modern but there is no mention of their Medieval varna status. So is that not necessary to add their medieval varna status (by using modern academic sources) where kayasthas played a huge role? Nobita456 (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Please note the varna status of them was so alterable from Mediaeval era to Modern era.

• Unintelligible RFC – Maybe a few editors will interpret what you're talking about. A link to a prior dispute or discussion might help. Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Dicklyon Please see the article's Varna status section.I hope you can understand about what I am asking. Colonial and Moden Views regarding their Varna is already given but not Mediaeval. Nobita456 (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Did you try adding some information about that? Is there a reason we need an RFC on the question? Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly this is the reason behind this RFC. other fellow editors Satnam and Chanchaldm also gave the same suggestion see 1 2 .but one editor Ekdalian is opposing, he even reverted my edit see. Please give your opinion regarding that. Nobita456 (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Dicklyon, please have a look at the above talk page section named 'Medieval varna status'. I have clearly explained that such a section is neither the convention in Indian caste articles nor it is required (since the medieval/old status is also included in the current version); same has been supported by possibly the most senior editor on caste articles, Sitush, and I have quoted him above from his talk page. This is basically an attempt to push POV by a new editor who has been aggressive right from the beginning! In fact, Sitush has advised Nobita456 (you may check User talk:Sitush) to wait and gain more experience before editing or proposing such contentious changes on caste articles, and also cared to explain them about the futility of RFC. Please let me know in case of any further doubts or queries. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

actually, Ekdalin is the only one here who is opposing this section. all others agreed with me as I provided you the diffs, Sitush did not tell me to not edit, he said he can't judge this situation because is using the WP app right now which is not user-friendly. The other editors agreed with me, all are POV pushers and only Ekdalian is neutral, it is very hard to believe.I just can't understand we already have colonial and modern views then what is the problem with the addition of mediaeval view.I am leaving the rest to you. Dicklyon. Nobita456 (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Dicklyon do you see any reason not to create that "mediaeval era" section? please give your views whether we should create it or not.Nobita456 (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know enough to have an opinion here. Dicklyon (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

thats what I also thinking about you.you dont have much knowledge regarding this matter,it is not a big deal.another thing I am urging you to read this journal about Bengali Castes see Dicklyon I am preety sure after reading this you can make your decision here,thanks.Nobita456 (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Dismiss as obvious yes: Any information on the subject that can be cited to modern academic sources belongs at this article (as long as compliant with WP:DUE). This is a no-brainer. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• That being said, the OP is a notorious POV-pusher (see block-logs, t/p, AE etc.) and I am quite certain that this RfC is a backhanded way to insert a POV-slant. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  On evaluating the section inserted by OP, I stand by my guesses.

  Why are Puranas discussed in the medieval section especially absent Furui or others' interpretations (for a comparison, see the section on Upapuraṇas at Baidya, drafted by me)? Such a discussion of mythical history scattered with niche terminology ("Uttam Sankar Sudra") do not aid a reader. Obviously, the OP's intention is to highlight Kayasthas as Sudras - nothing else matters.

  Rest of the section is unsourced. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  IF modern scholars say Kayastha is shudra in the medieval era then what can I do? if you have other sources then add them. Nobita456 (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  How is this relevant to my objections? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

How your objections are relevant to my proposal? Nobita456 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hope you understand the importance of consensus; that's what you have been advised by admins, and that's the reason you have opened the RfC. A senior editor like Sitush has already dismissed your proposal (on his talk page) and now it's TrangaBellam! Hope you understand that you have miserably failed to gain consensus for the proposed section till now. Ekdalian (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Sitush said he can't judge the situation for technical reasons, he didn't dismiss it completely. other editors agreed with me. adding the medieval varna section is more than logical. Nobita456 (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• For the sake of you guys I even asked dicklyon to edit. I even asked Chanchaldm and Satnam to edit. I might be a POV pusher for you guys, but all are POV pushers? it is quite hard to believe. Nobita456 (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Have you completely lost your common sense. Dicklyon mentioned, "I don't know enough to have an opinion here.". And you are still mentioning about them? Sheer wastage of time, as rightly mentioned by Sitush! Ekdalian (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Dicklyon was here to contribute, undoubtedly he said he is not getting it, that's why I asked others to edit. I gave Dicklyon the source and told him to read, I did not force him. Nobita456 (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Satnam2408 Chanchaldm said there are many sources that suggested a connection between kayasthas and karans. so where we should give it?? we definitely need a Medieval varna section to include that. Puranas and Literatures views are also equally important for Bengali caste articles. Nobita456 (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• • As mentioned in the above section, Nobita456 is again misrepresenting Sitush; pinging RegentsPark & Bishonen again please note how Nobita is misrepresenting Sitush, who clearly wrote on their talk page (regarding Nobita's proposed section), and I quote, "I don't understand why a separate section would be required." Further, Sitush says, "Unless I have misunderstood things, I also do not see how starting an RFC would be helpful. You appear to be in a minority of one, you are fairly inexperienced & limited in your interests, and those several peoplewho differ from you do have considerable experience in the wider caste-related sphere. I can't stop you from raising an RFC but I do think that you would likely be wasting your time & that of everyone else, especially when taking into account also the long history of sockfarms etc at such articles." He only mentioned about the app issues related to pings & participating in convoluted discussions!
  • You don't seem to be aware of the RfC process, Apart from drawing attention through other forums, it goes to random people (Dicklyon in this case); Dicklyon has clearly mentioned above, "I don't know enough to have an opinion here."; still you tried your best to convince them; sheer wastage of time (this RfC), as already mentioned by Sitush on their talk page!
  • Do you think Satnam2408 & Chanchaldm are considered more reliable & trusted editors of this community like Sitush (most senior possibly as far as caste articles are concerned) & another senior TrangaBellam! Ekdalian (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Dont know about TB but sitush is undoubtedly very reliable but right now is not able to monitor the situation,he clearly said the app is not user friendly. and misinterpretation often Done by you not me. in recent AE you even warned for that. Nobita456 (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• • • It's not about monitoring a situation, Nobita456; its all about his opinion, and he has clearly given his opinion as quoted above; Don't misrepresent please!! And you are not aware of TB's credibility? My goodness! Ekdalian (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Is Sitush active here? doing any discussion at the talk? so yes he is not capable right now for technical reasons ( he himself said that) and I don't want to make any comments about TB. I also use twitter this is all I would say. Nobita456 (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Trying to create rankings and seniority among editors isn't helpful in a talk page discussion as it destroys the co-operative environment among fellow editors which is very necessary for improvement of wikipedia articles. We should comment on the contents as much as possible.Chanchaldm (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

In the recent AE request, have you read Bishonen's & RegentsPark's opinions, or selectively read what the other admin said? Ha ha, what a joke? Regarding Sitush, he is having health issues, therefore using his mobile. But he is so senior that we will consider his opinions even though posted on his talk page. Hope you understand! Ekdalian (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Bishonen as a responsible admin aware me of that word count and Regendspark didn't say anything about you, but the other admin clearly said you are selective and hence that makes you equivalent to a POV pusher. tomorrow I will even give you more diffs regarding your POVs.just because you joined wikipedia nine years ago,it doesn't makes you a good editor. right now good night. Nobita456 (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Please check RegentsPark's comments again! WP:CIR. Ekdalian (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes but merge text from Varna sections with history like in Baidya page: I am 100% in agreement with everything TB said in this section. If it is sourced and relevant, it should be added. My only comment is , there is no point having a different varna section as there are varna related discussion in history section. Hence it can be written like the Baidya article by merging the varna section into hisory. LukeEmily (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Hey Nobita456, Ekdalian I agree with Chanchaldm. We should concentrate more on content.No need for ranking among editors here.Nobita456 please check the Baidya page talk discussion, for the addition of "Among the top three upper caste" in the lead, we (me and Ekdalian also) had to make compromise with TrangaBellam and had to delete the 'traditionally' word. In this way consensus achieve.LukeEmily you are correct,this article can also be arranged like Baidya article. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC).

• No problem with that in my opinion the Varna Status section itself is not right. Create two sections Origin and history and we can input releavent content in it like Baidya article.I am ok with that. Nobita456 (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• • Chanchaldm, Satnam2408 honestly speaking, I have no personal opinion related to such ranking among editors. But though implicitly, that is what is followed practically. For example, if I disagree with Sitush, his opinion would matter more than mine, since he has built his reputation through more contributions, and is therefore more trusted within the community. In fact, an admin is chosen based on their standing within the community, though it's not mentioned in the eligibility criteria. Hope you understand! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I haven't met any other "senior" editor ranking editors or explaining necessity of that till now ! Thanks ! Chanchaldm (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Hey Ekdalian, I have never denied the fact. Sitush is a veteran editor, especially for caste-related articles. I am saying there is no need for such an unequal comparison. It's like comparing an expert with a novice. You know that even if you deny it, it would be considered as there is no consensus. I am staying about the content (the karana and Kayastha connection) that is indicated by several veteran historians, which is missing here. We should concentrate more there.LukeEmily has given an excellent proposal above, to arrange this article similar to Baidya article. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Thanks Satnam2408 for understanding the broader point. Thanks for your input as well. Let's wait!
        • Chanchaldm, okay you 'haven't met any other "senior" editor ranking editors or explaining necessity of that till now'. Please check comments by Sitush here, used the word 'experienced'. There are many more; I neither have the time nor the intent to search for more such examples! Hope you have got the point! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
          • There's no objection to 'experienced' word when it's well within suitable context(Sitush was giving advice in the given link).
          • Editors here came to an agreement here about adding and merging certain contents.Focus should be there.Chanchaldm (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Just Merge the categories, and let it all be one contiguous section on the Varna history. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I guess, this RfC may be soft closed since the same was initiated by Nobita456, now topic banned, possibly not a good faith one, as pointed out by TrangaBellam; moreover, the same has been opposed by experienced editors like Sitush! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Merger has been agreed upon by the editors who participated in this discussion.(Initial proposal, as the title suggesting, was objected.) We just need a volunteer to do the job. Chanchaldm (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Marger of Varna with history has already been suggested by the editors. Reders can easily get all the information in respective categories if merging is done.It would ease readers in retrieving information. Thanks,Satnam2408 (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC).
      • I agree with both Chanchaldm and Satnam2408. Yes, Sitush opposed it but he did not oppose the merge of varna with history as Satnam2408 and I suggested. As TB suggested, it is obvious that it should be part of the article. Also, we need to remove Chitraguptavanshi(and keep it as a claim only) unless we can find a source. Adding Chitraguptavanshi will complicate issues because they have their own separate scriptures. We can merge text from Baidya article into this. The text should not be selective since hierarchy was relative.i.e. we cannot leave out mention of Baidya when we copy text for the same reason TB did not leave the mention of Bengali Kayastha on the Baidya page.LukeEmily (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Offshoot of Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha

Offshoot of Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha provide the quote. there are many north Indian Kayastha communities also. and this is a myth, the source even says they claim it. Nobita456 (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily your honest opinion can be needed here. can you tell me the difference between this migration and the myth migration which is there in the Origin myth section? both say they came from the north, both say they came from Kanauj. the time is also similar. Nobita456 (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Why did you revert in the midst of discussions? You have been blocked earlier for edit warring. It's 12.44 am here; will respond tomorrow. Wait or else you may be blocked for edit warring! (statement by EkDalian?)

My usual no-Brainer answer: if sourced and relevant, keep it. I can get access to the book if quote is needed but google books shows the quote. Nobita456 removed it here (although it was reverted) and I don't agree with the deletion by Nobita(sorry - mistyped revert) but after reading the chitraguptvanshi kayastha, I can only guess why it was removed.LukeEmily (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily the migration written in this book is similar to that migration myth. Ekdalian even equated Bengali Kayasthas with Chitraguptavanshi kayastha ( book didn't mention them like this, atleast I didn't find it) is this not a wrong interpretation by Ekdalian ?Nobita456 (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• The quote from that book is P.34

  "The first group is the Bengali Kayasthas Largely seen as an offshoot of the main north Indian Kayasthas, they claim lineage from migrations into Bengal from the ancient capital of Kanauj at the request of Hindu kings (900s) to settle the countryside"

  . see how Ekdalian misquoted it and pushed his POV to equate Bengali Kayastha with Chitraguptavanshi. Nobita456 (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The migration from kanauj of these Kayastha group was a myth and has no historic views and it is already present at the Migration myth section of this article Origin Myths. Kulin Kayasthas have an associated myth of origin stating that five Kayasthas accompanied the Brahmins from Kannauj who had been invited to Bengal by the mythological king Adisur. Multiple versions of this legend exist, all considered by historians to be myth or folklore lacking historical authenticity thats why I removed it. Nobita456 (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobita456, LukeEmily, please note, I never added this statement; I just had a glance when some other editor seemed to add reliably sourced content! Nobita, why did you say I misquoted; in fact you said, "see how Ekdalian misquoted it and pushed his POV to equate Bengali Kayastha with Chitraguptavanshi". Why did you say this without bothering to check who actually added the same? You could have easily checked the revision history; this is simply not acceptable here. Ekdalian (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Did you completely ignore my edit summary? You are the one who reverted my edits not someone else. Nobita456 (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The whole migration part from kanauj or north is a myth. Nobita456 (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Wait for LukeEmily to judge, don't edit war. Luke I already provided you the quote, please see it and judge it. Nobita456 (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Hello LukeEmily, as mentioned above, I had not added the statement. But after Nobita's concern, I checked & aligned the same with the source. You may check the two consecutive paragraphs in the source in order to understand the context, and the way it has been rephrased. Will wait for your comments before arriving at a consensus. Please check the latest difference here along with the two related paragraphs (as per source). Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The quote is:

The first group if the Bengali Kayasthas. Largely seen as an offshoot of the main north Indian Kayasthas, they claim lineage from migrations into Bengal from the ancient capital of Kanauj at the request of Hindu Kings(900s) to settle the countryside. These Kayasthas took on the well known names of Ghosh, Mitra and Dutt. Over time they fashioned themselves as a Gaur subdivision of a broader Kayastha group, who claimed north Indian origins

. Gaur is one of the branches of Chitragupta kayastha (as per their article) but the author says "fashioned themselves" i.e. "claimed" - he does not say "considered". I might get access to the book and will try to find some other source that gives more details. Please give me a day or so to get more info.LukeEmily (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

right LukeEmily. also please don't forget historians already rejected that migration of Brahmins and Kayasthas from kanauj because of no historical evidence,Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian, Nobita456 , but it also says that Largely seen as an offshoot of the main north Indian Kayasthas, that does not seem like a claim. Also, even if it is a claim no harm adding it in the exact same wording as the source provided we cite him in the text and add quotes.LukeEmily (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Luke historians already has their views regarding this offshoot,they completely said these migration theories has no historical point and it was a folklore. so should not we move that line to Origin myth section? Nobita456 (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily, that's precisely what I did in the proposed version; quoted their statements and attributed to the author. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobita is probably not aware that different historians may have different views, some may consider as myth, some as claims, etc. We are here to present all such views as per NPOV. Awaiting final comment from LukeEmily regarding my proposed version. As mentioned above, you need to check both the paragraphs. Thanks, again! Ekdalian (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes Ekdalian I am well aware of that, but we already have that origin myth section. if you want to put a disputed line at the top of history section then the opinion of sengupta and others also should present after that migration .waiting for luke to judhe,Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobita456, Ekdalian. First, I must confess that I am not an expert in the Kayastha community (or Bengal caste topics hence I might miss some academic references or may be looking at sources that do not reflect the academic consensus). My study lies more on communities that Sanskritized from peasant communities - for both Bengali Baidyas and Kayasthas , this does not apply and some sources state that they were demoted in rank from higher castes due to rivalry with Brahmins. In summary: I have not found any source that concludes that the Bengali Kayasthas are descended from any Chitragupta group - hence it would be incorrect to call them chitraguptavanshi. In fact, the British law case given by the Bellanoit specifically says that the customs rituals etc of the two groups are different. Another source (I don't know how reliable it is because it is not referenced much) by Chitralekha Dasgupta: The Kayasthas : A study in the formation - by some non-academic publication. She writes on page 77:Two points are interesting in this table. First, the Bengal Kayastha did not take Chitragupta or his sons as their ancestors as has been done by most other north Indian kayasthas (she references sambandhanirnaya jatimala of Bengali Kayasthas). It is my suggestion - you do not have to accept it - is to put Bellanoit's Verbatim quote in the origin section. Since Bellanoit does not say whether its a myth or not, we can just change section it to Origin (instead of origin myths). In the text, myth is already written for the other case.

In short, in both sources I did not find any support from the authors for the claim that Bengali Kayasthas are Chitraguptavanshi. But if there are other academic sources, that have other opinions, we can use them also. How does the following look? (I have removed myth as Bellanoit does not call it such).

Origins

Bellanoit states that the Bengali Kayasthas are "largely seen as an offshoot of the main north Indian Kayasthas, they claim lineage from migrations into Bengal from the ancient capital of Kanauj at the request of Hindu Kings(900s) to settle the countryside. These Kayasthas took on the well known names of Ghosh, Mitra and Dutt. Over time they fashioned themselves as a Gaur subdivision of a broader Kayastha group, who claimed north Indian origins".

Kulin Kayasthas, a subcaste of Bengali Kayasthas have an associated myth of origin stating that five Kayasthas accompanied the Brahmins from Kannauj who had been invited to Bengal by the mythological king Adisur. Multiple versions of this legend exist, all considered by historians to be myth or folklore lacking historical authenticity. According to Swarupa Gupta this legend was

... fitted into a quasi-historical, sociological narrative of Bengal and deployed to explain the realities of caste and sub-caste origins and connections during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

According to this legend, the five original Kayastha clans are Bose/Basu, Ghosh, Mitra, Guha, and Datta, the first four of whom became Kulin Kayasthas.

Now we are giving his opinion without any WP:SYNTH. Bellanoit is not commenting on whether he supports the claim or not and certainly neither author supports the chitraguptavanshi claim. Again this is a suggestion as I do not have expertise in the Kayastha or Bengal caste topics - simply based on sources that I found. LukeEmily (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Goodjob LukeEmily.Go ahead with your edits,Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• • More or less, seems good! Wait till tomorrow please, will share my draft version. Thanks, LukeEmily! Ekdalian (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• LukeEmily go with your edits. The POV pushing of Ekdalian to equate Kayasthas with Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha is still present in this article. Nobita456 (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• • • LukeEmily, please check my draft version, which is almost in line with your version; only difference is, I suggest we keep the section name as it is.

References

Origin myths

Kulin Kayasthas, a subcaste of Bengali Kayasthas have an associated myth of origin stating that five Kayasthas accompanied the Brahmins from Kannauj who had been invited to Bengal by the mythological king Adisur. Multiple versions of this legend exist, all considered by historians to be myth or folklore lacking historical authenticity. According to Swarupa Gupta this legend was

... fitted into a quasi-historical, sociological narrative of Bengal and deployed to explain the realities of caste and sub-caste origins and connections during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

According to this legend, the five original Kayastha clans are Bose/Basu, Ghosh, Mitra, Guha, and Datta, the first four of whom became Kulin Kayasthas.

Though, Bellanoit states that the Bengali Kayasthas are "largely seen as an offshoot of the main north Indian Kayasthas, they claim lineage from migrations into Bengal from the ancient capital of Kanauj at the request of Hindu Kings(900s) to settle the countryside. These Kayasthas took on the well known names of Ghosh, Mitra and Dutt. Over time they fashioned themselves as a Gaur subdivision of a broader Kayastha group, who claimed north Indian origins". Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Why you are repeating same paragraph? Nobita456 (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily, hope you are okay if we keep the same as 'Origin myths' only (as per my draft), since most historians consider this migration as legend/folklore. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Break

LukeEmily, use the paragraph-break template or other indentation-techniques to improve accessibility. The talkquote template can also be put to use. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks TB.LukeEmily (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Fringe theories

How is U. A. B. Razia Akter Banu an expert on ancient Bengal and demographic movements? Her book is an ethnographic work about a topic that is not linked to our subject.

How is Barua a RS or books by "APH Publishing Corporation" and "Mittal Publications"? Anyway, is a product of scientific racism that pervaded anthropology and other disciplines in the late 1800s and early 1900s. This is one of the primary reasons guiding our policy on using Raj-sources about caste. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC) alpine Aryans

Would request LukeEmily, one of the trusted, experienced (specially on caste topics) & reliable editor to share their opinion. Message for comparatively less experienced editors - refrain from reverts/edit warring during ongoing talk page discussions. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Partially agree and disagree with both TB and Ekdalian. I think since the sources are reliable - given qualifications, year of publications etc. but the racist race theories and genetics is generally kept away from caste articles. Mittal publications is used 1700+ times on WP and APH more than 800 times as references. We can edit out the racists Apline race related text because it is too close to genetics but the rest is still useful and well sourced IMHO.LukeEmily (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Usage proves nothing: all of them should be replaced. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• If mentioning Aryan connection is raciest then there are many articles in which Ekdalian put this Aryan connection of Kayasthas. I think in that case we should correct them also. Nobita456 (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

alpine Aryans is racist. "Vedic aryan" by itself is not racist. Even Alpine Aryan is used by some anthropologists(minority). We can fix this page first and make equivalent changes later on other pages that have theories related to shape of nose etc. I think the sources are OK but the the "Alpine aryan" word needs to be nuked fom a caste page. Other stuff is fine IMO. LukeEmily (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion of outdated race theory is so unnecessary, further more it's fringe. Even in tribe articles this type of terminology generally used to refer to language family, not race.Chanchaldm (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

No other caste related articles discuss about raciest Aryan theories. Nobita456 (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: There is no such race called "Vedic Aryans", and the so-called Alpine Aryan as a "distinctive race" with features such as shape of the nose, etc is outright nonsense. The only 'sources' that equate ABC Aryan as a distinct race are racist, pseudoscientific, antisemitic, and white supremacist 19th-century works of writers such as Arthur de Gobineau, Richard Wagner, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, etc. Anything that attests Aryan to a distinct ABC-subrace should be tossed out of Wikipedia. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 11:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this.Nobita456 (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with LukeEmily. I agree with WikiLinuz as well as far as racism is concerned! My suggestion (in line with what LukeEmily said): removing the Alpine Aryan (racism part) and rephrase the remaining sourced content attributing the same to the author. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The article shouldn't include either of those works. To make myself clear, I agree with TrangaBellam's complete removal of the text from the article. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 18:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The total Aryan part is racism and rest is WP:UNDUE. No other author supported this,Trangabellam also raised his concern regarding the reliability of that source. Nobita456 (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I also have sources regarding this Alpine and Nordic Ariyan race for the upper castes of Bengal. A reliable source claims Baidya is probably pure Ariyan. These claims are fringe theories of "colonial scholarship". I am also in support of the removal of this.Thanks. Regards, Satnam2408 (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the information that Kayastha bore surname of Brahmins, I would urge You to provide a Reliable source(TrangaBellam also has expressed his concerns). I am also searching for this. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobita, would request you to refrain from participating in such caste related discussions till you get a clean chit from allegations against you by multiple experienced editors at WP:AE. We already have a number of experienced editors here, and everyone will suggest their logical views in the best interests of Wikipedia. Would request all experienced editors to check my draft version: "According to U. A. B. Razia Akter Banu, the early Kayasthas in Bengal, along with Brahmins, seem to be the descendants of immigrant branch of Indo-Aryans, and their numbers were relatively low at the time of immigration. Since Bengal already had quite an advanced civilization in pre-Aryan times, "casual and intermittent contacts between the Aryans and the original inhabitants of Bengal" after the 4th century BCE widened the gap between these two different cultures. During the reign of the Gupta Empire beginning in the 4th century CE, systematic large-scale immigration by Aryan Kayasthas and Brahmins started; Kayasthas were brought over by the Guptas to help manage administration." This is all related to history, not racism, and even attributed to the author. Thanks!

Satnam, can you please share your source at Talk:Baidya. We can check if relevant historical information can be incorporated there (not racism). Surnames part BTW is well sourced and supported by multiple reliable sources; you may check the references as well. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Source is Unrealiable, fringe, WP:UNDUE. and Aryan race is total Racism.That source is a matter of doubt and the surname part is WP:UNDUE not a oposite opinion which you can add attributed to the author. I also agree with other senior editors of removal of this total content along with that source. Ekdalian you cant ask me to not comment here. Nobita456 (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Nobita, I can't stop you from writing here. But definitely, I can ignore your comments till you get a clean chit from such serious allegations. Will wait for all experienced editors regarding their opinions on the history part, my draft version. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

According to Swarupa Gupta the theory of "Kayastha bore surname of Brahmin " was an attempt of then literati sources to highlight the fusion of Kayastha with Brahmins. We should be cautious about this. Still can be used under WP:NPOV.see here p.156-157.Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

My final decision regarding Aryan Theories. These are contentious and outdated. I am also in favour of complete removal of these. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, LukeEmily & others, please share your opinion regarding the draft version given above. We need to arrive at a consensus. We may or may not believe in Aryan theories, but Wikipedia is all about reliable sources and the opinions of authors. Let us all stick to our policies (not personal preferences or opinions like outdated stuff & all) and present all opinions and counter opinions as per WP:NPOV. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, would request you to review my latest version (as mentioned in my edit summaries as well) and raise your objection, if any! Thanks in advance. Ekdalian (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Swarupa Gupta(Brill Publication) has already demonstrated that, how Genealogical Historians started forging the history. In attempt of establishing fusion of Brahmins with Kayastha theory, similarity in surnames of Brahmins and Kayastha was highlited.Such contentious information needs reliable source.The source ,You have provided for 'Kayastha Bore surname of Brahmin' is not on par with reputed publication like Brill,CUP,Sage,Oxford etc.It is also providing contentious Aryan theory.We need Reliable sources for this claims.Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC).

Okay Satnam2408, I am providing another reliable source (Tej Ram Sharma) who says (page 115) that The names of brahmanas occurring in our inscriptions sometimes end in a non-brahmanic cognomen such as Bhatta, Datta and Kunda, etc., which are available in the inscriptions of Bengal. Surnames like Datta, Dama, Palita, Pala, Kunda (Kundu), Dasa, Naga and Nandin are now confined to Kayasthas of Bengal but not to brahmanas. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Ekdalian for providing the quote.It is of good quality.I am ok with this.Regards,Satnam2408 (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: still awaiting your response! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I will take a look by tonight. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Badly need your help/input, TrangaBellam. Awaiting your response for a couple of days! If you suggest, we can rephrase the same or discard some part as well. Please comment and help arrive at consensus. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

My 2 cents but wait for input from TB. Please remove Aryan or vedic Aryan to describe the castes. Or add a note saying that Aryan race theories are discredited. Indo-Aryan is OK IMO as it used to describe languages and may refer to a group of people who spoke the same language. Rest of the edits and sources such as Sharma look ok to me.LukeEmily (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks LukeEmily and Satnam2408 for the recent discussions; changes suggested by LukeEmily have been made and the modified content (though in line with source) has been incorporated. Only the term 'Indo-Aryan' has been used since it mostly refers to a linguistic group. Thanks to Trangabellam for pointing out right at the beginning; I completely respect their decision not to continue with discussions later! Thanks, all. Ekdalian (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

My initial queries about Banu, Barua et al remain unaddressed. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian your added content It has been suggested that the Bengali Kayasthas along with the Nagar Brahmins were originally their Brahmin priests is a minority opinion. According to Rajiv verma Kayasthas are of mixed castes. Majumdar mentioned many early evidences which mentioned kayastha as shudra. Earliest Smritis mentioned karana as shudra.According to Chitralekha gupta Bengali Kayasthas are traditional shudra. If kayasthas along with Nagara Brahmin were Brahmin priests then how they were classified as shudra. Even their migration theory is disputed.Kayastha were scribe and administrator-it is the majority view.I have not seen any othe author claim this.I have told you to use sharma for 'Kayastha bore surname of Brahmin'.Satnam2408 (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, regarding your concerns: "How is U. A. B. Razia Akter Banu an expert on ancient Bengal and demographic movements? Her book is an ethnographic work about a topic that is not linked to our subject." -- If we go by your logic, we can question the expertise of any author on any topic if we don't somehow agree with their opinion. Their profile have been discussed twice at WP:RSN, and have been considered as reliable! Whether her book is an ethnographic work is your personal opinion, we are taking statements from the text which are not only relevant to our topic but also have the right context. You can always disagree with a statement; in fact historians may have different opinions; that's the reason we have attributed the same to the author. Regarding Barua, LukeEmily has already answered, and I quote, "I think since the sources are reliable - given qualifications, year of publications etc. but the racist race theories and genetics is generally kept away from caste articles. Mittal publications is used 1700+ times on WP and APH more than 800 times as references. We can edit out the racists Apline race related text because it is too close to genetics but the rest is still useful and well sourced IMHO." Usage is an indicator of reliability, needless to mention. What else is your concern? Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian, (not sure how I missed it before but Sitush has also argued against it on this page long before TB's or my time). My comment was simply based on the year of publication and the publisher. However, if the original book was written in 1932, then Barau is unreliable. On this talk page, Sitush says The author is Kanaklal Barua, the editors of the 11-volume set are the Sharmas. Barua is citing Bhandarkar's 1932 pseudo-science stuff. Who is Barua? Surely not the Kanaklal Barua who apparently died in 1940? And who the heck was Bhandarkar that makes him so reliable even though he used theories that have long since been dismissed? And why is it that the Sharmas seem effectively to be reprinting pseudo-scientific & otherwise speculative associational crap written at a time that we know produced a lot of dodgy historical/anthropological research etc? So, who are the Sharnmas? Can we not find a modern source that doesn't rely on weird notions of scientific racism and philology etc? If the Kayasthas are such a significant community then I would expect to see more recent research and, indeed, there is ... but it doesn't seem to mention these Raj era people. I'll try to do more digging around myself becuase I really do believe that if the recently removed stuff is so relevant then it will have been examined well inside, say, the last 30 or so years.As an aside, the fact that Barua calls Bhandarkar's theory "recent" does make sense if we assume that Barua wrote it somewhere between 1932 and his own death in 1940. It doesn't make the source any more reliable though. - Sitush (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC). Is this book just a reprint of some 1932 book when racist theories prevailed?LukeEmily ″(talk) 11:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The sections on the material (be it Banu or Bakshi et al.) is undoubtedly based upon scientific racism given its entire premise is constituted to historical racial categories. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 12:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey LukeEmily, Sitush is talking about a different book altogether, where only Barua's opinion was there. That's the reason, the same has been replaced by a modern text where the opinions of 3 historians are mentioned. And regarding Banu, there is no doubt; probably Sitush or some other editor (endorsed by Sitush) incorporated the same before I started editing here on Wikipedia. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian, In this edit, you used Discovery of North-East India: Geography, History, Culture, Religion, Politics, Sociology, Science, Education and Economy. North-East India. Volume 1, Mittal Publications. You used this as the only source for the statement This branch of Indo-Aryans seems to have entered India as part of their immigration during the third millennium BCE. It has been suggested that the Bengali Kayasthas along with the Nagar Brahmins were originally their Brahmin priests. The sources are two papers authored by Kanaklal Barua that you referred to and the book has been edited by Suresh Kant Sharma, Usha Sharma. Based on the discussion above it seems that Sitush clearly is dismissing the same book as unreliable based on the credibility of the authors. I am talking about the edits related to that particular source only(not discussing others at the moment). Am I mistaken? Which is the modern text you mention? Are there any other sources for that statement in the talk quote? LukeEmily (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily, I was talking about "Land and the People" by S. R. Bakshi, S. R. Sharma, S. Gajrani (1998, APH Publishing). I couldn't find the source rejected by Sitush since those versions of the article (back in 2014) were removed due to copyright violation. But as far as the source you have mentioned above, my bad, I should have been more careful! We can discard the same since it's actually based on two papers authored by Kanaklal Barua, as pointed out by you. I can't recollect whether this source was rejected by Sitush, but we should discard it on the same ground. Thanks for your analysis! We can focus on the other sources now. Ekdalian (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I checked the conversation with Sitush again; yes, this is the source dismissed by Sitush! Thanks, again! Ekdalian (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging TrangaBellam,LukeEmily,WikiLinuz,Chanchaldm for their advice about the recent edit, made by Ekdalian. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan groups may represent both linguistic as well as migrant Indo-European group. When Aryan migrated? According to B. B Lal Aryan invasion never occured. It may be the extension of "The great Aryan myth", a "colonial scholarship". How can we evade schollarary debates (Shaffer and Lichtenstein) on this Indo-European theories.I would like to request WikiLinuz and TrangaBellam to investigate the issue. My no brainer reading suggests that Banu may representing the Indo European migration not the linguistic groups.Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: would request you to join the discussion as one of the trusted & reliable editors here! Just in order to brief you, it all started with TrangaBellam removing two paras as racist stuff, etc. As suggested by another trusted editor LukeEmily, (you may please check the entire conversation in this section), the terms 'Alpine Aryan' or even 'Vedic Aryan' may relate to race, while the term 'Indo-Aryan' is acceptable since it represents mostly linguistic groups. The paragraphs have now been rephrased (using Indo-Aryan, still keeping aligned with what the sources say) and should ideally have no objection from any experienced editor (who has some experience on caste articles). Sources cited are reliable; one unreliable source has now been identified & removed. Would request you to check my latest version, now reverted by Satnam2408, and please comment here regarding your opinion. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Satnam2408, the source is clearly talking about race, not linguistic group. Ekdalian, can we refine an obsolete theory like that? Anyway the whole thing was fringe even in 20th century.Chanchaldm (talk) 10:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Banu

Ekdalian proposes that we write,

[T]he early Kayasthas in Bengal [..] seem to be the descendants of an immigrant branch of Indo-Aryans, and their numbers were relatively low at the time of immigration. Since Bengal already had quite an advanced civilization since ancient times, casual and sporadic contacts between these immigrant people and the original inhabitants of Bengal after the 4th century BCE widened the gap between these two distinct cultures. During the reign of the Gupta Empire beginning in the 4th century CE, systematic large-scale immigration by Indo-Aryan Kayasthas and Brahmins started; Kayasthas were brought over by the Guptas to help manage administration.

I have so many questions:

• That Kayasthas were the descendant of immigrant branch of IAs, who constituted the autochthonous branches?
• "Advanced civilizations" that supposedly existed in ancient pre-IA Bengal?

• Chandraketugarh whose oldest layers (acc. to our article) dates back to as early as 300 BC? Or, Varendra?

  Let us consult Eaton's magnum opus (The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier: 1204–1760):

  [Th]e tribes of Bengal certainly encountered Indo-Aryan culture in the context of the growth of [Mauryan] empire, and probably during the several centuries of turmoil preceding the rise of the Mauryas. The same pottery associated with the diffusion of Indo-Aryan speakers throughout northern India between 500 and 200 B.C.—Northern Black Polished ware—now began to appear at various sites in the western Bengal delta. It was in Mauryan times, too, that urban civilization first appeared in Bengal. Pundra (or Pundranagara), a city named after the powerful non-Aryan people inhabiting the delta’s northwestern quadrant, Varendra, became the capital of the Mauryas’ easternmost province.

• Contact widened the gap between these two distinct cultures: where is the evidence for such a grave claim?

• This flies in the face of what we know about these processes happened - consult D. Anthony's theories of elite recruitment, further developed by Parpola and others. As well as theories of language shifts, in general.
• Once again, reaching for Eaton:

  This conceptual distinction gave rise to a moving cultural frontier between “clean” Indo-Aryans who hailed from points to the west, and “unclean” Mlecchas already inhabiting regions in the path of the Indo-Aryan advance [..] In this legend, Agni refuses to cross the Gandak River in Bihar since the areas to the east—eastern Bihar and Bengal—were considered ritually unfit for the performance of Vedic sacrifices.

  Despite such taboos, however, Indo-Aryan groups gradually settled the upper, the middle, and finally the lower Ganges region. As this occurred, both Indo-Aryans and the indigenous communities with which they came into contact underwent considerable culture change. [A]lthough the indigenous peoples of the middle and lower Ganges were regarded as unclean barbarians, Indo-Aryan immigrants merged with the agrarian society already established in these regions and vigorously took up the expansion of rice agriculture in what had formerly been forest or marshland. The Indo-Aryans’ adoption of peasant agriculture is also seen in the assimilation into their vocabulary of non-Aryan words for agricultural implements, notably the term for “plow” (lāṅgala), which is Austroasiatic in origin.

  By 500 B.C. a broad ideological framework had evolved that served to integrate kin groups of the two cultures into a single, hierarchically structured social system. [..]

• What is the relevance of the first two lines? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks, TrangaBellam for raising some valid questions regarding the first two lines from Banu! Let me shorten the same, so that we can get rid of such questions for the sake of a common reader. Let us also keep the historical information (as pointed out by LukeEmily right at the beginning) at the same time, but without controversies! Please have a look at the latest version (modified after considering your comments above) and let me know if you are okay with it. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• The draft version is as follows: According to U. A. B. Razia Akter Banu, the number of early Kayasthas and Brahmins in Bengal, who seem to be the descendants of an immigrant branch of Indo-Aryans, were relatively low at the time of immigration before the 4th century BCE. During the reign of the Gupta Empire beginning in the 4th century CE, systematic large-scale immigration by Indo-Aryan Kayasthas and Brahmins started; Kayasthas were brought over by the Guptas to help manage administration. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• If any view qualifies WP:DUE,add; if not, discard. But what is the point of continuing with modification and filter of any obsolete concept or fringe? It seems like WP:OR and WP:SYN.Chanchaldm (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Caste hierarchies was brought by IA Migrants - so, it is impossible that there were any Kayasthas and Brahmins in pre-Aryan Bengal. [I]mmigrant branch of Indo-Aryans makes no sense either - all IAs were migrants!

Only the second line belongs to our article but why not use far-decent sources like Furui? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, TrangaBellam. Okay, will add the second line, will check Furui as well. Do you have any objection now on the other paragraph related to the Nagar Brahmin connection? Please let me know; in fact, other reliable sources like Tej Ram Sharma mention the same as well. @LukeEmily: please share your opinion once you are online! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

As long as there is no WP:OR and we use WP:HSC, I am OK. I assume TB is suggesting to keep only During the reign of the Gupta Empire beginning in the 4th century CE, systematic large-scale immigration by Indo-Aryan Kayasthas and Brahmins started; Kayasthas were brought over by the Guptas to help manage administration.. Seems fine to me. I agree with TB that "immigrant Branch of Indo-Aryans" is confusing since all Indo-Aryans were migrants. I believe what Banu is suggesting is that there was minor immigration of the Indo-Aryans before and then in 4th century CE, it started full scale. (Edit : She does not use the term Indo-Aryan in the source on pg 5 and 6 hence this addition would be WP:OR) Please check Furui also as per TB's suggestion. Tej Ram Sharma is WP:HSC.LukeEmily (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks LukeEmily for your opinion. I have intentionally taken a backseat here and considering the opinions of TrangaBellam & LukeEmily more since I may have my own bias (at a subconscious level) being a Bengali. As simply a more experienced editor here, I would request Satnam2408 and Chanchaldm to take a backseat (we may have our own biases & even COI being Bengalis), and let more experienced unrelated editors like TrangaBellam & LukeEmily drive the consensus especially since one of you termed the same as 'contentious'. Anyway, I would like to thank both Satnam2408 & Chanchaldm for engaging in discussions. Honestly speaking, I have personally followed the same approach for the article on Baidya, and restricted myself to opinions mostly and let TrangaBellam & LukeEmily drive the major & contentious edits after they entered the show (in spite of creating the last stable version along with Sitush, & protecting the same for years). Thanks, all! Ekdalian (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey TrangaBellam, I have been going through Furui. BTW, I have added the second part of Banu's statements, as per above discussion. Regarding the Nagar Brahmin connection, are you okay with the existing source by S. R. Bakshi, S. R. Sharma & S. Gajrani (1998) along with Tej Ram Sharma (page 115) as the supporting one? Please confirm. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Banu hasn't used Indo-Aryan term; and alpine aryan, non-Alpine aryan, Aryan, Indo-Aryan etc aren't quite same thing. I am not sure whether TB suggested(in his last input) total removal of Banu or supporting the lines with Furui. Let's wait for him.Chanchaldm (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian, I undid your recent additions that used Banu. Chanchaldm is correct. I have been lazy and not checking the sources since I assumed the edits were sourced without WP:OR. After reading Chanchaldm's comment verified that Indo-Aryan is not used on pages 5 and 6. She uses "Alpine Aryan". She may be a scholar and believe in the Alpine Aryan theory - but since it is related to race, we cannot add it on wikipedia as per consensus about not using race on articles. Can you check Furui? ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey LukeEmily, she uses the term non-Alpine Aryans which obviously means a branch of Indo-Aryans. We are not quoting her. Do you still think it amounts to WP:OR?? This has been accepted by Sitush earlier after review. Anyway, awaiting your response! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Would request TrangaBellam and LukeEmily to please check the latest version; I strongly believe, it's pure piece of relevant history without any OR, that too attributed to the author! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, awaiting your comments on the sources regarding Nagar Brahmin related statement(s), as mentioned above. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian, Let us all wait to hear from TB on both issues, and get more info from Furui.LukeEmily (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Ekdalian may I request you to provide (relevant) quotes for this edit? Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The Guptas established Vedic Hinduism as the state religion and brought about a renaissance of Hinduism all over their empire. The Guptas brought into Bengal a large number of Brahmins from Aryavarta ...... The Guptas also brought into Bengal a large number of Kayasthas to help manage the administration. ....

Buddhism, which seemed to have spread in Bengal some time before the reign of the great Maurya emperor Asoka (273-236 BC), was in it's flourishing stage when the Aryan Brahmins and Kayasthas were colonising the North and Western Bengal under the Guptas. Bengal thus became the final place in India for a long and drawn-out confrontation between Vedic Brahminism and Buddhism. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the source of Banu is that , he is emphasising racial theory.He has used the term Alpine Aryan.Alpine Aryan is a race.He is speaking about the Indo Aryan race.He is claiming Vedic Aryan as racially similer to Indo Europian.How a linguistic group comprised of same race? Indo-Aryan linguistic group can be from any race. IMO, He is speaking about Race.I would suggest to use other decent source regarding this migration theory.For the case Banu ,there is every probability of insertion of WP:OR.Thanks.Satnam2408 (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Satnam2408; but we have neither used any statement related to race, nor any OR. Rather, we have focused on the history part in our article, that too a relevant portion only. And as mentioned earlier, Sitush had also accepted the wikilink 'Indo-Aryan peoples' linked to the term 'Aryan' used by Banu. Ekdalian (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Ekdalian,for your reply.Here the issue is more complecated.It is beyond doubt that by refering Indo-Aryan you are referring the ethnolinguistic group.But here issue is that Kayastha as a caste group in Bengal described much later.Although Karana was mentioned in Up-puranas.We know that, Kayastha was a professional group later crystallised into caste.Here, Banu is referring Gupta period(which is much earlier than even composition of the Puranas).I am a little inclined to the fact that Banu is probably referring a professional group.Pinging senior editors here @LukeEmily:, @TrangaBellam:,@WikiLinuz: for their opinion about the new edit done by you.Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I have already pinged TrangaBellam and LukeEmily right after my last edits, and LukeEmily has responded as well. Awaiting TrangaBellam's opinion on both issues (including Nagar Brahmin related sources) as mentioned above by LukeEmily! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Please don't add contents from these pages, these go against mainstream views ( as already well explained by TB with quotations). Instead, why don't we add contents that we have consensus on? We need to improve this article and we agreed to merge history and Varna section. We also suggested adding Karana things since we have large number of sources including Furui mentioning about it.Chanchaldm (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Problems with Banu 1.Banu is emphasising racial theory(which is a obsolete theory) 2.In ancient Indian the professional group of scribes were called "Kayastha".As Kayastha was a professional group, it is not necessary that this group belonged to a single Varna or race or linguistic group.Even it is not necessary that this entire Kayastha professional group constitute the modern Kayastha caste.According to Ray,Majumdar modern kayastha is a mixed of Kayastha caste(mentioned in Mediaeval era,not in ancient era) and Karna caste.Banu is also not claiming that these Indo Aryan group constituted the modern Kayastha caste.Banu is saying about the kayastha professionals as in Gupta era kayastha caste was not developed in Bengal as I said earlier.3.If we go by Banu ,and link Aryan with Indo Aryan then why should we not prefer Risley here.Risley was a colonial Ethnographer (Ethnographers are mainly considered as specialist in this type of theories).Risley claimed Kayastha as Dravidian (linguistic group as per your explanation).Why Risley?Because here we are dealing with a subject matter that itself is a product of colonial scholars.4.How this Indo Aryan challenged Buddhism in Bengal in 3rd century, where as Bengal was the last stronghold of Indian Buddhism, where it survived as a socio-cultural force until the twelfth century AD.Brahminic revival in Bengal occured in mediaeval sena period.This source has multiple Fringe theories.5.At this moment you don't have consensus for this.LukeEmily has not given any opinion regarding the acceptance of this edit.TrangaBellum has urged for other source.Thanks,Satnam2408 (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian Sannction would not help to resolve this dispute.I have mentioned the reasons.LukeEmily and TrangaBellam please take a look here and read my explanation about Banu.Ekdalian I dont agree with your recent edit(already explained).Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Satnam2408, Chanchaldm, please note there is an existing consensus with Sitush on the source as well as almost similar content. Further, TrangaBellam has mentioned clearly above that the second part of my earlier version belongs to our article, which has been supported by LukeEmily as well. Wait for further input from TrangaBellam as mentioned by LukeEmily above. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Satnam2408, please note Risley has been rejected by Sitush (considered as the most experienced editor on caste here), while Banu (especially this part) has been accepted by him. I am intentionally avoiding my opinion, since as mentioned earlier, we will give more weightage to opinions coming from trusted & experienced editors (on caste articles) and not Bengali editors like us who may have their own biases and even COI. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

TB has suggested using only "second line" but citing far decent sources like Furui.(Not "second part" of Banu or your earlier version) Please don't misrepresent other editors. You are again requested to post your any new draft here first( not any previously rejected ones with rephrasing) to avoid unnecessary edit war. Thank you.Chanchaldm (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

No, Chanchaldm! I will simply revert to the version approved by Sitush (last consensus version) when I get time. The burden of removing the same or gaining consensus is on you, not me! Read WP:REMOVAL. Any further edit warring (related to the last consensus version) will be reported at the right forum! Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging neutral & trusted editors of our community, TrangaBellam and LukeEmily regarding the recent edit warring by Chanchaldm. It's been quite some time we are discussing this; we should move on, I believe. Please share your opinion, or else let's stick to the last best version by Sitush! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Editors including me don't always have time for this. They have said what they have to, but you seem to not like their suggestions, so denying our agreements. Instead of misrepresenting the same or unnecessarily edit-warring why don't you broaden the discussion like going for an Rfc or DRN? You're most welcome to do so. Thank you. Chanchaldm (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

This is the first time I am participating in the discussion regarding Banu. I have never participated in discussion regarding this source in the past.Most probably other editors, who have raised issue, also are participating first time.I don't know which consensus you are talking about. Have all the editors approved Banu in the ongoing discussion? Have all issues raised by editors been resolved? Please don't do anything before you get any input from others regarding this. If it is pure history, then it must be mentioned in other sources as well. We can consult with other descent sources as well.The advice given by Chanchaldm is also reasonable.Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

In Bengal kayastha as a caste group developed roughly in 10 th century AD see p. 20.Kayastha was a scribal Professionsee as well and a mixed caste.According to majumdar Karana caste merged with kayastha in Bengal to form the Bengali Kayastha castesee p. 432-433 then how Bengali kayastha appeared in 4 th century as described by Banu.Definitely he is telling about Kayastha professionals. Are this Indo Aryans constituent element of the Benhali Kayastha caste? Is it claimed by Banu? ThanksSatnam2408 (talk) 09:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably, can be best described as WP:OR & WP:SYN, if I talk about what all you have mentioned above, Satnam2408. Since Banu's statements doesn't match your POV, you are trying to use multiple sources in order to arrive at your own conclusion (original research)! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian I have just asked you that if Banu is mentioning about Bengali Kayastha caste or profession? Just it. No I am not pushing POV. Banu's information is contradicting with many main stream sources. Thats why has given these sources.Thanks,Satnam2408 (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Banu is definitely talking about the early Brahmins & Kayasthas in Bengal. As you are aware, during the Guptas, Kayastha existed as a profession, which emerged as a caste later and was formalised during the Sena rule; in fact, most of it is mentioned in our article here. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

That means Banu is saying about kayastha professionals as you also have informed.During Gupta, kayastha was a professional group. Kayastha as a caste formed in Sena rule. I have gone through wink, Tej ram Sharma, Sekhar Bandyopadhyay (atleast the cited pages). But none have claimed that the kayastha professionals that officiated during Gupta later formed the Bengali kayastha caste. Rather emphasised that Kayastha is a mixed caste and formed in Sena era.If we gone through Sanyal then find that Kayastha is synonymous to karana, according to Harlan Kayastha is the modified karana caste(would be provided here as well). Majumdar mentions Bengali Kayastha is the mixed of Kayastha and Karana. These are the actual histories of origin of Bengali Kayastha caste.Can you please provide a single source that mentions the migration as well as the caste formation then would be extremely helpful.Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is the Sanyal p. 319 mentioning Bengali Kayastha castes is identical to karana.Here is Harlan p. 149.Kayastha caste is a mixed of Kayastha and Karana is already given. The information about kayastha migration was provided in a manner that normal reader would not able to recognise that here we are talking about kayastha professionals not a caste. The related information should be given in same paragraph in disciplinary(not like here and there) manner to avoid any misinterpretations by readers. And please incorporate all history related the origin of Bengali Kayastha from all reliable sources. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Answering as I was pinged. I am busy for the next 2-3 weeks and cannot participate in the discussion until then and will be active on wikipedia only very minimally until the end of this month. Please wait for TB to respond and also look at Furui in the meantime(ask TB the name and page of book or journal article). I think he agreed to the second line of Banu but we can wait for him to respond when he is less busy. If Sitush has also agreed to the change, please point to the discussion. Also, we cannot do WP:SYNTH. Thank you. LukeEmily (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
  • As Banu is mentioning about the migration of Kayastha during Gupta era, I would urge you to add this- "In the Gupta era, the Kayasthas had not yet evolved into the caste or sub-caste that they are today." In the very next line of Banu's information by citing Tej ram Sharma. Tej ram sharma in p. 115 also mentioned that in Gupta era Kayastha was not a caste.In the next you can mention remaining information provided by Sharma.Regarding Kayastha-Karana connection we would discuss about that as well. But I would also recommend you to wait for TrangaBellam as he has not reviewed it.Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I am not yet sure if Banu should be added. Let us not add Aryan, Indo-Aryan etc. unless Sitush or TB explicitly approve or we find something from Furui. To be clear, I do not support adding the word Aryan unless the conditions in the previous statement are met. Ekdalian, please wait for consensus about Aryan. Hopefully, it will not be long. Yes, Karana connection needs to be added as it is relevant and medieval shudra status from Bengal's literature also needs to be added. I have created a to-do list as we may forget some things due to the edit reverts. ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on Sitush's edit that EkDalian pointed to, Sitush improved the existing Banu citation implying that he approved it. Anyway, I still suggest waiting for any comments from TB at least for a few days if OK with all of you. It is likely they are both busy.LukeEmily (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey LukeEmily, thanks for clarifying the implicit consensus with Sitush above. Now that TB has clearly mentioned that they are no longer interested in this, I believe we can reinstate the relevant part from Banu from the last consensus version. We need to take a call regarding the other source related to Nagar Brahmin connection. You have mentioned right at the beginning, and I quote Mittal publications is used 1700+ times on WP and APH more than 800 times as references. We can edit out the racists Apline race related text because it is too close to genetics but the rest is still useful and well sourced IMHO. Now that we will no longer ping & disturb TB, you may please confirm your opinion regarding the text by S. R. Bakshi, S. R. Sharma, S. Gajrani (1998), APH Publishing Corporation; will wait for your confirmation. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian please be informed that,this proposal given by me,has gained a thank from LukeEmily and its relevant to this information.TrangaBellum has urged for a "tadless revert" .Hence I would suggest you to revert only those part for which you have explicit consensus.ThanksSatnam2408 (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Satnam2408, I shall definitely take into consideration your opinion since it seems to be a valid one. BTW, 'tad less reverts' refer to edit warring, not related to content! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what new information Bakshi is providing, as all information given by Bakshi are already incorporated or ready to be incorporated.Kayastha bore surname of Nagara Barhmin is also added by you here.Thanks,Satnam2408 (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Satnam2408, once we conclude that the source is reliable, then I will revisit the same for additional relevant information, if any! @LukeEmily: already pinged you for your final opinion since TB is no longer interested. I understand you must be busy; do respond once you are online. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

EkDalian, please note that my comment was that the two publications are not banned on WP as such (although I personally prefer high quality publishers - especially by academics). For example Kaplaz and Isha books are blacklisted. In any case who are these three editors? Who is the author? I am not convinced that the book you mention falls in WP:HSC unless S. R. Bakshi, S. R. Sharma, S. Gajrani are historians, anthropologists, political scientists or from related fields to comment on caste. Second, that page talks about facial features etc. Is it written by some Raj era race theory believer and edited recently by these three? In that case it is not reliable. Also, why does this book have no citation on google scholars (as opposed to Banu's book that has several)? In summary: Please don't use this book unless we know the author and his/her qualifications. Even then, it is full of racist theory so I would prefer a better source. Also, as Satnam2408 says, what new information does it add?LukeEmily (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks LukeEmily! For now, we shall not use the above source here! Will check the credentials of the authors, or else, check for other sources as well. In the meanwhile, I shall add relevant content from Banu from Sitush's consensus version. Ekdalian (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Please can you create a draft first on the talk page based on the version that Sitush approved? Also, please take into consideration Satnam's comments. They are quite valid. ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Sitush's version from two sources:

The social and religious patterns of Bengal had historically been distinctively different from those in the orthodox Hindu heartland of North India and this impacted on how the caste system developed there. Bengal, being located east of the traditional Aryavarta (Aryan) region between the Ganges and Yamuna rivers, remained insulated from the full impact of Brahminical orthodoxy for many centuries, and the impact of Buddhism remained strong there. During the reign of the Gupta Empire beginning in the 4th century AD, when systematic and large-scale colonization by Aryan Kayasthas and Brahmins first took place, Kayasthas were brought over by the Guptas to help manage the affairs of state. But the influence of Buddhism continued under the Buddhist rulers of the Pala dynasty from the eighth through the eleventh century CE.

In our version here, we should add just after the text above:

Of note, the Kayasthas had not yet crystallised into a caste, and represented a professional group., followed by a relevant source supporting this statement. @LukeEmily: can you please check & comment on this draft? In case you want to modify, please share your own draft version! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Please can you point to the diffs where Sitush improved the Banu citation (he changed page nos, etc) implying his approval - for the benefits of other editors? Please note that this does not mean this edit cannot be removed. All it means is that the consensus version was what you pointed out. Personally, I am simply acquiescing only because you indicated Sitush's approval. If either Sitush or TB object to this edit in the future, it should be removed. Or it can still be removed by others after a discussion at WP:INB, only the burden has shifted to those who want to remove it. Just saying so we dont get into edit wars. If I were you, I would still wait for some time to find info from Furui as suggested from TB, so that there is strong support. This article is still very incomplete as the Shudra status from the literature in the medieval era is not added from the Baidya page. Someone needs to volunteer.LukeEmily (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey LukeEmily and all concerned, you may have a look at this diff, 4 consecutive edits by Sitush after mine here, which still represents the consensus version! As mentioned by Sitush in his talk page (regarding medieval varna status), the shudra status is very much there; anyway, the medieval literature part may be incorporated as mentioned by LukeEmily. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks EkDalian.LukeEmily (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian thanks for this.We can integrate history and varna status as per advice given by other editors.It would provide better accessibility to readers.I would like to create draft for this and would request Chanchaldm to pick a goal as provided by LukeEmily in to do section.After final evaluation by senior editors the same can be incorporated here.Thanks,Satnam2408 (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey Satnam2408 there are issues and scopes of improvements, I will work on history section. I am able to read only few pages of Furui due to paucity of time, But it seems he gave great insights; will read more of it and other sources when I will have time. You may start working on origin section. Chanchaldm (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Chitrarekha Gupta's opinion in Varna section

Hey Ekdalian There is a little difference between you and me. According to LukeEmily, most of the edits of this article is done by you. On the other hand, The current version of Baidya article is given by TrangaBellam and Lukeemily. Even I cant recall, when I have edited the Baidya article last. Next, Your edit of Kayastha were Brahmin priest is an unreliable one. I used unreliable tag for this source in Nagar Brahmin page. Later accepted and well explained by luke about the source as unreliable. Next, I had problem with Indo Aryan migration as Banu mentions immigrant Indo Aryan (It was enforcing a racial theory) it is well sorted and filtered by TrangaBellam. These all are sufficiently proving that reverts done by me and Chanchaldm was valid. Further why have I entered Chitrarekha Gupta here? I am seeing much more weight is given here to prove kayastha as Dvija or twiceborn (6 word counts) and less on Shudra (4 word count). In modern section Dvijav or Twiceborn is used 3 to 4 times where as Shudra onle one(Sanyal is saying about the reason behind this Shudra hood). Chitrarekha Gupta was the president of Indian History congress as well as an Archaeologist of Westbengal Government. Her book has enormous number of citations. Repeatedly used by Eminent scholars including Frururi. I used it against Hutton, who mentioned Kayastha was regarded as Shudra a hundred years ago in 1961 which is against the Gupta who in 1983 mentions Kayastha at that time also regarded as shudra. Varna status of Kayastha is disputed . It is expected to have equal representation of all opinions. I would request LukeEmily and TrangaBellam to re-edit this article to maintain Neutrality. Although They are busy in other edits. This is my preliminary reaction after your statement.Thanks.Satnam2408 (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I have created this separate section in order to keep the discussions in separate threads; hope you are okay with it, Satnam2408. Now, let me clarify that my edit count is not only very high for this article, the same is applicable for Baidya as well. At that time (around 2014), I was probably the only Bengali editor active on caste articles here, and these articles were created from scratch with the active involvement of Sitush, whose edit counts must be very high for these two articles. Coming to the source by Sharmas, as soon as I found it to be the one having solely Barua's opinion (unreliable as earlier pointed out by Sitush), I immediately removed the same from wherever I have used it! Your edit count on Baidya would never probably equal mine, since many active editors are now here around! As far as Chitrarekha Gupta's opinion is concerned, I believe the fact that the Bengali Kayasthas were traditionally considered as Shudras is already covered in the Varna section (possibly pointed out by Sitush while explaining why a separate section is not required during his discussion with Nobita on his talk page). Let's wait for opinions of others, especially LukeEmily & TrangaBellam. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

To do list

List in no particular order:

1.Add Shudra status and interpretation in medieval era (copy from TB's edits from Baidya) based on Bengali Literature.

2.Connection to Karana

3.Merge varna sections with main article. Divide article similar to Baidya(medieval, Colonial, modern)

4.Resolve Banu 's source (either remove it or keep it based on input from TB).

We need volunteers for each task.

LukeEmily (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ekdalian, Satnam2408 , I have not been following the edits on the article but to the best of my knowledge, (1) and (2) are still not done. Are there any objections to adding them? Is there any consensus? The sources are present on the Baidya page and the can be copied to the appropriate section.LukeEmily (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello LukeEmily, would request you to comment on the appropriate section, since we already had several discussions on these. Anyway, would like to ping Satnam2408 as well; hope you are aware that Nobita was first banned from Baidya & Bengali Kayastha (promoting rivalry here) and then indefinitely banned! Regarding (1), we already had discussions, and let me quote LukeEmily: @Ekdalian and Nobita456: and others, can you all work on some consensus version where you all agree? I think the dispute is that some of us(including Nobita456 and I) think that literature, Puranas etc. were important for shudra varna status hence should be included. But Ekdalian and Sitush believe the point is already covered in "there were historically only two varnas" in Bengal. My personal feeling is that the Shudra word occurs too many times on the Baidya page(excluding quotes) which seems misleading to a naïve user when reading about a modern highly educated upper caste - it is an overkill.

Now, since LukeEmily has sumnmarized my opinion (same as that of Sitush), let me explain a bit. The medieval literature is not equally important here, the reason being a) Baidyas hardly have other origin theories which makes the medieval literature relevant, while most of the reliable authors have already given a clear idea about the origin of Bengali Kayasthas; b) IMHO, the Baidyas have tried everything (caste war) right after the medieval era in order to upgrade their ritual status, as evident from all reliable sources, but the Kayasthas (Bengali) never attempted anything as such and rather simply considered themselves as Kshatriyas (as per available sources) without any further attempt to raise their ritual status, therefore there's a huge difference with Baidyas as far as the relevance of medieval literature is concerned! As TB tried to summarize in the lead section of the article on Baidya, In premodern Bengal, Brahminic literature held all non-Brahmins to be Shudras and accordingly, categorized Baidyas as the highest among Sudras alongside Kayastha. During the Nawabi and colonial era, Baidyas increasingly opposed to accepting such a classification and staked claims to Brahmin status. In the resulting negotiations, that remains yet to be studied in details, they successfully ascended to the upper echelons of social hierarchy, which we opposed for a different reason (varna status in lead) and we had to revert TB's edits! c) As rightly mentioned by LukeEmily, 'Ekdalian and Sitush believe the point is already covered in "there were historically only two varnas" in Bengal.'; yes, we do believe!

Regarding (2), again we had lengthy discussions, and I have already explained my point of view. Sorry, I can't agree with you, Satnam2408. Rather, what we need to do is divide the article on Karan caste into regions like Bengal, Odisha, etc, and mention the relevant details there under Bengal. Since we have a separate article on the Karan caste, we should add relevant details there itself as per convention. Further, Kulin Kayastha is one of the two subgroups of Bengali Kayasthas; Karans and Kayasthas are considered as distinct castes, though may be somewhat related, which may again be a subject of debate. Anyway, this is my opinion; let us wait for LukeEmily's comments. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC). Again, I would like to reiterate that we have a separate article on Karan Kayasthas, and we need to incorporate relevant information about the Karans/Karanas of Bengal under a separate section there. Will wait for LukeEmily's opinion. Please note that this thread is meant for discussions related to Karana connection as well as other additional content (if any), you shouldn't refer to a RfC thread or similar malafide threads initiated by a user, now under topic ban! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC). Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ekdalian and Satnam2408:. Since there is no consensus between the two of you, please can you involve someone who is more familiar about these topics on Bengal? Some who has context about Bengal and Karana caste needs to resolve this. What about WP:DRN? Please keep a collection of quotes from reliable sources so they can be easily referenced by editors involved in the dispute. I wish I could help but really don't know much about these communities and their connection. Both of you have more context than I do about these communities. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Medieval literature

Hey LukeEmily, Satnam2408 & others involved. IMHO, every article has it's own unique flow, as you are aware, and the basic flow of this particular article was a result of a consensus between me, Sitush and Joshua Jonathan! As an alternative to replicate the flow/organization of sections from the article on Baidya, or creating a separate section 'Medieval varna status' (rejected by me, TB as well as Sitush), I propose, let us not tamper with the existing flow, rather introduce a new section 'Medieval literature' in the article before the section on varna. Please share your opinion on the same. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

We should create an origin section.Not only mediaeval literature, but some epigraphic references are also available for early Kayasthas. The merger of varna and history would give better accessibility to readers because in the mediaeval section we have to mention their varna as defined in literary sources. (We can't cherry pick). Bengali Kayastha was like Vaidyas, identified as Shudra and both have disputed Varna status. The pattern of Vaidya can be followed here as of being most nearest caste groups. Sitush most probably denied the separate mediaeval varna section. We are talking about a merger (reason already mentioned).Thanks Satnam2408 (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @LukeEmily: awaiting your opinion. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian, I agree with Satnam2408. We had decided to merge the Varna into the main body and Sitush's comment was not creating a medieval varna section. But we had decided to follow the same pattern as Baidya and it makes sense as the two communities are too similar. ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily & Satnam2408, hope you understand that in case we go by your proposal i.e. merger, it would result in a complete revamping like the article on Baidya has gone through. I agree that these two articles are very much related, but you need to understand that the article on Baidya (before revamping) was very basic. In this case, the article has a more or less decent content and is structured. Had Sitush been around, I would have asked him for his opinion, but he seems to be on a break again! Practically speaking, if you try to merge these sections (complete revamping), it would be very difficult to arrive at a consensus. I know, I have been working on these articles since 2013-'14; if we go by your approach, it would be a long drawn fight over consensus. I agree with both of you that we should incorporate the medieval literature part, like we have in Baidya. Therefore, I would still stand by what I proposed; if you agree, and we have a separate section on 'Medieval literature', it would not lead to complete revamping of this hard achieved consensus version all through these years, rather it would be easier to achieve consensus for the new part. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey Ekdalian please be confirmed that, any new information would not be incorporated directly in this article. Addition of information would be confirmed after reasonable consensus. Thanks; Satnam2408 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks LukeEmily for the to do list. Your active involvement will be very helpful to us. Ekdalian, the proposed additions will greatly enrich the article. Chanchaldm (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Origin Section

Hey LukeEmily , Ekdalian, Chanchaldm, I have created a draft for the origin section of Bengali Kayastha and tried to incorporate all theories and counter theories (in precise format) to maintain neutrality. I have also avoided reiterations of information, which is a significant problem of this article. I would request you to evaluate this. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I have not gone through your draft in detail due to lack of time but a quick note: Sadasivan is not considered reliable for caste issues. See Sitush's comment here: [8]. Please continue your discussion with Ekdalian and Chanchaldm, I am currently busy with some other articles and research on sources related to the Goldsmith caste(Sonar) and may not get much time to look into this until much later.LukeEmily (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this guide. I have removed it. Regards, Satnam2408 (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey Satnam2408, I really appreciate your efforts. But, as per my earlier concerns, I am not at all okay with revamping of the last best version by senior and experienced editors like Sitush & Joshua Jonathan! We can weigh each & every statement (that you or any editor would like to add) which may then be incorporated in the article after achieving consensus. Please note that we have a separate article on Karan/Karana caste; we can at most mention about the Karana caste connection in this article; Bengali Kayasthas have existed as a separate group since the Gupta period and as a separate caste from 11th/12th century onwards as per most of the reliable sources. Additional reliably sourced information regarding the Karan or Karana caste of Bengal may be added in the relevant article. IMO, only Sitush can approve such major changes in this consensus version. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Kayastha as a professional group may be presented from the Gupta era but most of the sources mention their presence as a caste from the Mediaeval era. A majority of historians mention Karana as synonymous with Kayastha in Bengal. The Purana is specific to the Bengali convention (which divided the cast system into Brahmin and Shudra). Karana was an ancient caste found in Bengal and may or may not have had any connection with the Karana of Odisha. All information should be incorporated here. Ambastha has different descriptions in different regions (specially in South India) and also has a different article on Wikipedia but is still described by Trangabellam in the Baidya article due to the same reason.Thanks,Satnam2408 (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Your request not to revamp this article is not reasonable. You can point out concerns regarding source or misinterpretation (this section is meant for this). You can not stop editors. We are also not directly incorporating this, but rather creating a draft for discussion. Further, Luke is also involved here. Any inclusion would be guaranteed after his agreement. The origin section is also present in the Kulin Kayasthas article which was pointed out by you as a consensus version while incorporating Banu. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't agree with you, Satnam2408. Rather, what we need to do is divide the article on Karan caste into regions like Bengal, Odisha, etc, and mention the relevant details there under Bengal. Since we have a separate article on the Karan caste, we should add relevant details there itself as per convention. Further, Kulin Kayastha is one of the two subgroups of Bengali Kayasthas; Karans and Kayasthas are considered as distinct castes, though may be somewhat related, which may again be a subject of debate. Anyway, this is my opinion; let us wait for LukeEmily's comments. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Karans, and Kayasthas are considered as distinct castes, not at all Karan is also a sub-caste of Kayastha.Karan Kayastha is also present there. Srikarana is mentioned in genealogies. If you wish I can add in detail about Karana in the main Karana article. In this draft, I have mentioned precisely to maintain consistency. Karana as mentioned in Bengal's Puran should be incorporated in this article as well(The Vrihaddharma Purana has taken Karana and Kayastha synonymously), as I have mentioned in the draft. They are relevant (Bengali Kayastha may itself be Karana as described by historians). Thanks,Satnam2408 (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Apart from these, there are some other scriptures about Kayasthas available. I would add them as they are also relevant.Thanks,Satnam2408 (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

My last comments before LukeEmily shares their opinion. Please note that such a draft version doesn't guarantee acceptance from experienced editors, especially when it comes to a consensus version of a contentious caste article by experienced & trusted editors like Sitush & Joshua Jonathan! None of them are Indian/Bengali BTW, therefore I would always prefer their unbiased neutral consensus version. I categorically reject such a draft version; any statement you would like to incorporate would be weighed on the basis of merit, and may be added only after achieving talk page consensus. Anyway, I am more inclined to hear LukeEmily's comments. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

When I wrote above Karans and Kayasthas are considered as distinct castes, I have missed the word 'Bengali'. What I meant was, 'Karans and Bengali Kayasthas are considered as distinct castes'. I have already mentioned, we have a separate article on Karan caste (another subgroup of Kayasthas). Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• I haven't yet thoroughly checked Satnam's draft, just gave a glance. I don't find any necessity of discussing whether Karana connection to be added or not. It was present in a long existing previous version of this article, though due weight wasn't given. We have numerous sources and already have consensus on addition of it.Chanchaldm (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Chanchaldm thanks for your response. I would like to express concerns regarding the opinion, which is suggested by Ekdalian. You are correlating the ancient Karan caste with the current subcaste of Kayastha. It doesn't make sense. The ancient Karana of Bengal is identified with the Bengali Kayastha. Bengali Kayastha is synonymous with Karana. The ancient Pala records considered both terms equal. They are synonymous in the Vrihaddharma Purana as well. Majumdar is also not ignorant about this. You are probably not giving weight to a larger domain of historians, who have assessed both as identical. BTW the draft, which I have proposed here for evaluation has incorporated all information, relevant to the origin of Kayastha, including those which subsist here. The opinion of LukeEmily would be appreciated.Thanks,Satnam2408 (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate that we have a separate article on Karan Kayasthas, and we need to incorporate relevant information about the Karans/Karanas of Bengal under a separate section there. Will wait for LukeEmily's opinion. Please note that this thread is meant for discussions related to Karana connection as well as other additional content (if any), you shouldn't refer to a RfC thread or similar malafide threads initiated by a user, now under topic ban! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2022

They are an offshoot of North Indian Kayasthas from Kannauj, UP.

This is missing in this article. Chequemagnate (talk) (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read the full article first, Chequemagnate (talk). It is clearly mentioned: Bellenoit states that the Bengali Kayasthas are "largely seen as an offshoot of the main north Indian Kayasthas, they claim lineage from migrations into Bengal from the ancient capital of Kanauj at the request of Hindu Kings (900s) to settle the countryside. These Kayasthas took on the well known names of Ghosh, Mitra and Dutt. Over time they fashioned themselves as a Gaur subdivision of a broader Kayastha group, who claimed north Indian origins". Ekdalian (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Regarding Neutrality

Hellow Ekdalian, thanks for your concern, I have already contacted LukeEmily regarding this dispute, waiting for his reply,Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Nobita456, Ekdalian, Chanchaldm, Satnam2408, Sitush, and Joshua Jonathan:, (1)Shudra status/interpretation in medieval era ( TB's edits from Baidya) based on Bengali Literature, and (2)Karana connection are missing. Baidya and Bengali Kayastha were quite similar (both were Bhadralok, both were "upper" in the non-ritual sense etc.). Such points are mentioned on Baidya, hence they could be appropriate here also IMHO. Bengali literature(maybe politically motivated) - was quite important for Varna hence should be included. No reason to leave out the Karana connection also, if it is well sourced. Essentially, Bengal was divided into two Varnas - Brahmin and Shudra and that is what the literature mostly reflects. It may not be true any more as some sources classify both Baidyas and Bengali Kayasthas as twice born. But we can still add the Bengali literature's Shudra mention as part of history- especially because it was been added to the Baidya page. We need consensus from all involved editors. Can we please get a consensus on the above issues and close this topic soon? My specific question is : Is there any reason to not add (1) and (2)? If we cannot have consensus, we can follow the steps outlined by admin in one of the previous sections.LukeEmily (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily thanks for your involvement, I don't see any reason not to include (1) and (2), because similar things are also present in Baidya article. Either we should add them in both articles or we should remove them from both. The draft of Satnam2408 here regarding the origin is well sourced and covers all views by scholars and historians, I am also requesting you to review that, thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello LukeEmily, Nobita456 & all concerned. Let me first point out that the section name is malafide; this is not at all related to 'Neutrality', rather it is a content issue. Shudra status in medieval era is clearly mentioned in the article, and let me quote Sitush (as per his talk page comments): As far as I can see, the medieval status is mentioned - there were only two varnas commonly recognised then. This has parallels with other areas of India (eg no Kshatriya varna in various southern bits). I don't understand why a separate section would be required, and especially not if it would basically be a single sentence. I completely agree with Sitush, and don't feel the article requires revamping, unlike the article on Baidya!

Regarding the Karan/Karana connection, I have already mentioned above, Please note that we have a separate article on Karan/Karana caste; we can at most mention about the Karana caste connection in this article; Bengali Kayasthas have existed as a separate group since the Gupta period and as a separate caste from 11th/12th century onwards as per most of the reliable sources. Additional reliably sourced information regarding the Karan or Karana caste of Bengal may be added in the relevant article. Any editor can mention what exactly they want to add regarding the Karana connection here on this talk page, and we shall definitely try to arrive at a consensus regarding the same.

Responding to Nobita's last point (not the draft, which no experienced editor would probably accept), each and every article here has their own unique flow. Don't forget that both these articles are results of extensive discussions and consensus among experienced editors! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey Ekdalian we dont have any information regarding mediaeval varna status of kayastha caste in this article. As lukeEmily said, the mediaeval literature part is important and missing in this article. Let me remind you we also have a separate article Ambashtha, but we also mentioned about ambashtha connection in Baidya article also. So why we cant do the same in kayastha article? Ekdalian, you are pushing your POV in this article, lets wait for lukeEmily. Nobita456 (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ekdalian, based on the quotes you provided, Sitush has only objected to the creation of a new section. He has not commented on Karana or Bengali literature. As a start, there are some quotes on the literature about Bengali Kayastha on the Baidya page (added by TB). Can those be added verbatim to this page if all editors agree? We do need to emphasize on both pages -if not already done- that Bengal had a two-varna system only - hence the shudra status. I leave the decision to you all. Let us see if Sitush or Joshua_Jonathan give their opinions.LukeEmily (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey LukeEmily, I have never said, Sitush has raised any objection regarding the Karana connection; rather I have clearly mentioned my point of view regarding the same! The current version clearly mentions about the two varna part, Brahmin and Shudra, which has also been pointed out by Sitush. Is there any difference between creating a new section and inclusion? Hope you understand the broader point raised by Sitush! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily, I think Ekdalian will never agree to add such things (Important) in this article.Luke I am requesting you to edit this article and maintain the fluidity and timeline of Bengali Kayastha's Varna status from mediaeval to modern by covering all purans and literature views. I would suggest you to create two seperate section (origin and history) like other Bengali caste articles.The karana connection is also need to be included in this article.The Other two editors Chanchaldm and Satnam already gave their consensus to add them in this article. Since you are very good in caste related articles, I strongly believe you will be the right person for this article. You can also check the draft of satnam for your reference or little help, Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ekdalian and Nobita456: and others, can you all work on some consensus version where you all agree? I think the dispute is that some of us(including Nobita456 and I) think that literature, Puranas etc. were important for shudra varna status hence should be included. But Ekdalian and Sitush believe the point is already covered in "there were historically only two varnas" in Bengal. My personal feeling is that the Shudra word occurs too many times on the Baidya page(excluding quotes) which seems misleading to a naïve user when reading about a modern highly educated upper caste - it is an overkill. Nobita456, you said

Either we should add them in both articles or we should remove them from both.

. I agree with this. If I were to describe the Bengali caste system in 2-3 sentences, I would say " Bengal historically had a two varna system - hence all non-Brahmins irrespective of social status were included in the Shudra varna by default. However, many scholars now classify the Bengali Baidyas as well as the Bengali Kayastha as twice born. They themselves claim a twice-born status and have thread ceremonies. There are intermarriages between the three groups.". Sprinkling Shudra 11 times on the Baidya page does not give a correct picture IMHO. If it were up to me, I would simply add 3-4 lines about Bengali literature on both the Baidya and Bengali Kayastha page mentioning the Shudra status. But not more than 3-4 lines. Do we really need an analysis of each Purana on Baidya? The page is about the caste - not the books. I am going to be off wikipedia from 1st June for a few weeks at least hence I request someone else to take the lead and come to some consensus version on both pages. We need to be fair on wikipedia, I think it is not fair that we add so much Shudra mention from Bengali literature on Baidya but not even one line on Bengali kayastha. Each page needs a small mention of Shudra from the Bengali literature but within reasonable limits IMHO. Please reach a compromise as suggested by admin in the previous section. Editing without consensus would lead to edit wars.LukeEmily (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with luke, the shudra word is mentioned too many times in Baidya article, but hardly here in this similar article. I also agree with luke that we described the puran part too widely, which is not required where many modern historians criticized these purans. I think we should merge the interpretation part with purans in both Baidya and Kayastha page to give the article due weight, luke I believe you will be the right person for that work. The mediaeval litrature part is something important for Bengali caste articles, hence we have to add them in both articles. Nobita456 (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection to your suggestion but as the current versions are consensus versions, large rewrites/deletes etc will require consensus from other editors. See WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Nobita456, I will mostly be not working on wikipedia from June 1st at least for a few weeks (except trivial reverts etc.) but it may be better if you and Ekdalian collaborate to create a consensus version.LukeEmily (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Hey LukeEmily and Ekdalian, I don't think we have a long consensus version of these caste articles. Yes these articles are soo old but at that time only one or two editors contributed in these articles. Luke my point is clear, as I mention above, either we should add them in both or remove them from both. I still think the Baidya article mentioned and described the pseudo purans way too many times, the sources are also not that much modern. The karana connection of kayatshas and Ambastha connection of Baidyas are important IMHO. Kayastha caste is a kind of mix, which Satnam accurately covered in his well sourced draft version, Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 06:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ekdalian, LukeEmily.Ekdalian has claimed that Bengali Kayastha existed from the Gupta period as a separate group. The majority of sources traces their existence as a caste from 10th to 11th century onwards. So I think fringes should be avoided in any case. Just answer me a question about how Karana in Bengal is different from Bengali Kayastha. Karana would not be included here in this article if you can prove that Karana and Kayastha were historically district communities and the Bengali Kayastha community never had any link with the Karanas of Bengal. Thanks Satnam2408 (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ekdalian, Satnam2408, if the Karana are connected to this community, why are they not mentioned on the page? ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Furui

Leaving a quote here, given the interesting dynamics of Baidya-Kaystha rivalry in Bengal:

Of special significance is the case of the kayasthas as a premier non-brahmana jati, second only to the brahmana, in eastern India, including Bengal.
— Furui, Ryosuke (2018). "Social Life: Issues of Varṇa-Jāti System". In Chowdhury, Abdul Momin; Chakravarti, Ranabir (eds.). History of Bangladesh: Early Bengal in Regional Perspectives (up to c. 1200 CE). Vol. 2: Society, Economy & Culture. Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. p. 62.

TrangaBellam (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for Dipankar Gupta

Hey Ekdalian Dipankar Gupta should not be used here. What I have missed is that he has used Risley for this section. This is because he has used a page before and then has used it (by ibid); I have missed it. I only have normal access to the content but after accessing it through my library(for quotes), I have got it. If you have not removed it, I will remove it. I am sorry. I should be cautious further. Please excuse me, if You can. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Satnam2408; I really appreciate your gesture. Don't worry, I have removed the same. Ekdalian (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Concentrate much on Kayastha, not on other caste

Hey Ekdalian, I would like to request you again to dedicate this article to Kayastha only and avoid mentioning the history of any other castes here. Tejram Sharma is also cited in the Baidya article and reference is made only to that information, relevant to Baidya. Mentioning Baidya is not essential here. Please keep essential information regarding Kayastha only and circumvent others. Thanks,Satnam2408 (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Satnam2408, you must have noticed that the statement you are referring to, is a quote! Anyway, I must mention that since these two castes have similar & related history (both are non-Brahmin upper castes, you know what I mean), you cannot avoid mentioning Baidya in this article & vice versa! Could you avoid mentioning Kayasthas in the article on Baidya? If you can ensure the same (taking out Kayastha from the article on Baidya from the consensus version), only then your above statement makes sense! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey Ekdalian This is the main reason I have not expressed objection to this information The Hindu community in Bengal was divided into only two Varnas Brahmins and Shudras. Hence, although the Bengali Kayasthas and Baidyas had a high social status along with Brahmins, their ritual status was low, according to Edmund Leach, S. N. Mukherjee as it seems fair to me. The caste status of Kayastha in the medieval era is mentioned by Trangabellam in the Baidya article. I have objected to Tejram Sharma only. He is mentioning professional history which is also a subject of dispute. Further TrangaBellam has mentioned Tejram Sharma in the Baidya article by filtering the same quote, and it is the consensus version. The same can also be done here. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC).

Do you contest the quote, I mean what Sharma has said? Is there any other opinion? I think 'no'; and I don't think there is any valid reason to remove the quote (and rephrase it) just because it says: "Originally the professions of Kayastha (scribe) and Vaidya (physician) were not restricted and could be followed by people of different varnas including the brahmanas." This is a piece of information supported by all reliable sources. Would urge you not to compare the two articles every now and then (each & every article here has it's own unique flow); in principle, we need to accept that we should avoid unnecessary information on the other related caste, but avoiding completely would not be feasible. Hope you understand. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

You are wrong. I never have tried to compare these two articles (even though they are related). I was asking to maintain distinctiveness between these two castes. I am not denying the information of Tej Ram Sharma (already present in the Baidya article). Anyway, Thanks for your consideration.Satnam2408 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

But there were other Varnas in Bengal during the period you're speaking about; please check The Tribes and Castes of Bengal (1891, 92) by Sir Herbert Hope Risley. The book is cited in significant cases in the High Courts of India and the Supreme Court of India.

Hence, mentioning that The Hindu community in Bengal was divided into only two Varnas Brahmins and Shudras is wrong. Thanks, Haikukoten (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Varna Status

Please refer to line 24 of decision of Patna High Court on Kayastha, 1926 (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1242249/) the court infers that no Kayastha including Bengali Kayastha are Shudra. Please update the varna status as Kshatriya as per the most recent judgement. 27.122.61.75 (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The court rulings have been discussed in details in the main article on Kayastha. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason why this statement being not added in Bengali Kayastha page which concerns them is not appropriate. Such a decisive statement which effects their way perceiving themselves. Even if varna status not changed in the article, Patna High Court’s statement on Bengali Kayastha being added in the page will be of high value. Thanks. 103.199.200.150 (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Quotation

To all concerned, could you please give quotation for the first line "Bengali Kayastha represents a Bengali Hindu caste, and is one of the main subgroups of the broader Kayastha community." I have checked the cited source and couldn't find any such thing written in it. Further I have read that Bengali kayastha and North Indian kayasthas are quite different in terms of rituals, customs,origins and myths and all these. Since it's the lead section, I believe we should be more cautious. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The introductory statement doesn't require citation! If you need to check, you may please visit the main article on Kayastha in order to validate that they are indeed a main subgroup of the broader Kayastha community, the other two being CKPs and the North Indian (Chitraguptavanshi) Kayasthas; recently the Karan Kayasthas have been added. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I know the term Kayastha refers to 4 disparate communities having similarity in occupation, ie scribe. I believe we should discuss what was the occupation of Bengali kaysthas in the second line, not of broader Kayastha community (Which will more or less be same for Bengal province). Link is already given for checking what was the occupation of Broader Kayastha community. We haven't discussed what Brahmins in general do throughout India in Bengali Brahmin article . I also checked CKPs, Chitraguptabangshi Kayastha articles. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

CharlesWain, you must be aware that we don't usually change the consensus version of the lead, except for minor improvements! Please note that I have only modified the introductory statement slightly, as evident from the edit (check this); therefore, this represents the consensus version of the lead only! For further changes, we need to achieve a fresh consensus; hope you understand. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I think I was pinged here. We generally change the body and then the lead. I agree they are completely disparate communities, in fact, their ritual status may be different. However, please make any changes with consensus and discussion on talk page.LukeEmily (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Ekdalian, Do we have any decent source which mentions that Bengali Kayastha is one of the "main subgroups" of Kayastha community. There are 4 disparate communities who are refered by the term Kayastha, but are they subgroups?

Though it will be more or less same, but I think we should discuss what Bengali kaysthas do in Bengal, not broader Kayastha community in other parts or throughout India. This source, p296 mentions about occupation of kayasthas of Bengal. But I wouldn't argue much about it.

Thanks Chamaemelum for your recent edits. Please share your opinion about whether Bengali kayasthas can be called "one of the main subgroups of Kayastha community".CharlesWain (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I would question the existence of a broader Kayastha community in general, as different groups, all called Kayastha, existed in Northern India throughout history but were disconnected from each other and had different roles. Further, we know Bengali Kayasthas came from other regions of India, included, but not limited to, the north. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

CharlesWain, as mentioned earlier, this is the last consensus version of lead, even reviewed by Sitush! For any changes (except minor improvements), you need a fresh consensus! I have contributed in the parent article on Kayastha along with Sitush many years back, I am well aware of the subgroup concept; we don't require source for the first statement in lead; otherwise a number of sources are available in the main Kayastha article. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Very well explained, Chamaemelum.

Ekdalian, Wikipedia article is always open for improvements, and all of us editors who are here for long are trying to do so. I haven't edited the lead once yet, I just proposed some edits. Could you please raise your specific objections to that? Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I have long term plan for improvement of the body of the article too. There are sources like Furui's which may greatly improve this article . I need your cooperation, Ekdalian. If you do blanket reverts of minor edits too, how can we work for improvements?!CharlesWain (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Ekdalian You haven't responded to any of my talk page comments. "Consensus version" is kind of vague and confusing word to use since, I have proposed an edit and you haven't raised your specific objection to that. Was there a consensus that was achieved after extensive discussion that I am not aware of? Please give the link or diff. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Let me check; I may find the diff. BTW, you may ask LukeEmily as well! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's the diff between LukeEmily's edits; check this, CharlesWain. The edits as well as the article have been reviewed by many experienced editors including Sitush after these changes; this is what we call natural consensus here in Wikipedia! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Ekdalian, I believe that's the time Varna status section was revamped. But there was no discussion about the issue I have pointed out. I believe my edit is a minor one as I have simply aligned the content with the cited source . Let's wait for their reply in "Recent Reverts" thread.

Sorry, We have some miscommunication, this thread is about my proposed edit in lead. And I was asking for link to the discussion where consensus was achieved. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

CharlesWain, whether the edit is minor or not, I am disputing your edit; and in such cases, the last (natural) consensus version (like the current version) prevails! You need a fresh consensus as per our convention. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I have already opened a discussion for achieving consensus. Please comment on my proposed edit in the lead.CharlesWain (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Editing a long term consensus version of the lead is not only tricky, achieving a fresh consensus is really difficult! Anyway, if you are ready to try your luck (I mean, achieving consensus), you may post your proposed version here, and all involved editors will check your version and comment on the same before we come to any conclusion! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Stable version is the appropriate phrase, not long term consensus version.

I don't believe in luck, btw.CharlesWain (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

CharlesWain, I must tell you that I prefer this terminology since WP:STABLE only represents "the most recent revision of an article that was not affected by an active content dispute or edit war." Ekdalian (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ekdalian You seem to be repeatedly trying to obstruct discussion on this page and change to the article by referring to the current version being the consensus version & by invoking me as some sort of god who approved it.

As much as I like to think I am always right (!), I do realise that actually I am not and also that information etc changes over time. Stonewalling discussion with constant reference to consensus without at least occasional examination of the arguments isn't helpful: consensus can change over a decade but blocking as you seem to do prevents it from even being considered. To be abrupt, it has a whiff of WP:OWN. - Sitush (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey Sitush, please note that I abstain from discussions only when I am sure that the discussion involves a sock (especially Nobita)! I joined back the ongoing discussion after the sock was blocked yesterday! Thanks, anyway! Ekdalian (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ekdalian CharlesWain began this discussion. They are not a sock, are they? If you refuse to engage whenever a sock appears at a caste article, little will ever get done.

In any event, you have engaged here but seemingly with the intent of blocking discussion by repeatedly referring to a consensus achieved many years ago and apparently "approved" by me, even though from a purely grammatical perspective I certainly wouldn't have written it as currently it is written. Citing consensus is a valid position but should not be a mantra, and knowledge does not stand still. - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Got your point, Sitush! Thanks, again! As you grow old, you probably tend to be reluctant to changes (usually); I guess, I am getting old! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ekdalian I'm 60. It's certainly easier to stick with what you're used to. Not as much fun, though, if you have an enquiring mind :) - Sitush (talk) 07:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I can't see a single sock in this discussion. One person was site banned for disruption, mainly on medical articles, but that has no relevance here. - Sitush (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Sitush, I must appreciate your mindset at this age. BTW, the last few discussions were all initiated by NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE, another sock of Nobita! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent Revert: July '23

Hey CharlesWain, you must have understood my edit summary! No one claims that this is their ritual rank in Bengal; rather, it has been clearly attributed to the author, that too within quotes in order to present the same as the author's view. This was part of the last consensus version before I removed the same. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Ekdalian, You agreed to remove this part as there was a consensus long ago. You should just start the discussion, not revert it per BRD. Shouldn't we add other significant views per our due weightage policy?CharlesWain (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's ping some other experienced editors on caste and related articles! @LukeEmily and Admantine123: can you please share your opinion on this edit? Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel nothing wrong in the edit; in recent years there is much tussle between Brahmins and Kayastha as latter have presented themselves as a challenge to former's hagemony. I am interested in politics of East India as well and in Bihar, it was due to Kayastha leaders that the upper OBCs replaced the Forward Castes in politics. In Bengal, they have produced many freedom fighters and notable people and due to their educational progress, they are considered ahead of other castes. I remember stuff from one book probably the "Peasants and monk in India", where it is clearly stated that Kayasthas has been recognised as forward castes due to their educational and economic progress.-Admantine123 (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The concern is about their relative position compared to Baidya. Majority of scholars opine Baidya comes next to Brahmins. I believe we should discuss all views or avoid this part. CharlesWain (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Also see WP: STICKTOSOURCE, since the source explicitly say so, Ekdalian's edit is just here. If you have another source contradicting this, we can include that too, but as of now this should be included.-Admantine123 (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Admantine123 , I am generally against removal of any content If it's reliably sourced and attributed to the author. Of course we should stick to the source. But we strictly avoid Raj era books by British administrators or others in caste articles. Hutton's 1946 work has just been republished in 1961. Similarly James Wise's book has been republished recently by Taylor and Francis group. But We avoid these books because of rules set by Sitush. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The same was challenged by Nobita; they raised it twice at WP:RSN, but consensus was that it is indeed a reliable post Raj era source. LukeEmily had argued that it was not a reprint but was published again probably along with changes; therefore it was considered as reliable, as mentioned. Thanks Admantine123 for your comments. Ekdalian (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The rule of not using Raj era sources was set by Sitush because the British authors of that time were administrator and not Historians and Sociologist. They also had less understanding of local language and were dependent on interlocutors, who primarily came from a particular caste. And that person could produce distorted fact in front of authors backed by their own prejudices against a social group. Most of the Brahmins don't recognise Kayastha as equal, although latter have high literacy rate and this was true in pre independence period too. Even recently, the priestly Brahmins like Shankaracharya Nischalanad Saraswati prefers them to placed in lower Varna and that's the reason why Sitush has set the rule to reject old sources. However, if it is republished with modifications as argued by others, no problem in using it.-Admantine123 (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Admantine123, Ekdalian, and CharlesWain:, the ritual status of these occupations functional groups such as Baidya or Kayastha is very tricky as they are completely at odds with each other based on the region in India. My knowledge on both these functional groups is very limited. But is clear that their varna(and even some occupations of the same group) varies based on location and how the local Brahmins classified them (or how they originated as per scriptures etc.) as well as the rituals(if that local group wore sacred thread or not) they followed. Sitush who has mostly written the varna section on the Kayastha article, has clearly made this point As the Kayasthas are a non-cohesive group with regional differences rather than a single caste, their position in the Hindu varna system of ritual classification has not been uniform. This was reflected in Raj era court rulings. Here is another extreme case of how occupational groups differ in ritual status: If you consider all castes composed of physicians as a functional group, then there is a Tiya caste in Kerala. The Bengali Baidyas are closer to Brahmins as far as ritual status is concerned (or are probably ex-Brahmins) but a caste with the same function and know-how of Sanskrit in Kerala is a so-called untouchable caste!. See Historical Studies in Kerala M. G. S. Narayanan, K. K. N. Kurup Page 48 Every village in Kerala had Tiyas as Ayurvedic physicians , several of whom were several of whom were Vaidyas of great distinction. Instances could be quoted of these so called untouchables , being called in as consultants in royal royal households...This untouchable community had Sanskrit scholars , several of them great pundits. This is an exception rather than the rule(so called unstouchables being Sanskrit scholars). Hence, for functional groups we should focus on the region as varna classification of one group can be diametrically opposite to same group in a different area. In this case, to avoid confusion, we should focus only on the Bengali Kayastha group(not the Srivastavas etc.). Based on my understanding of the sources, at some point of time, Bengal put all non Brahmins of Bengal(including Kayasthas and Baidyas) in the Shudra category. However, that is probably no longer true. See Lloyd I. Rudolph; Susanne Hoeber Rudolph (15 July 1984). The Modernity of Tradition: Political Development in India. University of Chicago Press. pp. 124–. ISBN 978-0-226-73137-7.....intermarriage is becoming increasingly frequent among the urban sections of the Kayasthas, Brahmans, and Vaidyas, that is, among those Westernized and educated twice-born castes dominating the modern, better-paying, and more prestigious occupations of metropolitan Calcutta and constituting perhaps half of the city's population. However, some scholars still classify them(both Vaidya and Kayastha) as Shudras. But getting back to the main issue, if the source is reliable and the statement is attributed then I dont have any objection. If there are opposing views, we should add those too. In any case, based on the sources it looks like both Baidyas and Kayastha follow brahmins in the heirarchy. Just because Hutton says they are second does not mean Baidyas are third. Perhaps both are second? On Baidya page it says that Baidyas follow Brahmins in the heirarchy. What is the real situation? I have no idea. If both are Shudra then it does not make sense to have a 2nd and 3rd place. I am not familiar with these castes enough to know their relative position. Do we have sources that say, In Bengal , X is first Y is second Z is third as per ritual status? I think TB had also commented on the relative position. Will see if I can find their comment. I feel it hardly matters since neither are globally accepted as Brahmin.LukeEmily (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Very well explained, LukeEmily. Perhaps, there's no 3rd position; the Brahmins are followed by the Baidyas and Kayasthas as far as the ritual status is concerned. Even, in the scriptures (mentioned in details in the article on Baidya), if one says Baidya is the highest among non-Brahmin castes, the other says Kayastha is the highest among non-Brahmins! I understand one difference, the Baidyas have fought for centuries in order to raise their ritual rank, while the Kayasthas have hardly fought! But most importantly, we are not at all interested in any hierarchy; we have simply quoted the author here, and attributed the statement to the author only. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Requesting all scholars to look at the origin of Bengali Kayasthas from the very beginning, for ex - sharing common surnames with ancient Nagar Brahmins. The reason being, the current Varna status was taken from Ballal Charita, which explains the origin of all other castes in a highly hypothetical and purposely downplaying manner.It must be considered that Kayastha were administrators from Pala dynasty, even holding high position in Vallal Sen and Lakshman Sen’s era. Such classification makes nonsense as when compared to modern day genome study of Bengali Kayasthas. Jatajanma (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks LukeEmily for your comprehensive explanation. I actually objected to addition of this "next to Brahman" phrase mainly for two reasons - 1.Ekdalian literally agreed to remove this part earlier as concern was raised about reliability of the source. 2. Ekdalian objected to inclusion of relative rankings of Baidya and Kayastha next to Brahmins as it would create conflicts among editors.

I have sources ( much more decent than Hutton, who was a administrator after all) which mention Baidyas come next to Brahmins and rank above kayasthas.It might not matter much who come second or third, but it would have been better if this part was not included at all or discussed in details like Baidya article. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @CharlesWain:, can we discuss the sources that have the relative position? I have not read much about these groups and hence my analysis was based on very preliminary knowledge and a cursory look at the sources found via google books. For example, Julius_J._Lipner says that only Brahmins' ritual position is undisputed. Others are disputed. If there are modern reliable sources that have the relative postion, I see no harm in adding those. Ideally, it would be good if TB got involved instead of me as they are much more familar with the topic. @Jatajanma:, please can you discuss your concern in more detail? LukeEmily (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Ofcource Baidyas are more superior than kayasthas in caste hierarchy. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

CharlesWain, you are simply wrong; I never agreed to remove the part due to any doubt over the reliability of the source! It has been concluded twice at WP:RSN that the source is reliable, and LukeEmily was part of those discussions! I only agreed to remove the part due to the objection raised by the master of socks, Nobita456 (we were not aware of their true character then; three more socks of Nobita were blocked yesterday fyi) because I wanted to avoid lengthy discussions in order to focus on the issues/objections etc in the article on Baidya at that point of time. Moreover, I don't know how many times I have to repeat that this statement is not about the relative ranking as you are trying to portray, this is the author's opinion while mentioning that Kayastha is an important caste in Bengal! There's no question of adding other opinions here, otherwise I may ask you and LukeEmily to mention all views (like this one) in the last part of the article on Baidya which mentions that "In modern Bengal, Baidyas' place in caste-hierarchy follows Brahmins"! Hope you understand. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

LukeEmily, there are works of scholars like Deba Prashad Chatterjee, Shankar Sen Gupta, Ramkrishna Mukherjee, Sunandan Roy Chowdhury. If we can come to the same boat about inclusion of relative rankings in details first, I will give quotations.Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 08:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ekdalian and CharlesWain:, Please discuss on talk page and develop a consensus or use RFC. I went through the history (especially the edits by Sitush) as well as talk page discussions on Baidya. My preference is to not use ranking on both pages. As an outsider, I can assure you it makes no difference who is higher if both the castes are Shudra given Bengal's binary varna system. If they are both twice-born then I am not sure how to rank them if they are both non-Brahmin. Neither is Vaishya. The other issue is that one scripture - on the Baidya page- says Baidyas are higher while another says Baidyas are lower. That is confusing. Ekdalian and Sitush who have mostly written the article as well as TB did not include relative ranking. So my suggestion is not rank them at all. But if you still want to rank them, please develop a consensus or use RFC. TB is a very scholarly editor and has access to several academic sources. You can ask them for their opinion. IMHO, Hutton is reliable given his educational qualifications, his notability and because the publication is academic from a top university. In fact, even one of his students is notable on wikipedia. We have discussed him before.LukeEmily (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Blanket reverts

Ekdalian, You haven't mentioned at all which of the edits you're okay with, and which of the edits you have objections to. Please raise your objections to specific edits here. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

LukeEmily, Please review this edit. As per source Tagore argued that specifically three surnames - Duttas, Guhas,Ghoses, of Kshatriya origin.Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, please review it.CharlesWain (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)