Talk:Kayastha/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Lots of dispute, claims and counter claims and full of citations

Reading this page seems like going through a list of citations. I would recommend the removal of all the disputed section and also removal of all claims of kayastha being Brahmin or Khsatriya or Shudra. Kayasths are kayasths, they are out of this varna classification. This whole of varna status section is nonsense and should be removed. --Mukul Prasad (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to add one thing here, regarding the whole issue of Citation and references, the most logical one on this issue should be the religious books esp Purans which could and actually do give great insight in to the Mythical origin and history of Kayastha, as any other research and article would need to be based on them

Also in issues related to caste, the behaviour of the society towards a particular group would be a good indicator of the caste they belong to. In case of Kayastha is that of respect and admiration, something that is bestowed upon them even by Brahmins. It may not be to your liking but it is a fact and can't be denied by even Mathew. In order to update this Article as per Wikipedia standards and with true information I am doing some research and will be updating it very soon, the target date is July 15, 2011.

Its a request to all the concerned people to please come forward and provide as much information as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anshu ash (talk • contribs) 05:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the picture insulting all Kayastha?

Why can't you list Chitragupta picture? All Kayastha pray to Chitragupta. What a user posts Matthew's picture in Christianity article? Will it be relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.234.70 (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Matthew is wrong in classification / Kayastha are Kayastha

Why is Matthew so adamant in classifying Kayastha into a Varna? Why can't he digest the fact that there could be castes outside of varna system as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.234.70 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Goldyvrm12, 1 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

List of Kayasthas Goldyvrm12 (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What exactly should we do with that? —fetch·comms 20:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 116.75.149.161, 21 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add the surname 'Das' to the list of kayastha surnames. It is a very popular Bengali kayastha surname.

116.75.149.161 (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: Which section does this go in? I cannot find any list of surnames in this article. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.104.101.32, 22 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Someone has taken the "Types" section out. Please relist it.

99.104.101.32 (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks for noticing! Qwyrxian (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 117.200.80.121, 16 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

I think the jokes included in the "sense of humor section" should be removed, as it is inappropriate to include such things in an encyclopedia. 117.200.80.121 (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I have removed the section, as it was completely unsourced and parts read like a hoax. If sources are found, the section can be re-introduced in the future. While it is not necessary for contributing, creating an account carries with it many benefits, only one of which is the ability to edit semi-protected pages like this one. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Intelligentsium 22:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Making major upgrades

Just for reference, these days I'm chopping uncited text, adding in new text and citations, etc. If anyone's digging for earlier versions, I'd start from two days ago. Some of the stuff I cut may be of some use, but more of it is presented in an uncited, unverifiable, and unencyclopedic way, so I'm re-writing large portions based on academic sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the claim that worship of a progenitor (Chitragupta) is unique, as Varshneys worship Akrura. There is also the widespread Hindu practice of Pitru Paksha. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No reference from any Scripture

Kayastha Siromani has not given any reference from any scriptures.He has written the meaning from dictionary of net.117.194.197.76 (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Concerns on Shiromani version

User:Kayastha Shiromani has apparently restored the version of the article pre-dating my cleanup, as well as made some additions. Diff is here. I submit that Shiromani's version is unsuitable on multiple levels, and also undoes a large amount of totally WP-appropriate work I added. Just to touch on a few major points:

• Extensive amounts of the Shiromani version are WP:Original research from ancient texts
• A historical image of a Kayastha scribe has been replaced by an image of a god they claim descent from, which is far less informative as to the community itself.
• Right in the lede it makes major claims like the only sect who are referred to as direct descendants of a Vedic God with only a blatant fansite, http://chitraguptvanshi.wetpaint.com as a source vice an actual academic work.
• Random OR editorialising such as Also, it is but logical to consider the status of the Kayasthas when Sanskrit was the state language under the Hindu Kings.
• Frequent non-WP tone, such as honorifics such as "Lord" and a generally promotional slant on this caste
• A massive "family tree" of individuals of no clear notability
• WP:Primary sources cited as References
• A lenghty list of community websites, rather than a short list which also includes more NPOV approaches.

Long/short, I submit it is not appropriate to undo all my improvements and bring back an updated version of the highly flawed older version. If you disagree, we can take this to Dispute Resolution, but I am quite confident that the version I and others have been working on is more neutral. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Kayastha Shiromani's version read like a scripture. Some sort of mythological fiction if there is such a thing! I had previously once told User:Kayastha Shiromani that he could add onto the article and build it instead of just replacing a wikified article with some really hazy content. Agree that User:Kayastha Shiromani's version is simply not what you would put in Wikipedia, however with some patience , he could incorporate some parts of his texts and weave it into the existing structure. But seems like he just walks in here once a week or so and overhauls the whole thing and takes us into a trance like state with his mythological discourse. Really funny guy. Some characters we have on wiki. Lol. Foodie 377 (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly no problem with him adding to the article, just the way it was done (as noted above) just really doesn't work. I'd be fine with having better mythological content provided it's sourced to modern academic sources. If Dr. Patil at Calcutta University writes "The Kayastha have a legend saying that they once rode dragons" then by all means mention that and footnote it to Patil. What is not doable though, is to say "per this ancient carving I'm looking at, Kayasthas say they once rode dragons." None of us here (as Wikipedians) are qualified to interpret the Puranas, traditional ballads, or ancient carvings. We have to cite by the authority of reputable WP:Secondary sources, and there is a very clear policy of not attempting to analyse Primary sources on one's own. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I've clearly told Kayastha Shiromani that another revert to that version will constitute edit warring, and I will request a block. Note that I also agree with MatthewVanitas and Foodie 377--that version cannot stay. I also agree (hey, a big love fest on an Indian caste article!) that having a good section covering the mythological/religious/literary sources is great, so long as it is interpreted by a reliable source, not taken directly from the primary source. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Policy reply

We understand your concern and had a hard time finding the exact verses for the story, we can only say tha it is a Katha and copies can be found all over Kayastha Mahasabhas and Banaras, though exact verses can not be given because it probably is a part of oral tradition. We give here the link to the hindi version of this vratKatha: http://www.kayasthcharitabletrust.org/AboutChitra2.asp
Kayastha Shiromani (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

1. 1. In Orissa, the kayastha class, which includes the karanas, is considered in the sudra category. Srila Ramananda Raya belonged to this shudra class; therefore he was considered a sudra. He was also the governor of South India under the regime of Maharaja Prataparudra of Orissa. In other words, Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya

informed Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu that Ramananda Raya, although belonging to the sudra class, was a highly responsible government officer.in Bengal, it was the system that persons who were born in the families of brahmanas were accepted as brahmanas, and all those who took birth in other families--even the higher castes, namely, they were considered sudra non-brahmanas. Therefore although Sri Candrasekhara was a clerk from a kayastha family in upper India, he was considered a sudra. Similarly, vaisyas, especially those of the suvarna-vanik community, were accepted as sudras in Bengal, and even the vaidyas, who were generally physicians, were also considered sudras.

1. 1. Source: http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/hinduism-forum/183879-world-vedic-varna-jati.html, kayastha are most educated caste of india, varna-jati, fall of kayastha community, kayastha intelligent, kayastha and sudra, History of kayastha community

• • For instance, There is a wrong interpretation of Calcutta High Court Judgement, where actually it suggests that Bihar kayasthas are note sudras but are kshatriyas.

• • Source forums.sulekha.com/.../what-castes-are-reddy-kamma-kappa-950428.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.138.62 (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see some anti-Kayasth, insecure Brahmins (Bengalis?) spreading misinformation here. That is why they prefer to remain unsigned or use fake Christian identities. I have cleared this misinformation campaign in my post above. (Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

Karna link is wrongly linked to Karna of Mahabharata

I want to inform that the link to Karna of Mahabharata from Karna is adding misconception. In the article itself, it is said that Karna of Kayastha has nothing to do with Karna of Mahabharata. So, better remove the link from Karna Kayastha to Karna of Mahabharata.

I know Wiki interlinks terms to pages. But, here the way it is linked, is the main problem. The link is given where you mention group of Kayastha. There every group is linked to its own page for more details. But Karna group link is going to Karna of Mahabharata. So, it is the place of confusion. Instead a new page should be created for Karna.

satya61229 (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly how some anti-Kayastha Bengali Brahmins manipulate facts and create misconceptions in order to spread their lies.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

To those who are against my version

A few fellow scholars seem to have based the latest version more on an exception(the sudra status, which I personally would like to be acknowledged by the Govt of India so that we and our coming generations get reservation benefits) than the general rule. How can you discount all of Newton’s Laws by quoting Einstein's. Well as for the secondary research of this article and claim to caste status. The following three are independent and extensive websites and here is what they have to say. As per my efforts I have unearthed refs to the Kayastha in books like 11th century rajatarangini among others. If after reading the two articles, you still find mine lacking in quality to yours then check your grades!

• The Sanskrit dictionary at Hindunet.org defines Kayastha as follows:

ka_yastha, ka_yata a man belonging to the writer-caste; a tribe of bra_hman.as whose employment is writing (Ka.)(Ka.lex.)

• BRAHMINS by vedah.net is an arcticle on who the brahmins are and the various sub-groups of Brahmins. The Kayastha Brahmins are mentioned at sl.no. 15 (in alphabetic order).

• The Brahmins : A List of Brahmin Communities is an extensive list prepared by Kamat.com of all Brahmin communities in India. Kayastha Brahmins are mentioned (in alphabetic order).

Kayastha Shiromani (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

None of which are reliable sources. I am going to request that you be blocked for edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course they cannot be, for they point to something else than what a few freelancers would like to inform our kids about their lineage! As far as the quotes from puranas and manusmritis are concerned, these very same were presented in a British law court in India for the very same reason which is a bone of contention between us. The court took them as reliable sources to decide on the varna status. So the likes of us dont have much scope to be choosy with them when the righteous English Courts can accept them as relevant! And block or no block, you should learn to have a decent respect for the other person's identity, the very lack of which causes all the trouble that we see in today's world.Kayastha Shiromani (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I commented on your user talk page about why what the English Courts do has absolutely no relevance to what we do on WP. And I do respect you as a person...I just don't respect your unilateral actions that damage the quality of this article. If after your block is lifted you want to discuss changes to the article, I'm happy to do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia Policy

please give information from reliable sources,give citation for your information,give the sourse name and verse name to edit or write any story —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikramaditiya (talk • contribs) 19:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This article incorrectly lists Kayasthas as shudras, please remove this line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.81 (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Incorrectly? I'm seeing multiple footnotes evidencing Shudra status, and also explaining that it is a controversy and that there are other claims. If you want to say something different, go to Google Books and find a competing reference of equal credibility; not "kayasthasareawesome.blogspot" or a Facebook link, but an actual book or article written by a reputable academic. Until such point, we have to believe reputable sources, not anonymous people on the Internet who disagree. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Kayasthas do not subscribe to any Varna. In fact, they are rebellion and opposed caste system. That's why you will notice a lot of popular personalities in Kayastha adopted to pen names. There are disputed between which varna they belong to though, one claims Kashyatriya and the other Brahman. I claim myself a Kshyatriya. There is no third claim.

By not correcting this issue, I think Wikipedia and the person responsible to rectify it may be inviting a class action lawsuit. And if this is not corrected, we will launch a donation drive to file for a lawsuit of defamation.

Just because the user is an christian unfamiliar with Kayastha doesn't give him the right to post whatever desired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.234.70 (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I have done a lot of personal research on Indian history, world history, and one of my interests have been the caste system in India. Here is what I have to say about the Kayasthas.

Kayasthas originated as a branch of Brahmins who took up the writing and administrative professions and became very powerful, through their associations with the rulers. This made another section of (powerful) 'priestly' Brahmins, at odds with them. These Kayastha Brahmins were more liberal and broadminded than their priestly counterparts, who had a stake in oppressing the masses by manipulating social power through religion. In due course of time, several Khsatriya clans also joined the Kayastha profession, and the Kayasthas evolved into a distinct class. A power struggle then ensued between a section of powerful Brahmins and the Kayasthas -- about their status in the Indian varna system ... Kayasthas could not function outside of this powerful caste system.

While Kayasthas and Brahmins are in general very ameniable with each other, one section of Brahmins opposed them tooth and nail and conspired to write a lot of filth against the Kayasthas (e.g. in Kashmir). If they could have their way, they would have rendered Kayasthas Shudras, like they did with several other branches of Brahmins, that fell out of favour with those in power. However, Kayasthas were a powerful class, besides, they had a strong support from Brahmins as well.

As a new community, Kayasthas needed to find as high a place in the Indian caste system as possible, for their bright future. They would have preferred to remain Brahmins, but, because several Kshatriyas had joined their folds (e.g. the Kshatriya rulers of Punjab, who later migrated to Central Bihar) and because a class of Brahmins was strongly against their remaining Brahmins, everyone (Kayasthas and Brahmins) settled for a "Kshatriya" status.

In other words, ultimately, Kayasthas were formally accepted as Kshatriyas in the varna system.

All this while, Kayasthas conducted themselves as Brahmins, and were treated as Brahmins, for all practical purposes, by the majority of Brahmins and marriages took place freely between Kayasthas and Brahmins.

However, the class war/ power struggle between the Kayasthas and one section of Brahmins didn't stop here. This section continued to spill venom against the Kayasthas, (some do to this day).

There is also another side to the story. While in the Aryan lands, the dispute about Kayastha nearly, ended, except for the minority of disgruntled Brahmins, these anti-Kayastha sect of Brahmins got to have their way in the non-Aryan lands, that they migrated to -- chiefly in Bengal (including Orissa, Assam, etc.).

In Bengal (East India)

Here, they pitched the battle with the Kayasthas afresh, and since, unlike in the Aryan lands (basically, North India), Kayasthas were in a minority/ not so powerful, here, the Kayasthas of Bengal lost this battle, but not without a fight. There are written accounts of how one sect of powerful Bengali Brahmins conspired to outcaste the Kayasthas from Kshatriya status to the Shudra status. As per the records, the argument they used was that the Kayasthas have married into the locals (non-Aryans) and thus their children have become of impure race (an invalid argument, because Bengali Brahmins themselves have mixed liberally with the 'non-Aryans'). The Kayasthas protested and gave evidences that this was not true in general. However, the Brahmins, who were in this case powerful, dismissed their claims.

Since, the Hindu Puranss had already given Kayasthas the Kshatriya status, these Bengali Brahmins cooked up their own Purana, wherein they created new definitions/ classifications. Not only this, they cooked up their own mythology, where new origins were attributed to Bengali Kayasthas, wherein they were mentioned as 'servants' of Brahmins that were sent from Kannauj to the non-Aryan land of Bengal.

However, the story here is not so simple as this. There were several complications here:

1. Kayasthss were still treated as equal to Brahmins for all practical purposes, even in Bengal, and marriages between Brahmins and Kayasthas was not uncommon. They both comprised the Bhadralok. Arranged marriages between Brahmins and Kayasthas are still not uncommon in Bengal.

2. This conspiracy hatched by a section of Bengali Brahmins was not only targeted at the Kayasthss -- the highest class besides the Brahmins, but actually, they conspired to make every other high caste -- from sections of Brahmins, to all of Kshatriyas to all of vaishyas -- into the shudra category. So, today, in Bengal, like in some other non-Aryan lands, due to the conspiracy of some Brahmins, there is a strange caste system, which is not the four varna caste system, but a two varna caste system, where there are only Brahmins and non-Brahmins, and all non-Brahmins are classified as "Shudras."

What is also interesting is, that, the Bengali Kayasthas were nominated as 'Shoma Shudras' -- that is -- highest amongst the Shudras. All this conspiracy has made Bengal into a wierd kind of society -- castewise, where things are quite confusing. Kayasthas, together with the Brahmins are still the "Bhadra lok" or the "noble class." Besides, this "Shoma Shudra" classification conspired by a section of Bengali Brahmins, only applies to the Kayasthas of Bengal.

Inspite of this conspiracy against them, the Kayasthas have, socially, always been the most influential caste of Bengal -- even more than the Brahmins.

However, this formal incorporation of Bengali Kayasthas as "Shoma Shudras" into the Bengali system, gave the anti-Kayastha section of Brahmins an 'authorised' stick to beat Bengali Kayasthas with. And they freely spill venom against Kayasthas to this day. I remember, a news reported by various national dailies, about various forward caste groups demanding reservations in Rajasthan, of which Kayasthas were also a part. I read one newspaper report, by a Bengali Brahmin reporter, who conspiratingly ommitted the name of Kayasthas from his report. I could see, that this was done very, very intentionally. Because, the Bengali Brahmin reporter did not want to mention Kayasthas as upper castes, and this is not an uncommon attitude of some Bengali Brahmins. (I suspect, this Mathew guy is not Christian, but actually an anti-Kayastha Bengali Brahmin).

Andhra/ South India

A more or less similar story unfolded in the South, where the Brahmins got the power to sideline the Kayasthas who had migrated alongwith the Brahmins to the south. Only, the Kayasthas were far outnumbered in the south, and their position down there is worse than that in Bengal. Although, the claims of some south Indian communities that claim they are descendants of Kayasthas from the north are not verified, such claims do exist, and most likely has some truth in it. Inspite of the conspiracy against them, many communities that probably flowed from Kayasthas, like Reddy, are pretty influential down south.

Maharashtra

In Maharashtra, the original position of Kayasthas as Brahmins, is still more or less preserved, whereas in North India, they are today considered "Kshatriyas" (or secondary to Brahmins). Marriages between Brahmins and Kayasthas is commonplace in Maharashtra. The history of Maharashtrian Kayastha, like elsewhere in India, is closely tied to the history of Brahmins.

(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

References:

Caste system in Bengal

Brahmins, VEPACHEDU EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION

"Ethnographical notes on Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu" A Quote from the book that clearly points out that there is a Brahmin rival faction interested in manipulating the facts:

"There are various theories about the origin of the name of the caste. Information from different quarters received by this Institution gives various theories either based upon myth, legend, historical observations, philological inferences, mere surmises, or in some cases the frank mention of intentional perversion of facts by the rival Brahman caste about this name or part of the name."

A history of Kashmiri Pandits, by Jia Lal Kilam Quote:

"In this period we come across with Kayastha class who are described as kings, financiers and advisers. Being the financiers of the king, they naturally amassed huge political power. A struggle with Brahmans was inevitable and it is related that the Brahmans brought about the death of the king for his partiality towards this class. It is significant that any new class which sprang into prominence had to measure its strength with the Brahmans."

"During the reign of Shankara Varman the struggle between the Brahmans and other castes such as Kayasthas reached its climax. The power of Brahmans was broken. The sacred character of their citadels was violated. Offerings which were made to temples, incense meant to be burnt there and the villages bequeathed to them and the riches lying there were all appropriated by the king. He refused to talk in Sanskrit, and always used the language used by the people (Apabramsha). For this he is greatly blamed by the Brahman historians. But he encouraged industries, though at the same time he heavily taxed them. As against the industrialists, he treated the agricultural population with great scorn and for the first time in the history of Kashmir he introduced the institution of Begar (forced labour from villagers). The Kayasthas now became the dominant class who invented a number of taxes and allied themselves with the king. The Brahmans on their part have produced a huge mass of literature in which the Kayasthas have been reduced to a place of great scorn and redicule."

Scythic Origin of the Rajput Race, by Mulchand Chauhan This site itself maynot be a 'reliable source' but contains data from a published study that show the racial affinity between the Brahmins, Kayasthas and the Rajputs, and their vast differences from the non-Aryan races, that the site rightly or wrongly calls the Sudroid (related to the word Shudra).

Genetic variation in three east Indian populations, R A N J A N D U T T A a n d V . K . K A S H Y A P, Journal of Genetics, Vol. 80, No. 1, Apri1 2001 25; Quote:

The Brahmin and the Kayastha, among the three groups studied, belong to the same ethnic and linguistic families. Our allele frequency analysis shows considerable admixture between these two population groups. The Garo community, which belongs to the Tibeto-Burman linguistic group, shows significant difference in the allele pattern with the Brahmin and Kayastha despite occupying the same geographical area. Distribution of alleles/fragments at loci D1S7, D4S139, D5S110 and D17S79,grouped under fixed-bin boundaries (figure 1), shows considerable similarity between the two Indo-Caucasoid groups, the Brahmin and the Kayastha, and differences of these from the Indo-Mongoloid group, the Garo.

The tree shows three distinct branches, comprising Indo-Mongoloid populations (Meitei, Kuki, Naga, Hmar and Garo), Indo-Caucasoid populations (Brahmin, Kayastha, Hindu, Punjabi and Sikh), and the Manipuri Muslims ... The pattern of the NJ tree reflects the ethnic background of the Indian populations. The Indo-Mongoloid populations are found separated from the Indo-Caucasoid groups. Among the Indo-Caucasoid cluster, the Brahmin and Kayastha form a separate subbranch, justifying the closeness between these groups predicted by protein and other DNA markers.

The close genetic affinity among Kayastha and Brahmin populations suggests that these two groups could have the same origin with recent separation from common stock, or they are two different groups with extensive gene flow between them.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyanvigyan1 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Gyanvigyan1, none of that helps us with the article because it's not sourced. I believe you when you say that you've personally researched this, however, we need to actually see the sources, and exactly what they say. If the conclusions you draw are not directly stated in the sources (that is, if you did what we call original research to synthesize data into bigger conclusions), then we can't include that per policy. We also need to be sure that your sources meet the reliable soruces guidelines.

Finally, please do not make personal attacks against other editors. This includes speculating about a person's real-world identity and ascribing them negative stereotypes based on that guess. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I agree that as of now I have not sourced what I have said. It's a lot of hard work to source this at this time, because, the research have been done quite sometime ago, and I will have to re-gather everything. You're also right, that some (not all) of these conclusions are mine. And this is why I have not included this in the main article. My main purpose to include this here, was to bring perspective to what is going on, in order to help people understand the background and the politics between Kayasthas and one section of Brahmins, which is bound to have a profound influence on the debate here. I am sorry about speculating about Mathew, but if you know the Indian reality and the caste war, and how one section of the Brahmins, to this day, aggressively manipulates facts -- you'd know that the conviction with which Mathew is contending something which is so clearly a lie (or worse, a half-truth), and the manner in which he is doing it, is exactly the same as this anti-Kayastha section of Brahmins does. (There are actually Kayastha and Brahmin groups in some Indian universities that are at constant war with each other). Although, now I think, it is more likely, that he is a westerner, who has no idea about the how things work in India, and he has been drawing his conclusions from hordes of filth spewed by the anti-kayastha section Brahmin lobbyists, all over the net, which, however, is mostly baseless.

Nevertheless, I'd refrain from making personal comments. It's just that Kayasthas are a living people, and unless people can source what they're saying, they have no right to malign a community. Caste is an extremely sensitive, living issue in India, and although, originally, the caste system started as a flexible, positive system, a section of Brahmins who became powerful through it, gradually conspired to consolidate this power through distorting and concretizing the caste system, and making it into an extremely negative and oppressive system (starting with tying caste system with birth). Such Brahmins have always tried to manipulate the facts, including when Britishers were writing Indian history, at times, such Brahmins tried to mislead them too, as some gullible Britisher historians thought these Bengali Brahmins are a legitimate source of getting the correct information about Kayasthas, the way Bible is the 'correct' source to get information about Christianity. The westerners cannot really comprehend, how Hinduism is not a monolithic religion, and how no one section of Brahmins (or anyone else) owns Hinduism or can authoritatively define its provisions.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

Having said this, most of what I have mentioned above is researched through well documented sources (mostly on the net) and I would appreciate if other people can find these sources and put them here, so that we can put at least, some of this matter in the main article.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

Also, since, Bengali kayasthas are totally different from the North Indian Kayasthas (they don't even intermarry), and they have different origin myths, different histories and historical origins, and seeing how sensitive a subject it is, we should have a separate page for Bengali Kayasthas. So, if it is said that Bengali kayasthas have been re-classified by Bengali Brahmins as "Soma Shudras" along with every other non-Brahmin upper caste (including Kshatriyas who are classified as lower Shudras than Kayasthas in the Bengali two-tier caste system), this would be a factual statement. However, to say that "Kayasthas have been classified as Shudras" or that there is any controversy at all about the status of Kayasthas as non-Shudra upper caste, is preposterous.

While we write about Bengali Kayasthas, we should also keep in mind that Brahmins have, through manipulation, kept the sole right to write socio-religious texts, and this right has been abused in places like Bengal, where facts have been widely distorted in religious texts. This fact should be remembered, when talking about communities such as the Bengali Kayasthas.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

MatthewVanitas has been talking at various places about his/her being American. Whatever may be the case, lots of people have the opinion that lots of eds on caste articles have zero familiarity with Indic topics, but still have an obsession with inserting weird things in caste articles. My own opinion is that most caste articles are stinking. Anyway, please don't speculate about MatthewVanitas being Bengali etc. I am sure you could be way off the mark on that. Besides, hordes of users have been banned/blocked for lesser things.-MW ^ℳ 07:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree MatthewVanita is an overzealous westerner, who thinks he knows the best about Indian topics. I have already mentioned that it was a mistake to talk about him, and I'd rather stick to countering his mispropaganda. Thank you for pointing out. This is a common problem though. Wikipedia is a western forum, where many westerners chauvinistically distort facts about the non-west, trying to see everything from their own limited perspective (at least on non-western issues), based on their half-baked knowledge about the non-west. It is/was as true of many western scholars on non-western issues, as it is of wikipedia. A little knowledge about something is quite dangerous.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

Wikipedia is a western forum,... I would like to differ here. WP is a global encyclopedia. It is not a western forum. WP is the encyclopedia which anyone can edit. You, me, Westerners, Easterners, Southerners, Northerners, ....alike. There is also no restriction on who edits which articles. You too can edit any articles. Only thing is that WP has an Anglophone bias. See WP:Systemic bias and Wikipedia:NPOVFAQ#Anglo-American_focus. But efforts are on to correct this bias. I assure you that the Wikimedia Foundation is serious about it. Since WP is the encyclopedia which anyone can edit, all of us must learn to live with this fact and learn to get along. If some user is having problems, it should be seen as that users problem, and one should not make too much of the Eastern/Western paradigm. I too have a none too high opinion of Western scholarship on Indic issues, but that is another issue.-MW ^ℳ 08:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note on Gyanvigan's talk page note about changing the tone of discourse here. Regarding the source provided above (http://tanmoy.tripod.com/bengal/caste.html), that does not meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines, so doesn't help us improve this article. I totally understand how re-gathering those sources will take time, and definitely look forward to seeing them at a later date. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, what do you do in cases, where there are no published scholarly (in the western sense) sources in English? Are you going to rubbish the sources that are credible as per the non-western system -- when we're dealing with peculiarly non-western topics, which the western world has neither the interest or means to study, report in a published paper?(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

They don't have to be published in western journals; they don't even have to be published in English. They do need to be published in academic journals or other places that meet our reliable sourcing guidelines. So, if a small publishing house decided to print a book and call it research, then it's probably no good. If a university has their own internal journal, that's no good. But if there is a national academic journal, well known across India, and it's in Hindi (or whatever), that's fine. Other editors have the right to ask for a translation of the relevant part, but the source need not be in English. However, if the information has never been documented in a reliable source, well, then it can't be in Wikipedia. Even though this may be unfair to some fields/areas/subjects, it's really all we can do. I mean, otherwise, Wikipedia would be full of "information" that is "verified" by blogs, self-published websites, or even "personal knowledge". How could we ever attempt to separate out good information from bad information? We have to have some way to help decide what is acceptable and what is not; it is our guidelines that do that. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not talking about just the western journals, I have seen editors reject published court rulings by Indian courts, and others that have said that since they cannot read Indian scriptures, quoting from them is disallowed. I can quote from reputed Indian religious published literature, but, as per the discussion here, that would not be valid. Which means that it has to be studied and reported under the western system of education (colleges, degrees, etc.) and if it is not, then, it may be a fact of life that we live and breathe in day in and day out, but Wikipedia will rubbish it or question it and not report that fact. That is simply unacceptable. If Wikipedia has no means to find the facts about an issue (like this one, where it believes there is a contention), then it should simply leave the topic and not meddle with it, rather than to misreport on it. I would stronly vouch for this page to be deleted, rather than to have it on the basis of limited and often misleading information that has been published under the western system. I have the same problem with the western system of medicine, which insists that if a disease is not in their books, its all in your mind. It will not accept that it does not have enough information about it.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

':::::'How could we ever attempt to separate out good information from bad information? We have to have some way to help decide what is acceptable and what is not; it is our guidelines that do that. In my view, the guidelines are usually not so strictly applied on things that the west believes are 'facts' -- even if people in other parts of the world may not see think that way, and sweeping generalizations are not uncommon in wikipedia. I am not saying that one should not exercise precaution, however, what I am saying is that things that are considered 'normal' or 'facts' in the non-west should be allowed to have enough influence by non-westerners (in this case Indians, that live and see that truth being played out, and have ways to verify those facts, without using guidelines as a way to scuttle that process -- just the way, westerners do with things western). I am sure, there would be ways to check zealous vested interests that may want to include inaccurate information. The peer editors (in this case, Indians, will themselves check that). Perhaps, you need to trust non-western, peer-editors more, rather than watching every word they say, under a microscope. But, even if you do, I do believe that guidelines give enough space for personal judgement, and often that is where facts may be currently scuttled, if enough sensitivity towards non-western issues is not there.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

We are not disallowing the Puranas because we cannot read them, they're disallowed because they are WP:Primary sources. The same with court findings (except in a very limited context of quoting them directly). You can't take a court case that, say said "the Foo caste are Vaishya" and use that to say "The Foo caste are definitely Vaishya", because there could be all kinds of political complexities covered up my that simple statement. Whereas, if you have an academic writing in English, in Hindi, in Korean, or what have you, and his reputably published book says "in 1938, the Foo caste was declared Vaishya by the state court of Bengal; Goo caste leader V. R. Smith decried this as caste politicking bereft of any historical basis, but the University of Calcutta archaeology department published a rebuttal stating that..." that would be actual finished research that would be citeable. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"You can't take a court case that, say said "the Foo caste are Vaishya" and use that to say "The Foo caste are definitely Vaishya", because there could be all kinds of political complexities covered up my that simple statement." -- and you think that cannot happen in published materials from 'reliable' authors/ publications? These complexities can arise anywhere. E.g. if there is a caste politics in India, it will show up in published works too. Are you saying that court decisions in India are politically driven. We have very high regard for our judicature. And, in case of a wrong judgement, there would be several academic opposition to it..(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

You can quote the Puranas if you do it through some secondary source.-MW ^ℳ 14:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. But, if relevant secondary sources (to the satisfaction of wikipedia) do not exist, then it is better to scrap the topic altogether. Rather than saying things like, "there is a dispute regarding the caste status of Kayasthas" because that is playing right into the hands of those that have a vested interest in denying a group their legitimate place in the society.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

I agree that it is better to scrap the topic altogether. There are simply not enough reliable sources to put together a credible encyclopedic article. The western sources are biased in a malicious way IMO. The Indian sources are also biased in favor of, or against their own group/rival groups respectively IMO. We don't have neutral third party sources. Only ill informed &/ biased sources. And that too, in a very limited quantity. The maliciousness/bias of these sources gets magnified by eds who have an obsession with finding and inserting only defamatory/palikuluing things about Indian castes. And if you want to cite court rulings, you can do it easily through news reports which report on the rulings. Quoting modern court rulings directly is also OK IMO, but it is preferable if it is done through news reports.-MW ^ℳ 02:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, if Dr. K. C. Goud has a published paper saying "According to this verse of the Puranas: quote quote, the legendary Foo tribe was primarily associate with the transport of trade goods by water", you could of course include the snippet of Puranas he mention, summarise his interpretation of it, and footnote it. What one cannot do is take a snippet of the Puranas and say "well, clearly this means XYZ", since as editors were are not acting as qualified Puranic scholars. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ya. And if you want to take something off an article, you have to get a consensus/show that the source is unreliable/ extremely biased/the material is a misrepresentation/cherry picking/ based on passing comment/synthesis, fails WP:FRINGE/WP:DUE, or some other policy, or is plain unencyclopedic. etc.-MW ^ℳ 15:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I would rather advocate for removing the page on Kayasthas altogether because, based on the limited number of 'reliable published material' wikipedia is ill-equipped to do justice to it. That is clearly allowed under reliable sourcing guidelines.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

Gyanivigan1, it would help if you could keep your replies in a chronological order (and just mention in parentheses is you're replying to a much earlier point). It's also not helpful to go about accusing people of being crypto-Brahmins. Regarding your point: But, if relevant secondary sources (to the satisfaction of wikipedia) do not exist, then it is better to scrap the topic altogether. Yes, certainly, content which cannot be backed up by secondary sources fails WP:V and should be removed. However, there is a dispute regarding the caste status of Kayasthas does not appear to fail that, because in the very same section we outline several incompatible classifications that reliable secondary sources mention of Kayasthas. The article further notes that these classifications may be contested by some parties while championed by others, and that some regions assign different classifications. Each point is clearly footnoted; this is pretty much how Wikipedia works. If you want to describe, in very concrete terms, what content you think should be removed, what should be added, and why, it might be good to start a new section at the bottom of the page explaining such. Do bear in mind that any cited material you want changed has to be challenged for failure to abide by a Wikipedia policy (such as WP:V, or WP:NPOV), and any content you want to add has to be backed up by a WP:Reliable source. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"there is a dispute regarding the caste status of Kayasthas does not appear to fail that, because in the very same section we outline several incompatible classifications that reliable secondary sources mention of Kayasthas." I would call the preceding statement, original research. Can you bring forth an actual statement that says that there is indeed a debate about the status of Kayasthas in the Indian society. Just a few maverick individuals or factions of people, that are anti-Kayasth, making certain claims, does not make the caste status of Kayasthas disputable, whether or not these mavericks get their work published. It is their opinion at best. They have no power or authority to deny the Kayasthas their earned and well-established varna.

Also, the reliable secondary sources that 'debate' the caste status of Kayasthas are only talking about Bengali Kayasthas. The Bengali Brahmins have no jurisdiction over non-Bengali Kayasthas. The two are totally distinct communities. Bengali Kayasthas are a special case. How does the 'debatable' status of Bengali Kayasthas make the status of the entire Kayastha community debatable, when, in actuality, there is no such debate prevalent in the Indian society.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

And just to help you understand things clearly, Bengal and North India are two distinct regions of India, with separate ethnicity, races, history, languages and cultures. Indeed, they could have been two different nations.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

I would call the preceding statement, original research - WP rules allow such a statement, even lacking a specific cite to say "it is debated", since it is a common-sense leap when confronted with Option A, Option B, and Option C to say "there are several options." Nothing said thus far indicates that one or two of these options are wild fringe and only one is mainstream. Yes, Bengal and North India are clearly distinct areas, but they have Kayasthas sharing the same name, origin legend, and occupation, so if you want to argue a split you'll need some wider consensus. If we can poke in the references and feel comfortable saying "their varna is disputed in Bengal" and ideally "disputed in Bengal for the following historical reasons" and equally confidently say "in contrast, they are definitely categorised simply as Y in North India", that would be a totally reasonable step to make if supported by references. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If we are saying something which no source says explicitly, it would be WP:SYNTHESIS. mWe cannot adduce anything from sources to say something which they do not say explictly. Both, WP:V and WP:NOR should be consulted in this regard.-MW ^ℳ 02:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

List of kayastha

There is a wrong interpretation of Calcutta High Court Judgement here where actually it suggests that Bihar kayasthas are note sudras but are kshatriyas.

Bengali kayasthas like gosh,das,mitra,basu,bose come in OBC/SC in govt list and valmiki ,ashtana mathur ,srivastav,patniak come SC/obc in many state ,like bihar,orissa. Deleted list of Kayasthas as there is already a dedicated page for the list. See: List of Kayasthas This is a list of noteworthy people of the Kayastha caste of India. (list removed as it's already covered in its own article -MV)

It is surprising how some editors provide such false statements, and provide no sources at all. There is no state in India at all, where non-Bengali Kayasthas like Ashthana, Mathur and Srivastavs are considered OBC or SC (Shudra caste). Patnaik is an Orissa Kayasth caste and have met the same fate as Bengali Kayasthas. Mixing them up with Mathurs and Srivastavas (mainstream/ North Indian Kayasths) is extremely misleading.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

kayastha are sudras not kshatriyas

Various census of India. 1867. pp. 1–. Retrieved 19 April 2011.

Various census of India--page 8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumitkachroo (talk • contribs) 13:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Good issue to bring up; I've been working on adding clarity to Shudra articles, so I've laid out the "range of opinions" in the article lede. Hope you feel that clarifies the situation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed a good issue to bring up. It is time to acknowledge that a section of mostly Bengali Brahmins have been conspiring against Kayasthas for a long time, and that they found a great opportunity to do this, when the Britishers were writing about India in the beginning. Just because a lone foolish British writer listened to some clever anti-Kayasth Bengali Brahmin, and decided to include Kayasthas as Shudra, not caring to do his homework, it doesn't constitute the authority on Kayasthas. What has happened here is that this lazy writer misreported and the aggressive anti-Kayastha lobby misled him, because of the immense confusion generated due to what happened to Bengali Kayasthas.

Just how stupid these British writers can be can be judged from the fact (and I don't have sources ready with me), that one historian actually listed "Kayasthas" as a warrior class, who are tall, fair, strong with warriorlike features. Naturally, he didn't do his homework too, because, Kayasthas are not warriors in the traditional Kshatriya sense. Although, many Kshatriya clans had joined the Kayastha community, in its forming years, the Kshatriya status granted to Kayasthas in the Puranas reflect more a compromise than a warrior background. Most Kayasthas are practically and originally Brahmins, except those who came from the warrior clans (like Saxena, Nigams and Karna Kayasthas).(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

Kayasthas do not subscribe to any Varna. In fact, they are rebellion and opposed caste system. That's why you will notice a lot of popular personalities in Kayastha adopted to pen names. There are disputed between which varna they belong to though, one claims Kashyatriya and the other Brahman. I claim myself a Kshyatriya. There is no third claim.

By not correcting this issue, I think Wikipedia and the person responsible to rectify it may be inviting a class action lawsuit. And this is not corrected, we will launch a donation drive to file for a lawsuit of defamation.

Just because the user is an christian unfamiliar with Kayastha doesn't give him right to post whatever desired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.234.70 (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, please note WP:No legal threats; I would suggest you remove your proposed litigation comment, otherwise your IP could be blocked since legal issues are not a matter to be simply discussed anonymously on Talk pages. Secondly, if you feel there are factual errors, you need to bring in contradicting information of equal or greater validity to the information currently presented. The current page specifically says "Kayastha varna is a disputed issue", and lays out a range of past theories, clearly footnoted to academic texts. If you have details you think are not being fairly represented, by all means post some GoogleBooks links here that you think clarify the situation. Third, on WP it is considered impolite to speculate about other people's background, so "I think this person is wrong, he must be Christian" is rather rude, so please refrain from such. I hope to hear back from you with a clearer explanation of how you think the article should be changed, and what references support your statements. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

MathewVanitas is correct .Great Swami Vivekananda's ( Sri Narendranath Dutta by birth or before sannyas ) Elder brother Who was Ph.D. holder of Berlin University on Anthropology , Dr. Bhupendranath Dutta in his dissertation in Bengali " Bharatiya Samaj O Poddhoti " ( complete in 3 vols) had clearly mentioned that Kayasthas are Sudras but definitely they are highly educated and respected community. Sociologist Dr.Anjan.Ghosh had also acknowledged this fact that both Kaysthas and Baidyas are Sudras but like many other sudra communities they have acquired excellence in British period.It may be disputed but many eminent personality of their own community had also acknowledged this. It is very rude for this to abuse someone for simply being that he is a Christian.It is not his fault or idea .It is a system of so called classification of their own religion.Similar is the case with some other respected communities also.This is a fact.And a fact is a fact.117.194.198.154 (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.197.50 (talk)

Is it allowed to pass personal comments on unsigned liars? What the above unsigned editor has mentioned is a half-truth. In Bengal, a non-Aryan land, where the Brahmins that migrated from the Aryan north, alongwith Kayasthas, conspired to make every other caste other than the Brahmins as "Shudras," including the warrior castes (Kshatriayas) and the Vaisyas (merchants). This in itself is a violation of the four varna caste system. In Bengal, there are only two varnas. Brahmins and Shudras (including non-Brahmin upper, non-Shudra castes who have been classified under Brahmin conspiracy as Shudras). Kayasthas have been classified as "Shoma Shudras," that is the highest amongst the Shudras, although, in reality, Kayasthas are a Bhadralok (noble class) in Bengal, like the Brahmins, who self-adjudged themselves (and the Bengali Kayasthas) as such. Besides, marriages between Bengali Kayasthas and Brahmins is not so uncommon, traditionally, which clearly show that Bengali Kayastha, still retain some of their Brahmin status, at least informally.

A very important truth, which the above unsigned poster has failed to mention, is that, the 'evidences' that he has offered applies only to the Bengali kayasthas, which are a special case, and they have no bearing on the mainstream caste status of Kayasthas. The Vraddharma Purana that the Bengali Brahmins cooked up, with absurd stories about the origins of Bengali Kayasthas and other Bengali communities, applies only to Bengali Kayasthas, not to the mainstream Kayasthas.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

Evidence In Kalhan No Evidence in Kalhan of any community or caste in Kashmir at any time .The word means self-sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.197.228 (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The truth is that Kayasthas originated from Brahmins, and gained power, and a section of the Brahmins didn't like it, and they have been at war with Kayasthas eversince. They have sought hard to render the Kayastha Shudras, but they failed, because, Kayasthas were strong and had strong support from the Brahmin community as well. The anti-Kayastha Brahmins, wherever they could, have been speaking ill about Kayasthas -- till this day. That doesn't make them historically, socially or even religiously correct or factual, even if they could get their lies published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyanvigyan1 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Special Reply to gyanvigyan

What is your name Mr Gyanvigyan ? You have neither any logic nor any source. WP policy is quite correct. IT is not PEJORATIVE TO MENTION AS SUDRAS or Is it so? Funny you are that you are abusing a person as Liar but you don't raise question about the book . It is not written by any conspirator anti-kayastha or foolish British , It is by the Elder Brother of Great Swami Vivekananda .There is lot of debate and false allegations and apartheid attitudes in Indian society: The So-called Kayastha Intellectuals are not free from it. There thousand of proof in History.Know your country and your community better.Mathewvanita seemed to be more sympathetic to you .Don't abuse others .Give documents. or Give up mythological identity .Do you have the courage?117.194.200.255 (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No clarity in varna status

The Varna system of Hindus is a peculiar system now. Whether a scribe is a Sudra or not is a difficult question.In a Democracy Everyone is a Sudra but the status is neither determined or imposed , it is overdetermined . Every one has to be Sudra in the new sense. Scribe is a Official caste , so they had to serve .So definitely they are Sudras.Even the Vaidyas or Rajvaidyas had to serve , may be not to serve all , as Hindu apartheid prohibited them.That is why It was Buddhist who first established University to serve education to all. So Baidyas were also sudras.

And that is why all of them want to relate them to the Brahmin. But one peculiar thing they dont mention is that Two varnas represent professional engaement.Sudra is a bashing one. Fifth varna , or candala is outcast, excluded to extinction. And no One mentions the Political power and hegemony a community needed to Equate them with Creator God. Rather each feigned something else and scripted nasty gossiping and Force-Imposed on others . The funny wretched people , each and everyone , showed the same symptoms of Illness.117.194.193.123 (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.205.16 (talk)

There is no information which could be extracted from this section. As an encyclopedia, this should provide relevant information where as this section looks like a battle field where some have pushed their caste status to the highest, while others have dragged it down to the lowest. I support the proposal as mooted below to remove this section all together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.197.178.83 (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There's not clarity there because there's no clarity in the real world. If reliable sources disagree about some point, our policy on neutrality requires that we show all sides (though being careful not to give WP:UNDUE attention to trivial or minority viewpoints). That is, it would be wrong for us to say "Kayastha are X varna", because different sources disagree, and we must present all of those conclusions. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If there is no clarity in read world, Qwyrxian, how are you allowing users like Sitush and MangoWango, who clearly say that they are unfamiliar to caste debate, roll all over the pages and allow people to call others 'tendentious' and then be warned/judged etc. You own views are contradictory and it is others who have to be judged/banned for it when the fact is that you have allowed people like Sitush and MW run a roller on pages.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 07:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear: I meant that there is no clarity on this specific caste; I say that only because I see three sources, which appear to be good (although I admit I haven't looked in detail) that cite 3 specific varna. Let me further clarify: just because a lot of sources disagree doesn't mean that we through up our hands and say nothing. Instead, it means that we have to do our best job to summarize the multiple positions, and, as much as possible give those positions weight equal to their weight in the real world. That's why, in some cases, we say things like "Clan X is generally classed in caste/class/tribe A, but they claim membership in caste/class/tribe B." That is, we are allowed to make judgments that say that there are multiple positions, but that some positions are more valid than others. For example, if you look at Earth, you'll see that the scientific explanation is treated as fact, and given a lot of space, while only a small amount of space is given to religious perspectives on things like the Earth's age. Sitush does exactly the job that every Wikipedia editor is supposed to do, and that many don't: he looks extremely closely at sources, measures whether or not they meet WP:RS, figures out exactly what they say, and then summarizes the various points into clear, coherent, encyclopedic text in our articles. BTW, did you really mean to group MangoWong and Sitush together (given that they almost never agree, well, anywhere)? Or did you mean MatthewVanitas? As for other editors, if an editor insists upon using sources that don't meet WP:RS (an example in this case would be trying to use the Puranas to establish factual claims about caste membership), or insists upon removing something just because they personally don't agree with the text, even though it's validly sourced and summarized, then, well, those people should be "judged" by Wikipedia. The thing is, WP has a set of rules for determining what goes into articles and how to behave on talk pages. Editors who follow those rules are welcome to be part of the project; editors who don't want to follow those rules have to find somewhere else to put forth their ideas. There's nothing wrong with that; every website has its own rules that define proper behavior, and reserves the right to judge, and, if necessary, remove those people who don't want to follow that behavior. Do you see the distinctions I'm making here, the need for good sources (and summarizing those sources accurately), the need to know when to give up a position that you don't have consensus for, the need for civility, etc., etc.? Do you see that, even though it's hard, we have to do our best to make sense of multiple, conflicting viewpoints and represent all that matter in our articles? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You are overlooking a few things. Many sources earlier held to be 'absolutely RS' by Sitush & MV are not RS anymore, which you have missed to mention. So how does this affect credibility of these editors and your views that 'Sitush does exactly the job that every Wikipedia editor is supposed to do'? Please be clear on this. Wikipedia is very considerate of RS as per subject under consideration, and is able to change as per mutual understandings, as you clearly mentioned as "multiple, conflicting viewpoints and represent all that matter", though you yourself have overlooked clear lack of understanding by Sitush earlier. Those who do not understand are free to leave Wikipedia where they can overlook whatever else they want to, and keep on overlooking whatever they want to, which is uncivil according to me.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 08:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? Did you take the issue to the reliable sources noticeboard? That's generally the best way to handle a dispute over the reliability of the source. Sitush has done that several times, if I recall correctly. I also know that many many of the editors opposing Sitush have used all sorts of sources (religious texts, James Tod and those who copied him, Gyan publishing, self-published websites, etc.) that are definitely not reliable, and refuse to give up on them even after being told a dozen times (by both Sitush and other editors) that they don't meet WP:RS. However, I have no doubt that Sitush, like myself, is fallible; further, I'm sure that there are plenty of times where reasonable people disagree about what a reliable source is. Just because he does better work than most doesn't mean he'll be right (i.e., match consensus) every single time. That's why we have WP:RSN, along with other means of dispute resolution, to handle the issue. Also, note that I don't watch every single article Sitush edits, so maybe you're referring to a discussion I wasn't present on. If you want to point to a specific instance of what you see as Sitush/MV using an unreliable source, I will take a look at it; however, unless you're specifically referring to something from this page (Kayastha), perhaps it would be better to take this to my talk page so that we're not crowding up this space with an unrelated discussion.

"... it would be wrong for us to say "Kayastha are X varna", because different sources disagree, and we must present all of those conclusions." -- You're forgetting that Kayasthas are not guinea pigs. Kayasthas are real people, and their 'X' varna is one of their basic social identity -- they are living that identity. It means a lot to them. Some anti-Kayasthas in our Brahminical society want to deny Kayasthas their right to their 'X' varna, and they may make a lot of noise, however, since, the status of 'X' varna of Kayasthas, is socially, legally and religiously incorporated into the Indian society (for which the Kayasthas have had to struggle hard against the warring Brahmin factions), the Kayasthas can ignore these voices. But, it certainly doesn't mean that Kayasthas are living under an uncertain 'varna' -- which is not possible. Had there been any confusion in the Indian society about the status of kayasthas, they would be given reservations, as is granted under our Indian constitution to every Shudra person, (known today as Scheduled caste), no matter how rich or socially powerful they are. Wikipedia, just because, it isn't adequately equipped to understand what is going on with Kayasthas, cannot go ahead to treat them as guinea pigs and play with their identity. The Indian society is clear about who Kayasthas are. The Kayasthas are sure about who they are. If some mavericks in the Indian society don't like that, they have to learn to live with it. It is none of their business. It would be certainly preposterous for Wikipedia to question the identity of Kayasthas or suggest that it is uncertain, only because some mavericks are not happy with the identity that Kayasthas have earned for themeselves, after a prolonged battle. the "different sources" you mentioned just don't have a locus standi on the matter.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

I can also promise you that, if the Indian social and legal system were to accept that Kayasthas are Shudras and then give them reservations in jobs and education, as in enshrined in our constitution -- those who question the Kshatriya or half-Brahmin status of Kayasthas would be the first to retreat their claims. And Kayasthas would be the biggest beneficiaries. The biggest challenge before the Kayastha community today, is that the Shudra castes are taking away most of the administrative jobs (which was the domain of the Kayasthas), through reservations, and the Kayastha community is facing a huge unemployment problem. In fact, many Kayasthas are demanding reservations in jobs, even as Kshatriyas. Mulayam Singh Yadav supports reservations for Kayasthas.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

Important suggestions for this article

Here are a few extremely important suggestions for this article that should be acceptable to all concerned editors:

Splitting Bengali from Northern Kayastha articles

1. Create a separate page for Bengali Kayasthas. This page should talk about mainstream Kayasthas, that includes basically the North Indian Kayasthas. There is already a separate page for Chandraprabhu Kayasthas of Maharashtra. This way, the stigma and confusion created by the victimization of Bengali Kayasthas will not be, invalidly thrusted upon the mainstream Kayasthas. Every given source in the book that talks about Kayasthas being 'Sudras' speak specifically of Bengali Kayasthas, and to apply it on the mainstream Kayastha community is factually incorrect. (Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

If you want to argue that they're two completely separate communities sharing name only, I suggest you field your split idea at WP:WikiProject India's talk-page, where we can get a wide variety of uninvolved perspectives. That said, aside from sharing the same name, they also share the same legendary origin via Chitragupta, and same traditional occupation as scribes, do they not? That makes it a bit harder to argue that they're two completely separate things.

If you make a pitch at WP:INDIA, I strongly recommend that you bring just a couple of very good, very neutral references that support your assertion that they're barely related separate topics, and very concisely summarise them. Even more strongly, I recommend you leave off any moral arguments about "the rank the Kayasthat deserve" as such considerations have nothing to do with an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is emphatically not here to Right Great Wrongs, it's here to accumulate and summarise scholarly views on the subjects. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"aside from sharing the same name, they also share the same legendary origin via Chitragupta, and same traditional occupation as scribes, do they not?" ... They share the profession, but they don't share the same origin legends. The Bengali Brahmins cooked up a separate legend for the Bengali Kayasthas. In fact, a Bengali Kayasth will not relate to the legend mentioned on this page, and none of the names listed in this legend are those of Bengali Kayasthas. Unlike Northern Kayasthas, Bengali Kayasthas trace their origins to King Bhadrasen and his kshatriya subjects. The two communities also live under different socio-religious systems. In north India, the birth place of Hinduism and its seat of authority, there is a four varna system in place. In Bengal, like south India, there is only a two-varna system, wherein, you're either a Brahmin or you're a Sudra. (Thus in Bengal, the warrior Kshatriyas are Shudras too).(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

"Even more strongly, I recommend you leave off any moral arguments about "the rank the Kayasthat deserve" as such considerations have nothing to do with an encyclopedia." I know this much about Wikipedia, and I wouldn't be here, if it was a matter about what Kayasthas deserve, rather than what rank they actually possess. I am here only because, this article needs to incorporate what exists on ground (and not what should have been). I have no idea, why you're attributing that thing to me (maybe, someoone else argued about that). The only persecuted people are the Bengali Kayasthas, and you might say that for that topic. I am here only to correct one wrong, and that of this wikipedia article on Kayasthas, and not of any social wrongdoing. If I mentioned the anti-Kayastha politics of a faction of Brahmins, it is only to mention a fact, not in order to correct some wrong. Kayasthas have been able to prevent any wrong doing by this faction on their own social-merit, and no one needs this wikipedia article to help correct social wrongs.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

I'll try to do as you said about bifurcating the topics, but, I'll need sometime.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

Although, we can present comprehensive facts about Kayasthas in this article, after the unreliable/ misleading information/ text is altered with consent (hope this is possible), since, the North Indian Kayasthas are the mainstream/ original Kayasthas, who later migrated to other areas in India, it would still be a good idea to have a separate page for Begnali Kayasthas, just like there is one for Chitpavan Kayasthas, because, today, they are totally distinct communities, with their own histories, legends and ethnicity.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 05:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC))

@ Matthew, If the different Brahmin communities can have different pages for them, and the Chandrasenyia Kayasthas have a separate page for them, why can't Bengali Kayasthas have a distinct page for them, if it can be proved that they are a distinct community from the North Indian Kayasthas, esp. when, it is causing confusions.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

@Matthew, there is also a page on Bengali Brahmin, and the overzealous editors, that split every unnecessary hair at articles such as the "Kayasthas" allow the one on Bengali Brahmins to put forward such wild claims (as of being Pure Aryans) and of freely providing primary mythological verses from religious texts.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC))

Gyanvigan: then fix that article. Everyone is free to fix any article where they see any problems. You don't need to wait. If people object and revert, discuss it on the talk page. If you have ongoing arguments, look to dispute resolution. We're all volunteers, and we all have limited time. If that page bothers you, please fix it, rather than attempting to use it as some sort of lever here to imply that other editors are somehow acting improperly. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Varna debate

Gyanvigyan1, let's try and keep as much of the discussion down here at the end, chronologically, as we can, as we're rather bouncing all over the page. I suggest that if we want to reference another's comment earlier in the page that we just copy-paste it here and italicise it to show it as a quote. Let us keep the bottom of this page for suggested improvements, and subdivide this final section as needed. Does that sound easier?

Regarding North Indian Kayasthas not having any issue with being labeled Shudra, what think you of this passage: [1] ? It seems to be referring to Northern Kayasthas and their struggles to improve their caste status. I've found similar mentions for Uttar Pradesh specifically, and I'll check around for Bihar too. Nobody is doubting that Kayasthas play an important role, are educated, etc., the question is purely one of their ritual status. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

And this "the question raised in this case was whether Italic textthe Kayasthas of Bihar were Kshatriya or Shudra. The High Court decided that they were Shudra."[2] Solid ref, seems yet more evidence that their varna was contested outside of Bengal. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Your first point:

That those who have control of the religion seek to distort the truth in order to suit themselves is a well known phenomenon. Christianity has been widely known to be distorted by vested interests in the Church.

That one faction of Brahmins have always been jealous of the social power wielded by Kayasthas is a historical reality of India. According to Jia Lal Kilam, the author of "History of Kashmiri Pandits": "In this period (759 AD) we come across with Kayastha class who are described as kings, financiers and advisers. Being the financiers of the king, they naturally amassed huge political power. A struggle with Brahmans was inevitable and it is related that the Brahmans brought about the death of the king for his partiality towards this class. It is significant that any new class which sprang into prominence had to measure its strength with the Brahmans." ... ""During the reign of Shankara Varman the struggle between the Brahmans and other castes such as Kayasthas reached its climax. The power of Brahmans was broken. The sacred character of their citadels was violated. Offerings which were made to temples, incense meant to be burnt there and the villages bequeathed to them and the riches lying there were all appropriated by the king. He refused to talk in Sanskrit, and always used the language used by the people (Apabramsha). For this he is greatly blamed by the Brahman historians. But he encouraged industries, though at the same time he heavily taxed them. As against the industrialists, he treated the agricultural population with great scorn and for the first time in the history of Kashmir he introduced the institution of Begar (forced labour from villagers). The Kayasthas now became the dominant class who invented a number of taxes and allied themselves with the king. The Brahmans on their part have produced a huge mass of literature in which the Kayasthas have been reduced to a place of great scorn and redicule." (if I'm not mistaken, Shankara Varman was a Kayastha King).

The anti-Kayastha faction of Brahmins have always sought to misguide`and misrepresent the truth about Kayasths. Fortunately, for Kayasthas, most Brahmins were with Kayasthas, and this prevented the anti-Kayastha faction from harming the Kayasthas formally (Bengal being an exception). However, since`, Hinduism is not an organised religion, with no singular authoritative body, these disgruntled Brahmins have been to this date spreading misinformation about Kayasthas, but without any formal authority. When they see opportunity for their unfounded remarks to be 'documented,' eg, when western authors were writing Indian history, they become even more active, as they feel it is easy to mislead these western scholars (and in many cases it is). One British author (I don't remember his name) documented what he heard from these Brahmins, and others have been quoting from that 'published' work to make them sound convincing. These 'theories' make several unsubstantiated claims. Some claim that Kayasthas were a lowly, poor, shudra caste that suddenly found favour with the Moghuls and thus rose to prominence. Others claim that they found favour with the Britishers and their rise started after that.

That this is a preposterous assumption is clear from the fact, that even in ancient India, as far back as 759 AD, anti-Kayastha Brahmin factions made the same accusation. I don't have the exact text right now, but, the Brahmins have accused Kayasthas of being otherwise poor and uncultured, but now having amassed great social wealth and power. Now, if Kayasthas had already amassed great wealth and power in 759 AD, they were already a well established community in India, and so any claims that they were backward people when Moghuls invaded India, and that they only progressed due to the favours shown by the Moghuls (or as per some claims) the Britishers is ridiculous to say the least.

The truth is that Kayasthas, due to their intellect and Knowledge (both traditionally Brahmin traits) (but unlike with Brahmins, Kayasthas were not embroiled in caste politics and thus were progressive) and their progressive attitudes -- and this is not a mere rhetoric --- Kayasthas have always been in the forefront of the society. They have always been skillful admininstrators and managers, social reformers and religious heads. When the Muslims came, while Brahmins refused to leave Sanskrit, Kayasthas were quick to learn the Arabic/ Urdu language, so they adapted themselves to the new situation and kept their power in the Moghul era as well. It was the same in the British period, when Kayasthas quickly learned the English language and adapted themselves to the new social environment. It is true that Brahmins too excelled in this (and this only shows how Kayasthas and Brahmins share not only a common origin, but a common destiny too), and it is well documented that most of the civil services of the British was occupied by the Kayasthas and Brahmins -- the two highest castes of the Hindu varna system.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

The statement that North Indian Kayasthas would not mind the Shudras status is not be taken literally. I made that statement in the context of finding reservations in jobs, etc. Many, if not most, Kayasthas today, I would imagine, may not mind being awarded the Shudra status if this gives them jobs and education on a platter (many Brahmins would not mind too) -- afterall, caste is becoming increasingly irrelevant in modern India. However, for many, it would be a question of their identity, their legitimate varna. No one would give Kayasthas a Shudra status, even if they wanted to.

Nobody is doubting that Kayasthas play an important role, are educated, etc., the question is purely one of their ritual status ... It would be unimaginable for a Shudra community as a whole, from the ancient days uptill modern India, to compete with the Brahmins, in the field of knowledge and writing -- both one of the noblest professions. And if you read some of these anti-Kayasth claims/ texts, they claim Kayasthas to be amongst the lowest of low castes, in which case, for them to be intellectual, or influential in the elite circles would be impossible.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

I am afraid that you will need some reliable sources to support all of your comments above. We cannot just take your word for it, even if it were true. That's just the way Wikipedia works. - Sitush (talk)11:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"all of your comments above" is a too general a statement. I have already provided sources for the main point I made in the posts above (which is that the text linked to by Matthew seeking my opinion on, that claimed that North Indian Kayasthas were Shudras who rose to prominence due to favours granted by the Mughals, is non-reliable ). Some other comments are too much common knowledge to really seek sources for, since, this is not the actual article (e.g. that those who controlled the Church have been known to abuse their powers to include texts in religion to suit their vested interests). If there are some key statements above, that you may want substantiated, I can try to get them.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

Then again, the author David Goodman Mandelbaum, fails to substantiate what he loosely says about North Indian Kayasthas, except loosely citing some other (Indian) authors, one of them being a Bengali Brahmin. What and where is the real basis for that claim?(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

@ Matthew, your Second Point

Is it any surprise that the first case that ruled that Bihari Kayasthas are Shudras was settled in Bengal (Calcutta High Court). Note the following points:

i. Under the British rule, when this case was fought, Bihar was a part of the Bengal presidency. Which means that even if culturally, ethnically and in terms of the caste status of Kayasthas, Bihar was different from Bengal, the legal jurisdiction fell under the Calcutta High Court.

ii. The case was a larger property dispute, where the "The plaintiffs contend that the adoption was invalid on two grounds: first, because the adoptive father being a Kayastha and in their view entitled to rank amongst the three superior classes, could not adopt a sister's son;" (Raj Coomar Lall And Ors. vs Bissessur Dyal And Ors. on 4 March, 1884). Note, that the Bihari plaintiffs had claimed Kayasthas to be one of the three superior castes. Now, they wouldn't have claimed it if it wasn't the social reality of Bihar. The Calcutta High court, it seems, chose to refer the case to a lower Bengal court, which gave the ruling (based on the Bengali view of Kayasthas (was it a Bengali Brahmin judge?), ruled that Bihari Kayasthas are Shudras too. This attitude is totally predictable, and even today, many Bengali Brahmins will go out of the way to ensure that Kayasthas are seen as 'Shudras.'

iii. After examining scores of evidences, both of Indian, mythological and western-scholarly nature, the courts summed up their comments as follows: "There is, therefore, a preponderance of authority to evince that the Kayasthas, whether of Bengal or of any other country, were Kshetrias. But since several centuries passed, the Kayasthas (at least those of Bengal) have been degenerated and degraded to Sudradom, not only by using after their proper names the surname 'Dasa' peculiar to the Sudras, and giving up their own, which is 'Barma,' but principally by omitting to perform the regenerating ceremony 'upanayana' hallowed by the Gayatri."

iv. "12. It has been contended that however valuable Babu Shyama Churn's opinion may be as regards Bengal proper, there is a difference as regards Behar, and the Kayasthas of Behar. It had been established by evidence to our satisfaction that there was a difference in respect of the questions essential to this enquiry, and that the Kayasthas of Behar, as a class, had generally performed those ceremonies which might be supposed to have the effect of retaining them in the ranks of the three upper classes. We might accept this evidence and might come to a different conclusion from that to which we feel constrained upon the authorities and the evidence. I shall, therefore, consider the evidence which has been placed before us to show that the Kayasthas of Behar are an exception to the general principle contained in the opinion which I have just extracted from the work of Shyama Churn Sirkar. First, there is a Vyavastha by 96 pundits of Benares. Two of these pundits were examined as witnesses in the case; and we are of opinion that the value which can be attached to the Vyavastha must be measured exactly by the value which can be given to the oral testimony of these two witnesses. The Vyavastha is a recent one and there is no provision of law which allows a Court of Justice to accept as evidence a written opinion delivered by persons still alive who have not been called to the witness-box. Then, as regards the testimony of the two pundits who were examined (and this is perhaps the most valuable part of the oral testimony), we have to observe that these gentlemen do not speak with direct reference to Behar, and however valuable their opinion may be, if precise upon the point, with reference to the Kayasthas of the Upper Provinces, or of Benares, we think they cannot be accepted as an authority upon the subject as regards the Kaiests of Behar."

v. Reading the above minutes of the case, it seems, it is a very apt case of a western institution judging Indian issues, with total reliance on western system of determining what is 'reliable source' and what is not (much like Wikipedia) and then arriving at a false conclusion. To the Britishers, it may not have meant much, but it had a profound impact on the Kayasthas of Bihar, and indeed of other places, and due to this insensitivity and indeed ineffeciency of westerners, the anti-Kayastha elements of India got a huge weapon, which they continue to use even today. Under the Indian circumstances, just the fact that one's varna was questioned as 'Shudra' in the courts, makes a community degraded, just like a man is degraded if his manhood is questioned.

vi. The Allahabad High Court, which is in Uttar Pradesh (then, United Provinces), overruled the decision, because it was contrary to the socio-religious reality of North India. (Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

vii. The Patna high court (in independant India? but certainly when Bihar was separated from Bengal) examined scores of evidences -"- Mr. Justice Jwala Prasad went into every Purana and every smriti in which there was a reference to the Kayasthas. He differed from the Calcutta High Court and held that the Kayasthas of Bihar were Kshatriayas."(Concrete Steps By Indian Industry On Affirmative Action For Scheduled Castes ... By Dr. Ambedkar)

It would indeed be a pity if all this information can be ignored because 'court rulings' are not "reliable Wikipedia source."(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

Also note this serious misinformation on page no. 182, in the book Concrete Steps By Indian Industry On Affirmative Action For Scheduled Castes ... By Dr. Ambedkar:

"The partisans of the Kayasthas (in I.L.R. 10 CAL 688) took the position that the Kayasthas of Bihar were different from the Kayasthas of Bengal, the Upper Provinces and Benares and that while those in the Upper Provinces and Benares were Shudras, the Kayasthas of Bihar were Kshatriyas. The courts refused to make this distinction, and held that the Kayasthas of Bihar were also Shudras."

Now if you look at the minutes of the case, provided above, you'll notice that it is a total lie that the "partisans of Kayasthas" sought to differentiate themselves from the Kayasthas of Upper Provinces and Benares (now Uttar Pradesh) -- in fact, they claimed to be the same, ... nor does it say anywhere that the Kayasthas of Upper Provinces and Benares are considered Shudras, like the Kayasthas of Bengal. In fact, a team of 96 Brahmins Pundits from Benares (authority on Indian religious issues) vouched for the Kshatriya status of Kayasthas of North India, esp. for the British Court. And the British court actually ignored and overruled the highest Indian authority on varnas.

So, it is clear that this information is wrong? Such a glaring mistake cannot happen involuntary. Its a deliberate mistake, but I doubt, Dr. Ambedkar is behind it. I have a feeling that this text has been copied by Dr. Ambedkar from a sinister source, which is is unfortunately, 'scholarly' as per the western system.

It's a pity, once again, that, if I am to believe you guys, this book by Dr Ambedkar would be a 'reliable source' for information on Kayasthas -- as the secondary source, BUT, the court rulings and the detailed minutes will not be so.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

I think if there is some apparent contradiction in what a source says and what a court document says, we can show both. It would go something like this--According to Ambedkar, blah blah blah blah..... However, the in the court document the foo say "Blah Blah Blah Blah....". We need not present misleading info to the reader without clarifying it if there is some way of doing so. And it is helpful to post shorter comments. MW ^ℳ 11:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

We've had similar issues where folks claim "Tod lists the Foo caste on the 36 royal races", while you can literally open the book and see they are not mentioned. Regarding the use/non-use of the court documents, it's not so much that we want to literally ignore the court docs, so much as that we aren't allowed to interpret them. For example, we could find a court case saying "Foo caste is Vaishya", but we can't just take that and say "the Foo were declared Vaishya by the British" since the court case could've been overturned a month later, or any other such complication not immediately visible to a lay reader. Gyanvigyan makes some great points above about the complexity and back-and-forth, however I would argue that his points support our current statements that "they have been labeled many ways" over time. There is simply no way we're going to end up saying "Kayasthas are totally Kshatriya" barring some new tip-top evidence that blows away everything else over the last century, and even then it'd still be totally legit to say "were contested over the years, labeled X, Y, and Z, with the issue resolved as X in 1945 shortly before varna designations were denigrated by the new Indian government." MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

@MangoWango, to include both the misleading information and the court judgment is one option. This would also make it clear that there is indeed some misleading information around on the subject -- whether willingly or unwillingly. However, I would question the need to include a source that we have verified to be misleading and so unreliable.

I'll try to be short. It's just that when I give sources, I feel I can make it easier for other editors, who may not have to scan the whole document for the necessary portions, or if I need to post something to validate a point.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

@ Matthew We've had similar issues where folks claim ... It is always an either-or situation, no caste can remain in a conundrum. Kayasthas are either Kshatriya or they are Shudras or Brahmins. There can be a debate about whether or not any caste has got its due place, but a clear=cut place, it will always have. If the authoritative sources (list) don't validate a claim, there is no question of entertaining that claim. However, in this case, inspite of some misleading information around from unreliable sources, the case is clear-cut, all we need to do is to look at the authoritative 'list,' or secondary sources that are reliable that quote the 'list.' If there is indeed a dearth of such 'Wikipedia allowed sources,' I would suggest it would be better to junk the topic altogether. I don't know how valid a source detailed minutes of the court case are. It also talks about validation from the Body of Benares Pundits (consisting of 96 priestly Brahmins (who are the final authority on the subject)(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

I understand we are not allowed to interpret court rulings. But, we can certainly use the exact terms used in the court rulings. So, if it specifically says that the 'Foo caste is Brahmin as per Indian society/ religion/tradition' 'not Brahmin' or that 'Foo caste from Northland is Brahmin' and 'Foo caste from southland is not Brahmin,' then I don't see why Wikipedia should have any objection to taking that as the final word on it. Did anyone ever dispute the court ruling in the past several decades?(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

we can't just take that and say "the Foo were declared Vaishya by the British" since the court case could've been overturned a month later, or any other such complication not immediately visible to a lay reader ... Won't that be transgressing the limits of Wikipedia, if we want to make sure that the information we present is true for all time to come. The court case was to decide on the historical varna status of Kayasthas of a particular region (Bihar) about whom there arose a debate, because two distinct regions were merged by the British. The court is not the authority that grants a community a particular varna. The courts simply reviwed the varied reliable and authorised evidences -- very, very thoruoghly, in a very academic way, and then gave a judgment about what the status of Kayasthas of Bihar, as it existed in the society was. Which is not going to change, as far as the past evidences are concerned. This is exactly how wikipedia claims it works, isn't it.

Tommorrow, things may change. The Brahmins may outcast the Kayathas totally from Hinduism, or they may make them totally Brahmins, or the Brahmins may lose the power to decide at all. That is none of Wikipedia's business. Wikipedia should concern itself with how things stand today/ in the past. Caste status is not something that changes ever, unless, something drastic happens and an entire caste is excommunicated/ outcaste. There has been no debate at all about the Kayasthas of NOrth India. There has been some doubts about the status of the Kayasthas of Bihar to the Britishers, at one point of time, (but even the Britishers agreed that Kayasthas of UP and Benares are Kshetrias) and the courts have ruled about that in favour of Bihari Kayasths even before independence of India. It's been a longtime and nothing has changed. There is no reasonable reason to believe that it may change in the future. If it does, Wikipedia entry can always be changed. But, even if it does, it cannot be applied with effect from the past. The status of Kayasthas, or of any other varna, is fixed, not variable. Even excommunication is not valid with retrospective effect. The only doubt was in the minds of the Britishers and not the Indians. And the Indians, gave their final ruling.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

Also, the debate has never been whether or not Kayasthas were originally Kshatriyas or not. The debate was that the Bihari Kayasthas may have lost that status through not following certain rules (as claimed) just like in the case of Bengali Kayasthas.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

I would argue that his points support our current statements that "they have been labeled many ways" over time ... Ok, if you can argue that giving reliable sources, I would accept that. It still sounds like original research. An anti-semitic Jew can label Jews in negative ways, however that cannot influence the definition of who Jews are. There are a lot of misinformation, but no debate or dispute as such. (Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

it'd still be totally legit to say "were contested over the years, ... no one with any authority has ever contested that Kayasthas are not Kshatriyas. They have only claimed that Bengali Kayasthas have lost that status (the Kayasthas debate that). The Britishers at one time, decided that the Bihari Kayasthas have lost that status too. But, their verdict was turned down by the Indians, including the Indian courts long ago. No Indian has ever, ever challenged that decision in the last 60 or so years. I see no complication here (except for that which was created by the westerners, i.e. Britishers, who failed to understand the complexities of Indian caste system, and thought they know enough to intervene.).(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

No time for all of the details here, but your basic premise confuses me quite greatly, and contradicts what I've been told by numerous people who seem to know what they're talking about. As far as I have been told, caste status changes often, all the time, in fact. In fact, that is one of the big points that was made at Kurmi and Yadav, if I remember correctly--that we shouldn't put so much emphasis on varna because it's always in flux, nobody agrees, there is no set standard, and the exact position changes over time and space. This actually makes sense to me (that it changes), because it's not like varna status is some inherent, scientifically measurable thing, where we can say definitely "Yes, this person/group of people have Characteristics X, Y, and Z, and thus clearly fall into Group A." Instead, I thought that varna status is like race and ethnicity--determining which category a group falls into is a political/rhetorical problem, and one that people may disagree about. That is, if Group X says "We're kshatriya" and someone else says, "No, you're Shudra", it's not that one of them is actually "right" and the other is "wrong", but that they both have arguments and the arguments have to be evaluated and compared and discussed, and while people may agree with one position or another, we can't say that one is absolutely true, just like we can't absolutely say "He is Latino". Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a story where four blind men who were trying to find out what an elephant is and they grabbed different parts of the elephant and arrived at different conclusions. What you've been told is a half-truth at the most. Caste is a complicated matter because of the immense politics that has characterized it. Let me give you a brief on it.

Caste system was quite fluid in the beginning. However, as time passed it became concretized and became based on birth. Caste also became attached to one's lineage/ race/ ethnicity. Most upper castes were of Aryan descent, while the dravidians were given lower castes -- in general.

Somewhere along the line, Brahmins took all the control of deciding who is what caste, through their control over writing religious books, which were the formal authority over varna status.

Now, the original castes have all been recorded in the ancient scriptures, so we know what is what. The trouble started when fresh wave of invaders came from Central Asia (particularly the Huns, Greeks, etc.) and settled in India. They were absorbed in the Hindu religion and although, this process is not clear, a few got the Brahman status (like the Bhumihars), some got the Kshatriya status (like the Rajputs) and some got the Shudra status (like the Yadavs). The Brahmans also gave them their own mythologies, which gave religous sanctity to their membership of the Hindu religion. But, castes like Yadavs have debated their status of Shudra.

Kayasthas and Khatris were also two new castes that formed at the same time. And, although, Khatris may have some Greek connection (I'm saying that only on the basis of their Greek looks and fair complexion), Kayasthas were from the original group of Indo-Aryans.

There is also another imp incident. There is no original warrior Kshatriya caste in India, anymore. They are all said to have been killed by the Brahmin warrior Parashuram, as per the legend given by Brahmins. Legends have some basis in reality. What probably happened was that the Brahmins conspired to do away with the Kshatriya varna, in order to consolidate their powers and also probably because of growing conflict between Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Kshatriyas were not killed, but they were all either demoted into Vaishya or Shudra varna, (like many Brahmin clans who fell out of the Brahmins in power), or they were absorbed into the Kayasth or Khatri castes, the former was chiefly a caste of Brahmins, earlier. The Maharashtrian Kayasth (and probably the Bengali ones too) talk about a legend, where, when Parashuram killed all the Kshatriya men, some of the women who survived were pregnant. Parashuram gave them life on the promise that the women will ensure that their children will not indulge in warriorship and instead take on intellectual pursuits. And this is how the Kayastha caste was born.

Now, some of the castes have been debating about the status that have been given to them -- like, the Yadavs. Their claims usually is not baseless. Many Brahmins who had been demoted have also been debating the lower status granted to them.

It is also true that, the actual status of a caste, and its respect in the society is finally determined by a mixture of its formal status (as mentioned in the Puranas, etc.) and their claimed status. E.g. although, Yadavs have been granted the Shudra status, they are not really seen as Shudras, although, they're not seen as total Kshatriyas either, but, they rather have a dual status.

On a different note, Kayasthas have been given the Kshatriya status, but they have a Brahmin past too, whose essence they still retain, and so they also have a dual Brahmin-Kshatriya status, in practical terms.

However, this 'flexibility' does not mean that the caste system itself is not fixed. The formal varna status of a caste is always determined by what has been formally recorded in the ancient books. That can not be changed, except in rare cases, where it has been done by writing new religious books -- as was done in Bengal with Kayasthas and other non-Brahmin castes.

Therefore, eventhough, Yadavs are treated like having a dual Kshatriya/ Shudra status, their formal status will always be that of Shudras. Because that has been written in the religious books.

It is also true that when these new castes (of new invaders) were being formed, those who were in the good books of Brahmins, and those who were powerful, got better varnas than others. However, once that process was concretized, I am not aware of any instances, where a lower caste, which became powerful later, forced its way up on the varna status. Castes like Marathas have been clamouring for the Kshatriya status (they may too have some validity for that claim), however, even when socially, they may have a much better standing than earlier, earning them a dual status, formally, they will remain a Shudra.

The case of Kayasthas, however, is not the same. Kayasthas have the formal status of a Kshatriya. Kayasthas have the informal status of Brahmins, and they have often been called half-Brahmins. That is also why they're listed in the list of Brahmins, by the ogranization of Brahmins.

The Kayasthas of Bengal were demoted into the Shudra status formally and this was done centuries after the caste status was finally concretized (about some 700 years ago). Bengali Brahmins went to the extent of writng their own religious book (purana) to accomplish this purpose. Bengali Kayasthas have been debating that eversince. The informal status of Bengali Kayasthas is that of Kshatriya/ Brahmin. So, Bengali Kayasthas live in a three varna status. But formally, they are Shudras.

Anyone who has ever called Kayasthas in general Shudras has been wrongly referring to this politics. Some vested interests have been purposely trying to spread misinformation about Kayasthas using this incident, in order to force a dual status on them, where they are formally Kshatriyas but seen as Shudras. But it doesn't have any validity. There is no evidence whatsoever, that the (non-Bengali) Kayasthas have ever been treated like Shudras in the society. (apologies for making it a long reply).(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC))

@Matthew, in every single case, where there is a dispute/ debate about the varna status of a caste, the debate is between the authority and the people of that respective caste. The authority (Puranas) has given them a lower status, while the subjects believe they deserve higher.

In the case of non-Bengali Kayasthas, the authorities are unanimous that the Kayasthas have the Kshatriya varna. The Kayasthas themselves say they are Kshatriyas. So, where is the dispute? Who are disputing it? On what grounds?

If 100 odd westerners claim Ricky Martin is not Latino, will his status as Latino become debatable, unless, those 100 odd westerners can give some credible basis for claiming that. (not that the ethnicity 'Latino' and the caste status have anything in common.)(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC))

I thought that varna status is like race and ethnicity--determining which category a group falls into is a political/rhetorical problem, and one that people may disagree about ... I wonder why you say that? can it be debated that fair skinned Europeans are White caucasians? Or that Chinese are Mongloids? I wonder why you say someone's Latino status is debatable. I am not inferring here that the caste system is equal to race identity, though some element of race (or rather ethnicity) may be there.

The only people who have the right to disagree are the authority on the matter and the subjects of that caste. Others can only quote either the authority or the subjects and support one over other. But, they cannot invent a new identity for the subjects, without the sanction of the authorities.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC))

Gyanvigyan, you bring up some good issues, though I don't agree on all of them. On a minor sidenote, there is a lot of room for debate as to who is White/Caucasian. The Irish were historically not considered "white", but that's clearly changed, and there are plenty of fair-skinned people who've been in Europe for centuries who are unrelated to the Indo-European majority, such as the Basques, the Saami, etc. Further, even the word "Caucasian" is based on the discredited pseudo-history about a Caucuses origin, since discarded in favour of a Central Asian start for Indo-Europeans/"Aryans". But that's just the broad conceptual stuff.

In any case, my disputes with your "only the authority and the subject have a vote" claim include: doubt whether it's true that no "authority" ever questioned Kayastha status anywhere. How did the British even come to be hearing these cases in court, unless someone with enough power to matter had another opinion? And even a brief GoogleBooks search turns up other cases, not just in Bihar, but in other states. Further, the way you use "authority" implies some kind of central authority for Hindus, yet there is no "Hindu pope" or "Hindu caliph" who is able to make decisive proclamations for such a massive faith. Look at the case of Shivaji: a bunch of Brahmins said he wasn't Rajput/Kshatriya, they found one major Brahmin who was swayed to his side, and thus the coronation went on.

I also dispute your point that the Puranas, Rigveda, etc. clearly lay these things out decisively. For one thing, there are plenty of folks who change group names (see "Lodhi Rajput", etc), and as Yadav notes, the current "Yadavs" are Ahirs who made a concerted political decision to adopt the surname "Yadav" and put out arguments tying them to Yadu.

Yes, the British got involved in varna matters, but in many cases it appears they were more confused by clamoring debates than actively attempting to upgrade/downgrade anyway. Many good points have been brought up, but I, and possibly Q, are still not convinced that the Kayastha are cut-dry Brahmin-Kshatriyas. I'm also not totally convinced that the Bengal Kayasthas are so separate as to need a split article either. I'd be curious to hear from any uninolved parties so far to keep gathering opinions, but the important thing is that we're talking this through. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Gyanvigan, you're going to need to provide some extremely powerful sources to support your claim that varna status always equals what the ancient religious documents say. Second, you're going to need to provide sources that show that ancient religious sources can only be interpreted in one single, authoritative way. And, of course, show that there are no contradictions between those documents. Somehow I don't think you can prove this. I understand that you believe that the Puranas, etc., are the definitive "answer" to what caste a group is, but that view is not supported by numerous sources, otherwise we wouldn't be having these arguments across dozens of caste articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

How did the British even come to be hearing these cases in court, unless someone with enough power to matter had another opinion? Matthew, it seems you have missed that I addressed this important point already. Did you not read the observations of the British court carefully?

The British came to hear this case because they were dealing with the issue in Bengal (Calcutta High Court). And Bihar was merged into Bengal by the Britishers, and like all outsiders who get power over natives, they were dealing with the subject as they deemed fit -- that is the problem when Westerners get to decide for Indians.

It should be noted that no Indian had contested that Bihari Kayasthas are Kshatriyas, but the Britishers themselves (based on their confusion about differing status of Kayasthas in different areas of then united Bengal (including Bihar). The Indians were contesting a property dispute and they had claimed that Kayasthas were Kshatriyas and so could not adopt a sister's son. The Britishers debated that and sought the opinion of the lower court, which told them that "although, the Bengali Kayasthas have lost that status, the other Kayasthas are still Kshatriyas." The Britishers, it seems, may have wanted to play politics there, or maybe they just disdained Hindus and their caste system, because, they did not listen to the lower court, and sought their own witnesses. The key witnesses sought were the Brahmin groups from Benares (the ultimate authority for Hindu religion). The "Vyavastha" of Pundits vouched that the Kayasthas (without qualification) are indeed Kshatriyas. The Britishers ruled against Bihari Kayasthas, ignoring the witnesses, on a very flimsy basis (and I see a lot of that happening on Wikipedia as well) -- that the Vyavastha had spoken about Kayasthas in general, and not about Kayasthas of Bihar in particular, so they went ahead and ruled that Kayasthas of Bihar have lost their Kshatriya status too, like Kayasthas of Bengal, even if they maintained that the Kayasthas of other areas are still Kshatriyas. This is blatant imperialism. You know, its always like that. When it was only the Indians being targeted, Pakistani militants were "freedom fighters," who were given sanctuary in the west. But, the moment 9/11 happened, their status changed from freedom fighters to "terrorists," There is no explanation for the ways of the imperialist forces. But, here, we should stick to the purview and methodology of Wikipedia ... and the truth is that even the British courts outside Bengal, immediately reverted the decision. And so, Wikipedia has no right to claim that the varna status of Kayasthas is debatable, based on the imperialistic act of Britishers, which the Indians of all hue and cry resisted.

So, to answer your question in brief, the "only power that mattered that had another opinion" were the Britishers.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

And even a brief GoogleBooks search turns up other cases, not just in Bihar, but in other states. ... Please, quote those cases here, and if they hold water, we'll accept that the status of Kayasthas in the Hindu caste system is debatable. There are simply no other such cases.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

the way you use "authority" implies some kind of central authority for Hindus, yet there is no "Hindu pope" or "Hindu caliph" who is able to make decisive proclamations for such a massive faith. ... There is a common lack of understanding of India by the westerners about how we function. We may not be such a highly organised society (thank god for that!!). We don't have a highly organised religion or social structures or social spaces. Yet, you'd be quite mistaken to believe that there is simply chaos with us. There are definite methods to what seems like chaos to you, and its not that things are floating around without any rules. We have our own way of deciding things and our own authorities, and our own rules.

The anti-social elements do make use of the freedom, that being an unorganised society brings (esp. when these anti-social elements are given space by the west, in one way or the other). However, there is definitely a method, and to get to that, you have to learn to ignore all the floating stuff, that simply create confusion. But, in order to learn to find your way in this chaos, you will have to unlearn quite a few things that you're conditioned to think, about how society works. And this is something that "published papers from reliable sources" cannot teach you. That is why I'm making all the efforts to explain things.

How the Indian system works traditionally, can be understood, using the example of a simple village community. The respected members of the community were loosely elected by the villagers to decide upon disputes, and it has been functioning perfectly well, without the need of a legal system.

Villages to this day have been functioning like that, and these respectable members (they're called Panchayat) have more "real" power than the courts. This is true democracy without the need for a suffocating organised structure, where people become slaves to the standarized system, and often real justice is sacrificed for the sake of "organised structures," which often get abused by those in power to fultill their own biases. The panchayat members hold a lot of power over people, on particular matters, and the rules for the society are not written, yet they are held very dear by the community.

In a more or less similar manner, under the Hindu system, the respected group of Brahmins, esp. those who hold power over the traditional seats of holiness in India, of which Benares is the highest, are the authority on the subject, and they function as a group. When the Britishers wanted to seek an Indian authority on the matter, they summoned the Vyavastha in Benares, which comprised of 96 highly respected Brahmins. That the British discarded their evidences simply smacks of imperialism. This can be loosely compared with the Chinese not acknowledging that Dalai Lama is the religious head of Tibetans.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

"I also dispute your point that the Puranas, Rigveda, etc. clearly lay these things out decisively." You have evidences to dispute that?

The respectable Brahmins in power in the Aryavarta (midlands), particularly in Benares maybe the highest authority on the Indian varna system, but they cannot and will not go against the Puranas and Smritis, because caste status is supposed to be fixed.

There is no confusion about the original Indo-Aryans (of the midlands). The confusion (or the seeming confusion) arises after the inclusion of new groups of migrants to India into the Hindu caste system, which was after the Puranas were written and concretised (they can't be written anymore -- they are part of history). The confusion also arises in the non-Aryan lands, particularly with the non-Aryan people who were included in the Hindu caste system. In general, the higher castes are mostly the original Indo-Aryans and later Aryan tribes, while the lower castes are the original dravidians. However, whereas, there are no Dravidians in the upper castes (although, there have been mixtures), many Indo-Aryan communities are now in the lower castes, through their demotion.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

"there are plenty of folks who change group names (see "Lodhi Rajput", etc)" ... I did not see any group name change, and I don't know what is your point here. the only source we have about Lodhi Rajputs here, is a primary source, and since, it's in Sanskrit, its better not to talk about them. It seems to be another one of those later migrants who were given a mythology and a lower varna, which they dispute. But, as far as their status in the Indian varna system is concerned, if the Brahmin authorities have ruled they are Shudras, then that is what they are, formally; and informally, they would enjoy a dual caste status.

"... the current "Yadavs" are Ahirs who made a concerted political decision to adopt the surname "Yadav" and put out arguments tying them to Yadu." Yadavs are also recent additions to Hinduism (they're the later Scythian invaders), who dispute the status granted to them. Their formal status, remain that of Shudra, though, informally, they enjoy a dual status.

However, in the case of the Kayasthas, there is no conflict of this nature. The Puranas/ Smrities, the authority of Brahmins as well as the Kayasthas are in agreement about their Kshatriya status. Bengal is an exception, but even there, their original Kshatriya status is not debated.

So, just because, some people are busy spreading misinformation, which can easily be exposed by referring to the primary sources, unlike, e.g. that in the case of Lodhi Rajputs, it cannot be deduced that there is a debate about the caste status of the Kayasthas. That the unverified misinformation can be published in 'reliable sources' only points out the immense drawbacks of the western system of recording knowledge, and the pitfalls of relying on them with closed eyes.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

Look at the case of Shivaji: a bunch of Brahmins said he wasn't Rajput/Kshatriya, they found one major Brahmin who was swayed to his side, and thus the coronation went on ... Shivaji belonged to a non-Aryan race, in a non-Aryan land, whose varna status was not recorded in the ancient Hindu documents which were written in the Aryan lands (midlands) at a time, when Aryans had not migrated beyond midlands. When Brahmins and other Aryans migrated there, and introduced Hinduism, they refused to grant higher caste status to the non-Aryans. This led to disputes between the powerful communities in the non-Aryan lands who insisted on a better varna. In fact, it can be seen from the fact that even a powerful king like Shivaji could not really do much to bolster his caste status -- that it is not possible to move up on the caste ladder (except if you were once amongst the highest or if you belonged to an Indo-Aryan race), no matter how much progress you make, you can only move down. Although, one Brahman did go ahead with the coronation of Shivaji, in the religious books he will remain a Shudra, but in practise Maratthas will continue to have a dual caste status -- of Shudra/ Khsatriyas.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

doubt whether it's true that no "authority" ever questioned Kayastha status anywhere ... Well, you have any evidence that any authority on the matter has ever, ever questioned the status of the Kayasthas? Maybe you need time to convince yourself, but till such a time -- considering that this debate has been on for a long time, and there has yet been no contrary claims from anyone who is authorised to question -- it would be best to delete that statement from the Wikipedia article. As and when whatever evidences come, pointing in whatever direction, suitable changes can be made. We should not keep a doubtful statement, when clear-cut, authoritative evidences point otherwise.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

@ Qwyrxian, Are you sure, you need "extremely powerful sources that varna status always equals what the ancient religious doucments say?" I'm saying that because, the authority of these documents have never been challenged, and I wonder if such written published statements exist or are accessible. AND, in the case of this debate, there is no opposition from any party to the debate. The ancient documents are unanimous on this. The present authoritative sources (Brahmins in power) are unanimous on this. The Kayasthas themselves are unanimous on this. Where is the opposition? You may need such evidences on the pages for other castes, such as the Yadavs,Lodhis and Reddys. However, there is NO dispute (only some uncorroborated misinformation, by some mischievous elements) in the case of Kayasthas.

I think you should be asking yourself, and those who claim that the status of Kayasthas is debated -- "where is the extremely strong evidence that Kayasthas are not Kshatriyas or Brahmin/Kshatriyas?" Ok. Don't even ask for extremely strong -- ask for a strong evidence. How about just any evidence? Weak evidence?(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

Again, I'd ask you why do you need the evidences to "show that ancient religious sources can only be interpreted in one single, authoritative way." For one thing, when the document, specifically says, "Kayasthas are Kshatriyas," then there is no room left for much interpretation, in any case. Don't forget, when the courts took their decisions, they went through all sorts of evidences, and looked at all possible explanantions/ interpretations, if they were there.

But, most of all, in the case of our debate, is there any dispute regarding the interpretation of the ancient documents? If there are other interpretations, then we should certainly look into those.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

However, if you want those 'evidences,' in order to help you in other pages on caste system, I would be glad to do some work and see if this can be proved in the wikipedia way (remember, just because something can't be proved in the way wikipedia wants, it doesn't mean that something doesn't exist or is not real. It only means that Wikipedia is ill equipped to understand or record that truth. Its the cost of standardization and mass production of knowledge.) However, I'd prefer to have this discussion on those pages, where there is such a dispute.

Also, what is happening on other caste pages, shouldn't necessarily have an implication on the current topic (Kayasthas). Unlike the disputed ones, this is a clear-cut case, of a caste which is a community of original Indo-Aryans residing in the Aryan lands (midlands), about whom written records in the ancient religious documents exist, and any confusion regarding whose religious/ historical varna status has been settled in the courts in very, very clear-cut terms, the exact wordings of which are also accessible to us, fortunately.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

Okay, lots of interesting info here; this will take some time to mull over. Can I ask: what is your preferred wording on the varna issue? Are you wanting it to say "Kayastha are classified as Sat-Shudra, or possibly an intermediary varna, in Bengal, and Kshatriya elsewhere throughout India" ? I'm still not totally sure on that, though I grant we need to be careful that we're not extending Bengali Shudra classifications outside of Bengal's influence. Can you take a squint at this page[3]? It has some interesting points, including: "Confronted with the problem of finding a place for the kaysthas in the varna system, the brahmana lawgivers faced a dilemma and connected the kayasthas with both the sudra and the dvijas. Since the Dharmasastra texts on the origins of kayasthas are ambiguous and historical examples not confined to one varna, in recent times the Calcutta High Court called them sudras and the Allahabad High Court called them brahmanas." MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Cite that Northern Indian Kayasthas are a "fifth varna"[4].
• 1858 document signed by 626 pandits, saying the Kayastha are Kshatriya, followed by a couple court cases. Interestingly enough, one 1861 case starts out saying "Kayasthas are not Shudras". Again, my question, are they responding to Bengali claims, British claims, or which? Clearly, there was some question or people wouldn't even bother writing statements and findings about their being not-Sudra.[5]
• Bengali Kayastha as Sudra, mention that there is no such thing as Kshatriya in Bengal. Neat mention of "langol Kayastha" who plough rather than scribe; maybe worth mentioning this sub-set in the article.[6]
• Mention of varna complications of Kayasthas since these scribes were intially drawn from various varnas.[7]
• Only snippet view, but states "The anomalies reagarding the question of formation of the Kayastha caste and its position in the varna-framework, for example, are very obvious. But whether the Kayasthas were Brahmanas or Sudras is not really important to a student of ..."[8]
• Mentions East India, Bengal and Orissa, and notes Kayasthas being drawn from not just the Upper Castes, but also the Lower.[9]
• Only snippet: "At least part of the reason for the adoption of the "Kayastha" terminology was that Kali Prasad was the leading lawyer involved in the court cases concerning varna of the Kayastha castes that arose about this time."[10]
• Snippet again, unfortunately: "The contexts in which they are mentioned do not clearly indicate any varna identity. Now the question arises how the kayasthas/karanas in the Orissan society later on crystallized into a caste, rather a very powerful caste enjoying"[11]\
• Snippet: "The office of the Kayastha (accountant-scribe) is first noticed in a Mathura inscription1 of the Kusana age ; but it ... not restricted to any particular varna and could be followed by people of different varnas including the Brahmanas. ..."[12]
• Mentions of power Shudra Kayastha families in Bengal, note that it mentions how the occupation of "kayastha" over time became a community/caste, "necessitating diverse searches for their location in a hierarchy, and necessitating, on the part of the elite Kayasthas to seek avenues to high social status by issuing permanent records, tracing descent from a rsi or mythical being."[13]
• Snippet: "From the Caitanyacaritamrta we know that the Kayasthas and Vaidyas of the time did not object to being called Sudras. Candra- sekhara, a favourite disciple of Sri Caitanya, was a Vaidya by caste (Adilila, ch. XI), but a Sudra by varna"[14]
• Man, I forgot about this very intriguing book on varna: Kshatriyas and would-be Kshatriyas. It's notable in that it covers Kayasthas of Rajputana, of all places, and mentions that they tried doing the "fifth varna" angle, and when that failed set their sights on Kshatriya status. I'd run a search on the term "Kayastha" throughout this book, since its whole topic is Kshatriya claims.[15]

In any case, here are a few interesting points on the matter; looking at these, I still submit that the answer is closer to "it's complicated" than "Kayastha are definitely X". I submit that the most accurate way to cover Kayasthas as a body is to summarise this sort of information. At some point, ideally with consultation with WP:INDIA, we can puzzle out if splitting Bengalis off is advisable, or whether we just need to make clear in the article what aspects pertain to which groups, and which are universal amongst Kayasthas. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I think we're interleaving multiple points here...sorry if I'm making this more confusing than it needs to be. But my point to Gyanvigan is that your view seems to be a minority one. If it were widely accepted that the Puranas or other ancient texts are sufficient to answer exactly which group is in which varna, then there wouldn't be so many debates, in scholarly sources, in blogs, in the courts, and here on Wikipedia. I am asserting several things: first, that the caste system isn't even slightly fixed by the ancient texts. Second, that the ancient texts are not "obvious", in the sense that deciding what they mean is an act of interpretation about which reasonable people do and have disagreed. Third, that even if people generally agreed that "Ancient text X says that Ancient Group B is in Varna F," that wouldn't tell us anything about how to classify any given modern group, because we can't definitively state the relationship between any given modern group and the ancient groups in the texts. Fourth, not all of the ancient texts agree with each other. Fifth, the ancient texts in many cases don't correspond with modern archeological evidence.

Now, all of this is only what I have gotten from doing research for various caste articles on Wikipedia. Some of it may well be wrong. But I think the underlying principle is absolutely correct: no ancient religious/mythical/historical document can ever be considered to have "literal"/"obvious" truth that all modern readers will agree upon, and thus it doesn't make sense to say that the answer can always be found in those texts. Perhaps, also, I was misunderstanding Gyanvigan's argument. I think that, with regards to the specifics, that MV has done a good job of pointing out how various texts do disagree with reference to the Kayastha's status (both current and past). I don't believe that Wikipedia can ever declare a certain source or category of source "correct", with the rest merely commentary. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian

If it were widely accepted that the Puranas or other ancient texts are sufficient to answer exactly which group is in which varna, then there wouldn't be so many debates: The disputes are only about some of the communities which (a) migrated to India more recently, in later migrations from the west, (b) or about some communities from the non-Aryan lands, where Brahmins/ Aryans migrated after the caste system was concretized in the north, or (c) about a few communities (like Bengali Kayasthas) which dispute their degradation by the Brahmins.

About the rest, there is no valid dispute/ debate.

Now, wrong as it is, it cannot be denied that the Brahmins did have the power to grant varna status to people. The affected/ oppressed groups (like Bengali Kayasthas) who have been wronged, cannot deny that their formal status is that of a Shudra. However, in reality, their status is determined by an interplay of formal and informal positions, So, practically, the Bengali Kayastha (original Aryans) still enjoy a Brahmin/Kshatriya/Shudra triple status, and so do other disputed castes like the Yadavs (latter Aryans) and the Marahattas (Non-Aryans). Indians learn to live in this chaos, and the western system has not been able to record this chaos properly.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC))

About the ancient texts vis-a-vis the caste system, you're partly right here. The caste system has become so complicated, because of the lack of a single, elected body to decide these things, that it has indeed become complex and chaotic.

However, the authority of the ancient texts, which are interpreted by the Brahmins in power, reigns supreme in all disputes. I don't know why you're disputing that.

If you look into the chaos, there are three different set of 'authorities' operating here.(Note this is OR, and this is only meant as a friendly guide to help you clear some of the chaos, you may or may not agree with it, and this has little relevance on the current debate).

1. The formal authority:

The ancient texts are the utmost formal authority, followed by Brahmins in the holiest of holy places of India, particularly, Benares. It is not without reason that the courts have always used these texts -- as interpreted by the representatives of Brahmins -- as the ultimate authority to settle disputes regarding caste status.

2. The informal players:

The ulitmate caste status that a community enjoys in the society is determined by the interplay of formal and informal forces.

The following are the broad determinants of the informal forces that may water down the formal caste status:

(a). Self-perception of the community: The self-perception of the community plays an extremely important role in determining the practical status that a community enjoys in the society. It can give a community a dual status, if the self-perception clashes with the formal status granted, which is often based on the whims and fancies of the then powerful Brahmins.

Thus Yadav's self-perception as Kshatriyas, gives them a dual status of Kshatriya/ Shudra.

Similarly, the Bengali Kayasthas have the Brahmin/Kshatriya/Shudra triple status.

(b) The perception of a caste in the eyes of the other castes/ society as a whole (this includes the Brahmins): This is largely dependent on (1) and (2a) above, but also dependant on the social power and status enjoyed by a particular community.

3. Miscellaneous players/ Modern interpreters:

(a) Courts: Courts, do not have any authority on their own to grant a particular varna to a caste, or to take it away. They merely act as an interpreter, in the case of a dispute, but, their interpretation has distinct authority, which in modern India, is the ultimate authority. Thus, their ruling affects the 'formal' fate of a community, to a large extent.

(b) Modern scholars: Modern scholars do not have any authority to grant, take away or dispute a varna to any caste. They are merely reporters/ interpreters. Their personal opinion on the matter (although, freely incorporated in scholarly works) do not and should not matter at all, unless, it is reliably sourced to a primary source. Otherwise, it is just OR.

I may add that modern genetic science can throw some light on this, as caste system is deeply rooted in racial affinity, as traditionally, castes follow endogamy.

If you consider this in mind, the entire caste debate would become easy for you to understand.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC))

"I am asserting several things: first, that the caste system isn't even slightly fixed by the ancient texts..." That is a sweeping statement. Do you have sources that say that or is it OR? Do you have examples of this?

"Second, that the ancient texts are not "obvious", in the sense that deciding what they mean is an act of interpretation about which reasonable people do and have disagreed." Again, is that OR? Do you have examples where ancient texts are not "obvious." (again, this has no implication on present debate, where the ancient texts are obvious and clear-cut).

"Third, that even if people generally agreed that "Ancient text X says that Ancient Group B is in Varna F," that wouldn't tell us anything about how to classify any given modern group, because we can't definitively state the relationship between any given modern group and the ancient groups in the texts." That is another sweeping statement. Such problems in associating modern groups with people described in ancient texts may be problematic or disputed in some cases, but, certainly not in general. Certainly, not in this case.

This problem typically arises with a few castes that are latter Aryan/ Huns migrants (like Yadavs), who want to trace their origins to the older Yadu Kshatriyas. Then again, their claim is not totally baseless, as when the Brahmins obliterated the original Kshatriya varna, the Yaduvanshis quite likely married into the Huns, resulting in the Yadav caste. In any case, such problems in ascertaining the varna status are only exceptional, not the rule.

"Fourth, not all of the ancient texts agree with each other." In a few cases, there are discrepancies. However, it is clearly status, what to do in the case of such a discrepancies. E.g., In the case of a discrepancy between Smriti and Sruti, the latter is the final authority.

"Fifth, the ancient texts in many cases don't correspond with modern archeological evidence." I don't know what that means. What kind of archeological evidence? As an hypothesis, this discrepancy may mean several things, including caste politics, at a particular point of time, in a particular region involving particular caste/ castes. However, in any such discrepancy, the ancient texts of Srutis, Smritis and the Puranss in that order of authority will rule.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

@Matthew, you have brought in some new sources, and before I can fully comment on them, I'd need to look at them closely. I did look at them briefly, and here is what I have to say:

- We know that a lot of unfounded and differing statements are being circulated by some sources, loosely, some of them malafide, others, just in plain ignorance (e.g. the blatantly wrong information contained in the book by Dr Ambedkar's book, that I pointed out earlier regarding the specifics of the Calcutta High Court case. Like I said, earlier, there is definitely a chaos, but for an outsider, the clue to getting at the real picture would be to work their way around the chaos, not get misled by them. Therefore, if there are differing statements, we must look at, whether its been backed by verifiable primary sources.

The chaos has been fuelled for the most part by the Britishers giving space for the anti-Kayasth faction of Brahmins, which previously had no say in the North, but had its way in Bengal, who found a fresh opportunity to descredit the Kayasthas.

- A lot of the information which claim some kind of connection between the Shudras and Kayasthas, have, when not basing themselves on the Bengali Kayasthas, been loosely quoting one another. I need to verify the original source of those claims, and I need sometime for that. I wonder how you could get access to some of the books you have quoted. Are they available online to read?

- Interestingly enough, one 1861 case starts out saying "Kayasthas are not Shudras". OK, so you have some more cases debating the issue (or is it the same one?) I cannot find this case on the net. But, I can vouch that it is similar in nature to the one we already discussed. And the fact that a signature of prominent Brahmins was taken is another pointer that Brahmins priests who reside in the holiest of all holy places, are the ultimate authority, who base their verdict on the religious texts (I mean, its not a free for all like Qwyrxian, suggests, no matter, how much the chaos you see == the chaos exists because the western forces indulged them. Anything you give space, however rare that trait is, will get overblown). The debate has no doubt been created by the Britishers merging Bengal with Bihar, with the authority lying with the Bengal courts. Thus Britishers and Bengali connection both have caused this confusion.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC))

About the mention of Langol Kayasthas, this actually proves nothing. Here's why:

- Several Brahmin communities have taken to the plough, even in ancient India. Some of them were excommunicated. Others are still considered Brahmins, though, lower Brahmins, e.g. Bhumihars, Tyagis and Mohyal Brahmins. So, there is nothing odd if a couple of poor Kayasth families, in modern India take to the fields, esp. since Bengali Kayasthas have already been adjudged as "Shudras." Note, that intermarriages between Brahmins and Shudras, as well as Kayasthas and Shudras sometimes occur, despite, strict injunctions, leading to ostracisation and excommunication of the Brahmin/ Kayastha families (into Shudradom). One such case is reported in the book by Dr. Ambedkar, where the court judged that a marriage between a Kayasthas and Dom (a lower caste) was valid, (i.e. it would not amount to the excommunication of the involved Kayastha man), since, both were held to be subcastes of Shudras. So, in such cases, the Kayastha man may still retain his Kayastha status, however, he will be practically excommunicated from the Kayastha community, and would become a lower Kayastha, who can become a farmer, but carrying a "langol Kayastha" status. This should have no bearing on the status of even Bengali Kayasths, because, Langol Kayasthas now become a distinct entity.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC))

The little blue boxes with the numbers like them, like this "Google.com[16]" are clickable External Links, and those will take you to the books mentioned. The ones where I mention "snippet" are ones where it will only let you see a small sample of the page, but the others show large portions of the book.

Not to sidetrack us; I didn't mention Langol as Shudra evidence, just as an interesting sub-community maybe worth mentioning in the article.

So far as your "there is no debate, just Britisher and Brahmin machinations" argument, I'm honestly not convinced, and you would need some massively strong citation to support that. Note, not "evidence", but "citation". Though I don't think you're 100% correct, some of what you say may be the case, however Wikipedia is not a place for WP:Original research, so unless, for example, Dr. John Patil at University of Calcutta has some groundbreaking book which argues "Varna wasn't a problem until the British were mislead by completely dishonest Brahmins", then all we can do is speculate, and the article is not a place to list speculation. Right now we have a lot of conflicting points, but they do break down into several general arguments that we can summarise in the article.

Again, just out of curiosity, what is it that you personally think should be said in the varna section? MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The blue boxes do not lead to the original source. I would be interested in reading the books about the origins of Kayasthas, which are just 'snippets.' How come you quoted from them?(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC))

I have not exactly claimed the British-Brahmin machination for the valid debates (court cases) about the status of Indian Kayasthas -- what I have claimed is a confusion created by the merger of Bengal and Bihar by the British.

However, the "Brahmin machination" is a reality. I have given citations about these machinations against Kayasthas earlier (History of Kashmiri Pundits, by Jia Lal Kalam; "Ethnographical notes on Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu"). I can cite other references to the political/ social rivalry between one faction of Brahmin and Kayasthas. One of them is as follows (more can be provided if needed): (The degradation of the Shudras, Quote: "The denial of Upanayana by the Brahmins need not be on legal or religious ground. It is possible for the denial to be based on purely political grounds. The refusal by the Brahmins of Upanayana to Kayasthas was entirely due to political rivalry between the two.")(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC))

If there ever was a valid debate, the most authoritative place to get it settled, in post-colonial India, would be the courts (just like in the past, it were the Brahmin authorities in Benares). I have not seen any scholar debate the court's views on Kayasthas. I have not seen any scholar debate the verdict of numerous Brahmin authorities. It is one thing, if an established scholar goes on giving his unsourced opinions as facts about the Kayasthas (many of which can be proved to be misplaced at the first glance). But it is quite another matter, to challenge the view of the courts with valid scholarly evidences. Can you site any such source? Certainly, if the scholars have failed to challenge the court verdict, Wikipedia cannot be the forum to settle this debate (if a valid one does exist). I mean, if the courts had ruled that "women are not entitled to property as per the Hindu Law," the scholars would have published innumerable literature and evidences, to counter the view. And there would have been several appeals in the courts, to challenge the ruling.

After the court decision, the onus to prove that the status of Kayasthas is still debatable rests on the scholars who hold the other view. If Wikipedia wants to override the thorough and cited court decisions, and present a different version, then the onus to prove that a valid debate does exist (and is not just mispropaganda/ misinformation) rests on the editors claiming otherwise.

Also, if you say, you are not convinced by my arguments about why the confusion existed in the court cases, you may want to explain on what grounds you reject them, esp. in the light that the court rulings, as per verifiable sources, have setlled the debate, and you're the one claiming that a valid debate still exists. And, also can you prove (whether through "verifiable sources" or otherwise, that it was the 'debate' about the varna status of North Indian Kayasthas, as you claim, that resulted in the court cases.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC))

I would say, given:

- that, the courts (post colonial authority in India on the caste status) ruled in favour of Kayasthas being Kshatriyas,

- that, the supreme Brahmin authorities (authority on caste status as per Indian tradition) have ruled in favour of Kayasthas being Kshatriyas, repeatedly,

= that, the religious texts support the view that Kayasthas are Kshatriyas,

- that, there is evidence that there is political/ social rivalry between one faction of Brahmins and the Kayasthas, prompting the other to spread rumours about Kayasthas, (so, the motives for mispropaganda exist)

- that, this unsubstantiated 'hate mongering' has been given space by the scholars by citing them as 'sources,' or simply being misled by them.

- That, Kayasthas enjoy a high caste/ Kshatriya status, widely in all parts of India, except in Bengal (even there, it is informally there)

therefore, the onus to prove that the unsubstantiated claims, about the Shudra status of North Indian Kayasthas -- whether from published sources or otherwise, are indeed based on actual, verifiable evidences, rests on you.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC))

if the courts had ruled that "women are not entitled to property as per the Hindu Law," the scholars would have published innumerable literature and evidences, to counter the view. --- further explanation of my own comment: ... I mean, I have not seen a single source, citing the court case specifically and debating that. All these secondary sources provided, go on their business as if the court case never existed. (Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC))

@Qwyrxian, I've answered your post just below it. Here, I'm just answering two of your points that are also relevant to what Mathew has said.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

"...various texts do disagree with reference to the Kayastha's status (both current and past)." I've already elaborated, how, the texts that 'disagree' are simply not verifiable as to their primary source, and so maybe taken as OR.

"I don't believe that Wikipedia can ever declare a certain source or category of source "correct", with the rest merely commentary." The sources must be saying only research based things. The other things which they say is worthless for wp purposes. Please see Wikipedia:No original research#Reliable sources:

...In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

On several points. First, you're wrong that "Puranas are the utmost formal authority." Rather, maybe you're right, for your philosophy/religion/worldview (not sure exactly which is appropriate), but, for Wikipedia, the Puranas essentially aren't even a source at all. They are a WP:PRIMARY source, and thus we may only use them to state exactly what they say, with no interpretation. On your later points, about sources, you're fundamentally misunderstanding WP:RS and WP:OR. All of the time, Wikipedia editors must decide whether a given source is reliable for a given piece of information. We have a whole noticeboard, WP:RSN, devoted to helping with that. Some things are obviously good sources for most things in them (the gold standard are usually academic articles in academic journals by respected experts, though for non-academic topics, there are others). Some are obviously always non-reliable (blogs by non-experts, original religious documents, people's personal opinions, etc.). Many sources are in the middle; as editors, part of our job is to make that decision. Otherwise, how would we ever know which sources to use, and which not to use? You are right that article statements shouldn't rely on unclear things. The sources in this article are pretty clear that there are several different theories about what varna the Kayastha are in. If you wish, dispute the specific, individual sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking to use primary sources. We know that there is definitely chaos, even in the otherwise reliable looking secondary sources. Since all the possible authorities on the matter in real life are saying "Kayasthas are upper castes" and some of the authors are saying "they are not," before we accept that there is a debate, we must ascertain that the claims of those that are disputing are based firmly in primary sources, befoee we accept them as valid. All such sources that we have examined closely have failed on that count.

I can definitely argue with you, with evidences, that the ancient texts are the basic authority on the caste varna (or any other religious matter of the Hindus). But, I'll take a shorter route, and ask you, What, according to you, is (are) the basic authority (or authorities) on the caste system? Certainly, it can't be a free for all, or everyone would ask to be a Brahmin. Let's explore the secondary sources about all such authorities, and decide if the caste status of Kayasthas is settled or disputed. Also, plz site an evidence that the ancient texts are not the authority on this issue. Or is it just your opinion?

Unfortunately, you don't really read my posts and have already formed your opinion on the matter. I have already been showing how the specific secondary sources provided by Mathew are invalid. I've not examined all his sources yet, but at least, go through the sources I have already examined.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

In my experience, some guys have a habit of saying irrelevant things, and of making comments without reading the talk page.MW ^ℳ 00:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree MangoWong, and this really hampers the process of editing.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC))

Invalid references in the article

The following references/ citations provided in the article are invalid, because they contain glaring factual mistakes: - S. N. Sadasivan (October 2000). A social history of India. APH Publishing. pp. 258–. ISBN 9788176481700. Retrieved 18 April 2011. (This book misreports the court decision of the privy council, and seeks to paint all Kayasthas with the devaluation of Bengali Kayasthas, and also makes several unsupported claims about "Kayasthas trying to claim Kshatriya status (as if they did not have it earlier)." (Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC))

This complaint may have merit, but it concerns me a bit. We can evaluate sources to determine if they are reliable, but not as far as the last part about prior Kshatriya status (since that is the very point in contention). Otherwise, anyone could always argue that a source is unreliable simply because s/he supports a different opinion. That is, I can't say "Source X is unreliable because it's wrong, because it's different from what Source Y says, and I support source Y." However, if they actually get a court decision wrong, which tends to be pretty unambiguous, then I'd be inclined to argue that the source is probably unreliable in general. Could you clarify how you know that they got the decision wrong? Is it very clear, like the council said "true" and the book says "false"? Or is it a more subtle matter of interpreting the privy council's decision? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone happen to know who or what is Sadasivan?MW ^ℳ 13:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian, you have failed to provide any valid source that contends the established social, religious and legal status of Kayasthas as "Kshatriyas". The court rulings have repeatedly made it clear that Kayasthas are originally Kshatriyas -- even in the case of Bengali Kayasthas. We have discussed all of this in the previous posts, with valid citations (like the text of the court ruling), which you don't have the time to read. Unfortunately, it doesn't prevent you from "contending" it everytime it is brought up.

In short, no one is "contending" it, but you. And you're contending it without caring to get involved in a discussion and without providing valid sources.

Why don't you read the court ruling (link provided in the discussion above), that clearly shows that the privy council had ruled that the Kayasthas are originally Kshatriyas but Bengali Kayasthas have lost that status.

Also, in the case of this reference beting debated, even the author (S.N. Sadasivan) recognizes that Bengali Kayasthas were originally a part of the Brahmins, (of which ethnologic primary evidences are available). But, this doesn't prevent him from making a contradictory claim that "Bengali Kayasthas have repeatedly sought to establish themselves at a higher echelon as Kshatriyas," which can (and is) easily be misinterpreted, considering, there is so much misinformation on the subject. I mean, if they were originally a part of the Brahmins, then, they are only seeking their original glory, and not "people who were originally low caste, who became powerful later, and sought a higher status). What he also ignored is the fact that socially, Bengali Kayasthas remain the 'high caste' which has been enumerated in several valid sources -- so again, Bengali Kayasthas are only seeking formally, what they already are socially, and what they were originally formally.

Also, the author gives no basis for his claim that North Indian Kayasthas ever had the status of "Sudra"(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC))

Gyanvigan, did you miss the point I have made, months ago I think , that says that court decision aren't reliable sources? They are never any more than primary sources. I don't understand why I would want to read something that simply won't help me improve the article.

Regarding the Sadasivan, your logic here definitely does make sense to me--if the source contradicts itself, that's a good indication that the source isn't very reliable. Given just what you've said, I'd be inclined to take it and the supported info out unless other sources can be found to replace it. Anyone else want to chime in?Qwyrxian (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, what I do remember is that you contended the validity of court decisions, and then left the discussion without answering my counter claims. If you don't finish a debate to its logical conclusion and yet, come back posts later, making the same argument, we will never reach anywhere, and this is a waste of my time as well as yours, and totally unacceptable. If you don't answer a counter-claim, it would be taken to mean that you accept it as valid.

And I do hope that you understand the difference between rejecting the court decision as being unreliable due to their being primary sources, and rejecting the authority of the court per se. You have no right to reject the authority of the courts, unless, you can show us secondary sources that clearly state so. This is especially the case when the court decisions and the ancient texts are the only authorities that have been resorted to by the Hindus themselves, in settling their caste disputes. If you chose not to answer this, I'd assume that you agree to my contention.

Also, you have not bothered to provide any other reliable secondary source that disputes the status of mainstream Kayasthas as Kshatriyas.

I also find it totally unacceptable that an editor that so aggressively takes one side to an argument, based on some unverified secondary sources, does not bother to read what it considers a primary source, where available in English, that is so crucial (in this case, where lies in secondary sources abound) to be able to decide which secondary sources are reliable and which are not.

Since you are so opinionated about the caste issue, one would certainly expect you to keep upadated about various aspects of it, even if it requires reading a primary source provided, even if you want to reject it as a citation.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC))

Why do you think I have an opinion about this article, or any other caste article? I care about exactly one thing as regards Indian castes: that Wikipedia articles about them (those that I choose to edit) follow Wikipedia's rules. I honestly don't care in any way shape or form if any Indian person or group of people are shudra, kshatriya, or dalit. I haven't read the court decision, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with my tiny little interest in caste issues, because it cannot help me provide what minor work I do on Indian caste articles (which is mainly removing unsourced/poorly sourced info, or stopping the removal of sourced info). And I absolutely cannot do what you ask: read the primary source in order to determine which secondary sources are reliable. That is textbook original research, and, as such, is strictly forbidden. Any time we ever take the raw data (the court's decision, in this case), and interpret what that data means, how important it is, and how "true" it is, that is original research. That's a really critical thing for an academic to do--for someone who wants to write new research and make arguments in academic journals about what is or is not true, accurate, or good. If that's the means by which you are evaluating secondary sources, then you need to stop, because that's not allowed on Wikipedia. So, if you felt I didn't reply to you sufficiently before, I hope that this suffices: any reading of the primary document other than to find out literally what it says is absolutely forbidden. So, I could read the document, and then realize it said "Court such-and-such made such-and-such a ruling"; I haven't, because I trust that you have represented it accurately in that regard. But I cannot then say "And this court has final say, it's decisions are best, and thus we must only look for secondary sources that agree with it". This is not me rejecting the authority of the court, it's me rejecting my ability to make such decisions, because WP says I'm not allowed to (here--I'm free to do whatever I want off site, of course). Don't feel bad--you're making the standard mistake that lots of very smart real world academics and experts make when approaching Wikipedia--that is, thinking that our job here is to figure out what is really true based on the data/models/theories, when, in fact, our job is far far simpler: figure out what the reliable secondary sources say. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

OR is prohibited in article space only. But talk page is different. One can make OR arguments on the talk page. Please also see [17] in this regard. And is Sadasivan an expert in the relevant field anyway? If he isn't, why should we not see his writing as having the same value as non expert opinions of WP eds? If he is an amateur in the relevant field, what he says has no more value than what WP eds say on talk pages.MW ^ℳ 02:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I'm not saying that you're biased against any particular caste. What I am saying is that you have a strong opinion about what constitutes the authority on the Indian caste system. Your contending the authority of the courts regarding the caste status, itself amounts to OR.

Like Mango Wango says, its allowed to use primary source on the talk page, and being honest to a topic demands that we use it when it is absolutely required. I hope you realise that the Wikipedia rules are meant to ensure that only right information reaches the readers, and not to be used in a manner that they inadvertently facilitate wrong information -- which is happening in this case. Rules are to be followed in letter and spirit, which is not happening here. If Wikipedia is indeed (as you claim) helpless to discard wrong information in secondary sources, even when it can be clearly verified from available primary sourcee -- then I would strongly vouch for discarding the topic itself, as Wikipedia is then incapable of providing right information.

Also, there is nothing to really interpret in the court rulings when they clearly state that "Caste 'A' is Kshatriyas" or "caste "D" is Shudra." It is written there clear-cut. The only interpretation here is to decide whether or not courts are the authority. Besides, there are enough secondary sources that point to the court case ruling in this case. You have taken a clear-cut stand to reject the authority of the courts, and that is a strong opinion.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC))

Primary sources can be used in the article space too. I don't think we can paraphrase court rulings. I don't see a problem in quoting modern court rulings. And if some source is factually wrong (demonstrably and beyond reasonable doubt) we can discard it through consensus. But is Sadasivan an authority in the first place? Who is he? If we cannot come to an agreement here, it would mean taking recourse to some form of WP:DR is necessary. One could try WP:RSN or WP:NORN or WP:DRN or some other forum as required. Please familiarize yourself with the forums/processes before invoking them.MW ^ℳ 10:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. However, my username happens to be "MangoWong", one can use "MW" in short.

@MW ... oops !!! - (Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC))

Would it be possible to avoid the court issue, as I just know that the road will be long and painful? If we can get around the issue in other ways, then we can all save ourselves time and effort. I ask because I'm already inclined to reject Sadasivan if, as you say, he contradicts himself or seems to offer contradictory opinions. For me, that's enough of a justification for rejecting a source on reliability grounds. In other words, I'm asking if we can come to a consensus to reject Sadasivan, even if we have slightly different rationale for doing so? If it's critical, we can have the discussion (like if the concern is relevant to other discussions)...but I know there's a billion things to do and no need to do this particular if we already agree anyway on the important issue :)Qwyrxian (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I can avoid the court case, if this bothers you so much, as long as there are other means to bring forth the point that the status of Kayasthas outside Bengal is not disputed -- at least, not by any authority on the caste system. If this is agreed upon, we don't need to touch the court decision. Only, when someone 'disputes' it, without adequate secondary sources that are solidly based upon primary sources, that I have to revert to the court ruling.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC))

So, I'm a bit lost, fuzzy headed today, and confused about all the different articles I looked at...am I correct in understanding that the only thing we want to do, right now, is remove the sentence "Some Kayasthas have claimed Brahmin status, though this has been challenged by other Brahmin groups", along with the accompanying reference, which is Sadasivan? If that's the change wanted, you have no objections from me. If there was something else, please do a not so smart person a favor and explain again specifically what you want changed. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You're intelligent alright ;-). Coming back to the discussion, I don't want to come down to any specifics, right now. What I do want is an agreement in principle that (i) the 'formal' caste status of Kayasthas (as Kshatriyas) is not disputed outside of Bengal. Once, we have an agreement upon that, we can then get down to correct the discrepancies in the article, (ii) there are several secondary sources in the literary world that 'dispute' the accepted status of Kayasthas without providing a valid primary source and many also blatantly misrepresent primary sources (like the court case), and that before we include any such reference or citation, we must ensure it is not OR by the author, however, reputed.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)) As for the statement, "Some Kayasthas have claimed a Brahmin status rejected by other Brahmin groups," a more balanced statement should read, "Some Kayasthas have claimed Brahmin status that has been affirmed by some Brahmin groups and disputed by others."(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 07:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC))

You will never get an agreement on such principle from me. Anyone who agreed to that would be, frankly, irrelevant, because they would be violating Wikipedia's most important policies. Why can't you understand that? Wikipedia will never ever ever ever ever say, "Authority X said Y, and authority X is always correct in this matter, therefore Y is true." That just flies 100% in the face of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. We only say "Y" when we can confidently say that the mainstream, regular opinion held by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources says "Y". In every other situation we must must must present all relevant opinions. And Wikipedia has never had any requirement that our sources can't use OR. How, could we ever include a literary interpretation? Or a critical response to a film? Or even quote what one person said about another one? Or include a novel scientific experiment? You cannot take the perspective that says "We know X to be true, therefore we reject all claims that do not match X." You are stuck on this notion that the court's ruling wins. What if I tell you right now that I have sound evidence that the court was bribed? Or that the court never had the proper authority? Or that the court was right but subsequent findings have shown it to be wrong? All of these are valid arguments; most of them are probably wrong, so I wouldn't include them in a WP article...but if I found 5 reliable, academic sources that all found a different result than the court found, since this is a matter of academic dispute not a matter of "fact", then I would be compelled, by Wikipedia's core policies, to at least mention what the 5 reliable sources found. No court has final authority over academic matters. I don't know if you are simply failing to understand Wikipedia's rules on OR, or if you do understand them but are so stuck in your own convictions that you're ignoring them because you feel WP must match your opinion about the final authority of this court. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think GyanVigyan1's definition of "OR" is different from what we, on WP, take to be OR. GyanVigyan1 is probably saying that we should not allow sources that are factually wrong or saying baseless things.MW ^ℳ 08:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

If my reading of Gyanvigyan1's definition of "OR" be correct, then what Gyanvigyan1 is saying would be in keeping with policy IMO. See WP:NOR#Reliable sources. ...A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source.MW ^ℳ 14:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly what I mean, thank you.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC))

Okay, so Gyanvigyan1 didn't mean OR in a WP sense, that's fine. But that doesn't change the fact that we cannot pick a single authority and say "only sources which agree with this authority are acceptable". This is not a case of saying "Person X is a murderer," when the court has a clear, unambiguous right to make such interpretation per national laws. This is the case of determining the social status of a given group. As we all know, the social status of groups in India and related areas is highly fluid (that's, in fact, been one of the big arguments against mentioning varna at all), and is based on a complex interaction between the group itself, its neighbors/related groups, the government, etc.; determinations are argued about ad nauseum in publications, websites, etc. I wholeheartedly agree that we should reject sources which don't meet WP:RS. And I agree that to do that, we have to look inside the sources in detail. I do not agree that we determine the reliability of source by measuring whether or not it is "true". All of our policies (WP:RS itself, WP:V, WP:OR) tell us that we cannot due that. We look at who the publisher is, who the author is, how widely the text is used by other people, the age of the document, where the information came from, etc. So yes, I also agree that if it is clear that a person simply said "X is caste Y, because, I mean, look at them!"--that would be an unreliable source. If a source makes arguments (and it doesn't matter if those arguments are based on anthropoological research, on linguistic research, on political analysis, etc.) that are sound (in the sense of not being gibberish/contradictory), then they can be valid sources, all things considered. And even if those sources contradict the authority you happen to like, that does not automatically mean we rule them out. Of course, we consider WP:DUE as always--that why our article on global warming says that the current warming trend is caused by humans, because, well, every national science organization as well as major international organizations all say it is caused by humans, even though a tiny number of scientists and many unthinking politicians disagree. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, for the hundreth times, I have never said "only sources which agree with this authority (courts) are acceptable." You never really want to look at my arguments, do you? All I have said is, "get me a valid source that contradicts the court decision," and I'll accept that there is a dispute about the caste status of Kayasthas. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Why do you go on and on fabricating your own imaginary arguments on my behalf and then spill out huge texts counteracting them to prove a point no one is making, and leaving my real points unanswered? This is frustrating.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC))

Qwyrxian, if you choose to ignore this for the hundreth time -- and I want everyone witnessing this debate to take note of this -- I will take this as the end of this discussion (that the status of Kayasthas is disputed), as far as you are concerned. Please don't come back again bringing the same point again, if you can't answer my question. This is the minimum decency required in a sincere debate.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC))

I count 6 sources currently in the article that label them as something other than kshatriya, though one of those is the Sadasivan that I agree should be removed. Are they all reliable? I don't know; I trust that they are, from what I can see online, but I can't actually check sources in detail beyond what is available online, as I have no access to an English language library. Do you have some reason to specifically doubt all 5 of the remaining sources? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have never been happy with Kalpaz Publications & have never cited them myself. They use a hotmail address and although they operate from different premises etc they do seem sometimes to be rather like Gyan in format etc. GBooks often seems to record them as Gyan on the summary page, even though the book's intro pages clearly say Kalpaz - no idea if that is Google's error or a reflection of the true state of affairs. I'll try to do a bit more digging on this one: if some instance of plagiarism/copyvio/mirror turns up then it would be best to bin that source. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, rather than sitting cosy in your room and just creating unnecessary hurdles in the process of editing by passing judgments based upon what you 'trust' and throwing your own invalid interpretations of Wikipedia rules, I would expect you to do some research by going through the links provided, rather than shrugging them off as 'primary sources.' Doing some work here would also make you treat this debate or article more responsibly than you've been doing. How about going through those 5 sources and then seeing if they hold water. Remember, you are the one 'disputing' the varna status of Kayasthas on this thread, and so it is your job to bring forth the sources, after examining them thoroughly, esp. when we have all the court rulings with us.

Remember one thing -- all of the six sources provided make the same fallacy, inadvertently or deliberately -- that of extrapolating the Bengali Brahmin anti-Kayastha conspiracy 700 years ago (of degrading Bengali Kayasthas) on to the entire Kayastha caste, elsewhere in the nation -- which is invalid. Although, this would be none of your business, but I may add that this is what the anti-Kayastha lobby in real life seeks to do to malign the Kayasthas.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC))

@Qwryxian, When you say none of these sources are available online for you to judge them, it only goes to show your insincerity. A small google search brought the first one listed as following: WHO WERE THE SHUDRAS? How they came to be the Fourth Varna in theIndo-Aryan Society, By B. R. Ambedkar This source also glarinly misreports one of the court cases as follows (page 149):

"The second case on the subject is to be found in I.L.R.10 Cal. 688. [f10]The question raised in the case was whether the Kayasthas of Bihar were Kshatriyas or Shudras. The High Court decided that they were Shudras. The partisans of the Kayasthas took the position that the Kayasthas of Bihar were different from the Kayasthas of Bengal, the Upper Provinces and Benares and that while those in the Upper Provinces and Benares were Shudras, the Kayasthas of Bihar were Kshatriyas. The court refused to make this distinction and held that the Kayasthas of Bihar were also Shudras."

Now, I have already linked the exact details of the judgment in question (I.L.R.10 Cal. 688.: Raj Coomar Lall And Ors. vs Bissessur Dyal And Ors. on 4 March, 1884), and it clearly shows that the claims made by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar in this passage is totally wrong. First, the Bihari Kayasthas did NOT claim they were different from the Kayasthas of Upper Province and Benares. In fact, they claimed they were different from Bengali Kayasthas but the same as the Kayasthas from Upper Provinces and Benares (refer to the judgment). Second, the Kayasthas from Upper Provinces never had the "Shudra" status, as claimed by this passage. In fact, the court summoned evidences from Benares (a Vyavastha of 96 Benares Pandits) who verified that the Kayasthas (of all places are indeed Kshatriyas). Third, the court did NOT rule that the Bihari Kayasthas are "Shudras" as claimed by Dr. Ambedkar in this passage. In fact, despite every evidence in support of the Kshatriya status of Bihari Kayasthas (as elaborated in the judgement), the courts decided not to pass a decision on the subject and left the question open. Thus, the very citation provided for "varna of Kayasthas is a debated" is invalid, therefore, why should the entire sentenced not be deleted?(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC))

I have no idea which '6' sources you're referring to, but here are the other sources in the article that I could find that mention the status of Kayasthas as anything but an upper caste, and they all refer to "Bengali Kayasthas" -- a special category, where the caste status is disputed*

Ronald B. Inden (1976). Marriage and Rank in Bengali Culture: A History of Caste and Clan in Middle Period Bengal. University of California Press. p. 58. ISBN 9780520025691. http://books.google.com/books?id=P8b9A7J_v-UC&pg=PA133. Retrieved 18 April 2011.

G. K. Ghosh; Shukla Ghosh (1 January 1997). Dalit women. APH Publishing. pp. 6–. ISBN 9788170248286. http://books.google.com/books?id=jF_7r483D7oC&pg=PA6. Retrieved 18 April 2011.(Also, what is the credibility of G.K. Ghosh, with a terrible English and a lot of blatant misrepresentation of facts.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC))

M. L. Mathur (1 January 2005). Caste and Educational Development. Kalpaz Publications. pp. 71–. ISBN 9788178351230. http://books.google.com/books?id=O9PrGM5Sh2kC&pg=PA71. Retrieved 18 April 2011. M.L. Mathur (who is he?) also goes wild with his reporting of the court case and other far-fetched statements he makes about Kayasthas, e.g. blatantly misrepresenting the Allahabad High Court ruling (a part of which we have read in the book by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar) ... Here's the misreporting from M.L.Mathur's book: "the ruling of the Calcutta High Court in early seventy's was on British courts' thought, but was rejected by Allahabad High Court on the pretext that this caste enjoyed high literacy status and social position in the society. In view of this position, this caste was not declared shudras as reported earlier."

Therefore, instead of saying the caste status of Kayasthas is debated, the article should say, the caste status of Bengali Kayasthas is debated.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC))

The court judgment (which I have now scanned, focusing specifically on the parts related to caste) does not include every single argument made. In fact, they quite clearly summarize that a lot of different arguments were made wrt to the question of the caste of the litigants and, by extension, the Kayastha's in general. The fact that a detail which Ambedkar states is not covered in the judgment does not allow us to determine either way whether or not that issue was discussed in the court case. Thus, we have no grounds on which to reject the Ambedkar piece as a reliable source. In any event, I am very uncomfortable by this line of discussion anyway, because looking into such tiny details brings us very close to WP:OR, if, in fact, we haven't already crossed over into it. Finally, I find your final desire to in fact be exactly the opposite of what the court says. I quote, "As to the second question, whether Kayasthas are entitled to rank amongst the three superior classes, a vast mass of authorities has been quoted to us during the hearing of this appeal." In fact, the court seems to conclude that Kayasthas are, in fact, Sudra, including the Behar Kayastha (I'm looking here at paragraphs 10 and 15). And, finally, once more: the court is in no way the final authority on this issue. I get that you think they are, but, in fact, I would argue that the court has less authority than a bevy of scholars and researchers. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you please make your arguments in a coherent manner please. You just seem to be stuck on a track without heeding at all to any other argument made. Let me quote the passages from the judgement and Ambedkar myself:

Ambedkar's claim in his book	Actual quote from the judgement
"The partisans of the Kayasthas took the position that the Kayasthas of Bihar were different from the Kayasthas of Bengal, the Upper Provinces and Benares and that while those in the Upper Provinces and Benares were Shudras, the Kayasthas of Bihar were Kshatriyas."	Para 10: "The plaintiffs contend that the adoption was invalid on two grounds: first, because the adoptive father being a Kayastha and in their view entitled to rank amongst the three superior classes ..." Nowhere in the entire judgement does it say that the plaintiff consider themselves as different from Kayasthas of Upper Provinces (which is factually incorrect), nor does it say anywhere that the Kayasthas of Upper Provinces are considered "Sudras." This is enough to reject the Ambedkar's claims as false, and there is no question of OR here, its just not in the source. However, there is more, in Para 12, the judgement specifically says, "...consider the evidence which has been placed before us to show that the Kayasthas of Behar are an exception to the general principle contained in the opinion which I have just extracted from the work of Shyama Churn Sirkar. First, there is a Vyavastha by 96 pundits of Benares. Two of these pundits were examined as witnesses in the case)." It doesn't really require OR (even if it does, it is allowed on the talk page) to see that the Plaintiff actually claimed to be the same as those of Kayasthas of Upper Province and Benares (since they brought them as their evidence), which means that they could not have claimed that the "Kayasthas from Upper provinces are Sudras" as claimed by Ambedkar. Para 12 further reports its observation about the Kayasthas of Upper Provinces and Benares, "as regards the testimony of the two pundits who were examined (and this is perhaps the most valuable part of the oral testimony), we have to observe that these gentlemen do not speak with direct reference to Behar, and however valuable their opinion may be, if precise upon the point, with reference to the Kayasthas of the Upper Provinces, or of Benares, we think they cannot be accepted as an authority upon the subject as regards the Kaiests of Behar." Here too there is no hint that the courts or anyone for that matters consider the Kayasthas of the Upper Provinces as "Sudra" -- unlike what Ambedkar would have us believe.
Page 183: "The court refused to make this distinction and held that the Kayasthas of Bihar were also Sudras."	Para 15: "The conclusion then to which we are led upon the authorities and upon the evidence which has been submitted to us is this, that the plaintiffs have not shown that the Kayasthas of Behar rank amongst the three superior classes, and that, therefore, the adoption of a sister's son by Chandan was invalid." Later court decisions have made it clear that this ruling only means that the courts decided to leave the issue open, without taking a stand, as can be found in this later ruling of the Patna High Court: "Thus the Calcutta High Court decisions as to the Bengali or Bihari Kayasthas being Sudras are inconclusive and the matter has been expressly left open by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee."

You're still wasting everyone's time by 'scanning' documents in such an irresponsible manner.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 08:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC))

Quote from the judgement: ""As to the second question, whether Kayasthas are entitled to rank amongst the three superior classes, a vast mass of authorities has been quoted to us during the hearing of this appeal." If you read through the document, not a single one of the evidences mentioned, including decisions of the lower courts say that the Behari Kayasthas are Sudras, In fact, they all claim that Kayasthas are amongst the three upper castes. That the British courts chose to ignore them on flimsy grounds as reported in the judgement (e.g. that the written witness of living persons not summoned by the courts is not valid) is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. However, like we have already seen that the court actually left the question open, they just said that the plaintiff have not been able to establish their claim to be Kshatriyas, but they have not been held to be Sudras either. To say this is clearly a misrepresentation and OR on the part of Dr. Ambedkar. This is also born out by other court rulings already linked to.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 08:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC))

As regarding the authority of the courts, my position is the same -- get me any other authority that says Kayasthas are not Kshatriyas/ upper castes. Till you do that, you have no right to reject the court decision, as it is the only available authority available to us so far -- whether you like it or not.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 08:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC))

You reaslise of course, that if you don't answer within a reasonable period of time, I'll take it that you have nothing more to say and that if there is no other opposition I can remove the statement in the article that says the caste status of Kayasthas is debated. Remember, no one is interested in your personal beliefs, distrusts or gut apprehensions. You should be able to put your case here, in a debate. If you choose to remain silent now and then resist me when I make the changes, you'd be guilty of hampering the editing process. Because, I am beginning to feel you're just not interested in the issue being resolved because of your own personal discomfort based upon whatever biases you've already formed about the caste system in India, and you somehow feel that unless your personal discomfort is addressed the article should not be changed, whatever the facts may say.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC))

Gyanvigyan1, the Ambedkar quote references something that the partisans claimed at trial. The judgment contains only a summary of that. You may not rejected Ambedkar because it contains info not contained in the judgment. Period. I'm done with this "debate", because you're doing WP:OR. Take this to WP:RSN and show that Ambedkar is not a reliable source, I'm not indulging you. Maybe you really believe you're doing the right thing, but your insistence upon analyzing a primary document, interpreting it, and then applying that interpretation to analyzing the quality of other sources is fundamentally anathema to everything about how Wikipedia works. You do great work as an academic, and I think that if you are certain of your conclusions, you should attempt to get them published in an academic journal. But you can't do it here. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that is my advise to you. Maybe you think what you're doing to Kayastha debate is right and that is why you're sticking obstinately to a point of view, despite these being from invalid sources. You should not be allowed to do this here though. And if you refuse to indulge in a debate here, you'll lose the right to impede with the editing process once I start it. I think this is how the process of editing works. I will take it to WP:RSN if you hinder the editing process.

There are other issues with the Ambedkar link, besides its reliability. E.g. it fails to validate the statement where it is cited in the Wiki article -- in fact, it goes against what is claimed. The Ambedkar link clearly mentions that the latter court decisions settled the case in favour of Behari Kayasthas being Kshatriyas (See its reference to the Allahabad and Patna High courts decisions). Remember, Ambedkar only talks about the court decisions and not any other authority or source. So, using this citation to support a claim that the caste status of Kayasthas is debated is invalid.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC))

Break 1

Starting from the top, Gyanvigyan1 says This book misreports the court decision of the privy council, and seeks to paint all Kayasthas with the devaluation of Bengali Kayasthas, and also makes several unsupported claims about "Kayasthas trying to claim Kshatriya status (as if they did not have it earlier). Please can you give me the relevant page numbers from Sadasivan where the decision is misreported and where it claims Kayasthas tried to claim Kshatriya status. I would also appreciate the full title/law report reference of the decision and a few reliable secondary sources which report it. for the record, I have never inserted Sadasivan as a source & am aware that some people consider him to be biased (specifically, those people whose community is maligned, but not those whose communities come out of things ok). I'm pretty open-minded about whether or not the guy should be used on Wikipedia for anything of much import, but an error of the scale referred to by Gyanvigyan1 really would tip the balance, I suspect (well, unless he subsequently retracted/amended, which would be for someone else to show). I would much prefer secondary sources no older than Sadasivan, since the court's ruling may have been over-ruled in the interval between it being adjudged and Sadasivan writing. I am not going to read the court decision but need the reference to do some checking of my own. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, give me some time to do all that you've asked. Meanwhile, if you go to the previous "varna debate" I've linked the court decision. Most of the secondary sources I've seen on the court cases have misrepresented them in one way or the other -- in very blatant ways, but, they do point out that the last verdict on the matter was given in the Patna High Court. Even if for argument's sake we were to assume that there would be another case after that challenging the Patna High court's ruling, then Sadasivan should have pointed it out clearly. No Indian has ever disputed the status of Kayasthas in the courts, as can be seen from the court minutes and the secondary sources -- it were only the Britishers who were confused.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC))

On page 258, of the link provided, Sadasivan says, "The Kayasthas of Bengal to establish themselves at a higher echelon as Kshatriyas fought several court battles to be told repeatedly that they are none but Sudras." The Calcutta court case that had deliberated the caste status of Bihari Kayasthas had kept mum on the issue despite evidences of several priests of Benares in favour of Kayasthas (pls refer to the court minutes), while the privy council to which it referred the case did observe that the Kayasthas of Bengal have lost that status -- not that they were always Sudras (however, that was not part of the ruling, but just an observation -- the courts did not heed the observations of the privy council). In a latter Calcutta High court ruling, which did not deliberate on the issue of the caste status of Kayasthas (i.e., unlike the one linked here), but merely based their decision on the premise that Bengali Kayasthas were "Sudras" -- but that hardly amounted to a ruling on the status of Bengali Kayasthas, although, the observation had a profound impact on the social reputation of Bengali Kayasthas (this court case was primarily about whether or not a marriage between a Dom and Bengali Kayastha was valid -- so its not like Bengali Kayasthas specifically fought a battle for their status, it was just that one of the petitioner was a Kayastha, and Bengali Kayasthas too see themselves either as Brahmin or Kshatriya, based on their ancestory, irrespective of their devaluation by Bengali Brahimins about 700 years ago, which they have not accepted till date). The entire description however makes it seem as if the Kayasthas were a class of "Sudras" to start with, who through becoming socially powerful, wanted to be counted amongst the higher castes.

On the same page Sadasivan mentions that Kayasthas were originally Brahmins -- so he contradicts himself, when he claims that Kayasthas want to be established at a higher echelon. If you look at his description of non-Bengali Kayasthas on the page, he mentions both North Indian Kayasthas and the West Indian Kayasthas separately as being "Sudras," but to support his claim, in both cases, he cites references by Bengali sources about Bengali Kayasthas (Jatimala and Vivekananda, respectively, both from Bengal). This is clearly meant to mislead the reader. Also, North Indian Kayasthas have never fought for the formal Brahmin status (unlike what Sadasivan reports) -- their Brahmin origins are quite ancient and forgotten, unlike that of some of the Bengali Kayasthas, that have become Kayasthas in the more later history, and have kept their Brahmin roots/ history alive.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC))

Here, I am not devaluing the importance of Sadasivan's book in exposing the caste politics of the Brahmins, however, the information about Kayasthas in particular has glaring mistakes.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC))

OK, thanks very much for the info. There are two issues here, one of which relates specifically to this article and the other of which relates to the reliability of Sadasivan. I do not particularly want to cause this discussion to drift sideways too much because there are more appropriate forums for consideration of the reliability of a source, but Qwryxian is correct in thinking that if Sadasivan has got this one wrong then perhaps the entire issue of using his book as a source needs to be queried. For now, let's try to keep it focussed on how things relate to Kayasthas - there is a bigger picture and that can be dealt with if it proves to be necessary.

There is no rush about this and I have no problems with the need for you to spend time in providing the info which I requested. I am grateful that you have done so. Wikipedia will be around for some time yet, and I have my own issues to deal with (am in a post-operative state at the moment).

I'll go through the Sadasivan pages that you refer to + the surrounding content, and I see what I can find out about the PC judgement independently. I am intrigued by your comment that other secondary sources "have misrepresented them in one way or the other -- in very blatant ways, but, they do point out that the last verdict on the matter was given in the Patna High Court". It may be that we'll need to look at those also. I am no lawyer, although I had a little post-graduate training, and am not interested in what the transcript says at least in the context of Wikipedia. However, I am very interested in what the secondary sources say, including Sadasivan. so, let's get to work :) Reliable secondary sources are one of the fundamental issues of this entire project. - Sitush (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I didn't want to dilute the issue that Sitush is discussing, so I have responded to your arguments just before Sitush's first post on this sub-topic.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC))

Sitush, first of all, allow me to wish you a speedy recovery.

I just found another secondary source (Concrete Steps By Indian Industry On Affirmative Action For Scheduled Castes, by Dr. Ambedkar) that talks about the court case that Sadasivan is talking about here, and it apparently says something different than Sadasivan. According to Dr. Ambedkar, "The Privy Council did not accept this (Brahmin's) theory which they regarded as false and concocted by the Brahmins and held that the Kshatriyas still existed in India. The Privy Council did not however lay down any test by which a Kshatriya could be distinguished from a Shudra. In their view, the question must be determined in each case on its own facts." Now, note that Sadasivan claims that the Privy Council declared that "although Kshatriyas existed in India, Kayasthas were decidedly Shudras."(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC))

I also found this very interesting judgment of the last case fought on the status of Bihari/Bengali Kayasthas -- Ishwari Prasad And Ors. vs Rai Hari Prasad Lal on 23 February, 1926, Patna High Court, Author: J Prasad, Bench: J Prasad, J Bucknill. This judgment finds fault with the earlier rulings of the Calcutta High Court, where Bengali Kayasthas were held to be Sudras (that it went against the notings of the Privy Council). More importantly, it clearly states the following (quoted verbatim): "Thus the Calcutta High Court decisions as to the Bengali or Bihari Kayasthas being Sudras are inconclusive and the matter has been expressly left open by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee." It follows then, that all of these secondary sources, that claim that the Courts held Kayasthas or even Bengali Kayasthas as "Sudras" are misleading the readers, no matter what their academic qualifications.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC))

I tend to agree with Qwryxian that you are reading into the judgements things that are not explicit. This is original research, and then it is compounded in your argument by synthesis with sources. The very fact that there are multiple judgements muddies the waters further. I remain somewhat concerned about Sadasivan generally as a source, but not sufficiently so as to warrant removing his book from other articles. Yet! Similarly, I have for some time had doubts about Ambedkar (who appears to me to have been generally pushing a POV) but not doubts so severe that they would warrant removing cites from articles. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@Sitush, I find it totally unacceptable that you reverted a delete I made after discussing it thoroughly on the talk page, and that you did it without bothering to give a valid reason on the talk page, where the discussion is on, about why you disagree with the deletion (I mean, you'd need to state citing specific instances/ evidences of what you claim).

As reported by me, the Ambedkar link fails to corroborate the claim, where its used as a reference, that "the varna status of Kayasthas is debated."

Unless, you're a totally irresponsible editor, I'd expect you to show us here, where the Ambedkar source says that the "caste status of Kayasthas is debated." Or are you indulging in OR here? Remember, it is the duty of the editor making a particular claim to prove it as per Wikipedia, not of the other editors to prove him wrong -- so your asking me for a proof is totally uncalled for.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC))

To be honest, I'm at the stage where my eyes might glaze over a little each time I re-read this thread, & so I may have missed where you "reported" this point. If you want to either provide a diff or just the date/time of the relevant message then fine, but I couldn't see one and my only concern was that there clearly is academic debate about their status & I know that Ambedkar was involved in that. I do most certainly agree that the citation needs either firming up with a page number (hence, I added that request) or removing if no such number appears within a reasonable time. As best as I can tell, it looks like the stuff around pp 180-190 is probably what is being referred to, but I do not have full access to the book.

The part of the statement that is certainly suspect, even if a page number is provided, is the word "remains" in "a topic which remains a subject of debate." Ambedkar was writing in 1970 or thereabouts - quite a while ago, and so it might be better to say "has been". - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I totally disagree about the usage of "has been," which would also be OR. The Ambedkar link does not ever claim that the caste status of Kayasthas as a whole "has been" debated. It reports (not quite correctly as we have seen) the court cases, which were about Behari and Bengali Kayasthas -- not Kayasthas per se, and the final court case that he reports, ruled that Behari Kayasthas are Kshatriyas, with no further cases mentioned. It would be totally OR to claim that this meant there had been a debate. We don't need to go into that question at all, otherwise, I can claim that there was no debate about Kayasthas, just a confusion between Bengali and Behari Kayasthas in the minds of the British.

Also, since, we've already ascertained that the court cases reported by Ambedkar are not 100% factual, denoting OR of Ambedkar himself (please refer to the debate in 3.3 above), and as we know, Ambedkar was a politician/ activist and he had no relevant academic training/ authority to draw the kind of inferences he drew. Therefore, using his citation to talk about the aforesaid court cases would be objectionable.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC))

Also, I challenge your view that there has been a debate about the varna status of Kayasthas amongst the scholars. Just because some pseudo-scholars state wild and unsupported claims about Kayasthas (due to their lack of comprehension or their vested interests), it doesn't automatically refer to a debate. Shortcomings of individual scholars need not be mentioned in the caste article here. Only a real debate -- whether in the society or amongst the scholars would warrant a mention in Wikipedia. Can you show me a valid source that specifically says that "the status of Kayasthas is a debated issue." Can you show me a valid source that claims that the status of Kayasthas (non-Bengali) is anything but Kshatriya or dual Brahmin/Kshatriya and bases its claims on a verifiable primary source?(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC))

You appear possibly to have been looking at how MangoWong formulates their POV, regurgitating policies & guidelines that you have only half-digested. I am not responding further because while you do this your position is untenable, sorry. However, I will remove the Ambedkar citation if no page number turns up or if one does but the statement is not supported by it. I am trying to read (probably) relevant bit of the book myself but it is proving to be awkward and may not even be the correct page range. Anything else - court judgments, neutrality of the statement etc - take it to WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN or WP:DRN, as appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems, you replied to my post just after I redid it, and we may have been working simultaneously, but, many things that I said in my previous post are irrelvant now, and I would very much appreciate if we can discuss the latter version of my post. Apparently, your reply is to my previous version, which may not even be relevant now.

It seems a bit off that you choose to go about reverting what I do, without regard to my efforts or without caring to see what I might be saying. And its like you never need to discuss anything that you feel you need to do -- like you're some kind of ultimate authority. Anyway, I would like to repost portions of what I changed here:

... in 3.3. above, I have provided another link to the same book by Dr. Ambedkar, which has the full text, and also discussed it threadbare. Here's the link again: WHO WERE THE SHUDRAS? How they came to be the Fourth Varna in theIndo-Aryan Society, By B. R. Ambedkar.

I would question the need to ask for a page number, when the document is there for everyone to see, and it can be verified by anyone that the quoted text is simply not there.

Regarding the usage of the term "has been," it should be noted here that the last court case about the issue was settled in 1926 (I have linked that as well, if you'd care to read it), way before India's independence from the Britishers, and about 45 years before Ambedkar wrote his book in question. Certainly, the issue was not debated at the time Ambedkar wrote the book, and he has never claimed that the issue was ever 'debated' socially or academically. In fact, it is clear from the book, that in practical life, there has never been a debate about the varna of the Kayasthas, and he has cited several historical instances, where Kayasthas have been clearly seen as Kshatriyas and a direct rival of the Brahmins.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC))

Sigh. Yes, there may have been a four-minute long edit conflict - I've left you a note on your own talk page about the problems that could arise in relation to what you did. And the consequences following your above reference to a refactoring that I reverted rather exemplify the confusion that can arise. Generally, I do not know what it is that I am supposed to be commenting on in view of your last couple of contributions .

On the two points that are obvious in your message immediately above (20:53, 28 Oct), can you provide a source that states 1926 was the last judgement? It would have to be a source published extremely recently since courts make rulings on all sorts of things at all sorts of times. Your statement seems itself to be WP:OR. The other point is that you say Ambedkar is "quoted" when in fact he is not - he is cited, which is a very different thing. I see that someone has come along with some clarification of the area in the Ambedkar book which might support the statement, although I am still concerned about the tense being used when the reference is from 40 years ago.

In the spirit of co-operation, I will give this entire section one more reading right from the top & see if anything of merit exists that has not been enacted or which requires further discussion. This will take me a while and I promise to keep my eyes unglazed, again checking all the refs that I can see and not skimming over even a word in anyone's contribution. I have made very few edits to this article but do have some sort of understanding of the wider issues relating to varna etc. This will be my last pass through the thing: if something shouts out at me then, sure, we can talk about it. - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please correct me wherever I'm wrong here, but my understanding of how wikipedia works is this -- When an editor finds something wrong with the article's content or citations or sources, he discusses it on the talk page with the other editors and if there are no conflicts will make changes to the article.

If there are conflicts they should be taken to the appropriate forums. However, matters cannot be taken to the [WPN:RSN} etc, without first discussing them on the talk page. That would be against the spirit of Wikipedia.

Plus, I don't understand how anyone can refuse to discuss a point and still want to 'revert' another's changes. I also don't understand how just pronouncing one's 'decision' (eg that something is OR) and not willing to discuss the said 'pronouncement' can amount to having 'discussed,' -- unless the said editor feels he is some kind of 'authority,' above rapproachment, on Wikipedia. I don't like the idea of an editor reading the talk page to pass a final 'judgement' rather than to discuss it. My understanding is that all editors are equal and that no one can ignore the discussion process before attempting to make changes or to stall them. If I'm wrong please correct me!!(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC))

Can you provide a source that states 1926 was the last judgement?, No, and I don't have to.

I am sorry to say that this question of yours shows both your ignorance about the caste issue and your arrogance about assuming that there is a caste debate about Kayasthas. Such a statement would only be made in the scholarly sources, had there been indeed a scholarly caste debate.

Even if assume that there is a court case (sic) after 1926, then the onus to bring forth any such hypothetical case is on the editor making the unsupported claim that the "caste status of Kayasthas "has been" debated," not on other editors to prove that these cases don't exist. If there was indeed a scholarly 'debate' as you or others may claim (by the time Ambedkar's book was written, i.e.), then why are those post-1926 cases not mentioned in this book, or any other book by scholars.

You can't use Ambedkar's citation to make a claim that the caste status of Kayasthas "has been" debated, when Ambedkar failed to bring forth any of these (hypothetical) cases. Kindly bring forth a citation that talks about any such hypothetical court case, before you or anyone else makes a claim about a debate. Because otherwise, you're just indulging in OR.

What you're doing right now, is ignoring all the primary sources, however specific -- not even to decide whether a particular disputed claim by an author is credible or not -- on the basis that that would be OR, but wildly making OR of your own about things that the secondary sources do not say, based on some deep-seated misunderstanding of the caste situation in India, that you may feel you have a grip on (and I disagree). This is resulting in a state of Wikipedia delivering half-truths on this issue, which is worse than an outright lie. I feel you and some others are using Wikipedia rules in a way that suppresses the facts, but let the lies rule unquestioned -- even when not supported by secondary sources -- and thus amount to pushing an unsupported POV.

And whether its a citation or a quote, there should be no scope for OR on such a basic issue of contention.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC))

The editor who has reverted the [page needed] tag you'd put in the article has cited the page discussing the court cases. He has clearly ignored the debate on at the talk page, which is preposterous. That you've chosen to ignore this editor, even when you had immediately proceeded to revert my edit, and that you don't even want to challenge him/her, further strengthens my suspicion that you're pushing a POV and are only interested in thwarting anything that goes against this POV.How can I alone tackle so many editors who think nothing of the talk page and go on to edit based on their own preconceived notions?(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC))

We have discussed at length. You are wrong in your application of policy etc, specifically with regard to WP:OR, & it is clear that you will never let this issue drop here. Take it to WP:DRN because you are getting nowhere here & are becoming repetitive. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No we've not. I have discussed at length. You have just passed a quick, generalized judgement, and upon my going into specifics, you're just trying to avoid the discussion. It is totally wrong to say that I will never let this issue drop here. I will, if I find a source that actually says something like the "caste status of Kayasthas (as a whole) has been debated." The fact is you have a POV to push, but you lack a valid source to do it. I can see that WP:DRN is not for issues that are being discussed on other forums. This issue is being discussed here. But, I keep my options open.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC))

That restriction on DRN means other forums like noticeboards (WP:RSN, WP:ANI, etc.), not the article talk page. By definition, all articles raised at DRN will be currently involved in stalled or otherwise problematic discussions on the talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)