Talk:Bengali Kayastha

Major work required for improvement for the Bengali Kayastha page

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

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

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

I second this motion.

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

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

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

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

It's redundant to use such a practice.

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

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

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

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

I understand the Bengali Identity and the literature part!

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

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

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

Kayastha=superset

Bengali,CK & CKP=subset

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

Requested move

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Merge?

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

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

Recent Revert

Hi Sitush,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Curious

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review

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

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

The reference says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, some more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincere apologies for copyright violation

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

Starting from scratch

Hello Joshua Jonathan, TitoDutta and all editors concerned,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent revert 18 May 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subcastes

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

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

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

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

Regarding the '13th century'

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

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

Misrepresentation

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

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

Recent Edit - Nov 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maulik origins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eaton

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

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

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

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

Snippet views

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

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

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

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

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

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

The source says

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

We say

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

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

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

Proposal for merging the article with Kayastha

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

---

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

Thanks.

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

---

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

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

Let me know what you think - thanks!

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

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

Removed some disputed content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Sitush: :@Heba Aisha:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2021

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

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

serious vandalism of truth

HELLO senior editors there is some manipulation in this Bengal kayastha page.after gone through citation 3,4,5 i find out the source is saying one thing but editors are writing another thing here.citation no 3 saying that kayasthas are highest among sat sudras of Bengal but it is written here they are the highest hindu caste along with brahmins here.and citation no 4 and 5 both are in hindi?? it that acceptable in a English wiki page??

I would like to request the senior editors to take a look of this matter.and grant me a permission to edit this page.I hope I will give a good effort to improve this article. Gorezka46 (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Higher and highest difference

so now someone chaged the sources but the vandalism is still there, sources no 3 is saying that kayasthas are dwijas and sources no 4 is saying that alongside brahmins they were the higher castes of bengal.but that doesn't mean they rank qual to brahmins in bengal.brahmins, kshatriya and vaisha all are dwijas but does they rank qual?? and there is a big difference between higher and highest. so stop write anything out of your own creation. Gorezka46 (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)