Talk:Kayastha/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

Can the following be weaved into the article?

According to Hindu scriptures, the Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas of Northern India trace their lineage from the sons of the Hindu god Chitragupta and are thus referred as Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas. Chitragupta had two wives - Devi Shobhavati, who was daughter of a Brahmin Susharma and Devi Nandini who was daughter of a Kshatriya Shradhadev Manu respectively. The suffix "vanshi" is derived from the Sanskrit word vansh (वंश) which translates to belonging to a particular family dynasty, as "Chitragupta" pertains to the god. They claim to be Kayastha Brahmins. In 1779 AD, letter of Banaras Pandits was sent to Peshwa Darbar. The letter affirms their Chitragupta origin and states that some Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas are Brahmins(Kayastha Brahmin/Brahma Kayastha). Some medieval geneological inscriptions from some families have been found accounting for their brahminic credentials. Jimmy fails agian (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Any article related to South Asian social groups is under a regime of sanctions to prevent disruption. This generally requires that edits be agreed to and supported by the best-quality sources. Use of primary religious texts to support claims of divine descent are not generally accepted within the context of an edit request. This type of change will require a consensus of interested editors to be implemented. I hope that helps explain things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't care for this proposal. It is the same info that was recently removed due to reliance on old texts & because it is undue weight to give so much prominence to the alleged actions of so few people who are/were untypical of the community as a whole. That is, it seems like an attempt at glorification. Also, each of the main sub-groups have their own articles & so this article should serve as an overview, not a mass of esoteric detail. - Sitush (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Editors, I am not an expert in wikipedia editing and do not know all the rules but I feel this edit has proper citations. Of course the admins decision is final but the text looks OK in my personal opinion. I assume the Indian script is correct too? Also, "Legends of Origin of the Castes and Tribes of Eastern India" (G.K.Ghosh) on page 107: "One legend says Chitragupta had two wives, elder one being Brahmin and the second Khatriya." This is my humble personal opinion and leave the decision in the hands of senior editors and admins. Yours truly, MyrddinGaius (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my concerns but you have potentially highlighted another issue with the proposal, which states as fact something Ghosh says is legend. I just do not see the point of adding myths of origin here - they are convoluted & would have to be done for each group, which is just replicating the linked group articles. The only reason I can see that the CKP people want this adding here is because they think that the more something is said, however ludicrous, the more it is perceived to be true. Plus, of course, they hate the fact that society does not glorify them as Brahmins. - Sitush (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, I think you meant to say CK group. Chitragupta is related to north Indian kayasthas not CKP group so this text does not benefit ckp as the groups are disparate. Hindu caste system itself is based on legends of origin. For example Brahmins originated from the head of God. I will end my discussion on this topic here. MyrddinGaius (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I did indeed add an unintentional "P", sorry. The proposer has been blocked as a sock. - Sitush (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits:

The user had created disruption due to which sources and content has been removed , also abusing in edit summary. Ex:This edit summary [1] is translated as:Ved Purana has a problem with you foreign dogs. They are not considered to be reliable sources. We Indians do not say anything wrong to your religion or Holi books. Also this one[2] is translated as: Who will delete or revert my post will be completely fried in oil in hell. Heba Aisha (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Another editor has been abusing too [3] and was blocked for this.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Though Materialscientist has reverted but [4] and many other edits has removed many sources and lot of content.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Basically,this edit [5] removed a lot of sourced content, which remained untracked.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Addition of new content

Plz keep your sources here and describe the changes you made as I can see a quote was removed by ur edits: Heba Aisha (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

corrected my mistake. I did not know formatting preferences were so rigid on wikipedia. now only sourced content added in your formatting preferences. Bihari Babu is back (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The source peasant and monk in british india writes them as "pure shudra", but you have written them to be of twice born status.?Heba Aisha (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Anamika pandit seems to be confused about sourcing.

These are modern sources not of pre independence1947 period as she claims Pinch, William R. (1996). Peasants and monks in British India. University of California Press. pp. 73–75, 82–83. ISBN 978-0-520-20061-6. (index)108. Buchanan, Bihar and Patna, 1811–1812, 1:329–39; (pg)Bhagvan Prasad's ministrations reflected his own personal interpretation of the social mandate implicit in the religious message of Ramanand. However, Ramanandi ambivalence toward caste emerged in discussions about the prescribed stages of a sadhu's entry into the sampraday. In his biography of Bhagvan Prasad, Sahay expressed the view that originally anyone (including untouchables) could have become Ramanandi sadhus, but that by his time (the early 1900s), "Ramanandis bring disciples from only those jatis from whom water can be taken."[107] For those designated shudra by the elite, this phrase, "from whom water can be taken," was a common enough euphemism for a person of "pure shudra" status, with whom restricted physical contact could be made. From the elite perspective, such physical contact would have occurred in the course of consuming goods and services common in everyday life; the designation "pure shudra" implied a substantial body of "impure"—hence untouchable—people with whom physical contact was both unnecessary and improper. Buchanan, in the early nineteenth century, had included in the term "pure shudra" the well-known designations of Kayasth, Koiri, Kurmi, Kahar, Goala, Dhanuk (archers, cultivators, palanquin bearers), Halwai (sweets vendor), Mali (flower gardener), Barai (cultivator and vendor of betel-leaf), Sonar (goldsmith), Kandu (grain parcher), and Gareri (blanket weavers and shepherds).(pg)As a result of their very public campaign for kshatriya status in the last quarter of the century, not to mention their substantial economic and political clout, Kayasths were classified along with "Babhans" and Rajputs as "other castes of twice-born rank" in the 1901 census hierarchy for Bihar. Sinha, A. (2011). Nitish Kumar and the Rise of Bihar. Viking. p. 93. ISBN 978-0-670-08459-3. Retrieved 7 April 2015. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Bengali kayastha

Bengali kayastha is Karan kayaatha so stop the false writing অভিরূপ দাশশর্মা (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Add Languages

Add languages used by Kayastha community in different places. Hindi, Maithili, English, Asamia, Bengali, Marathi and Nepali are most spoken by this clan. RedSaurb (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

And also mention about script Kaithi developed by Maithil Kayasthas. RedSaurb (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

ब्रह्मक्षत्रिय KHTRIYA (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Founder of ISCKON ( Shri Prabhupad ) was also a Kayastha.

Founder of ISCKON ( Shri Prabhupad ) was also a Kayastha.

Yes KHTRIYA (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Feeling of unease?

On what basis has the author written that Kayasthas have a feeling of unease for not being included in SCs? Did he conduct a survey???? Kaninayan (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

No reply on talk???

Why is there no reply on my talk discussion?? Kaninayan (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Dasa

Dasa is not a slave It refers to a servant IRONCULT117 (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2021

Johri is also a title like saxena, that I want to add so that people can also know that johri are also kayastha.Shashank Johri 11:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC) Shashank Johri 11:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please remove Swami Prabhupada from Notable people list, as per the given source he belonged to Suvarna Banik caste, not Kayasthas. Thank you. Regards Chanchaldm (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Ekdalian (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Kayasthas were promoted from shudras?

The statement that bhumihars and kayasthaas were shudras is so wrong. Kayasthas have been rulers since the classical age. Satvahanas, Palas, Mukitpid, etc. are all rulers of Kayasth origin. On what basis has the author written such things? Kaninayan (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The statement mentioning Shudra is sourced by academic sourced hence it cannot be removed. Anyway, the article is clear that different subdivisions have different varna. Please see WP:RS. To maintain, neutrality, all points of view by academic sources have to be included. LukeEmily (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Sourced from academic sources does not mean it is right , it absolutely wrong !!

Kindly take the right resources , as it may hurt the feelings of many . Academic sources are written by an individual who may hate that group of people due to various reasons . You will have to remove this statement of shudra . Your academics is no more greater than the wise words of Swami Vivekananda Ji . Kindly , correct it . I am myself a Kshatriya , but when it comes to misunderstanding of sanatan dharma , i will always speak , for any caste . 2409:4063:4082:D7B:7FBE:6A3F:D7D3:B52D (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2021

As far as i know , Kayasthas are one of the purest form of the Kshatriyas. It is also mentioned by the greatest Swami Vivekananda Ji Mahraj that he is kayastha and he is pure Kshatriyas. Many people have mistaken the birth of god chitragupt ji , he was born brahmin as he was the son of lord brahmaji but he was given the work of dealing with people's karma and take the decisions so he became a Kshatriya. As we know , in sanatan dharma person is considered on his work not on his birth. So kindly, correct it , anyone can ask their elders about kayastha they will tell about them , i had also asked my grandfather about it . Many kayastha do believe that they are brahmin as in our chitragupt puja , it is mentioned in the holy book that they can take both Kshatriya or Brahmin varna as per our work . But the fact is due to the Dev status of Bhagwan Chitragupt , we are the purest of the Kshatriyas. 2409:4063:4082:D7B:7FBE:6A3F:D7D3:B52D (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Please read WP:RS & WP:V, and provide reliable sources by modern reliable authors (post Raj era). Ekdalian (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Das surname not because Kayasthas married with slaves

The following line - “Bengali Kayasthas were degraded from an earlier kshatriya status due to intermarrying with both shudras and slaves ('dasa') which resulted in the common Bengali Kayastha surname of 'Das'.” is incorrect. In Indian spirituality, surname Das is taken with a God’s name to show devotion. There are inscriptions which show courtiers in Gupta period had surname, Das along with Ghosh, Bose etc. Das surname Kayastha has been mentioned in Maurya period as well, having Kshatriya status. This book has been written with very shallow knowledge of Indian surname dynamics. I request Wikipedia to remove the above line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.29.227.56 (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2022

Karan Kayastha are part of Chitragupta vanshi Kayastha.They are mentioned in this same article as Karna.No need to write separately,this shows them as different from other Chitraguptvanshi Kayastha. 2405:204:578D:9744:649:1B86:2826:FC5 (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Please share a reliable source (along with page no.), which mentions that Karan Kayasthas are part/subdivision of Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas. Ekdalian (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Karan Kayastha

Sattvic7, the part of your edit summary mentioning that the source doesn't mention Karan Kayastha is fine; but I am not sure whether they are considered as part of the Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas. For example, the Maithili Kayasthas may be considered so, but I am pretty much sure that the Odia Karan Kayasthas are much more similar to the Bengali Kayasthas. I have doubts whether we should keep Karan Kayasthas as another subgroup here (citing other reliable source) since they are not counted among the three main subgroups of Kayasthas. Can you throw some more light, Sattvic7? Or else, you have just removed the same since the source cited does not support Karan Kayastha as a subgroup. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sattvic7: will you please explain your edit, as mentioned above, so that we can take a call regarding the same. Ekdalian (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ekdalian: No problem. I simply removed it because source1 and source2 only mentioned three Kayastha groups i.e, North Indian Kayastha, Bengali Kayasthas, Maharashtra Kayasthas.

1. You can reinstate Karana of Odisha, if you provide the WP:RS that they are considered part of this group. If there's no source mentioning them as Kayasthas, it's better to consider them disparate from the other three groups.
2. The Karan Kayasthas of Bihar are considered a branch of Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha. It's important to make a distinction between Karan Kayasthas of Bihar that are distinct from that Karanas of Odisha (probably not considered as "Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas" at least.) Sattvic7 (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ekdalian: Hi, I have found a couple of sources that indeed treat Karanas of Odisha as Kayasthas. This means that we can indeed include them in the article. I think we should go ahead and include them. If you're okay, please let me know. Sattvic7 (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sattvic7: you may please go ahead and add the same. I shall check once you incorporate the content mentioned. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Kalitas of Assam are also Kayasthas

Kalita (Kayastha) of Assam are General caste (forward class) and they are ruler of Baro-bhuyans Kingdom , Khen Dynasty and Varman Dynasty . Kalitas of Assam are considered next only to Brahmins in rank. They are believed to be migrated from Kannauj UP along with Assamese Brahmins and they are first Aryan immigrants of Assam. Kalitas those who became Gosain in Vaishnavas monastery (title like Mahanta and Goswami) are considered equivalent to Brahmins in rank .Kalitas of Assam plays the similar role as that of Kayasthas / Rajputs of North India. Kalita(Kayastha) of Assam trace back their origin from either suryavanshi Kshatriyas or Chandravanshi Kshatriyas of North India .

Surnames of Assamese Kalita(Kayastha) :- Dutta , Bhuyan, Kalita, Baruah, Saikia , Borsaikia , Tamuly , Bortamuly , Lahaskar , Bharali ,Kakoty , Borkakoty , Changkakoty , Mahanta ,Das , Pagbondha , Senapati ,Khaund ,Adhikary, Dowerah, Phukan , PurKayastha ,Hazarika , KathHazarika , KathBaruah ,Pagbandha , Pathgiri ,Medhi , Gayan , Bayan ,Borbayan , Borgayan , Pathak , Bhakat ,Rajkhowa, Neog ,Thakuria , Thakur ,Borthakuriya , Chaudhary , Rai-Baruah , RaiChaudhary ,Talukder, Mazumder , Deka , Chaliha , Bordoloi , Mazinder ,BujarBaruah , Bora ,Borborah , Khataniar , Ray, Pachani , Rajguru (rare) , Mitra ( rare) , Goswami (rare) , Bhandar-Kayastha etc.

Rishi Gotras of Kalitas :- Kashyap , Bharadwaj, Aliman , Kaushik, Gautam, Sandilya, Atri , Parashar etc .

Notable Kalita personality:-

Srimanta Sankardev Sri Sri Madhavdev Gopaldev Annirudhadev Maniram Dewan Banikanta Kakoti Ratna Barkakoty King Durlabh Narayan Pratima Baruah Pandey Kanaklata Baruah Khageswar Talukdar Ambikagiri RaiChaudhary Arun Chandra Dev Goswami Ananda Chandra Dutta Mitradev Mahanta Nakul Chandra Bhuyan Raghunath Chaudhary Achut Lahaskar Gauri Sankar Kalita Bakul Kayastha Ramchandra Kayastha Durgabar Kayastha Bimala Prasad Chaliha Bishnu Ram Medhi Kanak Lal Baruah Kaliram Medhi P.C Chaudhary Bhumidar Barman Tarun Sen Deka .etc 2409:4065:412:625C:0:0:116:A4 (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Kayastha are bramhakshtriya

Kayastha are always bramhakshtriya they are rajput as well as they are bramhin so some people says that Lalithaditya muktapida maharaj is kashmiri bramhin king but he was kayastha (bramhakshtriya) Aryan shrivastava kayastha (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Lalitaditya muktapida maharaj is Kayastha

Samrath Lalithaditya muktapida was a chitraguptavanshi kayastha ruler and kayastha are always bramhakshtriya Aryan shrivastava kayastha (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2022

Add Naveen Patnaik to Kayastha chief ministers And Amar Bose as founder of BOSE corp 2402:3A80:198D:7837:8D46:94E0:B008:554A (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Sirdog (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

"... a Mathura inscription of Vasudeva I, composed by a Kayastha Śramaṇa."

Under the heading "History". A Śramaṇa is a Buddhist monk according to the Pali manuscripts. Buddha was a Śramaṇa, so were his brethren. 62.131.49.208 (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Kayastha surname Das is not due to marrying with Sudras

The eminent historian DR Bhandarkar was the first to point out that surnames used by Nagar Brahmins between 6th and 8th centuries A.D. It has been suggested that Nagar Brahmins along with present date Bengali Kayasthas are the purest form of this type. In ancient copper decoration plates the following Sharmans of Nagar Brahmins are mentioned - Bhav, Bhuti, Das, Dutt, Gupt, Ghosh, Dev, Nand, Mitra, Verma and Vrat 103.199.180.212 (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Kalitas of Assam are also Kayasthas

Kalitas of Assam are from Baro-Bhuyan family and by caste Hindu Kshatirya/Kayastha. Sudarshan Dutta (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sudarshan Dutta - what reliable, Independent sources can you cite to support that claim? - Arjayay (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

VyasSmriti

According to Vyassmriti Kayasthas are shudra, add that also. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/RamaInExile/status/1606333280697073667 he is a very knowledgeable person. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Please provide modern (post Raj era) reliable and verifiable source(s) supporting your claim! Ekdalian (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

No, not to you. Bye, will be back in few days. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Why you are asking me for post 1947 sources? this article itself has pre 1947 sources NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Abecedare here are the sources

1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41152132?searchText=Cultural%20and%20Social%20Radicalism%20in%20Medieval%20Orissa%20BASANTA%20KUMAR%20MALLIK&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DCultural%2Band%2BSocial%2BRadicalism%2Bin%2BMedieval%2BOrissa%2BBASANTA%2BKUMAR%2BMALLIK&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3Afaa735d8983bc9bb3c8fb37e8ccd522a page no 54

2. https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.13287/page/n483/mode/2up page no 434 NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE, please share relevant quotes from these two sources! Don't worry, everyone including Abecedare is watching this talk page! Ekdalian (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

1. "The earliest reference to the Kayasthas is found in the Smriti of Yajnavalkya and the Veda Vyas Smriti includes them among sudras."

2. "The Vedavydsa Smriti includes the Kayastha among sudras along with barbers, potters and others."

dont cherrypick scriptures give all informations. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

We generally avoid direct quotation from primary sources like smritis! Is any interpretation available in your sources? Our article anyway mentions shudra in different contexts like court rulings, etc. What new information do these sources bring to the table? Anyway, read WP:PRIMARY; we avoid quoting primary sources or equivalent without any scholarly interpretation unless we can derive some really important information! There's nothing new about their shudra classification! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

According to Vyas smriti kayasthas belonged to the same position of Barber and potters, how this is not important when we are discussing a Hindu caste? NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, after all, all shudras are equivalent, be it Kayastha, barber or potter; no new information in spite of using direct quotation from a primary source or equivalent! We have already mentioned Shudra in different contexts; you want more? Sorry! Ekdalian (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Am I citing directly Vyassmriti here? Jstor is not reputably published? thats why I told you to read the rules. @Abecedare sorry to ping you again but discussion with Ekdalian will not go anywere if someone else dont come in. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't plan to weight in on the content dispute per se since this is not something I have offhand knowledge of, and because I am involved as an admin at this page. However, I'll ping @TrangaBellam, LukeEmily, Satnam2408, and Sitush: who have been active here or at Bengali Kayastha, where a somewhat related debate is ongoing. I'd suggest that you all wait a day or two to see if anyone joins in and, if not, try a third opinion or mediation. Abecedare (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Further I would say the scriptures have been used in many caste articles such as Rajput, Yadav, Mahiswa and many more to describe their origins and positions. I dont see any exception not to use them here. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE and Ekdalian I think under WP:RSPSCRIPTURE and WP:SECONDARY, the above sources should be considered as secondary source; however, 'shudra' is mentioned in the article. If you want to refer to scriptural defination, you must follow WP:NPOV. If I am not wrong, some other scriptures have given them a high status. All of these can be incorporated in a summarized format, usually in one or two lines. We should wait for LukeEmily, an experienced editor for their opinion. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Though the user NC has cited secondary source, but since there's no interpretation of such unreliable smritis (read the article to know more about their unreliability) by modern scholars/authors, they are as good as primary sources (equivalent)! I have removed several such quotes citing primary source equivalent (secondary sources without interpretation) from many articles including Brahmin, Charan! Abecedare, as an uninvolved admin, please note that the user is clearly a WP:SPA with the agenda of negative POV pushing! We have hundreds of such smritis; is this one adding any value to the article, when the article clearly discusses regarding the Shudra classification including court rulings. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

You mean all Hindu scriptures which are in written form are problematic? BOLD CLAIM indeed! Kayasthas were mentioned in hundred of such smritis? another BOLD CLAIM. If you want to give the origin information of Kayastahs from scriptures then follow neutral point of view. Do not cherry pick scriptues. I think Satnam2408 also said the same. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Responding to a ping. Abecedare, I am really growing very tired of these never-ending Baidya/Bengali Kayastha caste wars on wikipedia. I wish we could add and emphasize 'Sudras' mention in the lead of both Kayastha and Baidya castes so these wars would stop - it would be accurate since Bengal has a two-varna system anyways. Coming to the main issue, the court judgements were already based on smritis and religious scriptures as the sources say(see Legal Limbo and Caste Consternation:Determining Kayasthas’ Varna Rank in Indian Law Courts, 1860–1930 CUP) Hayden J. Bellenoit - i.e. Smritis are implicitly referred anyways. It is clear that Kayastha is not a varna nor a caste and that each regional group differs by ritual status(varna) and is quite distinct. I am not sure which subgroup is being referred to here in Vyasa smriti. Mujamdar is discussing this in the "History of ancient Bengal" in the context of Karana Kayastha. I also checked the english translation of Vyas Smirti by M.N.Dutt. He has put "userer" to describe the Kayastha - this means "money-lender" which is actually a Vaishya profession. Incidentally, Vyasa Smriti also puts them in the same bucket as traders/Vanik(Bania?)(which it calls one of the lowest). On the same page, Mujamdar gives other interpretations(like Kayastha descent from Sage Kashapa) - without giving any context to which group he is referring to. Secondly, the same Vyas Smriti is used by Sinha and Lucy Carol Stout to show quotations that argue them being twice born. The basic issue is that this is a functional group and we need to know which group is being referred to here - what is a money-lender Kayastha?. If we want to add smritis, I can come up with a suggestion after going through a few sources. But as I said before, the Smritis were already implicitly referred to in the court findings. My point is that we need to be specific about the group as different scriptures will naturally refer to different groups. Based on my reading, some of the kayastha groups are definitely Shudras(maybe they had twice born origin and later were degraded or maybe they were shudras to begin with). Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Has the conflict started after TB revamped the Baidya article? If it's so, I guess the reason might be that the contents, tone and flow of these two articles hugely differ, despite both being non-brahmin upper-castes of Bengal.CharlesWain (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

LuKeEmily, I appreciate your input. Not only R.C. Majumder but scholars like Basanta Kumar Mallik and Sanghamitra Saha also mentioned VyasSmriti, which linked the Kayasthas with Shudras. In that case, I think Sinha is fringe. In the Bengali Kayastha page, Ushana Smriti has been used to give them a high origin! Although, according to many scholars, Ushana says completely different things about them. Rabindranath Chakraborty is a classic example of WP:FRINGE. Is it right? NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE, some sources here have mentioned them as Shudra and they are included in the article. Other mention them as twice born caste, they too need to be included and recent edits have done so. It seems balanced as of now. What's special in Vyas Smriti ?.-Admantine123 (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Vyas smriti is a Hindu dharma shastra. If other dharma shastras claimed they are even Brahmins then we should give that also. I see a huge ammount of cherry picking while discussing Kayastha's history mentioned in scriptures here. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I have gone through that section, and I can't see that there is any claim regarding [they] being Brahmins. Brahmins are not the only twice born castes, and it's a harsh reality that Kayasthas are twice born. If some sources says it, then what's objectionable here. Anyways, you should provide us quotation from modern post independence sources that have interpreted Vyas Smriti, as we avoid WP:RAJ era sources.-Admantine123 (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Please check the sources again. Mallik, Majumder, Saha they are not Raj era sources, rather Jagendra chandra ghosh, Kane are(which are present in this article). NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

And I think you did not get my point. I said if according to dharma shastras Kayasthas are even Brahmins then I dont have any objections but unfortunetly I could not find something like that. If you find something like this then please include that also. What Vyassmriti said about kayasthas is impotant because it is a Hindu law book smriti and we are discussing a Hindu caste. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Went through various sources. I think we should not add Vyas Smriti for now but can expand on the shudra discussion based on latest 2023 source. If we get consensus from other editors, I can support you in the addition of Vyas Smriti to the appropriate page only if we figure out - based on some interpretation by a scholar- which specific caste in the Kayastha functional group it is referring to. If not, Vyas Smriti is ambiguous and contradictory for this case and we should not add it. Religious scriptures say the groups are different castes. That is why we need some interpretation by a modern scholar rather than a cursory mention to at least get an idea of the group/region. IMHO, the issue with Vyasa Smriti in this particular case is (1) Ambiguity: It does not specify which caste in the group it refers to (which region? Which caste?). It is undisputed that Kayastha is not a caste but a functional group composed of various castes having different ritual status. This is analogous to Vaidyas(physician) like castes having different status in different states. 2)M.N.Dutt writes Userers in his translation for Kayastha in Vyas Smriti. Userers is another word for an (unethical)money lender. 3)The quote from Vyas Smriti puts traders (bania) and Chandalas also in that list which is confusing as Banias are not Chandalas. The translation says "lowest" but not shudras - chandalas are not considered Shudras nor are banias. 4) I have added a list of scriptures used to decide their Varna in the early 20th century. They do not use vyas smriti - is it because of ambiguity (which region) or contradictory statements in the same scripture? 6)Mujamdar's context is Bengal's history and Karana Kayastha. Is that the group being referred to? 5) Other than Sinha, Lucy Carol Stout from University of Berkeley also supports the twice born varna based on vyasa smriti. She is not citing that sentence(that includes Chandalas and traders) but another quote that is contradictory - in the same scripture. The contradiction is that the same scripture says the people having this profession need to be well versed in scriptues which Strout interprets as twice-born. For me, all these points make Vyas Smriti too confusing in this case. Brahmin origin is mentioned by at least two or three modern western scholars but my understanding of the Kayastha/Baidya group is too limited and I dont have enough context to know the academic consensus. Shudra status of some Kayastha groups is mentioned in detail by several sources including the one I just added in the article. Twice born status is also mentioned by the same. If you note the difference of opinon, it is mainly related to regional differences due to 1)ritual differences 2)some shudras registering their caste names as Kayastha in 20th century in some regions 3) regional differences in rituals(some kayastha castes following sacred thread ceremonies and being of twice-born origin and some in other states following rituals of Shudras)4)Scriptures describing various groups with different ritual status. In summary, I feel we should know the regional group before adding vyasa smriti (assuming other editors agree). Otherwise, I feel we should not add it until we get more details. But I feel we can expand/rewrite the Shudra discussion based on latest CUP I added recently (only if other editors agree) because Shudra status it is explained in a much better way. But consensus is needed as clearly there is a disagreement with other editors. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok LukeEmily I respect your neutrality. I am ok with your last statement but atleast remove the Raj era sources from this article, thanks. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Majority Source mention modern status of Bengali Kayastha as twice born

Hey TrangaBellam, LukeEmily and Ekdalian Hopefully a majority of modern sources call Bengali Kayastha as Twice born as mentioned here[6]. Actually, it's true that their varna status is disputed but I am not sure about the edit.Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey Satnam2408, this rare form of presenting information in caste articles is nothing new; let me give you an example. Almost 10 years back, I had proposed a similar edit in the article talk page of another caste article, and the same was accepted by Sitush! If you check the article on Kulin Kayastha (represents the consensus version), you will find the following statements: "Likewise, the original varna status of the five attendants, accompanying the Brahmins, according to the legend, is also a subject matter of debate. Majority of sources mention them as Shudra servants, many others refer to them as Kayastha attendants, and very few as Aryan Kshatriya consorts." The objective is to provide all views as per NPOV along with DUE weight. Hope you understand! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Ekadalian, I have read many sources related to caste in Bengal. So, I can say that the sentence the original varna status of the five attendants, accompanying the Brahmins, according to the legend, is also a subject matter of debate. Majority of sources mention them as Shudra servants, many others refer to them as Kayastha attendants, and very few as Aryan Kshatriya consorts.",approved by Sitush is correct. Kayasthas were regarded as servants of Brahmins for a long time and hence brandes as shudra (according to the long lasting tradition of Bengal). In Bengal's caste system, all castes except Brahmins were classified as Shudras. So, this edit is no exception. Even in many books published nowadays, Bengali Kayasthas are called Shudras. Now, in the sentence "Majority of the modern scholarly work consider the present varna status of Bengali Kayasthas as 'twice-born'", how many sources do these mean? All sources have we been able to read? When you are referring to Sitush, I think they can shed some light on this. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Satnam2408, NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE, Ekdalian, CharlesWain, and Admantine123: (pinging everyone except admin in the previous section), I was pinged here. I have not seen the quotes or the sources in this edit but unless one of the sources itself gives a summary saying that most sources consider them twice-born, we as editors, should not make this decision (some, few , many etc.). If the sources cited are saying that "most (other) sources consider them twice-born" then it is OK to write that but otherwise it is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Even if we find 10 sources that say twice-born and only 2 sources that say Shudra, it would still be WP:SYNTH to say most sources consider them twice born. Because it is practically impossible to know how many sources exist discussing their varna. So how do we decide majority and minority? Only a reliable source(historian, anthropologist, political scientist, sociologist or similar) can make such decisions. I feel it is better to says "X and Y thinks they are twice-born and Z and T think they are not". Please ensure that the "most/majority" statement exists in one of the sources(i.e. it is summarizing other sources). LukeEmily (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Minority view (if the source is decent enough) can surely be incorporated by attributing it to the author. I got this last Sunday from Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, where he mentioned:

Some groups– the Sat Shudras or better Shudras, alongside Brahmins, came to occupy the upper-caste (uccha jati) stratum.

Majority views or generally accepted view among scholars need no attribution.I agree with LE that we should avoid words like many, few, majority etc. if the source doesn't say so. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Well Bengal still has two varna system thats why non Brahmins are still considered as Shudras even till now. Although some scholars dont agree with that, but some scholars do. As far I know the modern varna status of Baidyas and Kayasthas are disputed. Why not use this source which perfectly summarized the modern varna status of them? It is also present in Bengali Kayastha article and I think it is a high quality one also. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to all editors for this edit. Regards, Satnam2408 (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Ekdalian, You must have remembered this ! This is your edit as per consensus . Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, CharlesWain, you may name the author(s) i.e. attribute to the author, or else mention 'some' in case of multiple sources! We rarely use the word 'majority', which requires consensus among all involved editors. I have modified the statement here due to this discussion; I have aligned it as per consensus! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

LukeEmily mentioned "...unless one of the sources itself gives a summary saying that most sources consider them twice-born, we as editors, should not make this decision (some, few , many etc.)." We don't need to attribute to authors if it's generally accepted opinion or mainstream view. It will be over citing, if we cite 10 sources and mention all the authors name just to write one line. The article will become very unpleasant for readers.CharlesWain (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

No, CharlesWain! LukeEmily meant something else, you probably misunderstood! We rather use either 'some' in case of multiple authors supporting the claim, otherwise attribute to the author in case it is a distinct or specific view of the author. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)