Talk:Bengali Kayastha

Varna mention is incorrect
Varna mention is incorrect. If decision of Patna High Court on Kayasthas 1926 clearly mentions all Kayastha as Kshatriya, this should be reflected in the page. Please note Bengali Kayasthas along with all Kayasthas are concluded as Kshatriya in the above mentioned High Court decision of 1926. Please refer to line 24 of the decision in the link below -

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1242249/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.122.61.75 (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Migration
What? Kayasthas migrated to bengal in ancient time? I never read that before, this is a pure lie. I mean their kanauj migration is fake according to some historians forget about ancient migration. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * , are you a reliable author/historian? Wikipedia doesn't bother about your opinion; we only consider reliable & verifiable sources; read WP:RS & WP:V! Also, we are against any form of original research like your statement above; read WP:OR. Ekdalian (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How many reliable author or historians have claimed that?? you joined wiki 10 years ago but dont know simple wiki rules? or maybe you are ignoring it in some specific caste pages? for example you did not reply me on Kayastha talk when I pointed out some raj era sources. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You have clearly mentioned on the Kayastha talk page that you don't want to discuss with me! Strange? Are you okay? Someone else will reply. Ekdalian (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So why you replied me here? anyway I dont have any problem to discuss anything with you. I want some admin's help, who is aware of wiki rules. I think you dont know all wiki rules despite being 10 years on wiki. Migration of kayastha in ancient Bengal is a dispute here. I want to discuss that. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ekdalian have you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources ? NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , since I don't know the rules of Wikipedia, as you have mentioned above, please discuss with admins; by the way, you need to be smart enough to find out the right person or the right forum! I can only say that there are no exceptional claims (what you think as exceptional may not actually be exceptional) in this version; moreover, this is a long term consensus version which has been reviewed by many experienced editors (not ignorant like me); there's no point discussing with me; there are other editors like LukeEmily, who have significant contribution in this article. Please discuss with the right person! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No exceptionals claims? I mean could you please give another source that mentioned Kayasthas came in Bengal at ancient era except Banu? NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the article properly; Referring to Naishadha Charita and Usanas-samhita smriti, Rabindra Nath Chakraborty mentions that according to these two medieval texts, "the Kayasthas were descended from Nagara Brahmin who had a large settlement in Bengal in the eighth century AD".
 * Do you think these Aryan Brahmins were natives of Bengal? How did they arrive in Bengal without migration? Ekdalian (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't merge informations, Banu is talking abount 4th century AD not 8th century AD. Rabndranath Chakraborty proposed another different origin theory of kayasthas associated them with nagara Brahmins, also I have sources which rejected this origin theory of kayasthas, will come to that later. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see there was a dispute regarding this content and the source. Please check the thread "Banu" opened by TrangaBellam.CharlesWain (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Rightly pointed out by Trangabellam. Aryan migration never happened in Bengal, further Alpine aryan term it self is a fringe. so how Brahmins and Kayasthas became the descendants of Alpine Aryans? @Abecedare please give your opinion. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you read that the matter has been resolved since the same was approved by possibly one of our most experienced editors on caste, Sitush! If you try to bludgeon the process, and ignore existing consensus, you may be sanctioned as per WP:GSCASTE; would request you to be careful as far as such contentious topics are concerned! Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well dont see Sitush making any comment at Banu section. As I pointed out before, the migration of kayatshas was not mentioned by anyone except Banu. Aryan Brahmins and Kayasthas never came in Bengal. If you think they came then provide another source. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition, Risley first linked the Bengali peoples with the Dravidian origin. To counter this Historian Ramprasad Chnada assosiated them with Aryans. Many Bengali castes like Brahmins and Kayasthas tried to show them assosiated with North Indian origin through out their Kulajis, but historians dont agree with these claims. So Banu making Kayasthas immigrant aryans definetly falls under fringe concept. I hope in wikipedia we dont promote fringe theories, WP:EXCEPTIONAL says the same. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Dispute
Can anybody, without engaging in any discussion on sources or whatever else (much less rhetoric), point out the disputed content. I am not going to read the extended back-and-forth in the abive threads because it is a pain. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The dispute is the ancient migration. Banu claimed Kayasthas migrated into bengal during ancient Gupta period. Banu also used term like Alpine Aryans which is a Aryan Race therory, indrocuced by Ramprasad Chanda on Bengalis. I dont see any other sources claimed Bengali caste gropus like Brahmins and Kayasthas were migrants of North Inida. In that case Banu is fringe and exceptional. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, we had enough debate in the section 'Banu', and as LukeEmily had finally argued that "Based on Sitush's edit that EkDalian pointed to, Sitush improved the existing Banu citation implying that he approved it." Please check the diff once again, here, based on which, Banu has been accepted as part of the consensus version! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sitush may have approved that in 2013. I dont see any other editor opposed that at that time. We dont include raj era theories for a reason, The Alpine Aryan connection of Bengalis it self is a Raj era Aryan Race theory introduced by Ramprasad Chanda. Banu also repeated this fringe theory. Last but not the least How many 21st century sources mentioned the Ancient migration of so called Aryan Brahmins and Kayasthas in Bengal? All these theories are fringe and should be avoided in Wikipedia. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Classic example of WP:OR! Ekdalian (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So you are saying Aryan race theory is created by me? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramaprasad_Chanda#Proposed_theories is created by me? I asked you for some recent sources (at least sources of 21st century) regarding the ancient migration. I think you are unable to understand my concerns. You have only one source of Banu full of fringe Alpine Aryan and migration stories. I will wait for the respond of other knowledgeable editors before making any further comment. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, here from WP:FTN. Sorry, but i think there should be some further discussion of the source. Correct me if i'm wrong but 'Banu' is a kind of familiar or nickname and should be cited as "Akter, Razia"? I don't have any grounding in the topic area, but what looks like a fairly unremarkable claim of a small circa 5th century immigration might be based on some dubious sources and theories which WP should try and steer clear of. She is citing some old sources, two in Bengali script and the one in English i can't find, but her use of 'Alpine Aryans' suggests these sources are based on theories of Herbert Hope Risley and Ramaprasad Chanda. Possibly unintentional, she has no real discussion of Bengali Kayastha in her work. Probably best to find a better source for the content. fiveby(zero) 13:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, and i believe the disputed content is: when systematic and large-scale colonisation by Aryan Kayasthas and Brahmins first took place which is not cited, followed by Kayasthas were brought over by the Guptas to help manage the affairs of state, from Akter. fiveby(zero) 13:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking a little more, Akter's text seems to align with descriptions of the two-wave Indo-Aryan migration of Rudolf Hoernlé and George Abraham Grierson a basis for later three-wave S. B. Roy Early Aryans of India, 3100-1400 B.C. and Rajesh Kochhar The Vedic People which i seem to recall is very controversial as to chronology. Have really no ideas as to where all the minefields are here, except it would be good to avoid any hint of two Aryan races. fiveby(zero) 16:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks fiveby for your contributions and input, it was really helpful. Further according to Rc Majumder: "The Kayasthas, Sadgops and Kaivartas are typical indigenous castes of Bengal." This statement makes Razia more exceptional and fringe I guess. I agree with you we should not give any information in wiki which is based on Aryan race theory. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's actually Prasanta Chandra Mahalanobis's opinion based on his anthropometric study. Scholars including Majumder mentioned it. CharlesWain (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right Charleswain, not only Rc but also many scholars mentioned about it. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think all should look at the "Biometric Nationalism" section in, maybe not useful for the article, but as commentary on some of these sources. Mahalanobis and Majumdar were attempting to rehabilitate Risley and a quote here is probably appropriate: The problem is not whether someone correctly read the calipers placed on another man's nose, but rather whether the length of the nose should in the first place be considered a sign of some deeper, inheritable racial difference. Should really take great care here as to which sources are used for the article and the basis for their claims. (oops, i mis-read and confused R. C. Majumdar with D. N. Majumdar)fiveby(zero) 19:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not expert in these topics. But as far as history of ancient and early mediaeval society of Bengal is concerned, this is the best book I've read. Kayastha/Karan used to be a functional group which had important role in society and administration. But it's unlikely this function was restricted to any specific Varna or racial group. This book by Furui has so much details and I wonder why we haven't incorporated those in the article! CharlesWain (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately we don't get Routledge thru WP:Library, but there is a pertinent passage for this discussion in the introductory survey concerning Niharranjan Ray, a source for Akter: He explained the growing rigidity of caste system by relating it with the progress of Aryanisation and the change of regimes...some notions like Aryanisation and the overemphasis of religious affiliation of dynasties became obsolete... p. 8. fiveby(zero) 21:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * TB has access to it and many high scholarly sources. In fact I started to look for this book, as they mentioned Furui in some articles.CharlesWain (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree with both of you. Sources like furui should be use to write this article. If Trangabellam put some light on this, it will be easy for us. Any origin information which is based on racial theory should be avoided. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, Ekdalian please take part in this discussion at least for the senior editor. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , can you please remind and  about the final conclusion on the sourced content from Banu. Hope you remember that you had drafted the conclusion after checking the edits by Sitush! It seems they have forgotten the same! Need your intervention! Also, we are yet to hear TB's opinion on the new dispute raised by the suspected sock, NC (filed an SPI). Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't take part in the discussion earlier but I have checked editing history, and the "Banu" thread opened by . I can clearly see the content is severely contentious and none of the the editors including, , Satnam, LE supported it's inclusion.CharlesWain (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Haven't these theories become obsolete? Ekdalian, you need to give substantive arguments  countering other experienced editors' very logical and valid concerns here. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sorry LukeEmily, you have been pinged again (Actually, most of the editors have significant faith in you and TrangaBellam)., is it extremely necessary to use Razia Akhter instead of furui, which is a better source available? I will also try to access the source. I understand that you may think I have forgotten the previous discussion, but you can see the diff in the previous discussion here, which was commented by LukeEmily . I reverted your edit because other experienced editors have raised the same concern indicating non consensus on the topic and You haven't provided a reasonable argument. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC).


 * Abecedare advised us to resolve the current dispute in their protection note. Unfortunately we are not seeing any substantive argument from Ekdalian's side addressing any of our concerns. Avoiding talk page discussions and reverting just citing "consensus version" as reason stonewall any improvement to the article, and that may be frustrating to any good faith editor.CharlesWain (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , I don't discuss with socks; now since the sock is blocked, I can! But I shall wait for 's comments first. It would have been great if TB would have participated! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I guessed so. That's why I mentioned other experienced editors and weigh in their arguments, not NC. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking through the earlier talk page discussions i see that the concern of 'Alpine Aryans' was already well-known and discussed. Really fail to see how removing 'Alpine' and 'non-Alpine' wording from the source somehow makes 'Aryan Kayasthas and Brahmins' acceptable for WP content (still present in Kayastha, Kulin Kayastha, Pal (surname) and Kundu (surname).) As an aside, shouldn't there be more content in Caste_system_in_India and/or "The Theory of Aryan Race and India: History and Politics" in Aryanism? Am i just not finding the article with this content? fiveby(zero) 14:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Page protected: I have full-protected the page for 3 days to prevent continued edit-warring, which frankly all of you are too experienced to be indulging in! Please resolve the current dispute before making any other related edits to the page even once the 3 day protection expires. Also will appreciate a reminder to restore the EC protection later this week. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want a re-hash of the arguments. Will someone just give me sufficient detail that enables me to locate the Banu source, please. I will try to read it.
 * I'm not massively impressed with commentary here. Assumptions that my tweaking of a citation equates to agreeing with its inclusion are way off the mark - I tweak lots of stuff because, well, lots of stuff needs to be tweaked. I also change my mind: information available to me changes, arguments made by people change, and the time I am prepared to give to something changes. For that matter, consensus can change and it would be wrong to say that the article as it existed in 2013 is somehow set in stone. Ten years is a long time. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , Thanks! Please see this edit. The book is this. The concern is that race theory is being used on a caste article. I agree with the concern. I feel "aryan" should be removed since we don't allow race on caste articles(please correct me if I am wrong) but since you had allowed it to stay at the time, I "acquiesced"(agreed reluctantly). But if you have not implicitly agreed I feel we should remove it. Even Trangabellum had concerns with Banu. Please can you look at the edit referred to here and keep/modify or remove it. I feel all the editors will support any changes you make.LukeEmily (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thapar mentioned:"The concept of the Aryans has been a contentious historical subject as it has been used to suit a variety of ideologies." Well, there are\were numerous theories and counter theories . Are these race theories accepted in caste articles? As far as Bengali castes are concerned, there are different contradictory theories/opinions of Riseley, Guha, Chanda, Sarkar, Mahalanobis. Are these part of mainstream modern scholarship? The disputed content was removed by TB and other editors multiple times during February-March, 2022(the dispute probably started even earlier), and was not re-incorporated in some article(s). Glad Sitush is here; we may come to a resolution very soon. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmily Thanks. I have now read chapter one of Banu. It seems useless to me, despite being published by Brill. The author seems to be on a mission to rehabilitate the discredited Aryan theories and can't even spell Risley's name correctly. I note that the author isn't even a historian - the book is a revised version of their political science PhD thesis, with the first couple of chapters being a sweeping overview to set the historical background for the main thesis. It was panned in a review by Barbara D. Metcalf, who is a recognised historian in the field. At best, for our purposes, it is WP:FRINGE. I wouldn't include it even with inline attribution.
 * There are other things which need to be binned from the article, by the way. Notably, we don't do genetics in caste-related articles, nor is there much of usefulness in the overview of colonial opinions. - Sitush (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation. We all are on the same page now, and the dispute is resolved! Thanks, all. Ekdalian (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Though in different context as it was here, Aryan and Indo-Scythian is mentioned in Jats Varna status. Could you please review if it's okay?
 * You've mentioned ""There are other things which need to be binned from the article..." I belive those include genetics study incorporated in origin myth subsection of this article.
 * I made/proposed some edits recently, and opened talk page discussions but was not co-operated to take it further . Could please review/make necessary edits/give suggestions regarding those? Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @CharlesWain I will try to take a look at the other bits of this talk page.
 * I noticed several mentions above of race not being permitted in caste articles. This is news to me. Certain theories have certainly been discredited but I can imagine that there are situations where evidence exists and is widely accepted. So, if mentions of race are not allowed it would be helpful if someone could direct me to a discussion on that issue. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have seen race being mentioned inconspicuously in few caste articles. As you know much better than me or any of us here about these policies, I was asking for your assessment/remarks.CharlesWain (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , I can't spot the discussions which you mention. Help! - Sitush (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , There are several disputes. I opened talk page thread for one of them - Tagore's remark is only about Duttas, Guhas, Ghoses, but couldn't move further. Moreover Abdul Sharar's  remark isn't about Bengali Kayastha specifically.Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @CharlesWain I can't spot them, sorry. Perhaps it is because I am using the mobile app. I can probably work out the Sharar one but your link to the Tagore issue returns an app error "the page does not exist". I'll try to work it out tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , Tagore and Sharar have been mentioned in the same page . Thanks & Regards,CharlesWain (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @CharlesWain I can't see the Bellenoit book that you linked for Sharar. I might be able to if I install a VPN but it's a pain & there's no guarantee.
 * I will see what I can find for the Tagore thing. - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, the Tagore thing is Bellenoit also. I am stuck, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

, quotation from Bellenoit,p178: Is Sharar talking about Bengali Kayastha specifically? Isn't Tagore's argument about 3 surnames only - Dutta, Guha, Ghosh? Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @CharlesWain Yep, you are right to be concerned on both points. I'm assuming that Bellenoit himself isn't referring to the situation in Bengal in whatever is said prior to the quote you give; if he is then the Sharar bit might be ok (writing "Bengali Kayastha" every time wold be tedious) but the Tagore bit still fails for the reason you state. Sitush (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is Bellenoit's interpretation! We are not quoting Tagore here; we are presenting what Bellenoit says, and Bellenoit categorically mentions that "Even though he had Bengal specifically in mind", which means Bengali Kayasthas in the given context! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , please note that our article says, "According to Bellenoit, Rabindranath Tagore supported the claims of Kshatriya origin, ......" Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ekdalian Yes, but only for people with specific names, I think, and not for the entire community as we imply. I don't think we can extrapolate from "Dutt" to "Bengali Kayastha"; in fact, consensus generally on Wikipedia has been that last name isn't verification of caste identity/association. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , these are some prominent Bengali Kayastha clans, you may check our article Kulin Kayastha, we had written together! Moreover, that's the reason, Bellenoit clearly mentions that "Even though he had Bengal specifically in mind"! This is Bellenoit's interpretation that even though Tagore mentioned some common Bengali Kayastha surnames, he had Bengal i.e. Bengali Kayasthas in mind! Hope I could explain! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, not just 'Dutt', he says 'Dutts, Ghoshs and Guhas', which has further been interpreted by the author! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ekdalian Yes, I was simplifying the list. It makes no difference: we cannot assume what he meant. It isn't our job to interpret what sources say, merely to paraphrase them. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, ; we are not supposed to interpret! In this case, it is the author's interpretation, which is accepted as per our policies/convention. Ekdalian (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ekdalian And what does the author say which affects my opinion? I can't see a mention of Bengali Kayastha in the bit that CharlesWain posted - it just seems to repeat Tagore's list of names, which aren't synonymous with Bengali Katastha unless we engage in original research and/or synthesis. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read once again, . "Rabindranath Tagore is another example. Even though he had Bengal specifically in mind, he argued that the Dutts, Ghoshs and Guhas were of Kshatriya origin, again citing their ‘respectability and prominence in administration and overall rates of literacy’."
 * The author interprets this as "Even though he had Bengal specifically in mind" and the paragraph is regarding Bengali Kayasthas! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , Bellenoit writes "Even though he had Bengal specifically in mind...", clearly because in the previous lines he isn't talking anything specifically about Bengal region at all ! And he continues to say, "...he argued that the Dutts, Ghoshs and Guhas were of Kshatriya origin, again citing their ‘respectability and prominence in administration and overall rates of literacy." Now finally it comes to a point something specifically related to Bengal region is being discussed, i.e. Tagore talking about three surnames found in Bengal . Bengali Kayasthas have few dozens of surnames; just mentioning three surnames certainly doesn't equate to Bengali Kayasthas as a whole! Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , IMO Bellenoit has been mis-interpreted, and Tagore's remark has been mis-represented . I, as a reader, had misunderstood the whole point (until I checked the source.) I believe any reader would misunderstand. We must avoid WP:OR. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ekdalian It doesn't matter: it is referring to certain name groups iin Bengal, not Bengali Kayasthas as a whole. We cannot assume more was meant than was written. - Sitush (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: I now have a copy of the book. I am going to read it so that I have the full context. - Sitush (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update, . My only point is, we can't engage in synthesis! Also, we are not supposed to say, Bellenoit is right or wrong! According to Bellenoit, Tagore had Bengal in mind i.e. Bengali Kayasthas in this context, as mentioned earlier. LukeEmily had added this Colonial views part, and I believe they are correct. Our article clearly states, 'According to Bellenoit', not according to Tagore. Anyway, since you are having a copy of the book now, you 'll get the actual context better. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ekdalian No, the synthesis seems to be you suggesting that "Bengal" = "Bengali Kayastha" and that "Dutt + other names" = "all Bengali Kayasthas".
 * The article doesn't suggest that Bellenoit is right or wrong, and we cannot discuss sources on talk pages without at least quite often implying one way or the other. So that point of yours is a complete red herring.
 * I will read the book. - Sitush (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging Since you had written this section, can you please share your opinion regarding the statement attributed to Tagore. Please go through the above discussion for better understanding! Thanks Ekdalian (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a well-written, informative and interesting book, offering a novel perspective on development of the "paper raj". The downside to being hooked by it is that I want to read the entire thing! So that's what I'm doing. - Sitush (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, great! Ekdalian (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Ekdalian did a blanket revert of all my edits with vague reason 1; I opened a talk page discussion 2, but got no response. Instead Ekdalian manually reverted two of my edits. It didn't include my edits concerning Tagore. I thought Ekdalian agreed with me on that. But with intervals of one or few days, all my edits were essentially reverted. Ekdalian, you should have responded me on talk page instead of slow- reverting. Moreover I am not the first to dispute the content. We just want to align the line with the source. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Bellenoit mentions Rabindranath Tagore argued that Duttas, Guhas, Ghoses of Kshatriya origin, because of their "respectability and prominence in administration and overall rates of literacy".- IMHO this would be aligned with the source; WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by CharlesWain
LukeEmily clearly mentions on the Kayastha article talk page: '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).'

Only you have mentioned your stand, which is simply nonsense! We have been using 'some', etc for years; when I had written something like 'Baidyas are mostly associated with Ambasthas', Sitush added the word 'some'! I can show the diff! Where's your so-called consensus? Disruptive editing is not ideal for collegial editing platform like Wikipedia! Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Kayasthas were immigrants
Bengali Kaysthas were immigrants, they came in Bengal with Brahmins. Please add this. Federicoluizz (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey, this is already mentioned in the article (appropriate section) regarding Kulin Kayasthas; as per all reliable sources, this legend is applicable to Kulins only, and not all Bengali Kayasthas in general! Ekdalian (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)