Talk:Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu

Arbitrary heading
The information is incomplete. Highest population of CKPs is in Thane, second highest and third highest are Baroda and Indore.. I'm not sure which among the two is second and which is third.

CGupte

Needs an Update
Please update this article I think more information is to be added... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.128.108 (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC) --Its Shreyas!!! 10:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC) If the person does not even know what the word CKP stands for I wonder what makes him think that he is qualified to comment on it.Agreed that many refrences may be found lacking ,but than the same is also true of a large body of human knowledge which stretches back to Vedic period.One must understand that most knowledge in India was passed orally. I have not contributed to this article but it would be better if the critic were to do some research on his own and add useful information rather than just criticizing-- Ajay Chaubal

What to say? But I think that Baji Prabhu Deshpande was CKP & he was great worrior. As well most of the CKP's born as KSHATRIYA. And everything there is just like brahmins. But the only difference is CKPs eat meat as they are KSHATRIYA & brahmins don't. Now a days some of the brahmins also eat meat. Then what will be the difference between these two communities? All the rituals performed in both communities are same.

=
What is the present population of CKPs in various places? 203.212.219.143 22:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC) R Vaidya

The last communal census of 1941 put their population in all provinces together at roughly 25,000. If one uses guesstimate method then today it should be around 80-90,000 in total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.162.234 (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

=
Thanks a lot for this kind of a valuable information on CKP. It is indeed very encouraging and interesting to know so much about your origin and ethnicity. I am a CKP too!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.4.15 (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What a wonderful Information....I am a CKP but did notknow so many details.wortj reading....Arun Pagnis...Architect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.170.97 (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC) unsigned comment added by 61.17.198.149 (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Great information. The only thing is the great Baji Prabhu Deshpande is named without any posting any posting. Please find out some post as even a small actor has been named with his post. And what about this great man! Baji Prabhu belongs to Pradhan-Deshpande Surname and his name can be scripted first as he is the oldest in the analogy and the real Big name please try out and research more to avoid such small problems. Ajinkya Ajit Deshpandelink title

SIR, I JUST WANT REFER THAT IF A PERSON BORN FROM KSHATRIYA CLAN, AND SOME ONE DISTROYED HIS WHOLE FAMILY AND ONLY CHILDREN ARE SAVED BY A BRAHMIN (PRIEST) THEN THE PERSON WHO KILLED ALL THE MEMBER OF THE CLAN ASKED OR DEMANDED THAT THE CHILDREN SHOULD WORK WITH THE HELP OF SWORD AND PEN, THE CLAN OF CHILD WILL CHANGED IF YES WHY? AND I TOO WANT TO ASK THAT THE SON OF CHANDRASEN "KAYATHA" ACTED AS A KING SO IT SEEM THAT HE PERFORM ACT OF A KING AND KAYASTHA SON "SOMRAJ" ALSO ACT AS A KING THEN IT SEEM THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT THEY ACTED AS RAJPUT KING, AND THER DESCENDANT ALSO ACTED AS RAJPUT KING SO IT SEEM TO BE CLEAR THAT THEY ARE RAJPUT BY BIRTH AND BY PROFESSION. I JUST WANT TOO REFER THAT THE BOY BORN IN THE CLAN OF KSHATRIYA WILL ALWAYS BE A KSHATRIYA.AND TELL ME IF A BOY BORN IN A CLAN OF KSHATRIYA IF HE BECOMES A DOCTER OR A TEACHER HIS CLAN WHOULD BE CHANGED BY ACTING AS A DOCTER OR A TEACHER I DONT THING SO. A BOY BORN IN A CLAN REMAIN IN THAT CLAN TILL DEATH ACCORDING TO HINDUISM THER ARE FOUR CLAN ONLY ( BRAHMIN, KSHATRIA ,VAISH ,SUDRA )SO A BOY BORN IN A KSHATRIA (RAJPUT) CLAN HIS CLAN WILL NEVER GOING TO BE CHANGED WHAT EVER HAPPENS OR WHAT EVRE HAPPEND TO HIS FAMILY HE WILL ALWAYS REMAIN A KSHATRIYA (RAJPUT). "SO CHANDRASENYA KAYASTHA PRABHU ARE THE DESCENDANT OF HAIYAHA RAJPUT CLAN AND WILL ALWAYS BE A RAJPUT KSHATRIYA NOT KAYASTHA "

THE TRIBE OF CHANDRASENYA KAYASTHA PRABHU "DIDNOT" BORN IN THE VEDIC TRIBE OF KAYASTHA "(THE KAYASTHA TRACE THEIR GENEALOGY FROM ADI PURUSH SHRI CHITRAGUPTAJI MAHARAJ)" AND CHANDRASHENYA KAYASTHA PRABHU BORN IN THE ROYAL CLAN OF HAIHAYA/HAIHEYA/HEIHEYA RAJPUT CLAN SO THEY ARE "RAJPUT" NOT KAYASTHA. AND CHANDARSENYA KAYASTHA PRABHU IS A ARYAN CLAN.

MOST IMPORTANT:-

NOTE:-CHANDRASENYA KAYASTHA PRABHU ARE ARYAN CLAN CHANDRAVANSHI RAJPUT CLAN (HAIHAYA RAJPUT CLAN).

NOTE:-CHANDRASEN IS THE SON OF KING SAHASTRARJUN ALSO KNOWS TO BE KARTAVIRYA ARJUN OR SAHASTRABAHOO A HAIHAYA RAJPUT SO HIS DESCENDANT WILL ALSO BE A HAIHAYA RAJPUT.

NOTE:-ABOUT ORIGIN CKP CHANDRASENYA KAYASTHA PRABHU ARE "RAJPUT ARYAN NOT KAYASTHA",BECAUSE CHENDRASENYA KAYASTHA PRABHU BORN IN AN ARYAN CLAN OF HAIHAYA RAJPUT. BUT KAYASTHA TRACE THER GENEALOGY FROM ADI PURUSH SHRI CHITRAGUPTAJI MAHARAJ.

"ANDCHENDRASENYA KAYASTHA PRABHU COMMUNITY TRACE THER GENEALOGY FROM RAJPUT KSHATRIYA SAHASTRARJUN AND HIS SON CHANDRASENAND HIS SON KAYASTHA SO IT SEEM TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT CHANDRASENYA KAYASTHA PRABHU IS A ARYAN RAJPUT CLAN".

IT IS ALSO THAT CHANDRASEN SON KAYASTHA ACTED AS KING AND RULED KASMIR AND MANY PART OF CENTRAL INDIA AND KAYASTHA SON ALSO RULED KASMIR AND MANY PART OF CENTRAL INDIA AND IT IS ALSO THAT CHANDRASENYA KAYASTHA PRABHU COMMUNITY ALSO ACTED AS KING AND SOMETIME DURING THE ADVENT OF BUDHISM,THE LAST CKP KINGDOM WAS LOST. SO IT SEEM THAT CKP COMMUNITY ALSO ACTED AS RAJPUT KSHATRIYA COMMUNITY BY ACTING AS A RULER OR KING.

SAGAR JKLQWE54@GMAIL.COM sonu 14:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarsinghdevre (talk • contribs)

social status
I have done a deep study of castes from Maharashtra.

Kindly refrain from making derogatory libelous statements against any community. Do NOT confuse CKPs with Kayasthas from north. All Kayasthas hold different status and the status differed depending on region.

In general, the article(wikipedia) is very biased against CKPs. Based on social status they are more comparable to brahmins and brahmins(priests including Shankaracharyas) do consider them a very high caste(see below). They are closer to Brahmins than to Kshyatriyas(see below).

1)http://archive.org/stream/ethnographicalno00chanrich/ethnographicalno00chanrich_djvu.txt mentiones the Kshyatriya status and the decend from Chandrasen makes them Rajvanshi(royal).

2)The CKPs even today follow the munj(thread ceremony) and have gotras from Rishis Reference:above and also the printed book cited in wikipedia

3)The word Prabhu means Lord (Reference: Marathi dictionary). This indicates higher status by itself.

4)Not as proof but just a general statement: I have personally attended thread ceremonies (upanayanams) of several CKPs. The only other communities that has upanayanams(munj in marathi) are the brahmins and saraswats in Maharashtra.

5) 'Arranged Marriages' between brahmins and CKPs and saraswats's are quite common these days. (Reference: Check any marriage bureau listings specific to maharashtra and see the pattern]

6)Shankaracharya, in a letter in the Bombay gazette has clearly clairified the rajvanshi Khyatriya status.{ref:Bombay Gazette]

7)Please do not confuse them with north indian Kayasthas. They were originally called Prabhus [Bombay Gazette] - not kayasthas.

8) CKPs are considered as a mix between brahmin and Kshatriyas [see B Gazatte] due to the history of Royalty(Chandrasen) as well as being vedadhikaris after the thread ceremony.

Other than brahmins and saraswat's in maharashtra, CKPs are the only caste in which thread ceremony(called munj in marathi) is done. {references: maratha history and well as above references and common knowledge in maharashtra]

9)Many instances of warriors like Baji Prabhu Deshpande. American Engineer MS (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC) American Engineer MS (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC) American Engineer MS (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent CHanges
All the recent changes and the convinient deletion of content looks like attmpt at hiding a some facts for glorifying some individuals.

FOJ12345 (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC) However, Biologically it has been proven that CKPs & Kayathas from North are same and only mythologies defer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.76.31 (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Redirect
"CKP" shouldn't redirect here automatically. Of all the many things "CKP" could stand for, this is definitely not even remotely close to being the most general. "Certificate in Knowledge of Policing" seems to show up most commonly on Google searches. 62.189.73.197 (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 11:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Turning into a mess
I am tempted to revert this article to this version because subsequent contributions have made a general mess of things, introducing poor sources, tangential points and possible synthesis. I don't understand how someone who has been editing for so long can make so many simple mistakes but I find myself cleaning up after you pretty much every time your name pops up. It is as if you are still unaware of WP:REFPUNCT and how to cite stuff. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

There is one problem with this version. The surname patil is generally not part of ckp surnames. SP2705 (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Surnames removed
Some surnames removed why so surnames section SP2705 (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Surnames in caste articles are almost always removed. They are rarely unique to the caste, the lists are WP:INDISCRIMINATE in that pretty much any surname can be adopted by anyone, they add nothing for the reader except to mislead them into stereotyping, and they attract a lot of unsourced edits by clueless people. There really does have to be an extremely good reason to include such things. - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Its quite disappointing to add names one day and remove on other day. SP2705 (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Only people belonging to this clan can clarify. SP2705 (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

SP2705, I agree with Sitush in this particular case. I am a Deshashtha Brahmin (not in your CKP 'clan' as per your 'requirement') but will say something anyways. As you may know, due to similar occupations of CKPs/Brahmins in the 19th century (both castes being literate) , CKPs and Marathi Brahmins share many common last names like Kulkarni, Phadanvis, Apte, etc.. Secondly, anyone can go to court and change their name. So adding 'typical' last names for any caste is pointless. So what Sitush means (IMHO) is that based on last names, people make assumptions about their caste - which is incorrect. Personally, I think the last name category is completely useless. But your edit today would not have been deleted if you had given the proper source for your information. Unsourced edits are not allowed. Acharya63 (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I strongly agree for removal of surname section. SP2705 (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Too much spam(unsourced edits) on the meaningless surnames section going on. Removed it as per talk. Acharya63 (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Should we remove the surnames section?
Reasons: 1. No value as pointed out by Sitush. 2. People come and frequently edit it(add, remove) names based on their personal knowledge - obviously with good intentions - but without citing any sources. 3. Many of these names are also found in other communities (eg. Marathi Brahmins). 4. Most other equivalent articles on Wikipedia do not have a 'surname' section. Acharya63 (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that no mention should be given for surnames should ever for any topic. SP2705 (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Narrative flow
Wikipedia articles are intended to have some sort of narrative flow rather than being an indiscriminate collection of information. I realise that this is sometimes tricky but simply gathering together every mention of a community and throwing it into the article without any thought for its contextual meaning really does make things difficult to read and, well, somewhat pointless. That is one reason for my recent removals - the information may have been ok in places as information but there was no real point to including it.

My removal of the Gail Omvedt stuff has a slightly more complex rationale. Despite her very one-sided take on things, and the often one-sided nature of the journal in which she was published, Omvedt is a de facto reliable source. However, as well as the above issue, there are big problems with reproducing detailed information from censuses of the Raj era. Some of those have been addressed in Census of India prior to independence but Omvedt herself, in the source that was given here, says for example that "There is difficulty in using such Census data, particularly because the various categories tended to be defined in different ways in different years, and different criteria were used in different provinces for classifying the population. Nonetheless, the overall trend is clear ..." As such, if there was any point to be made, it would be better just to use her conclusion, with the stated proviso, rather than fill the article with dubious figures and no proviso at all. Of course, there would be no reason in even using that conclusion unless it has some point to it specifically with reference to the CKP. - Sitush (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. I will go through the sources Omvedt and the other source(the other author) to get the conclusion if it related to the CKP people rather than using numbers.
 * Omvedt has also published it in a book.
 * However, I still did not understand why you allowed similar table with similar values to remain on the deshastha brahmin page.(of 1911) for at least 6 years. It also had hard numbers and no conclusion.


 * Also, should I look for a better source for the Shankaracharya letter? I personally know this is true because I read it in some marathi books (but they are very old and hard to obtain) but we can find another source.


 * Acharya63 (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't monitor everything. Please can you read WP:THREAD regarding how to indent your posts. - Sitush (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

simplified
'''They are mainly concentrated in Maharashtra. They may be considered part of the broader functional group called Kayastha which modern scholars opine is not a "caste" but a group composed of distinct castes of different varna origins (based on the region of origin), each of different social and ritual status. For example, the CKP, who are "Chandraseniya" or "Chandraseni" are of distinct origin and status from the Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthass of north-India and Bengal. Another difference given by Hayden J. Bellenoit who only discusses the north-Indian group in depth is that the north-Indian (Chitragupta) group usually held only lower level administrative and scribal(writer) posts unlike the Prabhus(CKP) and other groups who were more prominent. In addition, the north-Indian Kayasthas did not hold any military posts unlike the CKPs in the medieval era. The others [non-CKP] have subdivisions that again vary in Varna, origin and ritual status based on the subgroup whereas the CKP do not have any subdivisions.'''

User Karma Calculation is vandalizing the page, removing reference to Pathare Prabhu. He is obviously a sockpuppet of Srivastava, north Indian Kayastha who has some personal vendetta against this community. I am requesting editors who originally added this content to review. I do not have enough knowledge of hindu castes to debate this. Karama Calculation refuses to discuss and keeps vandalizing. MyrddinGaius (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I looked at the Srivastava page and it would explain why he keeps vandalizing. Suggestion:
 * We can change it to one line " They are mainly concentrated in Maharashtra. They may be considered part of the broader functional group called Kayastha ".MyrddinGaius (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

EkDalian's removal of sources
, do not remove sourced sentences. I have gone through your edit histories, and you have problems with content that is sourced but not to your liking. Another editor deleted a source and requested a quote for thread ceremony/vedas etc. So sources were provided. No new text other than the word janeu was added - duplicate content was moved in lead but no content was moved from body to lead. Please review the edit. The quote was provided simply because another editor asked for it. NO NEW TEXT WAS ADDED TO LEAD. Why did you remove sourced content from body? Next time you shall be reported without warning. Massachusetts is beautiful (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hellow thanks for the quote but I am not able to verify the quote from KS Singh. can you please provide me the page no from Singh regarding janeu ceremony of them? And it will be nice if we have two or more sources on this, thank you. Blueicecube (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Blueicecube, Good morning. It is page 2083 from oxford University press. The source already existed on the page. I did not add it. I only referenced it in the lead from the body as per your request. Actually, vedokta is a marathi word for rights to study/teach vedas for which thread ceremony is a prerequisite. I can add more sources if you like but it is not controversial at all. If you read C._D._Deshmukhs autobiography, he mentions his thread ceremony at age 6 or 7 as well.Massachusetts is beautiful (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey Massachusetts is beautiful, you have moved the statement -- "The CKP performed three Vedic karmas or duties which in sanskrit are called: Adhyayan- studying of the Vedas, yajna- ritual done in front of a sacred fire, often with mantras and dāna – alms or charity." to the 1st para (lead), which is WP:UNDUE. The word 'body' in my edit summary is incorrect. Anyway, your statement "I have gone through your edit histories, and you have problems with content that is sourced but not to your liking." will be treated as a personal attack. Please be careful in future, and please feel free to report against me! Ekdalian (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ekdalian, that sentence "three vedic karmas..." was already in the lead but not first paragraph. Hence I said I have not changed the lead. I placed the vedas related sentences together without modifying the lead. Vedic rituals are of two kinds , one is satkarma(6 rituals) and one is trikarma(3 rituals) hence it is mentioned what those 3 rituals were. Iravati Karve has also clarified that the rituals of ckp and Brahmins are same but the ckp are not generally vegetarians (few might be- by personal choice- for example Gajanan Maharaj Gupte(Kulkarni) was a ckp but lived on raw leaves and fruits.). But I am digressing....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massachusetts is beautiful (talk • contribs) 14:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, , , can you please have a look at the article (especially the lead section), which seemed like WP:UNDUE. I have just modified a bit. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * You moved the part about Vedas to the second pragraph of the lead. I am fine with it. I dont think you made any major changes. The article has been stable and well sourced for years based on history. Is the lead in wikipedia the first paragraph or the first section? I think we are using different terminologies.Massachusetts is beautiful (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Massachusetts is beautiful I am not able to verify that page of KS Singh, can you please find another WP:RS to cite the thread ceremony part? Blueicecube (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Blueicecube, added another source published by the Pune Muncipal corporation. I will try to find the one by C.D.Deshmukh also where he talks about his thread ceremony. About K.S.Singh source, it existed on the page for years as far as I can tell. I don't have access to it but the quote and page number was given.Massachusetts is beautiful (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Blueicecube, I have added a quote from C.D.Deshmukh's autiobiography. You can access the book for free. Not sure if I am allowed to post the link here but you can search for "course of my life" on archive.org. I can try to find more sources. But this is a simple religious custom- it is well known and simply the first part of a vedic ritual. [personal know-how hence cannot add to the article: In Maharashtra, if one is a Marathi Brahmin or CKP, and has not done a thread ceremony in childhood (for any reason), one cannot get married ritually unless he performs it. For such people, Brahmins have something called a munja-sodmunja (sod means leave, munja means thread ceremony). So you have to perform the ceremony just days before the marriage and do another one by leaving the first one (could be one day prior to marriage). This marks your exit from student life and entry into the life of a married householder. This is personal knowledge so I cannot add it to the page without sources.] If you are doing research on the community, I will be glad to help you with some sources. If you know any Maharashtrian Brahmin personally, you can verify the statement about munja-sodmunja from him. There is temple of a religious personality Ram Maruti Maharaj(Deshpande) in Thane who died in the early 20th century and he all many devotees from all castes. His portraits always show him wearing a sacred thread. Personally, I don't believe in God-men as I am an agnostic. Sorry if I offend anyone. Thanks.


 * Massachusetts is beautiful Wikipedia articles highly rely on WP:RS. Your sources are not WP:RS, also please see WP:HISTRS. Blueicecube (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Blueicecube, these are reliable sources for a cultural event. Deshmukh is referenced by several publications. There is nothing very historically significant about a thread ceremony. Anyway, I found one more Chopra. Thanks Massachusetts is beautiful (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Massachusetts is beautiful well-sourced articles are always better, thank you for providing those sources. Blueicecube (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - (1) Lead sentence: "Ethno-religious" is wrong usage. Unless there is a good source for it, it should be removed. Why "South Asia"? Is it present outside India? If it is mainly in Maharashtra, that should be mentioned. Also, the first sentence should have a citation. Please add the best one available. (2) The connection with the Brahmins (second paragraph) is not clear. The first sentence implies that it is included among Brahmins, the second sentence says the opposite. Desastha etc. are not considered separate castes in RS; they are only a division of Brahmins. 's help is probably needed to sort this out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)*


 * Comment: I agree with Kautilya3. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Varna Dispute
I think the varna dispute first occurred in Shivaji era it continued till late 1800. Am I missing something? Timovinga (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I added some details related to the dispute. We should give/merge further information by following the chronology. Timovinga (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contributions! I shall review the article soon since there seems to be some sort of dispute. Ekdalian (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Timovinga, the page already had the proper chronology for the gramanyas before you edited it. As per wikipedia policy, WP:ONUS, a source does not guarantee inclusion - and I think Ekdalian will agree; suddenly adding some inflammatory content on a page out of the blue; a page that has been stable and edited by senior users for years without much disruption; especially an edit that introduces  an anachronistic error without understanding the context is not correct. I checked your edits, where you have given "stable version" as a reason to revert sourced content on several pages. Ekdalian, the editor you thank has been making similar disruptive edits on many pages disrupting stable pages and has been warned by admins(please do check his talk page history where he has deleted warnings) but let not focus on the editor for now but discuss the content. I will explain in short here and then add missing quotes.

1)Early 1800s Gramanya in the peshwa era - resolved during the rule of Bajirao II and then restarted again in British era (the reasons were different, actual reasons were political, but violation of upper caste norms -such as widow remarriage - or the Parashuram myth and non-existence of Kshatriyas in Kali Yuga - was given as a reason to start the gramanya). There are sources that are ambiguous and some that are more specific. They are not contradictions. No, the gramanya did not go on for 200 years. The max was 2 years if you check the sources. Gramanyas were against Brahmins as well - basically all upper castes. In the peshwa era, one of the initiators against CKP  committed suicide - he had failed to stop the vedic rituals. And even nana Phadnavis went in depression during his last days as he felt he did not do enough to support the ckp - hence he felt he violated the hindu scriptures. But the final results are clear and supported by the brahmins themselves. All this is in the sources. Don't think we need all these details on someone's mental health, do we?

2)The gramanya (to stop the thread ceremony) were started by individuals (not communities) such as Balaji Pant Natu. He was in the British administration.

3)There would be no reason to start a gramanya unless the caste was already having a thread ceremony. Gramanyas by definition are violation of Brahminical rituals.

4)By placing the Deshpande source first before the Peshwa era, you have made changes that are introducing an anachronistic error. I will fix it and provide quotes for the others. The Deshpande paper focuses on Natu and his relative Nilkantha Thatte(one's son was married to the other's daughter - i need to check the source for whose son and whose's daughter) which took place in the British rule.

5)Since the scriptures supported the cpk(this is made very clear in the academic sources), the gramanyas did not prevail.

6)There was an arbitrator and both in british and peshwa era they ended in support for the ckp as the scriptures were very explicit in the support. Both these were mentioned on the page before Timovinga started editing it

7)historian Ketkar has given exact dates if we "really" need them but the source is not in english.

8)Since the ckp prevailed in the fight to deprive them of the scared thread, shahu appointed ckp administrators to compete with the brahmins - this is missing from the page and important IMO.

9)The Brahmins were divided even during the gramanyas in their opinion. Meaning that the ckp had support from local brahmins also. Otherwise they would not have prevailed. This is explicitly mentioned in the sources.

9)Since the ckp prevailed due to their know how of sanskrit, it encouraged other folks to study Sanskrit in Maharashtra - also missing. This is also given in sources.

10)I feel that too many details of gramanyas are undue on this page - only the conclusion and effects suffice as this page is about the caste not the excruciating details of a 200-300 year old resolved quarrel. And even if added, proper context (conclusion) needs to be given rather than picking up something out of context.

11)being an ip does not equate to being incompetent. I made some contributions with new sources too Ekdalian.

12)Gramanyas (all against upper castes in Maharashtra that followed thread ceremonies) are typically a research topic by PhD students. Best wishes.


 * You are not giving all information regarding the dispute my friend. The dispute first occurred in the Shivaji era. Why did you jump directly into the Baji Rao II era? Timovinga (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Vijay Gupchup is not reliable. Timovinga (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ekdalian your opinion is needed here, since the IP user has some content related dispute. Timovinga (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My last edited version has all details starting from Shivaji, but the IP user is deleting the sourced information and cherry picking the dispute outcome. Timovinga (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Timovinga is the one who is cherry picking. What do you mean "cherry picking the dispute outcome?" There is usually only one outcome and the sources are clear are they not?, please check the history of the talk page of this user and the warnings various admins have given him as well as the blocks. Timovinga has deleted historian Vijaya Gupchups (PhD historian from University of Bombay) source as well as blanked out O'Hanlon's source. Wikipedia rules require WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. He cannot just come and start deleting content from pages and rearranging it. A discussion is needed to get context of sources. IBy his own words above he is not knowledgeable of this issue yet he insists on "my way or the high way". Ekdalian, please look at his other disruptions on wikipedia and the warnings several admins and editors have given him. He is being disruptive.-IP


 * Timovinga, please slow down. The information from Shivaji is also there as Gaga Bhatt has been mentioned. There are three main gramanyas - Shivaji, Peshwa and British. The summary and outcome of al is given. Gaga Bhatt was the arbitrator for the first. Pune scholars were arbitrators for the second. Shankaracharya was the judge for the third. I will add a summary of the sources if you are interested in the details of the gramanys. As I said, you are making an anachronistic error by adding it in the incorrect seiquence.-IP
 * Gagabhatta gramanya held under Shivaji not under British Raj. This information should be present in the Maratha era. Learn how to sign first.Timovinga (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Article is repeatedly discussing about Gramanya, Ok we know what Gramanya is, we dont need to repeat what is Gramanya again and again. Timovinga (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge the three Gramanya outcome altogether by following the chronology. I am letting you to do this. Timovinga (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I did it. Don't remove any sourced information. Timovinga (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear and, I agree with the current chronology. Shivaji->Peshwa->British.  Thank you. Basically there are interesting details worth mentioning in the British era- how the Shankaracharya was blackmailed by Natu (with a threat of imprisonment) and also how a staring a yadnya that cost lakhs of rupees (in those times) and not inviting a specific Brahmin for it - caused an interesting conflict in communities. The names of the three cities where the gramanyas occurred are also missing. I will add all missing quotation requested using University of Toronto sources. Secondly, effects of crossing the ocean are not given. A paper mentions that silly superstitions (which centers on the hindu belief like sacred thread becoming void if you cross the ocean) caused the community to ostracise their own members and another case get them "purified". I will also add the missing quotes needed to the page. I feel the Divekar page number might be wrong or the same source is repeated. I will check and correct the citation. Thank you. Regards, IP.
 * All information has been given now regarding the dispute and Gramanya. Ekdalian please review my edit. IP user don't remove any information now from this article. If you want to add more information then go ahead.Timovinga (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please follow wikipedia rules of WP:ONUS and WP:BRD - especially on a stable page. You need consensus for such large changes. You messed up the chronology  again. Incidentally, the gramanyas were before Shivajis' time too. A new gramanya started during shivaji's time. Your edits are technically incorrect. A gramanya is started against a caste that has thread ceremony. The Deshpande paper is talking about the reason for the gramanya (kshatriyas killed by Parshuram in the Kali guya). And then he goes on to discuss Balajipant Natu's dispute. You are synthesizing using sources without understanding the context the scholar gives. Why are you being so disruptive? Wikipedia has given talk pages for a reason. -IP  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.48.199.177 (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, what are your specific objections? This version seems to represent all POVs! Ekdalian (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , I have already stated my objections. Also, there is a chronological error and misrepresentation as well as synthesis of sources, blanking of content etc. And the person editing has no clue about what the gramanya is. The onus of burden of inclusion of new content is on the person editing any page. Did you look at the warnings the user has received? Ekdalian, as a senior editor, why are you allowing him to violate WP:ONUS and WP:BRD? You have revered edits on stable pages already for the same reason(consensus). Are the rules different for this page? Please bring the page to a stable state so we can continue discussion.-IP
 * Nothing inflammatory added, they claim themselves Kshatriyas but according to regional Brahmins, they are shudras. This was the dispute. I think you are not new on Wiki, maybe a blocked sock. Stop attacking me again and again, if you think I break any rule take me to ANI. In the current version, I maintained the chronology correctly. It first happened under the rule of Shivaji(as presented in the Bril source). If you have sources that say it happened before Shivaji also you are welcome to present it. Timovinga (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope. Your chronology is wrong. The dispute is called gramanya. If a gramanya took place at the time of shivaji, it automatically implies they were doing upanayana at the time. You are violating WP:BRD and WP:ONUS I have no objection to addition of any content as long as it is done correctly. Right now even the sentences do not match the sources. You have basically rewritten history by mixing up sources that discuss different times.-IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.48.199.177 (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The dispute was already discussed before you started editing the page, was it not? The issue was the belief at the time that Kshatriyas and vaishyas based on mythological texts had all been eliminated and only brahmins and shudras were left.-IP  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.48.197.29 (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Protected article: Regarding recent dispute
Hello & IP editor, this article has now been protected, since discretionary sanctions apply on such contentious caste articles! I shall continue editing the article since I could see some POV edits related to the recent dispute! In case you have any valid point, and you are unable to edit the article, please raise the same here. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my late response. Looks like you did a good job to prevent this article from POV pushing. I will add more information later regarding the details of the dispute.- Timovinga (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * , you are making POV edits by deleting sourced content. For example, you kept the content about non existence kshatriyas in the Kali yuga but deleted the other view that kshatriyas do exist from a scholarly source. Whether the full quote is needed or not is debatable but why did you delete the source and the summary? Please add the summary at least (if not the quote). About the Kshatriyas in the kali yuga paper, "This paper deals with the history of the disputes regarding the Ksatriya status of the local ruler Shivaji and the Cāndrasenīya Kāyastha Prabhu (CKP) community of Maharashtra. The origin of these disputes lies in the wider dispute concerning whether there are any true Ksatriyas in the Kali age. ". Is this quote not clear enough that the dispute is related to existence of kshtriyas? Also did you check the title of the paper? Why are you intentionally writing incorrect information in the article although the sources say otherwise? -IP

To all editors: Fix incorrect content: O' Hanlon source needs to be added to remove POV
One source says that the dispute was due to the non existence of Kshatriyas in the Kali Yuga. However, the O' Hanlon source that gives the resolution of that myth especially applicable to ckp has been removed here. See => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu&diff=prev&oldid=1199683489. 182.48.197.29 (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

To all editors: Fix incorrect content: Kshatriyas in the Kali Yuga incorrect representation of sources
The Kshatriyas in the Kali Yuga source (not just the title clearly says that the dispute was due to the Parshuram myth). However, Ekdalian has made a good faith mistake in the edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu&diff=prev&oldid=1199683489 Please check the quote -the source clearly says"The origin of these disputes lies in the wider dispute concerning whether there are any true Ksatriyas in the Kali age" Please do not misrepresent sources. Ekdalian in his summary says exactly the opposite!!! 182.48.197.29 (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey IP editor, why are you so impatient! Honestly speaking, if you were a named user, and behaved like this in such a contentious caste article, including the edit warring, you might have been blocked as per WP:GSCASTE. Editing is an ongoing process; I have added the part mentioned. Ekdalian (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Review
Hello, this article has been protected recently after a content dispute! I have edited the article, and would like to request you to review my recent edits, especially the section 'Varna dispute and Gramanya', if you can manage some time! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2024
Please remove "varna dispute and gramanya" section from the page on Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu. No other page about any caste has any similar section added since it is POV pushing anyway. Senachandra (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. It looks like there's been extensive discussion about this section above that didn't reach any obvious consensus. You may want to participate in the discussion if you have anything to add, following standard dispute resolution procedures. Liu1126 (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2024
Please add the name of Anand Dighe, prominent politician, in notable individuals. This can be used as the reliable source: https://www.firstpost.com/politics/balasaheb-thackeray-of-thane-who-is-anand-dighe-the-mentor-of-new-maharashtra-chief-minister-eknath-shinde-10858431.html Senachandra (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  thetechie@enwiki  :  ~/talk/  $  03:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)