Talk:Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha

Dubious sources and content
The two books cited in this article don't even mention the word "Chitraguptavanshi", and talks about the Kayasthas in general. The Patna High Court document is not WP:RS-compliant. The list of "Prominent Chitraguptvanshi Kayasthas" is also unsourced, and has BLP implications. utcursch &#124; talk 22:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The book that I have cited in the introduction section "Formation of colonial states.." by H. Bellenoit does mention "Chitraguptavanshi", look under Chapter 2 under the sub-section "Kayastha marriage patterns" in para. 3. To quote the exact line " ...lineage from the sons of Chitragupta (Chitraguptavansi)(Figure 2.1). Sattvic7 (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Some other guy is vandalizing this page by citing dubious sources and unnecessary information. Sattvic7 (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Make this article readable atleast!
We have multiple issues to address: Sattvic7 (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) That there's a dedicated page for Bengali Kayastha as well as Karan Kayastha as well as Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu; so this article should include only the North Indian or Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas. If this article is going to have same content as Kayastha then there's no need to for this page!
 * 2) That please cite reliable sources and maintain neutrality and grammar for god's sake. This is Wikipedia, not a personal blog! For details see: Manual_of_Style.
 * 3) How to make a good article? See: Good_articles. This is the ideal scheme everyone must follow here.

Will take some time to reply pointwise. Be patient and polite. Point 1. Let me explain it mathematically. If A is subset of B, then subset A has to include few elements of B, but the superset B has extra elements that are not in A. Repetion is inevitable in defining them separately and completely. '''Infact for almost 14 years since I have been on wikipedia, this page was not created separately but now that it has been created, you may nominate it for deletion. I will present the rest of my case there.'''

Rest of the points will be answered in due course of time. Ashirwad. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should give you an example so that you can understand me better: The article starts with defining that "Chitraguptvanshi Kayastha refers to Kayasthas mainly of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar......" but then goes on to mention Swami Vivekanada, Yogananda (who are Bengali Kayastha or Gaur Kayasthas). Similarly, most Kayasthas in Bihar are Karana Kayastha who are also a subset of Chitraguptavasnhi Kayastha. Do you get it? Now compare this to previous introduction that I had written in an earlier version: "Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha are a caste that claim descent from the Hindu god Chitragupta." It's much more accurate and also relevant to the title of the article i.e "chitraguptavasnhi" unlike the present opening line that is only poised to confuse readers. Unfortunately, you have deleted it without explaining a legit reason.


 * I had made a section of "history". I have researched extensively on Kayastha history (and I'm myself a Kayastha btw.) Unfortunately, you deleted that section too without proper reason. To be honest, presently the article is currently full of crap. It has no reliable citations and whatever sites you have cited are not even considered reliable in my opinion. Annd yeah, I am not going to delete this article! Sattvic7 (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

We have a consensus here!! I agree that the line ... "Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha are a caste that claim descent from the Hindu god Chitragupta." ... must be in the introduction as it was well pointed out by you. Be so kind as to add it. You have my blessings but be a little careful with the delete button while doing so, its very slippery. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Information relating to this subset of Kayasthas must include reliable sources. Citations from sources such as "The Journal of Asian Studies", "Routledge Studies in South Asian History", and "SAGE journals" are reliable sources from professional databases. News articles are debatable.

However, the previous edit was filled with opinionated writing and no factual information, let alone blatant plagiarism and no citations whatsoever.

Please keep the article up to Wikipedia's standards and add needed sources, check for grammatical errors, and write in accordance to a proper Wikipedia article and not an op-ed piece.

Srivastava101 (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. But discuss and reach concensus. I and sattvic reached a consensus yesterday about introduction, he had a valid point and I accepted it. But you just swept edit to an earlier version undoing all the efforts in the meanwhile. I can see that you are not a novice user but an experienced and knowledgeable editor of wikipedia, I dont know why you are using an alias to just edit this page. I hope you intend well and will discuss things here. I may learn from you and you may learn a thing or two from me. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, Nikhil Srivastava. May I know what page have you cited in the the following citation that says the Chitrgupta Kayastha have dual status of Brahmin and Kshatriya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sattvic7 (talk • contribs)


 * Regarding this edit: please see WP:BRD - multiple people have opposed your additions, so you must wait for consensus on the talk page before reinstating your edits.
 * Much of the content you are adding is unsourced or poorly-sourced.
 * When it is sourced, it is largely irrelevant to this article. This page is not about the Kayasthas in general: you cannot add content and references that mention "Kayasthas" but not "Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas" here. If such large amount of repetition is "inevitable", then this article must be merged with the article Kayastha. utcursch &#124; talk 14:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@utcursch Propose a merger dear Sir. Will answer there. Again I ask, are Kayastha and Chitraguptvanshi mutually exclusice and antithetical? Also if you go thorugh the 2009 version of Kayastha page it was solely a page for Chitraguptvanshi group with passing mention of other groups. Now the page is more elaborate and inclusive of all the three groups. Hence the need for this page. I am giving a link for Kayastha page of 01 Sept 2009, do read it and compare with both the current version of Kayastha and Chitraguptvanshi. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kayastha&oldid=311315703 Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * What's your point? "Homo Sapiens" and "Kayasthas" are not mutually exclusive either: that doesn't mean that we include half the content from the article Homo Sapiens in the article Kayastha. If you created this page for the specific sub-group called "Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha", the page should largely include information specific to that sub-group. Information about the Kayasthas in general belongs to the Kayastha article. utcursch &#124; talk 15:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Dont embarrass yourself with the homo sapiens example. You know that kayasth is probably not even 1% of homo sapiens but Chitraguptvanshi is more than 40% of Kayastha. Go ahead propose a merger. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Umm, if you are the one claiming that much of the content should be common to both these articles (see WP:OVERLAP), you are the one who should be proposing the merger.
 * Besides me, User:Sattvic7 has objected to your inclusion of large amounts of Kayastha-specific content on this page. You obviously do not have a consensus to reinstate this content. If you want another opinion, try WP:DRN or WT:IN. utcursch &#124; talk 21:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Varna section
Redacted "As per the letter of council of Pandits of Benaras to Peshwa Darbar regarding varna status of various Kayastha subgroups, the Chitragupta Kayastha are clearly said to be Brahmin". The source provided (https://archive.org/details/ethnographicalno00chanrich/page/n19/mode/1up/search/government+college) failed to verify the information written or correspond with the article's recognition of Kayasthas as Kshatriyas and not unequivocally Brahmin. The section on the Kayastha's dwija status was rephrased to look like a proper Wikipedia article and less unprofessional. Please consult the talk page and form a consensus with the other editors before making any major edits to this page. Srivastava101 (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas
This page is incorrect. It requires a lot of changes. Spreading wrong information is not what Wikipedia would want,I guess. Dinopce (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Its wrong at many places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandya101 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * All changes to Wikipedia articles much include proper citations. If you would like to add any specific information, make sure there are proper sources provided. If the proper sources cannot be found, this indicates that the information is not ready to be added to the article. Srivastava101 (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Lines with no source delete only lines with source stay. Pandya101 (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Understood.

How to invite other users to have a chat on the article's talk page? I can add the discussion but then how should I rope in these two users to chat?

Dinopce (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Protection
I have full-protected the page for one day to stop the edit warring. You all have been arguing in the edit summaries when you revert each other - even putting reference citations in the edit summaries. That is not the way to handle a disagreement here. Discuss the issues here at the talk page. Show your citations and evidence here at the talk page. Do NOT keep reverting each other. Try to reach consensus here before the protection expires. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging the discussants - and reminding them that WP:Edit warring is against the rules here, and that you can be blocked from editing if you keep doing it. Work out your issues on the talk page, please. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok Melanie. Dinopce (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Lines with no source delete only lines with source stay. Pandya101 (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandya101 (talk • contribs)

The page protection on the article has now expired, but I still don't see any discussion between the editors who have been in disagreement, as was requested above by the admin who protected the page. Yet editing has resumed on the same material again. please make an effort to discuss and reach consensus about how to proceed, on this talk page - not on your user talk pages. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanku Iam shivansh srivastava (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * http://zealzen.blogspot.com/2015/05/blog-post.html?m=1
 * The above site is in Hindi but it's heading is 'Kayastha Brahmin'
 * It'll take Google translate or some other language translator to understand the blog written in Hindi.
 * The words Kayastha Brahmin, Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha and Brahma Kayasth are used by people. I can't find any other online source to prove it here.
 * My example of the blog written in Hindi should do the trick,I guess. Dinopce (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * @User:Bonadea   :http://zealzen.blogspot.com/2015/05/blog-post.html?m=1

The above site is in Hindi but it's heading is 'Kayastha Brahmin' It'll take Google translate or some other language translator to understand the blog written in Hindi. The words Kayastha Brahmin, Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha and Brahma Kayasth are used interchangeably by people. I can't find any other online source to prove it here.
 * The following site uses the words 'Brahma Kayastha' instead of Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha.https://www.geni.com/discussions/83120
 * Excerpt from the above site: The 12 clans of Brahma Kayastha:

Mathur Gour Bhatnagar Saxena Ambashtha Nigam Karna Kulshreshtha Srivastava Surdhwaja Valmiki Asthana Dinopce (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * though none of these can be used as sources, but I understand that you are using them here just to show that the terms are in general use. But if you add the terms again make sure you use a source which you had used earlier or some equally good ones, to avoid further edit warring. I think, you have proven your point against 's reason for revert which called the term as just a descriptor, now its upto bonadea to reply or revert.

Also why are you guys replying here when there is a separate thread for it? Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@User:Nikhil Srivastava:I replied in this thread itself. But it automatically went into that thread. I saw that. I thought I wrote it over there by mistake. So,I tried to reply here once again with a new comment. But that too,went to that thread automatically.
 * Don't ask me, how?
 * Even I was perplexed. Dinopce (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Something is wrong here.
 * I am writing everything in the 'Kayastha Brahmin or Brahma-Kayastha' discussion page but it's automatically going into the "protection" discussion page.
 * I'm not able to understand why?
 * I've typed the above in the 'Kayastha Brahmin' or Brahma-Kayastha' discussion page.
 * Let's see where it goes after I hit the 'Publish' button.

Dinopce (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It went into the 'Protection' discussion page.
 * Is it happening to me or is it happening to others as well? Dinopce (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dinopce (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Dinopce (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * 2nd part of my discussion. Dinopce (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok.Thanks Dinopce (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Kayastha Brahmin or Brahma-Kayastha
Hello,

Pompous terms?!! Couldn't see any pomposity here as some other editor pointed out.

The term Kayasth or kayeth is highlighted in the Kayastha page as well. The terms are highlighted in other links as well like Bhumihar page calling them Bhumihar Brahmin,Bhuinhar or Babhan. Please don't mess with this page!

These are the title names,so they're highlighted! The link is also provided. The names are mentioned in the links!

Where does pomposity come into picture? These are the other names of CKs.

Admins please see the facts here. Dinopce (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The source you used to support that claim does not show any such thing – the author uses the term "Brahma-Kayastha" as a descriptor but there is nothing to indicate that that is an alternative name that is in general use. --bonadea contributions talk 16:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi there.
 * had earlier brought the matter to my attention and I had assured him to drop in a few lines before this escalated.
 * I am an objective observer in this particular case and I would like you too to go through the following before cementing any raw opinion.
 * 1. Go through the last line of page in the link provided (page 5 of the relevant section) which discribes houses of CKP and Brahmins in the villages ... where it is written "as a class they are well to do. PAGE-41: Kayasth or Kayasth Brahmins have three houses in village of Ghoti in Igatpur, they are said to have come from upper India in the last forty years."

https://archive.org/details/ethnographicalno00chanrich/page/n104/mode/1up
 * 2. Vedah.net, which presents a list of the main sub-divisions of Brahmins, lists the Kayastha Brahmins as one of the 31 main sub-divisions of Brahmins.
 * 3. Kamat.com puts forward a comprehensive list of more than 50 Brahmin Communities in India, the Kayastha Brahmins are also listed.
 * 4. The Sanskrit dictionary at Hindunet.org defines ‘Kayastha’ as follows:
 * ka_yastha, ka_yata a man belonging to the writer-caste; a tribe of bra_hman.as whose employment is writing (Ka.)(Ka.lex.)


 * So, I neither am for or against deletion, but the matter should have been discussed on the talk page before unilaterally deleting it and alleging another user of "throwing pompous terms", who, it seems from supporting facts, was not guilty and his was a good faith edit. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanku Iam shivansh srivastava (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * http://zealzen.blogspot.com/2015/05/blog-post.html?m=1
 * The above site is in Hindi but it's heading is 'Kayastha Brahmin'
 * It'll take Google translate or some other language translator to understand the blog written in Hindi.
 * The words Kayastha Brahmin, Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha and Brahma Kayasth are used by people. I can't find any other online source to prove it here.
 * My example of the blog written in Hindi should do the trick,I guess. Dinopce (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * @User:Bonadea   :http://zealzen.blogspot.com/2015/05/blog-post.html?m=1

The above site is in Hindi but it's heading is 'Kayastha Brahmin' It'll take Google translate or some other language translator to understand the blog written in Hindi. The words Kayastha Brahmin, Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha and Brahma Kayasth are used interchangeably by people. I can't find any other online source to prove it here.
 * The following site uses the words 'Brahma Kayastha' instead of Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha.https://www.geni.com/discussions/83120
 * Excerpt from the above site: The 12 clans of Brahma Kayastha:

Mathur Gour Bhatnagar Saxena Ambashtha Nigam Karna Kulshreshtha Srivastava Surdhwaja Valmiki Asthana Dinopce (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * though none of these can be used as sources, but I understand that you are using them here just to show that the terms are in general use. But if you add the terms again make sure you use a source which you had used earlier or some equally good ones, to avoid further edit warring. I think, you have proven your point against 's reason for revert which called the term as just a descriptor, now its upto bonadea to reply or revert.

I have copied the misplaced replies from the irrelevant 'protection' thread to this relevant thread. So that the sequence of ideas and arguments is visible and clear. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok Dinopce (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that this article(https://www.vepachedu.org/manasanskriti/Brahmins.html)has been added in the researchgate.net(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282367530_BRAHMINS)should speak volumes about this article. It is also written by a non-Kayasth(evidently not an anti-kayasth).

I didn't add those two links(one from researchgate.net and other from Vepachedu foundation) just for the sake of it!!! But my idea was to show that the authenticity of the article could be proved from the fact that the same article has been added in the research gate.net. It makes it much more authentic.

Researchgate.net is used by Researchers and Scientists from around the world. It's authenticity(though not 100%; 100%authenticity is nowhere these days due to advent of technology and competition arising from it as everyone wants their article to be known) should be better than articles from books like India Today Encyclopedia whose articles might not have been thoroughly researched and ONLY REQUIRES BREADTH KNOWLEDGE FROM ANY WRITER BEFORE WRITING. Such writers are unknown writers.

If articles from India Today Encyclopedia can be allowed,then why not genuine articles such as the one from researchgate.net should be allowed?

Now,coming to Vepachedu Foundation. Just because the article in question is written by the founder of the Vepachedu foundation who has used his own company's name to publish an article doesn't mean that it is not authentic. - Background Vepachedu Educational Foundation, Inc. is a nonprofit, charitable, and educational organization founded by Dr. Sreenivasarao Vepachedu in 1998 to serve the world through educational projects anywhere in the world. The specific purpose of Vepachedu Educational Foundation, Inc. is to contribute to the world by providing education thorough various science, health, and cultural articles on the Internet by electronic journals and world wide web pages, by founding educational programs, schools and institutions, and sponsoring various scholarships, lectureships etc., anywhere in the world. - The site has been writing articles on various topics since 1998! It should be proof enough for its credibility.

It's like saying that a movie made by a production company's founder, who is also an actor in the same movie, isn't thoroughly researched, if it's based on somebody's autobiography. There are several examples of Home production company made movies around the world. PROPERLY RESEARCHED MOVIES FROM THE HOME PRODUCTION COMPANY HAVE BEEN RELEASED IN THE PAST AND WILL BE RELEASED IN THE FUTURE!

Vepachedu Foundation's contents have been used by a user of Wikipedia named @User:Quadell before(as far as I can understand). He himself proposes authenticity in his profile and is an old editor! This site must have been considered authentic since 2005 itself!!! I have roped him in here.

Below is his conversation with the founder of Vepachedu Foundation's founder. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Successful_requests_for_permission/The_Vepachedu_Educational_Foundation

I hope that it's an error on behalf of the editor(@User:Utcursch)in question who considered these two sites as unauthentic and hence unreliable.

BOTH SITES ARE A LOT MORE RELIABLE THAN OTHER SOURCES ALREADY BEING USED IN WIKIPEDIA.

I'm roping in 2 editors(@User:Bonadea & @User:Fylindfotberserk ) as I wanted other old editors of wikipedia to know about this and to give me a unanimous response regarding this. I hope they won't mind. Also,including two editors below who've been contributing to the Kayastha and Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha page for a long time and will continue to do so even after I'll be long gone (I think). @User:Nikhil_Srivastava & User:Srivastava101 -

Last but not the least, I want the editors to know about the talk that I had with Fylindfotberserk regarding some OTHER ISSUE OF MINE THAT I'M CONCERNED WITH so that I can get a better explanation if somebody is willing to do a proper homework(EXTRA HOMEWORK THAN WHAT Fylindfotberserk did;I don't doubt his work;It's just that I want others(other old editors) to dive in here and clarify this if possible) regarding this issue of mine. I hope that nobody here will mind!

The following is my talk with Fylindfotberserk regarding the last issue(above) of mine. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fylindfotberserk#Regarding_the_wikipedia_pages_which_have_been_deleted...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fylindfotberserk#Blank )

I hope that I'm not going against any of Wikipedia's rules by asking these questions.

That's it.:) Dinopce (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know this is a blog and blogs are not considered reliable in Wikipedia. On top of that, it looks like an old version of the Wikipedia article which makes it WP:CIRCULAR. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * @User:Fylindfotberserk Which one are you talking about?

Source of researchgate OR VEPACHEDU foundation?
 * It doesn't look like a old version of WIKIPEDIA article to me. Dinopce (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh.You were talking about the 2nd part of my article. Sorry. I misunderstood your words.


 * Will wait for the unanimous answer from all the editors mentioned in my discussion.

Dinopce (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * 2nd part of the discussion. Dinopce (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This -> http://srivastavaak.blogspot.com/2010/05/kayastha.html?m=1, about which we were discussing in my talk page. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@User:Utcursch Dinopce (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Vepachedu content is self-published: just because someone has requested permission for its content to be used on Wikipedia doesn't make it reliable. ResearchGate includes both reliable and unreliable content: see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_184. The content that you are referring to is not reliable as it is self-published by Vepachedu. If you'd like a third opinion, feel free to drop a note at WP:RSN. utcursch &#124; talk 21:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thanks. Will do the same about Vepachedu. Dinopce (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Blank
Here you go. Tyoe your comments here. It will likely get into the thread above. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Kaystha Ethnology
The Kaystha Ethnology, besides being an antiquated book, is essentially a caste publication by Kayastha authors, and therefore not reliable. See

I'm sure there are better sources that discuss the mythological origin of the caste. utcursch &#124; talk 21:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, Why do you consider the Kayasth authors as not reliable? There are authors of other castes who are anti-Kayastha. Such people will only write wrong articles about Kayasthas. Why should any1 consider them credible?


 * The contents of such books might have been used as references to win the court cases in favour of Kayasthas being declared Kshatriyas.


 * It shouldn't be about sources. It should be about credible sources.


 * Why would anyone want theorists here to write toxic articles about Kayasthas?
 * Sometimes,Kayastha writers themselves can do justice to the topic related to Kayasthas. The others authors might not know about Kayasthas and might get swayed in the wrong direction through wrong articles and wrong person's speech about Kayasthas BUT a kayastha will be able to see through the wrong information without needing much info regarding this.


 * Also,if ALL Raj Era sources are considered INACCURATE,then the court's ruling that stated all Kayasthas to be Kshatriyas under law should also be considered inaccurate! Your logic here is wrong!!!!
 * There shouldn't be any hard and fast rule regarding this as far as I think.
 * Sometimes Raj Era sources would be better to justify a topic here on Wikipedia. Dinopce (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Books like 'Kayasth Ethnology' and 'Ethnographical notes on Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu' are thoroughly researched!! IT WAS THE NEED OF THE HOUR TO WRITE SUCH BOOKS DURING THE BRITISH RAJ ERA. SUCH BOOKS CAN'T BE REPLACED BY THEORISTS WHO MIGHT HAVE WRITTEN THE BOOKS AFTER THE BRITISH ERA OR DURING THE BRITISH ERA.THE THEORISTS AND THEIR THEORIES MIGHT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE AS BASELESS ALLEGATIONS DURING THE RAJ ERA ITSELF. WHY SHOULD WE CONSIDER ANYTHING AGAINST THE INDIAN LAW,PURANS & SCRIPTURES??
 * THERE AREN'T ANY BETTER SOURCES THAN THIS. I'M DAMN SURE ABOUT THIS.


 * UNLIKE OTHER CASTES, WE'VE PROVED OUR STATUS IN FRONT OF THE COURT.
 * WHY SHOULD ANY THEORISTS AND THEIR BASELESS THEORIES AGAINST THE KAYASTHA BE CONSIDERED IN THE FIRST PLACE?


 * Hey Dinopce, I expect you to contribute as a neutral editor, and not act as a caste warrior. All your statements and discussions seem to be biased, and it would really be difficult to explain you. Moreover, you hardly have any respect for the policies or the long-standing consensus for caste related articles. What you have taken from the source is neither the court ruling, nor any statement attributed to the so-called Pandits. These are comments by the author only. And this reference obviously seems to be a self promotional text on Kayasthas. I have nothing more to say. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * @User:Ekdalian:I'm a neutral editor! I'm not a caste warrior as you're making me out to be! I WAS THE 1ST PERSON WHO EDITED THE 'COMMON SUBCASTES' SECTION IN THIS PAGE. BEFORE THAT,THE EDITORS WRITING IN THIS PAGE WROTE IT AS 'COMMON SURNAMES' and '12 traditional surnames' which was wrong. Do you know how I was able to decipher between the correct name and incorrect name? It's because I'm a Kayasth. I thought Wikipedia is about contributing to this page WHICH CAN BE DONE BY ANYONE REGARDLESS OF HIS/HER CASTE OR GENDER OR RELIGION.
 * It's WRONG TO BLAME ME FOR BEING A NON-NEUTRAL EDITOR. I'm repeating my words:The first line "As per the letter of council of Pandits of Benaras to the Brahmin Peshwa Darbar..." ITSELF ATTRIBUTES THE FACT THAT THE WRITER HAS NOT WRITTEN THIS ON HIS OWN! I think you're confused here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinopce (talk • contribs)


 * Pinging users / admins, Bishonen, Utcursch, Sattvic7, Fylindfotberserk, MelanieN, Sitush (Sitush doesn't seem to be active). Request you all to have a look at the Revision history of the artcle as well as this talk page. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * In addition to what Ekdalian said, the work is unreliable because it is essentially caste propaganda rather than a neutral scholarly work adhering to modern standards. See WP:RS and WP:COI. utcursch &#124; talk 21:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Replying to the ping by . My opinion: Kayastha Ethnology or for that matter any Raj Era source can be used as WP:RS provided it is substantiated or backed by other modern reliable sources. The claims that are either disapproved or not backed by modern sources can be discarded but the entire source cannot be declared "unreliable" just because it came in response to certain developments in its time. Thanks.- Sattvic7 (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey Sattvic7, in this case, we are unable to find other modern reliable sources, as mentioned by you. Moreover, the Raj era source has not just been discarded for the sake of being a Raj era one, but also because of the fact that it is a promotional text, as mentioned above by Utcursch. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Reminding Bishonen, the consensus about not using Raj era sources was for 'Raj ethnographers' who according to the discussion "had no formal academic training and were generally unable to speak or read local languages. They relied for much of their research on one or two Brahmin or other upper-caste people, who acted as a conduit and who were prone to editorialising." On the contrary this author is Indian and Marathi. Ankit Mishra Varanasi (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * True! You've a point Ankit Mishra Varanasi.
 * This modern & reliable link says that Kayasthas are Brahmins.
 * https://books.google.co.in/books?id=9c4KAQAAIAAJ&q=Sivaratha&dq=Sivaratha&redir_esc=y&hl=en
 * Can the above be used as an additional source Sattvic7 along with the Pandits of Benaras source?If not,then why?


 * Hi utcursch & Ekdalian, I've a few questions which I'd like to ask.I hope that it'd be taken as neutral questions.How do you know that it's a promotional text or that it shows caste propaganda? It's inevitable for the Kayasth authors to write about themselves.It's inevitable for Protestants/Catholics to write about themselves. It's inevitable for Shia/Sunni/Ahmadi to write about themselves.utcursch How can you decipher the texts here that easily calling it caste propaganda?


 * Also,if All Kayastha related books written by Kayasthas will not be allowed here (as it'll be considered as CASTE PROPAGANDA BY DEFAULT and hence unreliable source going against WP:RS),then it'll once again be MONOPOLY by authors of other castes and religions who can have a HOSTILE CASTE PROPAGANDA OF THEIR OWN CASTES against others to subdue Kayasthas and other castes as well. How will you differentiate that? NOBODY WILL BE ABLE TO STOP ANYONE WRITING WRONG INFO ON WIKIPEDIA THEN. Just because the books will be published after the Raj Era doesn’t mean that they’re credible.


 * If a book which was published during the Raj era shouldn't be considered,then it's reprint published after the Raj Era CONTAINING THE SAME CONTENT should also be not considered?!
 * If both these books will be considered as unreliable source just because it's written by Kayasthas,then it'll lead to monopoly here. I hope that my point is clear here.


 * The Raj Era source according to me has a loophole. It doesn't talk about Indians or people from a particular caste of Indians.Also,it was made keeping in view the mindset of 21st century where words like mixed race or mixed blood etc can be considered as racism in today's world.. Then why are words like mixed-caste,clean caste and unclean caste not being considered as casteism?
 * In this wikipedia page(Mythology and Varna Status Section;2nd para)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambashtha
 * Vaidyas are being considered as UNCLEAN CASTE and AMBASTHAS are being called CLEAN CASTE. Can anybody else see the hidden negaJust because edit-warring hasn't taken place in this place doesn't mean it's not visible to others. Wikipedia is about creating Encyclopedia and hence it can't see the no. of views of a particular page at the bottom of the page.
 * I hope I will not be called caste warrior now as I'm willing to learn about another community or caste called Vaidyas as to why they're being called UNCLEAN. Why is it not going against WP:NPOV? Can anybody else see the hidden or subtle casteist overtone here?


 * I hope all my questions are taking in view wikipedia's guidelines.
 * Until and unless somebody answers this in detail,this matter shouldn't be closed. I hope that others too can see the loophole here.


 * Hey Dinopce, please sign your posts using four ~ sign at the end. The modern link you have cited above says that as per an ancient text, 'Brahmin Sivaratha is described as a Kayastha'. So, what does it prove? We all know that initially Kayastha was a functional group, which mostly comprised of Brahmins and other upper castes. Your source doesn't say anything about the varna status of Kayasthas as a caste.
 * There is a consensus regarding Raj era source, which you must have read by now; I try to stick to it. And yes, as per my understanding, its reprint will not be considered.
 * Coming to the other point you have raised, caste is a sensitive topic in India, and most of the people have some bias about their own caste, and the mythology which was actually associated with the caste much later in history but have been passed on for generations. Like the Baidyas / Vaidyas in Bengal claim that they are Brahmins, which reflect in their work as well. And why should there be no reliable sources left, if you leave aside those which have been considered as caste propaganda and have been promoted by Kayasthas themselves, and if you think the Brahmins or other castes were anti Kayasthas (or there was a rivalry between them), why should monopoly come into the picture? There are so many reliable texts by Indologists hailing from other countries, and there are reliable and reputed authors from India as well.
 * There is nothing wrong in quoting Leslie in the article on Ambashtha, this has been used to differentiate the two in ancient times, and is obviously not applicable in modern day scenario.
 * Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please wait for a few days(max 1 week) before I give my detailed answer which will clear the questions and doubts of everybody in this discussion page. I'm working on my answer.

This section is highly ill-formatted, atleast try to sign your post using four consecutive ~ Kindly read: WP:4TILDES. Now, I don't know who am I supposed to reply, but I have already stated my opinion earlier on the issue of the source in discussion. As far as the question of "varna" of Kayasthas is considered, the problem is that even Brahmanical sources themselves are not decided where exactly to place the Kayasthas in the mythical "varna vyavastha" (Infact, no serious historian would take Brahmanical sources as the sole authority on the issue of society and culture. The reason being they are often contradictory and filled with inaccuracies.) So, it's best to understand the "Kayasthas" from an objective and WP:NPOV. The Britannica Encyclopedia says this on Kayasthas:

"A number of new castes, such as the Kayasthas (scribes) and Khatris (traders), are mentioned in the sources of this period. According to the Brahmanic sources, they originated from intercaste marriages, but this is clearly an attempt at rationalizing their rank in the hierarchy. Many of these new castes played a major role in society. The hierarchy of castes did not have a uniform distribution throughout the country. But the preeminent position of the Brahman was endorsed not merely by the fact that many had lands and investments but also by the fact that they controlled education. Formal learning was virtually restricted to the institutions attached to the temples. Technical knowledge was available in the various artisan guilds. Hierarchy existed, however, even among the Brahmans; some Brahman castes, who had perhaps been tribal priests before being assimilated into the Sanskritic tradition, remained ordinary village priests catering to the day-to-day religious functions."

- britannica.com/place/India/Society-and-culture

We can say these things are conclusively about Kayasthas: (1) The varna status of Kayasthas is at best "a controversial" and "undecided" factor. (2) but Kayasthas were always highly influential, educated and counted among "high-castes" starting from the Gupta-era itself. Thus, my opinion is that instead of trying to fit Kayasthas into one varna, we should state facts as they are according to WP:NPOV. Sattvic7 (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I can understand the confusion between Brahmin and Kshatriya varna but Vaishya and Shudra part should not be considered.


 * All 3 sub-groups of kayasthas are twice born. There's no point that Kayasthas are shudra as SHUDRAS are not twice born. Also, the religious observances used by shudra is nowhere to be seen in Kayasthas.
 * Result: Kayasthas(all 3 sub-groups) can't be considered as Shudra EVEN IF THE MODERN HISTORIANS(INDIAN OR FOREIGN AUTHORS HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT IT IN PAST(BEFORE BRITISH RAJ,DURING BRITISH RAJ OR AFTER),PRESENT(21ST CENTURY) OR WILL WRITE ABOUT IT IN FUTURE).HENCE WIKIPEDIA SHOULD NOT ALLOW THE WORKS OF MODERN HISTORIANS IF THEY SAY THE "SHUDRA" PART ABOUT ANY OF THE 3 SUB-GROUPS OF KAYASTHAS(INDIAN OR FOREIGNER FROM ANY CASTE OR RELIGION TO BE ADDED HERE IN FUTURE TO AVOID FURTHER CONFUSION).


 * Do Kayasthas do Bahikhata Puja(Ledger Puja) like the Baniyas(vaishya)? No, we don't! Even the Ambasthas of Bengal who were clubbed by the anti-kayasth Bengali Brahmins with the definition of Ambastha in Manu about being the son of Brahmin father and Vaishya mother can't be considered as Vaishya. As according to the law of Manu, son of a Brahmin father and Vaishya mother will be a Brahmin!
 * Anyways,the definition of Ambasth in Manu has got nothing to do with the Ambashtha kayasthas of Bengal OR ANY OTHER PART OF INDIA.
 * The Karan in Yajnavalkya(ch1,shloka 92),son of a Vaishya man and shudra woman(According to the law of Manu, the son here will be a Vaishya from father’s side), has got nothing to do with the Karan sub-caste of Kayasthas. The definition in Manu or Yajnavalkya is not related to Karan Sub-caste of Kayasthas.
 * Result: Kayasthas(all 3 sub-groups) can't be considered as Vaishya EVEN IF THE MODERN HISTORIANS(INDIAN OR FOREIGN AUTHORS HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT IT IN PAST,PRESENT OR WILL WRITE ABOUT IT IN FUTURE).HENCE WIKIPEDIA SHOULD NOT ALLOW THE WORKS OF MODERN HISTORIANS IF THEY SAY THE "VAISHYA" PART ABOUT ANY OF THE 3 SUB-GROUPS OF KAYASTHAS(INDIAN OR FOREIGNER FROM ANY CASTE OR RELIGION TO BE ADDED HERE IN FUTURE TO AVOID FURTHER CONFUSION).


 * I hope that the above will clarify the doubts about Kayasthas being in Vaishya and Shudra Varna(I can further clarify the shudra part if needed).


 * Now since Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas(along with Bengali Kayasthas) have also ruled over most of India,so they're being considered Kshatriya. But there's one thing that goes in my mind that Ravana was a Brahmin King. He used to consume meat and alcohol. His Varna was that of a Brahmin. This was the case of TretaYuga. Now coming to Kaliyug(Present Epoch), Shivaji Maharaj was a Shudra king! Even though he's ruled over Maratha Empire,his Varna was that of a Shudra. Considering the upa-kshatriya status of Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas,why can't they be placed in the Brahmin Varna? The alternate names of Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas are indeed Kayastha Brahmin and Brahma Kayastha. In the old days, a person's varna was decided based on his work.Even if you'll take this point here,Ravana's work was that of a Kshatriya but he was still considered a Brahmin. But in kaliyug times, the Brahmin community made the varna status based on Birth. Shivaji Maharaj was a shudra by birth even though he work was that of a kshatriya. I hope my question is clear!


 * I've one question about this book being used here(The Formation of Colonial state in India,Scribes,papers and taxes 1760-1860) by H.J Bellenoit.
 * This book itself contains texts or reports written by several Raj Era Ethnographers of that period 1760-1860. The same texts are copied in this book which are marked by numbers or numbered links which can be seen in the last page of this book. The author might have mentioned these so as to avoid the copyright violation or something. This entire book is once again based on the several works of Raj Era Ethnographers of that period. The author(Hayden J.Bellenoit) hasn’t researched any of these and is mostly dependent on the Raj Era sources written by Raj Era Ethnographers in this book. It’s evident. If all Raj Era sources are not considered, then how come these books whose Bibliography is filled with Raj Era sources and just printed after Raj Era be considered. What’s the difference?
 * In that Raj Era discussion provided to me byBishonen, it’s clearly mentioned in the talk by Sitush that They rarely questioned: if a respondent claimed to be of X caste or clan then they accepted it at face value.
 * This can also be a reason why RAJ Ethnographers might have mixed Kayasthas with Shudra or Vaishya varna people and might have considered them a functional caste(community) initially. Kayasthas(all 3 sub-group) have never done the work of shudra(labourers or farmers) or Vaishya(merchants) in history! Several castes might have tried to pass them to be Kayasthas initially to get special recognition from the Britishers for work or business purposes. Several of these people might have succeeded to pass them as Kayasthas. This might have also created the confusion among the Britishers about Kayasthas being mixed etc WHEN IN REALITY THEY’RE NOT.
 * Contents to see in this book below:
 * https://books.google.co.in/books?id=iEMlDgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=J.Perkins&f=false
 * Take the 2nd page in the above link. This page is filled with the NAMES OF BRITISH PERSONNEL of Raj Era.
 * These names are mentioned there:J.Perkins, C.Grant, H.Evans, W.Hooper. Google these names with their respective designations given over there. You’ll know what I’m talking about.
 * Go to the Bibliography section of these books which again mostly contains the Raj Era names with their reports. If you’ll see any Indian names like the first name here of V.Oldenberg, then again go to the Amazon.com and find the bibliography section and footnotes of their books. It’ll show you the Raj Era foreigner names mostly. It turns out that most of these historians are once again dependent upon the Raj Era resources to write their books. Example of V.oldenberg’s book below:
 * https://www.amazon.com/Colonial-Lucknow-1856-1877-Princeton-Library/dp/0691612749
 * Go to the bibliography section of the above book. You’ll know what I’m talking about.
 * For Wikipedians, original research is forbidden as it’ll go against WP:OR. But it seems that these Authors(Indian or Foreigner) haven’t tried to do ORIGINAL RESEARCH on Kayasthas. None of them have even considered the points given by Kayasthas or taken the works of Kayasthas to consider it as Neutral work. It’s again not neutral but is a case of monopoly by people of other castes and other religions(Christians,Muslims etc). No religious authority's commentary is taken here in these books. If I had to find out about any sect of other religions,I'd directly go to the theologists for understanding about this first,then go somewhere else. Just my thinking
 * I hope that my thought process here is visible to other editors/admins.Dinopce (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Kayasthas of Bengal are Brahma Kayasthas or CKs or Kayastha Brahmin.....
Kayasthas of Bengal are Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas. They do the Chitragupta Puja just like other Kayasthas. Our ancestor is the same!

They're not a different breed.

Just because their literature might have evolved from Bengal after they migrated to Bengal from other parts of India doesn't mean that they're different from other CKs elsewhere in India.

I'm just contributing to Wikipedia.

The name of book clearly states 'Brahma-Kayasthas' of Bengal.

It means 'Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas' of Bengal. The source is genuine!

Now coming to the multiple links which you listed as not reliable are reliable indeed.

Even Kayasthas of Hyderabad have evolved in a different way after living in Andhra for centuries. That doesn't mean that their GOD has changed.

A Christian living in US or India or any other part of the world is the same. His literature might vary from place to place but his identity will be that of a Christian from any other part of India. What excuse you're using to delete is wrong.

Texts cited by Kayasthas ARE MUCH MORE RELIABLE THAN OTHER SOURCES because Kayasthas have used these sources to win the court case in their favour!

You've made wrong excuses to remove these genuine sources. Dinopce (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ekdalian, what you're doing is wrong. Both of us know that. Dinopce (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Dinopce, I am simply following the policies of Wikipedia and the long-standing consensus related to caste-articles. Please cite some alternate source(s), not those websites considered as unreliable as per our standards. If you check the old Revision history of the articles related to Kayasthas, you will find plenty of constructive edits from my side. Therefore, I would always look forward to constructive edits, provided reliable and verifiable sources are cited. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * @User:Ekdalian: It's not about constructive edits. I welcome constructive edits. Your edits are twisting the truth. The books have been written after proper research. Where is the book listed as unreliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinopce (talk • contribs) 07:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * @User:Ekdalian: Also,read the discussion section named 'Kayastha Brahmin or Brahma Kayastha' above. Until and unless I get a green flag from them,pls DON'T REVERT MY CHANGES OR MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE 1ST PARA OF THIS ARTICLE! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinopce (talk • contribs) 07:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey Dinopce, I expect you to contribute as a neutral editor, and not act as a caste warrior. All your statements and discussions seem to be biased, and it would really be difficult to explain you. Moreover, you hardly have any respect for the policies or the long-standing consensus for caste related articles. What you have taken from the source is neither the court ruling, nor any statement attributed to the so-called Pandits. These are comments by the author only. And this reference obviously seems to be a self promotional text on Kayasthas. I have nothing more to say. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * @User:Ekdalian:I'm a neutral editor! I'm not a caste warrior as you're making me out to be! I WAS THE 1ST PERSON WHO EDITED THE 'COMMON SUBCASTES' SECTION IN THIS PAGE. BEFORE THAT,THE EDITORS WRITING IN THIS PAGE WROTE IT AS 'COMMON SURNAMES' and '12 traditional surnames' which was wrong. Do you know how I was able to decipher between the correct name and incorrect name? It's because I'm a Kayasth. I thought Wikipedia is about contributing to this page WHICH CAN BE DONE BY ANYONE REGARDLESS OF HIS/HER CASTE OR GENDER OR RELIGION.
 * It's WRONG TO BLAME ME FOR BEING A NON-NEUTRAL EDITOR. I'm repeating my words:The first line "As per the letter of council of Pandits of Benaras to the Brahmin Peshwa Darbar..." ITSELF ATTRIBUTES THE FACT THAT THE WRITER HAS NOT WRITTEN THIS ON HIS OWN! I think you're confused here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinopce (talk • contribs)


 * Pinging users / admins, Bishonen, Utcursch, Sattvic7, Fylindfotberserk, MelanieN, Sitush (Sitush doesn't seem to be active). Request you all to have a look at the Revision history of the artcle as well as this talk page. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I have alerted the user to the community sanctions for caste pages, and given them a link for Raj era sources being unacceptable. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC).


 * Thank you so much, Bishonen. Ekdalian (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Dr.Indrajit Shukla, a Brahman and a learned Sanskrit academician, has also authored the preface from page V to XI. He shows them to be minor Brahmin. archive.org/details/lokashasakmahakalchitraguptatathachabrahmakayasthagaudbrahmanaahsanatandharmatrustgorakhpur/page/n13/mode/1up Ankit Mishra Varanasi (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Pinging users / admins, Bishonen, Utcursch, Sattvic7, Fylindfotberserk, MelanieN, SitushUser: DinopceUser:Nikhil SrivastavaUserSrivastava101User: Pandya101User:Bonadea Ankit Mishra Varanasi (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sanskrit texts
Add here. Ankit Mishra Varanasi (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Dr.Indrajit Shukla, a Brahman and a learned Sanskrit academician, has also authored the preface from page V to XI. He shows them to be minor Brahmin. https://archive.org/details/lokashasakmahakalchitraguptatathachabrahmakayasthagaudbrahmanaahsanatandharmatrustgorakhpur/page/n13/mode/1up

Pinging users / admins, Bishonen, Utcursch, Sattvic7, Fylindfotberserk, MelanieN, Sitush, User: Dinopce, User:Nikhil Srivastava, User:Srivastava101, User:Pandya101, User:Bonadea

Regarding recent edits made in this page...
Hi@Ekdalian It's regarding this line "The functionality of the Kayasthas, who identified themselves with "Chitragupta and paper-oriented service", was more significant before the 1870s, and historically, their caste status has been ambiguous."

I couldn't see any such thing written in the link that you've provided.

Can you provide the proper link? Dinopce (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey Dinopce, please go through page no. 42, for which the link has been provided; you should be able to understand. Also, in order to avoid copyright violation, we don't copy paste the content from the text; hope you understand. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi@Ekdalian, Sorry but I couldn't see any such thing that you've wrote. I've used my understanding to the core but even half of what you've written is not written over there.
 * The page no. 42 text says the following:

"speech,a consumption of goat flesh and a shared affinity for wine.74 And even though Kayastha would not become a caste category until the later nineteenth century,75 what was more significant before the 1870s was the functionality of.... No preview available for this page"


 * How did you write the following from the above line?

"The functionality of the Kayasthas, who identified themselves with "Chitragupta and paper-oriented service", was more significant before the 1870s, and historically, their caste status has been ambiguous"


 * There's NO MENTION of  part. How did you rephrase something which is not there in the book? It's a case of addition of words from OUT OF NOWHERE.


 * I hope that my questions are neutral!?


 * Dinopce, I believe, you are checking a different page. Well, it's page 42. Wait, let me quote then. Ekdalian (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Got it, not the link you are checking, Dinopce. Use the link in the Reference Section; or else check the link provided below:
 * https://books.google.co.in/books?id=9TElDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA42
 * Ekdalian (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * No! I clicked the same link. THE PAGE NO.42 IS NOT VISIBLE! After page no.5 ,there's a blank page and then it's showing me page 162.
 * So,I typed the words "Functionality" in the search this book box present on the left side of this page. It's showing me the words that I've typed above.
 * What's the following link showing you?
 * https://books.google.co.in/books?id=9TElDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA42#v=snippet&q=functionality&f=false


 * If you use the above link, which you have provided, then you have to click on page 42, if it appears (it is appearing when I am clicking on your link). Otherwise, you may change your internet connection, and click on the link I have provided. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * My INTERNET CONNECTION IS VERY FAST. If I'll download a movie,it'll download in 15-20 mins. Ok. Let me check from another device.
 * No! I checked from other devices as well. Changed my internet connection as well and then opened the links again. Page no. 42 is not visible after that. How can you see something that I can't?


 * Dinopce, let me quote the para from page 42. "There were further dimensions to Kayasthas' complex and ambiguous caste status. The Ain-i-Akbari may have listed Kayasthas as a 'caste', ................ And even though 'Kayastha' would not become a caste category until the later nineteenth century, what was more significant before the 1870s was the functionality of this looser group of pensmen who identified with Chitragupta and paper-oriented service. Though not framed in nineteenth-century debates, Kayasthas' varna status was, even in the Mughal period, difficult to define - whether they were twice-born (dvija) ........" Ekdalian (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok. Leave it. I'll ask other editors or admins whether they can see it or not. Dinopce (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * just ftr, I can verify that the quote is correctly reproduced – that is exactly what the book says. --bonadea contributions talk 16:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok. So you can see that @bonadea? No idea as to why I can't see that.
 * Sorry,my bad. I didn't realize while starting this discussion that it'll be long. I think,I committed a crime here,right? I came across that change made by Ekdalian and so I enquired on his talk page. That's it!


 * Can others see this page no.42 whose links are provided?

The above discussion was copied wholesale, signatures and all, from Ekdalian's user talk page – I think that kind of copypasting of discussions is a very bad idea but I guess it's probably technically allowed. Yes,, that text is present on page 42 of the book, exactly as quoted. I am sorry I was not clear in my previous post. The quoted text is there, so you don't need to be concerned about that. --bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok.

Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas are not a caste?
@User:Sitush, Hi, could you please provide an explanation for why you consider Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas to not be a caste, and what it would be classified as instead? Genetic studies go as far as to classify Kayasthas as an upper caste with "diverse ethnic, linguistic, and geographic backgrounds" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11931578). Thanks. Srivastava101 (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2020
please add the line : "chitraguptavanshikayasthas have been clearly clarified to be brahmins by the pandits of kashi in the religious council in a letter to the peshwa based on reliable sources such as gagga bhatti, kayastha pradeep , govindabhatti of  govindabhatta , jatibhaskar and other books of reference.  "

https://archive.org/details/ethnographicalno00chanrich/page/n72/mode/1up Vijay nath1980 (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Needs WP:RS and not letters reprinted in 1904, intro already says "They claim to be Kayastha Brahmins". – Thjarkur (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

"Varna" cannot be the benchmark for describing modern communities.
Indians are obsessed with classifying communities into four-fold varna despite the fact that such classifications are futile in describing modern communities. The North Indian Kayasthas, as most modern scholars suggest, are generally considered "highly educated" and of "high social status" which forms the core of the Kayastha identity. Their varna can be discussed in a separate section "Origin". Sattvic7 (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring on the opening section
Pinging the following -, , , ,. The opening section of this seems to changing frequently due to disagreements and some vandalism too. I had created this section to imply that the question of "varna" should be/could be discussed in a separate section, instead of the opening. Moreover, does the the material cited for "Kayastha Brahmin" qualifies as WP:RS? I believe that the opening should have a general description about the community instead of touching the sensitive varna question. Sattvic7 (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas consider themselves a separate varna.
Source(1) Source (2) Source(3)

I have cited three non-primary Reliable sources to back my claim. The first one is from Oxford University Press published journal Social Forces, listed on JSTOR too. The second is a well-known book cited around 271 times as per Google Scholar. The third is a well-know author Karen Leonard who has published brilliant and critically acclaimed and widely reviewed work on Kayasthas of Hyderabad.

Now, some "red-link user" that can't even cite a non-primary source @Ninja Roti is trying to erase those edits and intimidating me on my talk page. If @Ninja Roti has his disagreements let's hear them out here. Persistent deletion of Reliable sources might lead to charges of vandalism against this user. Sattvic7 (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources:

Edit warring
as you have been reverted multiple times, please bring your proposed changes here and gain consensus for them. You are currently edit-warring. Please read WP:BRD for how this is supposed to work: the onus is on you to make a case for your changes. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2021
Akhouri Rishabh (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Mr Rishabh, Akhouri is an AL(Regional clan) of the Srivastava Subcaste of Chitraguptvanshi Kayasths and not a separate group altogether. I we were to add Akhouri then we should add every AL and Khasghar of the 12 subcastes alltogether which everyone knows is not possible at least for now. RajPrasadSingh (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I want to add one more title/group of kayastha as "Akhouri" in the given field.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Add "Pandey Ganpat Rai"
Please add Pandey Ganpat Rai( Freedom Fighter ) under " politicians and revolutionaries " section of Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha. LALAJI1234 (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2022
Notable Politicians - Bimalendra Nidhi 27.34.13.196 (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Additionally, they must be notable enough for a Wikipedia article to be included. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Add sufi amba prasad
In the hindi wikipedia page he is listed as bhatnagar. Thanks 2405:201:300D:6D22:E832:A7A1:7B0:CD61 (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Add Kamal Nath
Multiple sources as well as hindi wiki says his mum was saxena. 2405:201:300D:6852:E88C:C230:B84:F4A3 (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)