User talk:Sitush

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Request

Hi, I would like you Sitush to have a look at the page of Samajwadi Party. A lot of vandalism has taken place there, and inspite of numerous efforts, incidents of malicious edits are taking place. A lot has been changed there. Kindly restore and do something about that! Thanks in advance.

Final Ruling on Kayasthas in 1926

Hi,

While cleaning up the Chitraguptavanshi page,you've cited one reason that there has been several rulings(namely Allahabad,Calcutta and finally Patna high court's) on Kayasthas. But,the FINAL RULING WAS BY PATNA HIGH COURT IN 1926. THE PATNA HIGH COURT RULED OUT THE OTHER RULINGS DONE IN CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AS INCONCLUSIVE AND DECLARED KAYASTHAS AS KSHATRIYAS. THAT WAS THE FINAL RULING!

Unknown editor, Satish is doing a good job. Even an amateur knows that every Kayastha subgroup is classified differently. All groups do not belong to same varna and treating them as same by you and shouting at Satish is wrong. The British poked their nose in this to classify only groups that were ambiguous (Brahmins had not classified them) and looked at the customs of each group before classifying them. For example, the CKP group was not part of any classification by the British because the Brahmins of Maharashtra (unlike other states) had Gramanyas where written classification was provided for twice born caste status. Today in Maharashtra, every caste other than Brahmins, Saraswats, CKPs and Pathare Prabhus is considered shudra no matter what they claim and that is why only these 4 have sacred thread ceremony officiated by brahmins. This is well known and there are numerous references and existence of highly educated scholars only from these 4 castes in the 19th century proves it. Incompetent people will not understand the intricacies. You can stop shouting at Satish who is doing a good job cleaning up nonsense that does not even match the books.DifferentialCalculus (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The decision was made for all Kayasthas including CKPs. The Britishers declared all Kayasthas as Kshatriyas in 1926 Patna high court case!

His name is Sitush and not Satish.

The page has been locked now till May 6th. Plz undo the 'Notables section' changes of this page yourself when the protection is lifted. The Notables section consisted the names of all the sub-groups of Kayasthas.

Would like Sitush to add the following when possible as he's an admin. Talking about the revision no. 952244847 by him.

Sitush's reasoning given: "again, inappropriate - their designation changed over time & British categorization was notoriously unstable, irrational and subject to social pressure. Why highlight the "glory" of 1931 status but not state in same para their lowly prior classification?'

The prior lowly classification of Bengali Kayasthas as shudras was because of using the surname of Das and not using the surname Verma. It was a ploy against Bengali Kayasthas by the Bengali Brahmins. Shudras of those time had a tradition that they could marry the widow of their deceased brother. Kayasthas never followed this tradition anywhere.

Would like Sitush to add the following when possible as he's an admin.

"According to some accounts, they are a literate and educated class of Kshatriyas, and they have been referred to as a twice-born caste.[62][63] The last census of the British Raj in India (1931) classified them as a 'upper caste'[64] i.e. Dwija and the final British Raj law case involving their varna in 1926 placed them into the Kshatriya varna.[65][61]"

Presently,the varna status section looks like it's talking about Bengali Kayasthas and is not about all Kayasthas. When a person scans the page, it should show the result first and then show the reasons and court cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinopce (talk • contribs) 19:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Dinpoce. You are wrong. British cases have nothing to do with ckp. CKP were already classified as Kshatriya by arbiters in the brahmin community and even bajirao II issued official decree. They were doing thread ceremonies for centuries. There is historic evidence that they studied vedas and had thread ceremonies. There is no British case involving other groups like ckp. Every group is a different caste. All cases are from north India or Bengal. The simple reason is that the British had to go through religious texts was because Brahmans did not classify these subgroups(Bengali, north Indian) into any varna. However, in Maharashtra, caste varna is set in stone - do you know? - due to Brahman influence and sanskritization was not allowed unlike rest of India- read books on gramanya. Any brahmin who defied orders was ostracized. For example, there was a brahmin (last name bhat) at the famous Kolhapur temple who lost his caste because he recited some vedic verses before some marathas who were not classified as upper caste. DifferentialCalculus (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dinpoce, when I meant caste was set in stone it means - all decisions *are* now set in stone. Just google ckp munja you will find photos of events on facebook. Any caste that performed vedic rituals in maharashtra could be challenged. Saraswats, ckps, sonars etc were challenged. Only Saraswats and ckps prevailed due to decisions by brahmin arbitrators and because they had been following the shastras(learning vedas). These challenges and the verdicts that all had to follow were called gramanyas in marathi. There is historic evidence that saraswat/ckp performed thread ceremonies. The challenges were to stop the vedic rituals hence I said no sanskritization was allowed in maharashtra. This is a well known to amateur historians familiar with marathi history.

I dont know much about chitragupta kayastha - I think they were educated people and they have produced great people like Rajendra Prasad and Lal Bahdur Shastri but I dont know much at all. My friendly and well meant advise is to be polite and request editors to understand your view point. If you agitate them, it will be counter-productive. DifferentialCalculus (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chapeau

You made me laugh out loud today with I saw your !vote and comment at the AfD we've been discussing. Given how the discussion had been progressing it was unexpected. Anyway, I mean all this in a positive, collaborative way. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem keeping stuff for the right reason. It is entirely reasonable to object to a wrongly-founded keep rationale but do research that supports a valid rationale. I need to expand the article asap. - Sitush (talk)

Possibly of use: The ideology of class has yielded place to communal ideas. Javed Alam reacted to this by saying that the problems of communalism cannot be understood by counter- poising class against community. In India, the larger castes have collapsed into communities like jadav, kurmi, etc, who do not accept Brahmanical categories, hierarchies and ritual discriminations.^[1]

References

^ Dhar, Hiranmay; Verma, Roop Rekha (1999). "Fractured Societies, Fractured Histories". Economic and Political Weekly. 34 (19): 1096. ISSN 0012-9976.

regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And a reference for your earlier comment linking Jadav with Yadav in Bihar. In the IHDS, a sample of 41,554 household yielded a list of 7,372 castes. Some of these are different spellings of the same group, Jadav vs Yadav; but others refer to totally different but similar sounding groups, e g, Jat vs Jatav.^[1]

References

^ DESAI, SONALDE (2010). "Caste and Census: A Forward Looking Strategy". Economic and Political Weekly. 45 (29): 11. ISSN 0012-9976.

--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mays

Hi Sitush, I saw that you removed this saying "also copyvio from his official website". But these look like plain facts? Perhaps the phrase "the perennial victim of Sod's law whose girlfriend has dumped him to marry" might be easily trimmed out (although it seems to be a perfectly accurate description of the plot)? Apart from that, I can't really see how that list of roles and appearances could be easily "rewritten" in any way. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See article talk. Mostly not a list and was word-for-word same as his official site. Either we copied from that or that copied from us without attribution. Removal pending rewrite errs on the side of caution, and I do believe it could be rephrased. In addition, the way it was presented made it appear that the cited sources supported the entirey of the group of statements preceding them, which most definitely was not the case. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the three section were unsourced, but I think sources could easily be found (especially if, as you say, it's "copyvio from his official website"). Or are you saying also that his own website is not WP:RS? The third segment appeared to be sourced to Bradford Telegraph & Argus, but the same consideration still applies, I think. I'd be very interested to see your rephrasing. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS - would be better to find, say, interviews or profiles in newspapers. I am not going to rephrase anything. I have given the rationale for removal on the talk page and have zero interest in the article beyond that. I happened upon it, spotted some repetition, then noticed that it wasn't really sourced despite appearances, then noticed the copy/paste problem that definitely existed in one direction or the other. To be honest, it was so obviously a crap article that I am surprised the issues hadn't been spotted before - I don't watch much TV due to my deafness but even I knew who he was when I saw a photo of him via the article. We really do need to stop tolerating poor content: less can be more. - Sitush (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I think something might be wrong with that page. I can't be arsed to fix it, but can rest assured that I've done my encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Yes, WP:SPS applies I guess but, as one might expect, it looks 100% accurate. Still don't see the copyvio problem. I might try and improve. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: you apparently did not take care in reading what I did and have made false statements in restoring some stuff (eg: there was repetition). More care needed on your part. I couldn't give a toss whether you think "it looks 100% accurate" - who are you, the acknowledged reliable source? - Sitush (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the advice. By all means trim out what you think is repetition, perhaps with an edit summary of "repetition"? I'm sure we don't want "crappy gossip sources". No, I don't claim to be "the acknowledged reliable source", but one might expect Mays to know what's his own website? I still don't see the copyvio problem, or which material needs to be revdelled. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	The Defender of the Wiki is awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. The verbiage for this barnstar sounds like it fits you to a T. Thanks for all that you do... and have done. –CaroleHenson (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Carole. I rarely see this page at the moment because I am exiting in the mobile app & it doesn't show notifications. Sorry to you and anyone else whom I have either unintentionally ignored or been tardy with a response. - Sitush (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem whatsoever, I am just glad to see you here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at this Vandal ?

Hi Sitush Outlander07 is distruptly editing contents on Kerala Caste pages, Could you check his edit history and See.

Look at this how he made this List of Nairs

l have never heard of Nair having Kingdom , he included every royal dynasties to list of Nair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:530:DF60:4D00:555C:CA7A:45C (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Why are you calling me vandal?? Dont you see false edit done by someone like 'Kalangot' in all pages without proper resources,reverting them to original edit is vandalism???

Outlander07 (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding contents

Hi,

Is there any issue for adding contents in 'List of Nair' article with proper citations?.Saw you removed poorely sourced or unsourced contents from that article.Is there any restrictions? Outlander07 (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The core information regarding inclusion in caste lists is that at WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NLIST. There is some more specific guidance at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. - Sitush (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Running/Supporting Propaganda!

Not sure, where your reply is coming form. Some one-liner references from some publications are being added as cite-able references in an article and when countered, the edit is not just discarded but also labelled as 'Canvassing'? Not just that, accusing of being part of campaign and what not... Also taking names of select publications in response also sounds like labeling the editor profiles start here early on at entry itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjamani (talk • contribs) 14:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are referring to. - Sitush (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mudaliars

There has been addition of non-notable persons and people without Mudaliar surname in the List of Mudaliars page. It requires constant supervision and clean up of non-notable and personalities Who don’t have Mudaliar surname Thanks! Srivatsarcot1 (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. People have been piping names in links so as to force the Mudaliar reference. Reverted to an earlier version. - Sitush (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to increase the protection level of a page?

You are a major contributor of Kayastha page. Can you increase the level of protection of Kayastha page? Can you help me to add information to the page as you are old and experienced editor? I have good information but dont know how and where to add. Vikram Q1W2 (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose changes on the article talk page, if you have not already. People have been restricted from editing the article directly because there has been so much disruptive editing, in particular by people who are clearly either sockpuppets or trying to make edits based on off-wiki canvassing. - Sitush (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like Chitpawan have list of notables. Can you add the same to Kayastha? Can you add clearly the similarities and differences between bengali kayastha and chitraguptavanshi kayastha? The article is very confusing on that point. Vikram Q1W2 (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am giving some links here.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=-d9IAvFOUHsC&pg=PA401&lpg=PA401&dq=%22the+kayasthas+as+defacto+independent+rulers%22&source=bl&ots=OG77uuj6o8&sig=ACfU3U08gm-ZJSz4CwXR14TUuvFxzu34-A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjXwJbezqfpAhUPzTgGHaeiBlMQ6AEwAHoECAMQAQ

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=pfAKljlCJq0C&pg=PA64&dq=kings+called+kayastha&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipqqKQz6fpAhXyyzgGHVUwCf8Q6AEIJjAA

Can u add 12th century Kayastha rulers in Andhra country in your encyclopedic language? They used titles like Arivira Brahmarakshasa. Vikram Q1W2 (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Indian communities and POV

Hi Sitush - I see that user Nittawinoda has started engaging in his caste POVs again, He seems to be violating Wiki topic ban, can you please help check Sangitha rani111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangitha rani111 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at articles such as Vanniyar, Agnivansha, Maravar, they have been edited for caste glorification with false information and POV intents Sangitha rani111 (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Sangitha rani111[reply]

(talk page stalker) hi, Sangitha rani111. Nittawinoda's topic ban is no longer in force; it has been commuted to a 1RR restriction. Please see [1]. But I have not checked the other problems you mention. Pinging User:Vanamonde93 and User:RegentsPark. Bishonen | tålk 11:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Bishonen for providing feedback. Regards Sangitha rani111 (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Sangitha rani111[reply]

A beer for you!

You're still around, Sitush--I'm glad. Hope you are well. You'll be pleased to know that the CBX is running on all six legs. Take care! Drmies (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject India 10,000 Challenge

Hello Sitush. You are invited to join the new WikiProject India 10,000 Challenge, a challenge which aims to see 10,000 improvements, destubs, and creations for Indian articles, covering every state of India and topic. Articles on all related topics are welcome. We need numbers to make this work and do something extraordinary for India on Wikipedia! Every 100 articles submitted will be copied into the wider Asian challenge. Sign up on the page if interested and start contributing!
If you know someone who might be interested, please invite them by:

{{subst:WikiProject India/The 10,000 Challenge Invite|~~~~}}

Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Dhar, Hiranmay; Verma, Roop Rekha (1999). "Fractured Societies, Fractured Histories". Economic and Political Weekly. 34 (19): 1096. ISSN 0012-9976.

[2] DESAI, SONALDE (2010). "Caste and Census: A Forward Looking Strategy". Economic and Political Weekly. 45 (29): 11. ISSN 0012-9976.

[1]

[1]