Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bengali Kayastha

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Missvain (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Bengali Kayastha

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Bengali Kayastha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:POVFORK of Kayastha article. Since, that article is under extended confirmed protection. Some of the editors who are owning the article are reverting any new changes. For example high quality sources from Taylor and Francis is reverted continuously by a new user to include Swami Vivekananda, a monk, who belong to Kayastha caste and couldn't be considered reliable as per WP:HSC. Similarly, all the sources which talk of only Brahmin and Kshatriya origin of Kayasthas are kept here and the lead section itself will tell you the caste promotional behaviour here. Since real Kayastha article is balanced with all view , they chose it for caste POV. On the basis of my discussion with Sitush, I am inclined to say that we don't need a seperate article on this, already important stuff are on Kayastha article. Heba Aisha (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator: massive edits were done to remove POV, since WP:CONTENTFORK are allowed not WP:POVFORK. Heba Aisha (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

"I trace my descent to one at whose feet every Brahmin lays flowers when he utters the words — यमाय धर्मराजाय चित्रगुप्ताय वै नमः — and whose descendants are the purest of Kshatriyas. If you believe in your mythology or your Paurânika scriptures, let these so-called reformers know that my caste, apart from other services in the past, ruled half of India for centuries. If my caste is left out of consideration, what will there be left of the present-day civilisation of India? In Bengal alone, my blood has furnished them with their greatest philosopher, the greatest poet, the greatest historian, the greatest archaeologist, the greatest religious preacher; my blood has furnished India with the greatest of her modern scientists

, included again and again to show descent of Kayastha from mythological Hindu gods, Vivekananda is actually glorifying his own community here, the main Kayastha page has stuff related to Shudra origin too. But here, they are reverting, i wonder, if they know WP:NOTCENSORED. Heba Aisha (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't delete! Just because a page is being vandalized doesn't mean that it should be deleted. The Wikipedia:POVFORK clearly doesn't apply to this page; the Bengali Kayasthas are a sub-group of the Kayastha community. All Wikipedia:Reliable sources treat them as such, including Karen Leonard (2006) , Hayden Bellenoit (2017), Ronald M. Davidson (2005). Kindly withdraw this proposal ASAP. Sattvic7 (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• • Hayden Bellenoit is removed by the user Advaita, as it talks the other way:

    A survey of Indian writers and observers suggests that many of those acquainted with the Kayasthas considered them as Dvija or twice-born. However, the claims of Bengali Kayasthas of having Dvija status is not supported by many other Indian observers. The Bengali Brahmins were most active in refuting these claims.

    , it said this and since its against the claims of Brahmin and Kshatriya status, the user Advaita reverted it on malicious grounds.Heba Aisha (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sattvic7: I was merely against some of the sources of Heba Aisha, like Sadasivan and GK Ghosh. I had no intention to be a deterrent to any kind of constructive editing. I request :@Heba Aisha: to withdraw the proposal as well.

Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you really understand the meaning of long standing consensus, Sitush said this about Vivekananda , it implies that at some point of time, they must have discussed about it with fellow editors. But, about G.K Ghosh, have u discussed, I don't think so, specially, not with your 2 month old account. At current version any neutral reviewer will come to conclusion that its nothing but a POV page, as from opening statement to end we can see wind flowing in one direction and you are owning article. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Don't delete.. Hey Heba Aisha, this is simply ridiculous!! Only because you can't handle vandalism, an article would be nominated for deletion!! I am editing and protecting a number of caste & related articles for many years, and same goes for Sitush (he may not be very active now); and we have to keep on fighting with vandalism on a regular basis. If I go by your logic, then probably most of the caste articles would be deleted! There was clear consensus that since Kayastha is a cluster of 3 disparate groups, therefore each one will have a separate article for the sake of more details. So, are you also nominating the other two articles on the Chitraguptavanshis and CKPs for deletion as well for the same reason of being redundant? What we do is something you know, we request admins for protecting such pages, and keep on fighting against POV pushers and sock puppets. And please let me inform you that in fact, Sitush was actively involved during the phase when this article was renamed from Bengali Kayastha surnames to Bengali Kayastha, and the article took its current form with his active intervention. Hope, you will withdraw your proposal for deletion, and rather request for page protection, if required; it was you only who mentioned on my talk page few days back that this particular article is now balanced; therefore, you can always revert back to that version. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• • I was not talking about current version. The user Advaita constantly reverted new addition and balancing sources with this edit, and Sitush is also convinced that it's a POVFORK now. Here [1], plus I can't even fight vandals as vandals are reporting me, though report was cancelled as admin was not convinced that I did edit warring. So, let other editor decide. Btw, I am not seeing enough courage from anyone of you to do cleanup, it seems u are enjoying current version. Heba Aisha (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• • @Heba Aisha:, stop calling me a vandal. There has been a content-dispute, which doesn't mean that I am a vandal. You seem to have had a personal vendetta against me. I have stated so many times that we needed a consensus and thus a robust discussion as to some sources. Kindly stop vilifying and defaming me. I am not a vandal. Moreover, you are reiterating that I am merely two months old, as if you had been here for twenty years. Come on! There had been a content-dispute, and let it be limited to that. I wonder how you can be so agitated by my existence here. Look into yourself. Have a sane mind. You are not peaceful yourself. At the end, I request you to stop calling me a vandal. I am here just like you, to contribute to Wikipedia. Shame on you! Don't ever call yourself constructive when you can't even work in coordination, when you can't even cooperate, constantly looking down upon new editors, as if you had invented Wikipedia. Let me tell you that I am a scholar myself, and I have spent years studying history and sociology and literature.

Advaita2222 (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• • • Ok, now let other uninvolved outsiders decide,plz note WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, even if less number of votes are against one view, other ways can be taken by admin. I may suggest, you to do the edits to bring down some of the POV violation in the article.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Ironically, you think it is content dispute because of reliability of sources. Now this content is also sourced from same book Hayden Bellenoit:

Bengali Kayasthas are considered an offshoot of the northern Indian Chitraguptavanshi Kayasths group who claim descent from the sons of Chitragupta. They claim lineage from migrants to Bengal from the ancient city of Kannauj who came at the request of Sena Dynasty kings in the 10th century.

But, you welcome it and revert the thing from same book you find offensive.?Heba Aisha (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Heba Aisha:, I suggest we include the content with appropriate sources. Let's create a varna section and place it anywhere after the history section. For the history section must be more important for any page. Does that work? Say. I request you to go forward. Thank you for understanding. Let's cooperate now. I will be by you, trust me.

Advaita2222 (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead then, it should be the course of action before reverting my genuine edit continuously.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Come on, :@Heba Aisha:, let's forget that now. We have reached a consensus. You can be calm now. Calm down! Let's work on the article to the fullest. If possible, I request you to add this somewhere in the section as well. Here it is: Of note, traditionally, the Hindu community in Bengal was divided into only two varnas: Brahmins and Shudras.[2] Advaita2222 (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Please, you take the lead. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, :@Heba Aisha:. Go ahead! Advaita2222 (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Heba Aisha:, I request you to withdraw the proposal now. I have made the changes as per our consensus. You can further work on it now. Thank you. 😊

Advaita2222 (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.