Talk:Mahishya

message: Bongan, I must appreciate your efforts aimed at improving the 'History' section. But this particular source by Kanungo does not seem to be reliable. Obviously, this does not belong to the category of reliable texts, and is more like a research paper by the author. I understand that we need to improve the article, especially the 'History' section, and we need to check texts by reliable authors for relevant information on the same. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mahishya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928020745/http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/IJHG/IJHG-03-0-000-000-2003-Web/IJHG-03-3-135-194-03-Abst-PDF/IJHG-03-3-151-54-2003-Raychaudhuri/IJHG-03-3-151-154-2003-Raychaudhuri.pdf to http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/IJHG/IJHG-03-0-000-000-2003-Web/IJHG-03-3-135-194-03-Abst-PDF/IJHG-03-3-151-54-2003-Raychaudhuri/IJHG-03-3-151-154-2003-Raychaudhuri.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 22:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Please do not add unsourced and poorly sourced content, as that is against Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Do not remove reliably sourced content either. For more information, please see WP:RS, WP:HISTRS, and WP:RAJ. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of unsourced and poorly sourced content 

message: I've temporarily protected the page. Note that WP:CONSENSUS is a core policy on the en Wikipedia so please use the talk page to discuss your changes.--RegentsPark (comment) 22:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, RegentsPark. I am opening a discussion on the 'dominant caste' related issue. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: @All, please note that the Dominant caste wikilink is not applicable here. If you would like to incorporate the same, you need to provide reliable & verifiable sources which support that the caste "wields preponderant economic and political power" in southern part of Bengal. Also, you need to come up with sources supporting the criteria that they "enjoy a high place in the local caste hierarchy", which is actually not the case. Among the two sources cited in the Varna section, one considers the Mahishya as middle ranking Shudras, while the other one considers them as lower caste. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe your concerns have been sorted out; Or is it not? There are multiple sources. I don't care about the wikilink anyway. Pinging  since, they are the author.CharlesWain (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

text: You mentioned in edit summary the word predominantly is already there. But sources used dominant word, not predominant. Dominant and Predominant words have quite different meanings. Predominant signifies numerical presence. So The Mahishyas predominantly (ie mainly) live in South Bengal(the most numerous in some specific districts), they are the predominant caste in West Bengal as a whole too(ie they are numerically largest). So using predominant word doesn't solve the problem. Why would not we use dominant word as the sources support so?CharlesWain (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey CharlesWain, we have a source which clearly mentions them as a dominant caste in lower Midnapore district and southern 24 Parganas, which we have mentioned in our article here. I couldn't see any other source categorising them as a dominant caste (as a whole, not just economic dominance as in Howrah). If you have any other reliable source, which mentions them as 'dominant caste' in other district(s), and I am unable to figure it out (due to issues related to snippet views), you may simply quote the same along with page no, and I will have no objection in adding the district(s) (as per source). Please note that WP:OR / WP:SYN will not be accepted i.e. you cannot just combine multiple points from different sources and arrive at your own conclusion that they are dominant in any particular district. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The very next line of what you're mentioning about Howrah is, from p 107: . From p158: . Check the other pages as well, it's accessible through the very link given in this article. It's over and above the India Today article. Reliable news websites are allowed; for example check Baidya article, citation 55 is an Indian Express article. Thank you. CharlesWain (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey CharlesWain, Midnapore is already mentioned in our article (as the source says). Howrah is a bit dicey, since if we mention it among the districts where they are considered as dominant caste, it will amount to WP:SYN. The definition of dominant caste is right there at the beginning of this section, & we are aware of the same; as you can understand, since the author doesn't use the term 'dominant caste', we are not supposed to engage in WP:OR & mention the same based on two of the above three criteria specified by the author in this case. India Today, BTW, is not reliable as far as caste articles are concerned. If some similar source is used in Baidya or any other article, anyone is free to challenge and remove any statement attributed to it (which is contentious or else something considered as not obvious). Please read WP:OTHERCONTENT. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The policies you've mentioned I am aware of, also you've mentioned it earlier. My intention of giving quotations  is to point out that the article's view isn't extraordinary claim or fringe opinion. I have given link to Baidya article as It seems TB, who is very experienced editor, incorporated it and that hasn't been challenged in spite of recent fierce debate,on which some experienced editors including you were involved. I strongly believe if some senior scholars write articles in reputed or reliable news media, that can be cited. And I have seen that in practice(including caste articles). Or Am I missing any basic policy? Give link then, please.CharlesWain (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already explained our policy or the convention; there's nothing new in the article cited in Baidya; if an editor thinks otherwise, s/he can challenge. Moreover, I have informed you about WP:OTHERCONTENT, irrespective of whether you are already aware of the same. But, I can't accept any content related to sensitive caste information based solely on a source like India Today. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, Shikha Mukerjee, as far as I understand, is an independent journalist, neither a historian nor a scholar on the subject. Ekdalian (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Your initial concerns(first input) have been sorted out. It's not based solely on India Today. Many scholars including Sekhar Bandapadhaya, Partha Chatterjee, Anirban Bandapadhaya wrote articles about it last year. Obviously there's some differences in opinion, but those contain some important informations. Btw, What is your objection? the wikilink or the content as a whole? And, What do you suggest?CharlesWain (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dominant caste? 

message: Hello @ all those who are engaged in editing or have kept this page on watch, will you please tell me should I directly copy from a page or supposed to write in my own language if I want to make some improvement? 
And another thing, some of the scholars and historians of 20th century, have written from early or middle of 20th century to late 20th century(for example RC Majumder). Will all of their works be considered proper source by wikipedia standard and policy? please let me know. Chanchaldm (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Chanchaldm, you are not supposed to copy-paste, it is considered as copyright violation. And regarding sources, no Raj-era source (original edition published before Independence) is acceptable as per long term consensus. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you . In my experience direct copy or copying with some alterations has been objected in some cases, in other cases it has been neglected. And regarding sources,I have seen some Raj era sources in some other caste articles though.I was wondering if it is allowed because of being a later edition of a Raj era book. Thanks for clarification. Chanchaldm (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding reliable and verifiable sources 

message: "Kaivarta & Mahishya are the same caste? You should know better! Mahishya name was adopted recently by a section of the Haliya Kaivartas"- Is it the reason Minanath can't be in notable people list? Chanchaldm (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously. The Bengali Mahishya caste did not even exist at that time. By the way, what do you want? Would you consider any notable Kaivarta, Haliya as well as Jaliya (different caste altogether), to be included as a notable here in the article on Mahishya? Ekdalian (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry , I forgot about this section. Since multiple scholars suggesting he is a 10th century Kaivarta from Bengal, I think it's an important piece of history needs to be included. Btw why do you think Haliya and Jaliya Kaibarta different altogether? The article isn't suggesting so. Please explain.Chanchaldm (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, if you think they are the same, please go ahead & propose for a merge of the two articles. I don't need to explain, one comes under reservation, the other doesn't, just an example. Moreover, we can only consider those as Mahishyas after a section of the Kaivartas took up the new name Mahishya, and who self identity themselves as Mahishya. As per long term consensus, self identification of caste is important for any notable. If Bengali Mahishya caste has no existence in say 10th/11th century, how can an individual be associated with that caste? Ekdalian (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting Minanath a Notable under Jalia only and if the two articles get merged then he will be considered as notable People in new article?Chanchaldm (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If reliable sources mention him as a Jaliya Kaivarta, you can mention him as a notable in that article. Else, if sources mention him simply as a Kaivarta, you can't mention anywhere, since we don't have any article on Kaivarta in general. In any case, his name cannot be mentioned in this article since the Bengali Mahishya caste didn't even exist during his time. Ekdalian (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Jalia word just signifies historical occupation. In Assam the community is simply known as kaibarta. Whereas in West Bengal kaibarta word is still in use by scholars as an alternative to Mahisya(Jalia here is very insignificant population).But the kaibarta of Assam and kaibarta of Western Bengal had actually not been connected since ancient time. I have discussed the history of Kaivarta of Bengal between 8th and 13th century. Kaivarta of Bengal were associated with tantric Buddhism at that time. These are all important history.Chanchaldm (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable people 

message: Hey  I have given citations with page nos which is common practice in Wikipedia. This book is easily available in online libraries, if not in physical ones .page 7 from sharma:  
Many other sources suggest their dominant position in pala period. For example Nihar Ranjan Ray also mentioned, like brahmins kaivartas also held the posts of minister and commander-in-chief. Thank you.CharlesWain (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey , please raise the issues here. since I have already open a discussion, please participate. I am actually traveling, can't discuss right now. But it will be helpful if you explain your edits.CharlesWain (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi CharlesWain, each & every edit is clearly explained in the edit summaries. These are regular/usual edits done in almost all caste related articles. In case you have any concern regarding any particular edit, you may please provide the diff here so that I can explain more or hear your opinion. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , You don't have access to Sarma or Ray?CharlesWain (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You may simply provide the quotes here; I can assume good faith, CharlesWain and remove the tag. I shall check my own collection of books later once I am back in my hometown! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't discuss multiple issues at once. I will give quotation. Since You have edited long existing version; please ping respective author(s) for quotations or issues in the meantime.CharlesWain (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't removed the statements, just added the tags for providing the quotes, which is quite normal; so it's their responsibilities (or else any other editor who's interested & has access) to share the same as per WP:BURDEN. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who would like to restore material (in this case, keep the content as it is). Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  quotation from source 

message: Hellow editors, The bengali version of this article is well organised than this version. If the Bengal version is well sourced then we should add a origin section in this article. কবির চৌধুরী ১১ (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Chanchaldm Please add origin related contents from Bengali wiki if you think those sources are WP:RS. কবির চৌধুরী ১১ (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are fine.I don't have access to one or two bangla source, but have been checked by multiple editors. Bangla and English wiki article have quite different flow of contents, changes to one section may require changes to other sections. I may improve the article if I find late mediaeval history and history about Parasara and Halik Das of Eastern Bengal from RS. Thanks. Chanchaldm (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is wrong in creating a origin section and give the origin theories of different scholars about Mahishyas? This would make this article better.কবির চৌধুরী ১১ (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have I said it is wrong? But putting improper tag on long existing reliably sourced content is wrong. As I have already said I do not have acces to all sources. Most of those are in my good knowledge, rest I assumed good faith.Thanks.Chanchaldm (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: Mahishya is belong fighting caste pMinistry of culture Mahishya is fighting caste, before the (*agragain caste) you should add this, its appoved by ministry of culture. 202.142.65.151 (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahishya also consider as fighting caste beside of I can give you source  

message: Approved by ministry of culture "The Mahisya" book (page -78), mahishya belong fighting caste beside of farming, you should add this in the first line of your article before the *agragain word. Request you to check this 202.142.65.151 (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahishya also consider as fighting caste  

message: Mahisya and Kaibartas are two different Castes.
According to Manusmriti Mahisyas were formed from mixed origin of Khastriya Father and Vaisya Mother But Kaibartas have the same origin Not <Manusmriti></Manusmriti>
Same origin of Mahisya are Texed at Parasuram Sanghita , Brihaddharma purana and other smriti and srutis.
On the other hand Just Bramhavaivarta Purana state that Kaibartas were originated from Khastriya and Vaisya and this purana does not state about the origin of Mahisya. Also this purana does not state exact origin of all mixed casted.althoug Kaibartas and Mahisyas are different still in sen dysentery in west bengal<Ballalcharit</Ballalcharit>
There are many Bramhin who take dakshia from Mahisyas named as Raypandit cause they are kulgurus of Chandra vangshiya king Tamaradhwaj. According to Shastras The Bramhin who take dakshia from Kaibartas are called Patit " untouchable by vaidik Bramhin" and so they are not eligible for state of kulguru in Kingdom <Yadu Bhatta></Yadu Bhatta>
Please remove Rani rashmoni image cause she is Kaibarta Women and not the Mahisya. 2409:4060:2D08:4FB7:7FC9:33C:D9B4:AFB4 (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: All you have written is known as original research here; read WP:OR! Where's the references, page numbers, links (url), etc! Adopting a new name by a section of Kaibartas doesn't make them actually different, and relevant sources are available in the article. Moreover, most of the sources mentioned above like Manusmriti, Puranas & others are primary sources (read WP:PRIMARY) and are not accepted here! Last part is completely unsourced! Ekdalian (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2023 

message: Hey , I see you did a great job reorganizing and improving Baidya article. I believe that's the best of all Bengali caste articles. Could you please do the same with this article? Mahishya or agriculturist Kaivartas form the largest caste in Bengal and were in news in recent years. 
Actually I got a lot of informations from Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, Sudarshana Bhaumik and some other sources, but totally revamping this article seems a lot of tasks for me as I lack the experience and expertise you have. I need your help. Other editors who keep an eye or are interested in this article are also welcome in the discussion. Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: How does Chasi-Kaibarta and Mahishya form separate caste? Sekhar Bandyopadhyay used both name side by side in the cited page in lead. I have multiple sources as references for whatever I have written in the lead, But I am avoiding over-citations there. I will also work on other sections. CharlesWain (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide relevant quotes from reliable sources which say all Chasi-Kaibartas=Mahishyas!! The 1st statement must mention their traditional occupation, like all similar caste articles. Ekdalian (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 104, Caste Politics and Raj, Sekhar Bandyopadhyay has written Chasi-Kaibartta(Mahishya). CharlesWain (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not enough; you know better! Ekdalian (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Even our article states, "Chasi-Kaibarta constituted a backward class and Mahishya as such was not a backward class in the state." Hope you understand! Ekdalian (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That line is taken from a primary source, whereas Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, Ayan Guha, or Anirban Bandyopadhya's articles are not primary sources. As you know We give priority to Scholarly secondary sources. I also don't know why you have also edited second line of the article which is taken from cited journal of Sekhar Bandyopadhyay. CharlesWain (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sekhar Bandyopadhyay never mentioned what you have tried to add! We need other scholarly work where it clearly states that both of the groups are one and same. Though, as you know, one is a backward class while the other is a general caste! Therefore, I don't think, your last version gives the right picture! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "agriculturist Kaivarta (a section of Chasi-Kaibarta)" doesn't make any sense ! We need other opinion. , could you please share your views? CharlesWain (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Ekdalian , could you please provide any source which mentioned the community as you have written in above mentioned phrase? CharlesWain (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, CharlesWain; needs some tweaks! Ekdalian (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

text: No, lede doesn't require any source! It is a summary of the article! It is already mentioned in our article how an advanced group/section of Chasi-Kaibarta rebranded themselves as Mahishya. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was in late nineteenth century, not present state of things. CharlesWain (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I have already mentioned above Sekhar Bandopadhyay wrote Chasi Kaibartta (Mahishya). However I have like half a dozen other sources. CharlesWain (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You are aware that the other section of Chasi-Kaibarta, which exists as a separate caste, is considered a backward class; but Mahishya is a general caste! Still, you are trying to equate the two?? Ekdalian (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You want discussion now or should I write about Mahishya movement in details first? CharlesWain (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You are simply avoiding the fact; obviously I want the discussion now! Ekdalian (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: please check page 220 CharlesWain (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

text: What you're saying is original research WP:OR, but I have already cited source. I have very recent source of 2020 mentioning the community as Mahishya (Chasi Kaibartta). CharlesWain (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You are simply wrong! Our article clearly states how a section of advanced Chasi Kaibartas assumed the name Mahishya, which is reliably sourced! Therefore, rather you are engaging in OR/SYN! Ekdalian (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That was in late 1890s. We're going round in circle! All chasi Kaibarttas are now widely known as Mahishyas. Present state of thing is that anyone with very basic knowledge about caste knows both names of the community and person with no knowledge about caste only know the name Mahishya. CharlesWain (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's ping other experienced editors!  please share your opinion! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

text: CharlesWain, you have already pinged TB; you may ping other experienced editors. Ekdalian (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's wait for their opinions. I will write about Mahishya movement in details later. It's important as Rajat Kanta Ray mentioned it mobilized great many masses to participate in Nationalist movement in 1920s-1940s. Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

text: , please respond me here.CharlesWain (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , replaying to the ping. What is the dispute? What are the relevant quote from sources? From the edit history it seems like there is a dispute about whether two castes are the same or not. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding.LukeEmily (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey , sorry for the delay; I wasn't available in between. FYI, Mahishya caste was formed by a section of Chasi-Kaibarta (farmers) who as usual claimed themselves to be superior (even demanded Kshatriya status) during their movement, and finally the Government recognised them as a General caste. Now, CharlesWain wants to equate the two, that too in the lede! While Chasi-Kaibarta still exists as a separate caste, considered as OBC by the Government! These are mentioned in the article along with sources! You may check here (Serial number 52) as well! I have opposed this POV of equating a General caste with a OBC (from which they originally belonged, now exist as separate castes)! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

text: page 58 - This single sentence summarises relations between Kaibartta, Chasi Kaibartta and Mahishya.CharlesWain (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

text: , that is a district gazetteer of 1979. Is is simply a republished gazeteer from the Raj era? If so, it will explain why they were considered same and now are different. Who is the author of 1979 gazeteer? Are there any academic references for the same as this is a contentious issue? If one if OBC and one is not-OBC, then the Indian Goverment views them as different castes. Is the gazeteer holding different views? Just trying to understand the contradiction. ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , I believe you definitely know 'C' in OBC stands for 'Class', not caste. As far as I know, no, there are no academic reference,  government document or primary source that says these two are different castes.  There are multiple sources already cited, you may check page 103-13. If lede is the problem, I may create a separate origin section. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

text:  I have not checked the sources but saw the following statements on the page., is the following statement accurate? If yes, they might be different castes now but with the same origin. Am I correct in this assumption? Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is correct, . Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

text: , The socio economic condition section has been drafted by me. Your quoted part is also totally written by me. The statement "...Chasi-Kaibarta constituted a backward class and Mahishya as such was not a backward class in the state." has been taken from a primary source. But your assumption that Chasi-kaibartta and Mahishya are separate castes is not quite accurate.If you consult very recent scholarly sources of 2021 or 2022, they still consider these two different names of same caste. No census report, gazetteer or  government document counted Chasi-kaibarta and Mahishya separately either. Mahishya is the new adopted name for all Chasi-Kaibartas. Though Mahishya is not listed in OBC, anyone from this community can still apply for OBC if they could produce document to the effect that they belonged to Chasi-kaibartta caste. ( Vide Anirban Bandyopadhya's India Today article) Hope you understand why scholars don't consider them as separate castes. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , I dont have enough context but trying to understand the sources. Amrita Basu in the book "Two Faces of Protest: Contrasting Modes of Women's Activism"(page 109)  says "Mahishya population grew by 770,000 because Chasi Kaibartas described themselves as Mahishyas in the 1931 census . This example of upward caste mobility was not unique : thirty - one castes upgraded their status that year".  Thus would mean that they changed their status(not just the name). It is obvious that the origin is the same. Please can you quote a couple of sources that say both are two names for the same caste? Also, do we have a separate page for Chasi Kaibartas? I could not find it. If they are two different castes, why do we not have an independent pages for both? Is this situation like the Maratha caste and Kunbi? Many Kunbis started calling themselves Maratha but both are different castes. Sorry if my questions seem too basic.LukeEmily (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "Mahisya landlords and professionals wrote to the Census authorities in 1901, appealing for the name to be applied to all Chashi Kaibartas. In other words, all Chashi Kaibartas were now to be called Mahisyas. The name took time to be widely accepted, but by the 1920s, it had become sufficiently well known." -Anirban Bandyopadhya's India Today article. CharlesWain (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Please check page 638.CharlesWain (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revamping