Talk:Awasthi

message: Let me just say I was pleasantly surprised by the groundswell of Indians and Indophiles reacting to the VfD nomination of this page. Maybe we should form a group of us within Wikipedia! --Smithfarm 20:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: Would it be possible to get a pronunciation?--Frozenport (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: A Kanyakubj Awasthi Brahmin can have other Gothra than Upmanyu. Also, when doing a Classification; one must talk about the "Biswa"(bees biswa /chaudah biswa / do biswa...) and "Aank" and the "type" of Awasthi (Prabhakar ke Awasthi / Manai ke Awasthi etc...). Please rectify this error. 182.69.80.103 (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: please discuss before editing. Dont go after what is mentioned on various websites or other places. Some of the books may also be wrong as they were written by British with limited knowledge and understanding of the caste divisions in Hindu culture. The changes I have made are as per Braham Puran & Manu samhita. Will keep on editing it & add more references. Have not done so due to lack of time.
I request all to please put their claims on this talk page and make edits ONLY after discussion.
Ashish.awasthi.7 (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't use the Purana or Manu samhita - they are ancient primary sources and not acceptable on Wikipedia. You will notice that the article has been massively trimmed. Please read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:ESSAY. Wikipedia is not the place to conduct some sort of ideological battle regarding history, origins etc of a community. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please discuss before editing 

message: As this article was still not reliably sourced, and I could find no sources, I have converted it to a surname list. - Sitush (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: An 1872 book for such outlandish assertions is not acceptable. Please find a reputable contemporary source. older ≠ wiser 11:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

text: That is the only available book in the world on Indian Castes and Tribes. It is in Google archives also. What else will qualify it to be acceptable? Plz explain. And how does it make an "outlandish assertion"? It clearly states the ground work the author did, the interviews he took and the process he implemented for the same. Hence it is one of the most RESEARCHED work. Have you even tried reading it or just because it is of 1872 you are saying it is not acceptable? Plz share an authorised wkipedia page which says that a researched work is not acceptable because it is of 1872 OR because it is thoroughly researched and the process is clearly mentioned hence it is making outlandish assertions. Request you to please explain me the process.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.248.137 (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

text: You've got to be kidding. The only book in the world on Indian Castes and Tribes. That's hilarious. And precisely where in that source are nuggets such as  supported? Even though that source may be fairly reliable for historical descriptions, it it very misleading to present that information as being current. older ≠ wiser 12:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

text: I have yet again converted this to a surname list. Neither Sherring nor any other writer of the British Raj era is considered to be a reliable source for caste-related material. This has long been the case on Wikipedia and is nothing specific to do with the alleged Awasthi community. - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surname list