Talk:Kalita (caste)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: Assam Mid‑importance India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Assam (assessed as Mid-importance). This article was last assessed in March 2012.

Observation (March 2011)

This article consider the Kalita as well as other human groups of Assam mostly from a racial point of view. It assumes that Kalitas have been a distinctive group since ever and that their culture is rooted in their racial features. This type of approaches have been discarded since long in anthropology. The author should take more into account the possibility that the composition of human groups is physically and culturally renewed by external contribution, and this happens continuously. The cephalic index does not have any relation to culture.

Unreferenced and unsourced puffery

Almost the entire article is unsourced puffery. Such statements having no valid reference will be removed, unless valid sources are provided. Please stop adding more such content; this does not make any sense. IP contributors and editor(s) specifically editing this article are advised to check WP:RS and WP:V before further editing. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Kalitas as Kayastha Vs Kayastha Proper in Assam

'Kaltas were originally Kayasthas' is an assumption only which is never proved to the level of reliability. However, there is another caste in assam with the name of 'Kayasth' or simply 'Kayth'. Please refer "The Peoples of Assam" By Bhuban Mohan Das, on page 35, last para. Hence, it needs a mention, in order to avoid confusion. --Mahensingha 11:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahensingha (talk • contribs) --Mahensingha 11:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Mahensingha, the fact that there is a separate Kayastha community in Assam is well-known. There should not be any concern on your part regarding confusion between the two because of the following reasons. Here, all the theories concerning the origin of the Kalitas must be presented from a neutral point of view without giving undue stress on any particular theory. And, moreover, the sentence which has been quoted from the source, in the lead section, clearly mentions that the Kalitas, according to that theory, were originally Kayathas and later on formed a separate caste altogether; therefore there is no scope for confusion. All the theories are assumption to some extent, we can state the theories without distortion; there is no scope for original research.

You cannot say, "Please go through the whole contents of the Source Book before making any further edit" in the edit summary, it hardly makes sense. If you are adding content to the article, it is your responsibility to add proper citation i.e. you need to specify exact page numbers. If you think you can read an entire book, and summarize it or whatever, that would amount to WP:OR; therefore please be specific and provide relevant page numbers. For example if you cite a source thrice, each citation may refer to a different page no, say one refers to page 35, second refers to pages 101-102, and third may refer to pages 120,290 etc. Also, the references you have provided are incomplete (not as per format), and showing Missing or empty | title= in red. Please rectify the same. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Its Ok. I understood. Just dont misunderstand that if I have written anything in the Edit Summary, then it was for any individual or for you. Still I am very sorry, if it hurts any one. I or we are here to contribute to the articles on wikipedia and definitely not to develop differences or turn aggressive. At least, I am here to learn a lot by exploring various books and sources alike. There are very limited books on Assam History and the one I found meaningful, Thats why I wrote in Summary. As we know we cant write contents of the whole book/books on to a single wiki article. we are bound to write the article related extracts only and definitely cant go in details exactly as narrated in the book. Whatever, I contributed to the article, is simply the view of the author of the Book and its not Original Research. Still if you find anything objectionable, lets discuss. I will be very happy, if you share your precious knowledge with me. I will be ever grateful to you to make the Assam Related Articles more and more meaningful in order to give them due exposer. Thanx. --Mahensingha 21:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahensingha (talk • contribs)

I really appreciate your gesture, as well as your efforts. I would be glad to share knowledge/information with you, and hope we can improve the content of this article. When I edit any article, I keep the Edit Summary meaningful and mention the reasons clearly; similarly whenever I 'll edit this article, I 'll do the same. In case you have any doubt regarding any of my future edit, we can discuss in details here on the talk page; a constructive discussion is most welcome. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I implemented all your suggestions regarding referencing the contents. The article looks better after your efforts on genuinely sourced edits. Much of the contents are still to be worked upon. I request your attentions towards Language, culture etc. Regards.--Mahensingha 09:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahensingha (talk • contribs)

Language, Religion and Culture Suggestion

I find nothing specific to Kalitas in terms of Language, religion or culture as are common to all assamese Hindu people. Please help sourcing the contents or addind the reliably sourced contents. Thanx.--Mahensingha 09:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahensingha (talk • contribs)

Language and culture of a particular caste generally depend on the regional language and culture only; these are not caste specific, rather these are region specific. Religious practices hardly vary among upper castes, and again depend on the geographic location or are region specific. Therefore, articles on caste do not generally have these sections. Like in this article, it does not make any sense if we discuss about the Assamese language and culture; if there is something really unique to the caste (like we generally have for tribes), then it makes sense. Otherwise, these sections have no relevance and should be dropped. Rather, the contentious part is Origin and related sections in any article on caste, and we need to ensure neutrality, as well as relevance. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with you, these sections be dropped. If we find any Kalita caste specific social norm or cultural aspect in any reliable source, we may yet give it a place. Now regarding origin, the article mentions all the theories, even in the lead section itself ,but the sources suggest the most common theory is of Kshatriya Origin. Let me assert about my readings that even the Kayastha proper are mentioned as kshatriya in many source books. In Bengali literature the terms "Kshatriya" and "Kayastha" are nearly synonymous and the term "Kalita" means simply a non-Brahmin Aryan. However, let me admit that the Wiki is an international platform where I have observed that Indian identity and India related articles often become victim of racism and regionalism. In my view all humans are great and so all Indians and Assamese. I have no place in my heart to disregard any Indian Caste/Community. Unfortunately, much of the accounts of foreign authors do not do justice to Indians, may be due to their poor understanding of the complex Indian social structure. Hence, I request you to refrain from the accounts of intentional defame of India or Indians. Still, I am eagerly awaiting your views and suggestions with an assurance of acceptance of every genuine neutrality of the article. Regards.Mahensingha 22:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Notable Kalitas

Caste, ethnicity, race and religion lists cause lots of arguments in Wikipedia, please follow the general consensus:-
All names added to a list must have verifiable, reliable sources to show that they are a notable enough to be included on the list, which usually requires an article on the English Wikipedia.
In a caste, ethnicity, race or religion list, there also needs to be a clear, specific, reference to show that the person is a member of that caste, ethnicity, race or religion.
A person's last name is NOT sufficient evidence for their inclusion in, or exclusion from, a list, as assumptions based on a name are synthesis - a form of original research which is not allowed.
If the person is alive, their inclusion in any list is also covered by our policies on biographies of living people, so a specific reference, where they state they are a member of the category is required.
Someone stating, or claiming, that someone else is, or is not, a member of a Caste, ethnicity, race or religion, is insufficient.
Some people, such as Amitabh Bachchan, have clearly stated they do not agree with caste or ethnic categorization, as these are divisive. These people should not be included in any such list even after their death.

The current list on this article includes large numbers of names who do not appear to meet the general notability requirements, whist none have a reference specifically stating that they a Kalita. Names without adequate references will be removed. - Arjayay (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Castecats

There is a long-standing consensus that we do not categorise biographical articles by caste. For example, see []. Also note that the linked articles do not even mention the word Kalita. Please adhere to the consensus and do not add any link to biographies as this Article Kalita is about the caste--MahenSingha (Talk) 10:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The word Aryan not to be used. Instead Use Indo-Aryan

Aryan word was used by scientist and the Nazi army to show superior of the population of Europe and western Asia on some irrevelent facts during the 20th century which ruled out to be false. The scientific community at present has replaced the word with "indo-european" and the word "Aryan" is used to describe only the Indo-Aryan language of North india. As Kalita community were from North India and spoke Indo-Aryan languages before entering Assam, they should be called Indo-Aryan people or speakers of Indo-Aryan language and NOT ARYAN as it is linked to Nazi Germany. Penguinnumbers (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Since the source clearly states 'Aryan', the article mentions it as it is. As far as sourced statements are concerned, it is not advisable to change the term mentioned in the source. Anyway, here it actually implies Indo-Aryan only, and I have modified the link to Indo-Aryan people now. I hope this addresses your concerns. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)