Talk:Awasthi

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

India Low‑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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

Vfd[edit]

On 30 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Awasthi for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 00:54, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

Would it be possible to get a pronunciation?--Frozenport (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have provided d pronunciation. Is this what you suggested? Or you are looking for phonetics? Ashish.awasthi.7 (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...The pronunciation is in Hindi. Ashish.awasthi.7 (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Error[edit]

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) Ashish Awasthi.[reply]

Please discuss before editing[edit]

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)Ashish.awasthi.7Ashish.awasthi.7 (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Surname list[edit]

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)[reply]

Have cited a source - a british writer. A published book based on his research and ground work. Now its upon you to read the whole book and verify. Also - neither im waging any battle nor i want to. DONT formulate any misconception. I need ur help and am asking it explicitly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.248.137 (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An 1872 book for such outlandish assertions is not acceptable. Please find a reputable contemporary source. older ≠ wiser 11:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Any claim, otherwise would be a heresy and without any support. In this era of globalization, Awasthis are found all across the globe, however, their origin is the old city of Kannauj (in Uttar Pradesh, India 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)[reply]

Dear sir/maam, my intent and motive is to create a page with correct info. To repeat myself - I request you that instead of making fun and basking in self righteousness help me to create this page. What is hilarious to you is a fact. You decide how to verify this fact and i will concede to that. So plz suggest the same. Also, this page is about lineage. Why are you converting it into a list of Awasthis? And what do you mean by contemporary info!?!? Origin can never be changed and hence, the knowledge about origin would always be sought from older texts. It will remain unchanged. You cannot change history. And what you are calling nuggets - plz tell me a way to present that info and i will do it. It is only after your suggestion that ive not reinstated the whole article. I will present it once i have the source for everything (i still have but need to file it properly). So once again - requesting you - plz assist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.187.62 (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you have a problem with some "nuggets" then delete those nuggets. Why deleting the whole thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.187.62 (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the only nugget is that "...in the age of globalisation they are found all across the globe". The origin is me mentioned in the book. Even the whole Kanyakubj Brahmans concede to that - till this day. There is no contestation ever done against that. The Kanyakubj society, Calcutta agrees with that. What else do you need. Plz dont be so smirkful to all this. Again a quick FB/Google search will tell you that Awasthisare settled all across the globe. Hence that nugget. Awasthis are not an extinct or endangered brahmans that they will not settle anywhere else. Once again stop being cynical and help me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.187.62 (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]