![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
Mr. TrangaBellam please add quotes or links of every citation you add as advised by the admin Mr. RegentsPark.thank you -- Safron710 ( talk) 00:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
"Sarma, Jyotirmoyee (1987). Caste Dynamics Among the Bengali Hindus, Firma KLM" add the quote or the readable link along with the page no of that. and also quote the line where Rocher, Ludo in "Mixed Castes in the Brahmavaivartapurāṇa" mentioned vaidyas as satsudras. Safron710 ( talk) 01:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
"R. C. Majumdar and most other scholars reject such claims" in which line they said or mentioned that we reject the claims of MR. Dutt?? kindly help your fellow editors including me by quoting that line or give us the readable link along with the specific page no. thanks Safron710 ( talk) 01:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
you also cited this book provide me the quote. Safron710 ( talk) 11:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
BengHistory ( talk) 11:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC) @ RegentsPark:: I request you to ask the editor to provide the exact quote regarding the line 'R. C. Majumdar and most other scholars reject such claims' because the line is doubtful. Even if we leave aside the fact that an author is not entitled to 'reject' the claim of a caste-community (as only the socio-religious institutions are entitled to do that, and authors can at best can only question the validity/antiquity any such claim), taking the name of an all-important author like R.C.Majumdar and using loose phrases like 'most other scholars' for such a sensitive issue is problematic if it is not quoted verbatim and page numbers are not quoted. Also, problematic and objectionable words like 'illegimate son', 'raped' (regarding a Hindu twin-god) and 'forbidden' have been used in this sensitive caste-article without giving exact quotes. I think this comes under WP:VERIFY I request you to kindly consider this.
Vaidyas being the most literate community in India.Citation needed.
in reality, none other than Bv.P mentions Baidyas as distinct from Ambasthas when considering at as a Sudra caste.- You have issues in understanding.
However, Brahminic literature continued to regard them as Sudras. [...] [T]he Chandimangal of Mukundaram Chakrabarti (c. mid 16th century CE) places the Baidyas below Vaisyas and accords a Sudra status but notes the Kayasthas to be below them. Works by Vācaspati Miśra and Raghunandana hold Baidyas to be Sudras.
the word 'indicating' has been changed to 'accorded'.And?
that he was following the source's (Projit Behari Mukharji) writing style.And?
They are freely changing the quotes of the cited authors (removing and changing words).Examples needed. TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
short term memory loss; will meet you at WP:AE. Current sources support that Baidyas had the highest literacy rate in Bengal. Not in India. It is perhaps plausible but you need to cite sources. TrangaBellam ( talk) 20:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Haag writes (p. 284; 3rd paragraph),
From what Majumdar says, it appears clearly that, whatever their name was, Vaidyas or Ambaṣṭhas were not in a position to claim a very high status and that they were in no way considered Brahmins.
Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 11:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
[n]ew scholarly sources should be preferred over older ones (ceteris paribus).TrangaBellam ( talk) 11:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
(You mentioned) Ballal Charit has been proved to be fake, Diffs or I will initiate a request for sanction at WP:AE. TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
In contrast, the Chandimangal of Mukundaram Chakrabarti (c. mid 16th century CE) places the Baidyas below Vaisyas and accords a Sudra status but notes the Kayasthas to be below them.[17][r]
Works by Vācaspati Miśra and Raghunandana hold Baidyas to be Sudras.
In the Chandimangal of Mukundaram the Kayasthas are distinguished from the trading and artisan castes and placed above them. Similarly, the Ambastha-Vaidyas whom the Purana ranked as Uttam Sankar Sudra are placed between the Vaisyas and Kayasthas in the scheme of Mukundaram. It may be said that by placing the Vaidyas and Kayasthas below the Vaisyas Mukundaram has indicated that ritually they are Sudras.
We know that the Bengal Vaidyas were regarded as Sudra by Vacaspati Mitra, Raghunandana and the Kulapanjikaras.- Pg. 114. Last line. Here by Dineshchandra Sircar, who was the Chief Epigraphist of the Archaeological Survey of India and Carmichael Professor of Ancient Indian History and Culture at the University of Calcutta. TrangaBellam ( talk) 21:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Are you here to make this article better?? Without discussion anything with your felleo editors you are editing this article which is very sensitive. Safron710 ( talk) 19:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
You are literally ignoring other editors and editing this sensitive article with some sources which is very hard to verify.please cooperate with everyone Safron710 ( talk) 19:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives.
You added baidyas were below kayastha. It's wrong according to your own source. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 04:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Kayastha are sudra Not Kshatriya. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 04:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
See the calcutta college incident. You added in footnote. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 04:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
See Nirmal Kumar Bose here [1]. They claimed Kshatriya. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 04:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
See here as well. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 04:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
See the page 319 of your own source, which you have added. Cleared written karan identical to kayasth are under sat sudra. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 04:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
If it's happend with this source, then I am worried about the Paywall sources, which are non verifiable for commoners. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 05:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
There are also other views available, which says Vaidyas inbetween top two tiers. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
What type ot wrong interpretation you are doing about the sensetive caste article? Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 05:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
All the positive contents are added in footnote, which would have less view, And all the negative contents are added in the main article. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 05:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
223.223.149.110 ( talk) 08:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC) 1) What is the action taken against an editor if he/she is found to be misquoting/misrepresenting (intentionally or not) a vital piece of information in a sensitive article so that it flips the argument? I am eager to know. I request @LukeEmily (*@ LukeEmily:) and others to take a look into the Chandimangal source incident above and enlighten me. Also note that the editor has removed the word 'probably' (regarding sudra status of Baidyas) from Hiteshranjan Sanyal's interpretation. I see an editor treating others almost as subordinates (as visible from his tone which is highly impolite, informal and curt) and then he comes with such 'errors' which renders all his brouhaha about neutral sources as a sheer joke. 2) Moreover, who gets to decide as to what goes under 'Notes' and what comes in the main article? One look at the tone of the present article makes it clear that it is antagonizing the claim of a community as a false one (by putting all the relevant details in notes and the opposing ones in the main section) and that is hardly neutrality. If you are discussing a disputed claim, treat the arguments for and against it in an unbiased way and leave it to others to judge; rather than favouring one on the basis of one author. If there is PB Mukharji who denounces the Baidyas' claim, there are others like Nripendra Dutta (whom an editor had the audacity to term as fanciful) to be quoted too. Finally, is it justified to mention the Bengali Kayasthas in every second line in a page related to Baidyas? I hardly see Baidyas being mentioned in the Kayastha page (and that is perfectly logical). Here, irrelevant comparative status and other factoids are being mentioned seemingly glorifying the Kayasthas repetitively. Earlier an editor removed all details of Ambashthas citing that there is a page devoted to that. By the same logic, the details about Kayasthas being at a par with Brahmins and Baidyas in the Bhadralok stratum can be discussed in the Bhadralok page. Why mention it so many times here? The introductory paragraph mentions Kayasthas in every line practically. Is this at all logical? BengHistory ( talk) 08:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, Mukundaram's Chandimangal is a literary piece. There are other post raj-era literary texts (Bibhutibhushan Bandyopadhay's short stories, for example) which describe Baidyas as Brahmins. If the latter is rejected as not being a historical text, why make an exception for Chandimangal? And I am still perplexed about the raj-era clause. Brihaddharma Purana can be quoted, but not Mahabharata. Interpretation of Brahminical texts in raj-era cannot be quoted, but indirect and interdisciplinary interpretations can be quoted if it is post-1947. Is this reasonable in a page related to the history of a Hindu community? BengHistory ( talk) 08:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
TrangaBellam should not justify his flip by appearing to favour Baidyas. A misquotation is misquotation, and neutrality should be mentioned. It may be contended that the flip was intended to place Vaidyas below Kayasthas, instead of placing them ahead of Vaishyas (because Sudra status was mentioned, thus making the higher than Vaishya a meaningless argument). And Nripendra Dutta was a modern scholar whom you chose to remove and even called fanciful, something you are hardly entitled to do. BengHistory ( talk) 09:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
There are semi-Brahmin castes like Bhumihars (in Bihar and U.P) and Vaidyas (in west Bengal) who, like Brahmins, have access to the scriptures, the sacred thread, and the right to use the 'Sharma' caste surname. But neither Bhumihars nor Vaidyas have the right to conduct public Divine Service . Bhumihars and Vaidyas have nothing else in common.You can use that, if the quote is correct. Gananath Sen's activism was successful.
TrangaBellam The above book, which you gave approval I copied there in Modern Bengal section. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 16:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
BengHistory ( talk) 22:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC) May I ask why certain exclamatory marks are being put regarding certain claims? Is this article intended to ridicule the activists of a particular community and their own accounts? Neutral editors out there, make sure those derogatory exclamatory marks are removed as soon as possible. And remember, one may exercise one's power here and serve infinite number of notices and what not. But one should be very cautious when one is inserting one's opinions garbed in misquotations, cherry-picking sources and altering the sentences of the original source. Please also refrain from identifying editors on basis of their castes (e.g.- calling them 'Vaidya editors', or 'caste-warriors').
BengHistory ( talk) 22:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Requesting neutral editors here to apply logic and to stop certain editors from expressing their own opinion by altering the sentences of the source being referred to. The varna status of caste is not rejected or accepted by any author, it is the arena of socio-religious institutions. It is meaningless to say that R.C. Majumdar 'rejected' any castes' claim. An author can at best express his/her doubts about the validity (on basis of socio-religious traditions and norms) and antiquity of such a claim, or say that certain institutes reject those claims. Unless there is any specific line in the referred source about R.C. Majumdar 'rejecting' any claim, then it should be deleted. And if the phrase 'other authors' are not there in the source quoted, then that should be removed too. I ask the ones who incorporated that line to provide the page number and quotation, failing which it should be removed.
BengHistory ( talk) 22:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC) The phrases 'forbidden union', 'had a pilgrim raped' and 'illegitimate son' have been used regarding Ambasthas (vide Brh. P.) and Baidyas (vide Bv. P). I would like to know if these exact words appear in the sources being referred, or in any reliable source. Please provide the page no. in each case.
BengHistory ( talk) 22:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Asvins have been mentioned as if they were any historical persons. Asvins are Vedic dual-deities, and a divine myth is being narrated. So that should not bear a quasi-historical allusion, as evident from the style of writing in that paragraph. Kindly quote the references properly, and include (or allow the editors to include) a scholarly interpretation of that myth. Thanks
BengHistory ( talk) 11:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC) @ LukeEmily: Dear Editor, please look into my above four concerns. Also please check if there is any bias in putting certain sources in (small-fonted) notes and not allowing them in the main section. Thanks
BengHistory ( talk) 12:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC) @LukeEmily: Apart from the above concerns, please also note that regarding Sanskrit College, the line 'Baidyas were granted the right to study Sanskrit texts alongside Brahmins' should be changed to 'Baidyas were granted the right to study in Sanskrit College alongside Brahmins' (if it not being quoted verbatim from some source), because Baidyas have been studying Sanskrit since ages before; one example has already been included (viz. Bharat Mallik).
BengHistory ( talk) 21:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC) The word 'other' has been curiously put before 'lower castes beginning to infiltrate into Vaishyas'. This is a quote taken from D.C.Sircar and the word 'other' is not there. The said word seems to have been purposefully added to suggest that like those castes, Vaidyas too were from a 'lower caste'. Same applies for the phrase 'rivalry with Kayasthas', as far as I could see. I request @ LukeEmily: and others to take note of a visible and systematic pushing of POV, sometimes by misquoting, sometimes by adding words or exclamatory marks, and by putting important points (such as Vaidyas being the most literate Bengali community) in small-fonted notes. I would like to know the rules regarding note section. On what basis is something as important as literacy rate goes in the note section?
@ TrangaBellam: He is correct. Why such information are located in foot-note? Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 03:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
villified by casting aspersions on authors coming from that community, example? I don't recall making a single statement on someone's caste background. Editors or authors.
and all arguments in support of it, when unable to reject, are being thrust in the footnote?, example?
everything is being determined by the Brh. P myth, even in recent papers., blame the recent scholars.
the word 'claim' is being used for Baidyas and 'assert' is being used for Kayasthas, what is the difference between the two words? OED defines assert as
state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 09:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Asvins are Vedic gods, you cannot term him as a simple Kshatriya to give a realistic look to a divine myth. Casting aspersions on every scholar of a community seems to be allowed here, as the word 'apparently' is being added regarding Binodlal Sen, someone as obscure as Annapurna Chattopadhyay is used to ridicule Bharat Mallik, and words like 'illegitimate son', 'raped', 'forbidden union' are being used but page numbers/quotes are not given when sought. BengHistory ( talk) 08:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The phrase 'along with Kayasthas' should be removed. Many castes wrote Prasastis, it is illogical to add the name of one of them in a page about Baidyas, and it serves no purpose except glorifying Kayasthas (which should be done in the Kayastha page). BengHistory ( talk) 08:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The phrase 'Bribing the Brahmins' appears in the present version. I would like to know where this phrase appears in the source referred. BengHistory ( talk) 08:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
TrangaBellam Baidyas and Kayasthas are not considered as sudra now. I think Ekdalian would also agree with me.You have added in the modern bengal section. If needed I can provide you source. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 06:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
See here, here page166. I would provide you more sources. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 06:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
See here Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 06:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
See here Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 06:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
TrangaBellam Please understand Baidyas are dwija now. In foot note you added a book of 1960.I have given sources above, all are latest. See the news paper report for extra reference Sunanda K. Datta-Ray here. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 07:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
TrangaBellam Thanks for your reply. The above reliable sources mentions baidyas as between Brahmin and Kshatriya. The reporter mentioned them as dwija. I want
this to be deleted. It's not true in current context. Thanks
Abhishek Sengupta 24 (
talk)
07:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Here the quote of [Sunanda K. Dutt-Ray] Vaidya caste, which claims to be a Brahmin sub-sect. So did the incumbent before him, Prafulla Chandra Sen.
West Bengal’s first chief minister after independence, Prafulla Chandra Ghosh, was a Kayastha like Basu, as was his revered successor, Dr Bidhan Chandra Roy. In between, there was the short-lived United Front chief minister, Ajoy Mukherjee, a Brahmin. Brahmins, Vaidyas and Kayasthas are all dwija, or twice-born, the bhadralok (literally “gentleman”) castes. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 07:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
What is the academic qualification of Annapurna Chattopadhyay? It is laughable to say that Baidyas were considered as Sudras in orthodox religious functions. Photographs (any marriage ceremony photograph or upanayana photograph, for example during 1960's) and articles (Nityapriya Ghosha's article, for example) are there to counter this laughable proposition. BengHistory ( talk) 08:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Kanchiv Lochan Mentioned
[3] baidyas almost equivalent to Brahmin. In foot note see the Sanskrit College incident which differentiate baidyas from sudra. There are other sources which mention baidya as semi Brahmin.
Abhishek Sengupta 24 (
talk)
07:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Baudyas have sacred thread and its performed by Brahman priests. Sudra don't have right to perform sacred thread. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 07:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Sudras are not allowed to study sanskrit or beda see Peter Gonslave Here. Baidyas are sudra is controversial. Should not be there. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 07:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Baidyas wear the sacred thread. TrangaBellam ( talk) 08:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk)And Ronald Inden confirms, after spending 1964 and part of 1965 in Bengal preparing a dissertation on Kayasthas, that intermarriage is becoming increasingly frequent among the urban sections of the Kayasthas, Brahmans, and Vaidyas, that is, among those Western-ized and educated twice-born castes dominating the modern, better-paying, and more prestigious occupations of metropolitan Calcutta and constituting perhaps half of the city's population.
Baidyas wear the sacred threadand I assume that you know what wearing the sacred threads entails. We need not write the same thing n number of times: undergoing upanayana/wearing the sacred thread/considered as twice-born/.... TrangaBellam ( talk) 08:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Baidyas wear the sacred threadand I assume that you know what wearing the sacred threads entails. We need not write the same thing n number of times: undergoing upanayana/wearing the sacred thread/considered as twice-born/....
[The] inscriptions regarded Vaidyas as Brahmana. Which is quite not the case. I do not know either why you chose to insert the factoid in the middle of a line on Ambasthas. TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
TrangaBellam I added this The vaidya as a caste-name does not occur in the old and genuine smritis"
, Because it supports and strengthen your content The Baidyas were classed as Sudras across a spectrum of local Brahminic literature
as, it's says that Vaidya as a caste description does not occur in old and genuine smritis.
Satnam2408 (
talk)
04:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
Mr. TrangaBellam please add quotes or links of every citation you add as advised by the admin Mr. RegentsPark.thank you -- Safron710 ( talk) 00:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
"Sarma, Jyotirmoyee (1987). Caste Dynamics Among the Bengali Hindus, Firma KLM" add the quote or the readable link along with the page no of that. and also quote the line where Rocher, Ludo in "Mixed Castes in the Brahmavaivartapurāṇa" mentioned vaidyas as satsudras. Safron710 ( talk) 01:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
"R. C. Majumdar and most other scholars reject such claims" in which line they said or mentioned that we reject the claims of MR. Dutt?? kindly help your fellow editors including me by quoting that line or give us the readable link along with the specific page no. thanks Safron710 ( talk) 01:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
you also cited this book provide me the quote. Safron710 ( talk) 11:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
BengHistory ( talk) 11:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC) @ RegentsPark:: I request you to ask the editor to provide the exact quote regarding the line 'R. C. Majumdar and most other scholars reject such claims' because the line is doubtful. Even if we leave aside the fact that an author is not entitled to 'reject' the claim of a caste-community (as only the socio-religious institutions are entitled to do that, and authors can at best can only question the validity/antiquity any such claim), taking the name of an all-important author like R.C.Majumdar and using loose phrases like 'most other scholars' for such a sensitive issue is problematic if it is not quoted verbatim and page numbers are not quoted. Also, problematic and objectionable words like 'illegimate son', 'raped' (regarding a Hindu twin-god) and 'forbidden' have been used in this sensitive caste-article without giving exact quotes. I think this comes under WP:VERIFY I request you to kindly consider this.
Vaidyas being the most literate community in India.Citation needed.
in reality, none other than Bv.P mentions Baidyas as distinct from Ambasthas when considering at as a Sudra caste.- You have issues in understanding.
However, Brahminic literature continued to regard them as Sudras. [...] [T]he Chandimangal of Mukundaram Chakrabarti (c. mid 16th century CE) places the Baidyas below Vaisyas and accords a Sudra status but notes the Kayasthas to be below them. Works by Vācaspati Miśra and Raghunandana hold Baidyas to be Sudras.
the word 'indicating' has been changed to 'accorded'.And?
that he was following the source's (Projit Behari Mukharji) writing style.And?
They are freely changing the quotes of the cited authors (removing and changing words).Examples needed. TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
short term memory loss; will meet you at WP:AE. Current sources support that Baidyas had the highest literacy rate in Bengal. Not in India. It is perhaps plausible but you need to cite sources. TrangaBellam ( talk) 20:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Haag writes (p. 284; 3rd paragraph),
From what Majumdar says, it appears clearly that, whatever their name was, Vaidyas or Ambaṣṭhas were not in a position to claim a very high status and that they were in no way considered Brahmins.
Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 11:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
[n]ew scholarly sources should be preferred over older ones (ceteris paribus).TrangaBellam ( talk) 11:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
(You mentioned) Ballal Charit has been proved to be fake, Diffs or I will initiate a request for sanction at WP:AE. TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
In contrast, the Chandimangal of Mukundaram Chakrabarti (c. mid 16th century CE) places the Baidyas below Vaisyas and accords a Sudra status but notes the Kayasthas to be below them.[17][r]
Works by Vācaspati Miśra and Raghunandana hold Baidyas to be Sudras.
In the Chandimangal of Mukundaram the Kayasthas are distinguished from the trading and artisan castes and placed above them. Similarly, the Ambastha-Vaidyas whom the Purana ranked as Uttam Sankar Sudra are placed between the Vaisyas and Kayasthas in the scheme of Mukundaram. It may be said that by placing the Vaidyas and Kayasthas below the Vaisyas Mukundaram has indicated that ritually they are Sudras.
We know that the Bengal Vaidyas were regarded as Sudra by Vacaspati Mitra, Raghunandana and the Kulapanjikaras.- Pg. 114. Last line. Here by Dineshchandra Sircar, who was the Chief Epigraphist of the Archaeological Survey of India and Carmichael Professor of Ancient Indian History and Culture at the University of Calcutta. TrangaBellam ( talk) 21:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Are you here to make this article better?? Without discussion anything with your felleo editors you are editing this article which is very sensitive. Safron710 ( talk) 19:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
You are literally ignoring other editors and editing this sensitive article with some sources which is very hard to verify.please cooperate with everyone Safron710 ( talk) 19:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives.
You added baidyas were below kayastha. It's wrong according to your own source. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 04:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Kayastha are sudra Not Kshatriya. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 04:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
See the calcutta college incident. You added in footnote. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 04:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
See Nirmal Kumar Bose here [1]. They claimed Kshatriya. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 04:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
See here as well. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 04:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
See the page 319 of your own source, which you have added. Cleared written karan identical to kayasth are under sat sudra. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 04:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
If it's happend with this source, then I am worried about the Paywall sources, which are non verifiable for commoners. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 05:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
There are also other views available, which says Vaidyas inbetween top two tiers. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 05:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
What type ot wrong interpretation you are doing about the sensetive caste article? Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 05:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
All the positive contents are added in footnote, which would have less view, And all the negative contents are added in the main article. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 05:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
223.223.149.110 ( talk) 08:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC) 1) What is the action taken against an editor if he/she is found to be misquoting/misrepresenting (intentionally or not) a vital piece of information in a sensitive article so that it flips the argument? I am eager to know. I request @LukeEmily (*@ LukeEmily:) and others to take a look into the Chandimangal source incident above and enlighten me. Also note that the editor has removed the word 'probably' (regarding sudra status of Baidyas) from Hiteshranjan Sanyal's interpretation. I see an editor treating others almost as subordinates (as visible from his tone which is highly impolite, informal and curt) and then he comes with such 'errors' which renders all his brouhaha about neutral sources as a sheer joke. 2) Moreover, who gets to decide as to what goes under 'Notes' and what comes in the main article? One look at the tone of the present article makes it clear that it is antagonizing the claim of a community as a false one (by putting all the relevant details in notes and the opposing ones in the main section) and that is hardly neutrality. If you are discussing a disputed claim, treat the arguments for and against it in an unbiased way and leave it to others to judge; rather than favouring one on the basis of one author. If there is PB Mukharji who denounces the Baidyas' claim, there are others like Nripendra Dutta (whom an editor had the audacity to term as fanciful) to be quoted too. Finally, is it justified to mention the Bengali Kayasthas in every second line in a page related to Baidyas? I hardly see Baidyas being mentioned in the Kayastha page (and that is perfectly logical). Here, irrelevant comparative status and other factoids are being mentioned seemingly glorifying the Kayasthas repetitively. Earlier an editor removed all details of Ambashthas citing that there is a page devoted to that. By the same logic, the details about Kayasthas being at a par with Brahmins and Baidyas in the Bhadralok stratum can be discussed in the Bhadralok page. Why mention it so many times here? The introductory paragraph mentions Kayasthas in every line practically. Is this at all logical? BengHistory ( talk) 08:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, Mukundaram's Chandimangal is a literary piece. There are other post raj-era literary texts (Bibhutibhushan Bandyopadhay's short stories, for example) which describe Baidyas as Brahmins. If the latter is rejected as not being a historical text, why make an exception for Chandimangal? And I am still perplexed about the raj-era clause. Brihaddharma Purana can be quoted, but not Mahabharata. Interpretation of Brahminical texts in raj-era cannot be quoted, but indirect and interdisciplinary interpretations can be quoted if it is post-1947. Is this reasonable in a page related to the history of a Hindu community? BengHistory ( talk) 08:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
TrangaBellam should not justify his flip by appearing to favour Baidyas. A misquotation is misquotation, and neutrality should be mentioned. It may be contended that the flip was intended to place Vaidyas below Kayasthas, instead of placing them ahead of Vaishyas (because Sudra status was mentioned, thus making the higher than Vaishya a meaningless argument). And Nripendra Dutta was a modern scholar whom you chose to remove and even called fanciful, something you are hardly entitled to do. BengHistory ( talk) 09:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
There are semi-Brahmin castes like Bhumihars (in Bihar and U.P) and Vaidyas (in west Bengal) who, like Brahmins, have access to the scriptures, the sacred thread, and the right to use the 'Sharma' caste surname. But neither Bhumihars nor Vaidyas have the right to conduct public Divine Service . Bhumihars and Vaidyas have nothing else in common.You can use that, if the quote is correct. Gananath Sen's activism was successful.
TrangaBellam The above book, which you gave approval I copied there in Modern Bengal section. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 16:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
BengHistory ( talk) 22:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC) May I ask why certain exclamatory marks are being put regarding certain claims? Is this article intended to ridicule the activists of a particular community and their own accounts? Neutral editors out there, make sure those derogatory exclamatory marks are removed as soon as possible. And remember, one may exercise one's power here and serve infinite number of notices and what not. But one should be very cautious when one is inserting one's opinions garbed in misquotations, cherry-picking sources and altering the sentences of the original source. Please also refrain from identifying editors on basis of their castes (e.g.- calling them 'Vaidya editors', or 'caste-warriors').
BengHistory ( talk) 22:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Requesting neutral editors here to apply logic and to stop certain editors from expressing their own opinion by altering the sentences of the source being referred to. The varna status of caste is not rejected or accepted by any author, it is the arena of socio-religious institutions. It is meaningless to say that R.C. Majumdar 'rejected' any castes' claim. An author can at best express his/her doubts about the validity (on basis of socio-religious traditions and norms) and antiquity of such a claim, or say that certain institutes reject those claims. Unless there is any specific line in the referred source about R.C. Majumdar 'rejecting' any claim, then it should be deleted. And if the phrase 'other authors' are not there in the source quoted, then that should be removed too. I ask the ones who incorporated that line to provide the page number and quotation, failing which it should be removed.
BengHistory ( talk) 22:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC) The phrases 'forbidden union', 'had a pilgrim raped' and 'illegitimate son' have been used regarding Ambasthas (vide Brh. P.) and Baidyas (vide Bv. P). I would like to know if these exact words appear in the sources being referred, or in any reliable source. Please provide the page no. in each case.
BengHistory ( talk) 22:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Asvins have been mentioned as if they were any historical persons. Asvins are Vedic dual-deities, and a divine myth is being narrated. So that should not bear a quasi-historical allusion, as evident from the style of writing in that paragraph. Kindly quote the references properly, and include (or allow the editors to include) a scholarly interpretation of that myth. Thanks
BengHistory ( talk) 11:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC) @ LukeEmily: Dear Editor, please look into my above four concerns. Also please check if there is any bias in putting certain sources in (small-fonted) notes and not allowing them in the main section. Thanks
BengHistory ( talk) 12:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC) @LukeEmily: Apart from the above concerns, please also note that regarding Sanskrit College, the line 'Baidyas were granted the right to study Sanskrit texts alongside Brahmins' should be changed to 'Baidyas were granted the right to study in Sanskrit College alongside Brahmins' (if it not being quoted verbatim from some source), because Baidyas have been studying Sanskrit since ages before; one example has already been included (viz. Bharat Mallik).
BengHistory ( talk) 21:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC) The word 'other' has been curiously put before 'lower castes beginning to infiltrate into Vaishyas'. This is a quote taken from D.C.Sircar and the word 'other' is not there. The said word seems to have been purposefully added to suggest that like those castes, Vaidyas too were from a 'lower caste'. Same applies for the phrase 'rivalry with Kayasthas', as far as I could see. I request @ LukeEmily: and others to take note of a visible and systematic pushing of POV, sometimes by misquoting, sometimes by adding words or exclamatory marks, and by putting important points (such as Vaidyas being the most literate Bengali community) in small-fonted notes. I would like to know the rules regarding note section. On what basis is something as important as literacy rate goes in the note section?
@ TrangaBellam: He is correct. Why such information are located in foot-note? Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 03:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
villified by casting aspersions on authors coming from that community, example? I don't recall making a single statement on someone's caste background. Editors or authors.
and all arguments in support of it, when unable to reject, are being thrust in the footnote?, example?
everything is being determined by the Brh. P myth, even in recent papers., blame the recent scholars.
the word 'claim' is being used for Baidyas and 'assert' is being used for Kayasthas, what is the difference between the two words? OED defines assert as
state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 09:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Asvins are Vedic gods, you cannot term him as a simple Kshatriya to give a realistic look to a divine myth. Casting aspersions on every scholar of a community seems to be allowed here, as the word 'apparently' is being added regarding Binodlal Sen, someone as obscure as Annapurna Chattopadhyay is used to ridicule Bharat Mallik, and words like 'illegitimate son', 'raped', 'forbidden union' are being used but page numbers/quotes are not given when sought. BengHistory ( talk) 08:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The phrase 'along with Kayasthas' should be removed. Many castes wrote Prasastis, it is illogical to add the name of one of them in a page about Baidyas, and it serves no purpose except glorifying Kayasthas (which should be done in the Kayastha page). BengHistory ( talk) 08:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The phrase 'Bribing the Brahmins' appears in the present version. I would like to know where this phrase appears in the source referred. BengHistory ( talk) 08:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
TrangaBellam Baidyas and Kayasthas are not considered as sudra now. I think Ekdalian would also agree with me.You have added in the modern bengal section. If needed I can provide you source. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 06:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
See here, here page166. I would provide you more sources. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 06:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
See here Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 06:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
See here Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 06:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
TrangaBellam Please understand Baidyas are dwija now. In foot note you added a book of 1960.I have given sources above, all are latest. See the news paper report for extra reference Sunanda K. Datta-Ray here. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 07:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
TrangaBellam Thanks for your reply. The above reliable sources mentions baidyas as between Brahmin and Kshatriya. The reporter mentioned them as dwija. I want
this to be deleted. It's not true in current context. Thanks
Abhishek Sengupta 24 (
talk)
07:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Here the quote of [Sunanda K. Dutt-Ray] Vaidya caste, which claims to be a Brahmin sub-sect. So did the incumbent before him, Prafulla Chandra Sen.
West Bengal’s first chief minister after independence, Prafulla Chandra Ghosh, was a Kayastha like Basu, as was his revered successor, Dr Bidhan Chandra Roy. In between, there was the short-lived United Front chief minister, Ajoy Mukherjee, a Brahmin. Brahmins, Vaidyas and Kayasthas are all dwija, or twice-born, the bhadralok (literally “gentleman”) castes. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 07:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
What is the academic qualification of Annapurna Chattopadhyay? It is laughable to say that Baidyas were considered as Sudras in orthodox religious functions. Photographs (any marriage ceremony photograph or upanayana photograph, for example during 1960's) and articles (Nityapriya Ghosha's article, for example) are there to counter this laughable proposition. BengHistory ( talk) 08:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Kanchiv Lochan Mentioned
[3] baidyas almost equivalent to Brahmin. In foot note see the Sanskrit College incident which differentiate baidyas from sudra. There are other sources which mention baidya as semi Brahmin.
Abhishek Sengupta 24 (
talk)
07:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Baudyas have sacred thread and its performed by Brahman priests. Sudra don't have right to perform sacred thread. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 07:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Sudras are not allowed to study sanskrit or beda see Peter Gonslave Here. Baidyas are sudra is controversial. Should not be there. Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk) 07:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Baidyas wear the sacred thread. TrangaBellam ( talk) 08:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Abhishek Sengupta 24 ( talk)And Ronald Inden confirms, after spending 1964 and part of 1965 in Bengal preparing a dissertation on Kayasthas, that intermarriage is becoming increasingly frequent among the urban sections of the Kayasthas, Brahmans, and Vaidyas, that is, among those Western-ized and educated twice-born castes dominating the modern, better-paying, and more prestigious occupations of metropolitan Calcutta and constituting perhaps half of the city's population.
Baidyas wear the sacred threadand I assume that you know what wearing the sacred threads entails. We need not write the same thing n number of times: undergoing upanayana/wearing the sacred thread/considered as twice-born/.... TrangaBellam ( talk) 08:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Baidyas wear the sacred threadand I assume that you know what wearing the sacred threads entails. We need not write the same thing n number of times: undergoing upanayana/wearing the sacred thread/considered as twice-born/....
[The] inscriptions regarded Vaidyas as Brahmana. Which is quite not the case. I do not know either why you chose to insert the factoid in the middle of a line on Ambasthas. TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
TrangaBellam I added this The vaidya as a caste-name does not occur in the old and genuine smritis"
, Because it supports and strengthen your content The Baidyas were classed as Sudras across a spectrum of local Brahminic literature
as, it's says that Vaidya as a caste description does not occur in old and genuine smritis.
Satnam2408 (
talk)
04:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)