Jump to content

Talk:Baidya/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 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)

I won't provide them at articles. I can provide quotes here. TrangaBellam (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
you have to provide quotes and readable links of every sensitive line you add in baidya article as noticed by Mr. RegentsPark.Safron710 (talk) 01:25, 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)

@TrangaBellam and Safron710: While not required, when offline material is controversial or challenged, it is a good idea to make use of the quote= parameter (see WP:OFFLINE). That said, it is not a requirement or policy and, in principle, verifying the material on the talk page is fine and will satisfy WP:V. Safron710, I also urge you to WP:AGF and not assume that other editors have a POV. Taking a combative stance and making excessive demands on sourcing is rarely helpful. --RegentsPark (comment) 02:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Safron710, you are getting it backwards. A line can be sourced to sources A, B, and C. That does not mean A or B or C has to support the entire line individually. This applies for the citation of L. Rocher. Page numbers of Sarma have been already provided; have you checked them out? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what you are talking about,just give me the quote of that REJECT claim. you cited Haag, Pascale (2012).just show me the quote Safron710 (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

you also cited this book provide me the quote. Safron710 (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Rc Majumdar not for a single time mentioned Dutt's theory neither he rejected it. as provided by you Safron710 (talk) 11:16, 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.

  • Regentspark: I think you will be able to clearly see that WP:NPOV is flouted here. The dominant editors here are clearly promoting a view and taking a stance against a community's assertions. I would like to draw your attention about the following few things : 1) The editors are trying to focus only aspect of Vaidyas , viz. their ritual status, and nothing much has been allowed in the main section (e.g. - a fact as important as Vaidyas being the most literate community in India has been thrust in the note section) 2) Apparent contradictions are there in the selection of sources. While it mentions that equations of Ambashtha with Baidyas is doubtful, it uses the same fact (mentioned in other sources) to opine that Baidyas are Sudras in most of the Brahmanical literature (in reality, none other than Bv.P mentions Baidyas as distinct from Ambasthas when considering at as a Sudra caste). This is a bizarre and garbed application of WP:Synthesis. 3) Again, Vallal Charita has been discussed without referring to a single source, and while mentioning Chandimangal the word 'indicating' has been changed to 'accorded' 4) A tone of ridicule and disdain is visible in the article and what is worse that is not coming from any references. When I asked why the word 'apparently' has been used regarding Binodlal Sen, the editor simply retorted that he was following the source's (Projit Behari Mukharji) writing style ! He was also inserting exclamatory marks (not available in the source) on his own, and removed them only when charged. 5) They are freely changing the quotes of the cited authors (removing and changing words) and justifying them as interpretation of 'the real stance' instead of considering them verbatim. BengHistory (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • 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.
  • Our article states, 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.
  • Is it your contention that (1) Vācaspati Miśra and Raghunandana don't hold them to be Sudras, or (2) Chandimangal of Mukundaram Chakrabarti doesn't hold them as one, or (3) these are non-Brahminic literature?
  • 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)
  • My contention is that Vācaspati Miśra and Raghunandana hold them as Sudras by equating them with Ambashthas (see DC Sircar), and thus making the statement 'it is doubtful if the Ambasthas — were really the Baidyas of Bengal' a contradictory one with this. One can either contend that Vaidyas are Ambashthas (and then regard Vacaspati and Raghunandan which are based on that) or contend that it is doubful that Vaidyas are Ambasthas. Regarding Mukundaram, he never called Vaidyas as Shudras (you can read the currently available versions instead of waiting for 'reliable' modern authors to quote them), that is purely Sanyal's hypothesis that Chakraborty Indicated so, which you are taking as according. BengHistory (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Whatever tortuous logic was used by medieval authors to uphold Brahminism is irrelevant, until discussed in-depth by sources. Their conclusions matter. If it is your assertion that Vācaspati Miśra/Raghunandana hadn't used the word Vaidya even once (and were talking about Ambasthas all along), I am willing to check more sources and reconsider your arguments.
  • It might be Sanyal's hypothesis but the only practical one. We are not drafting a legal note and my choice of words is good enough. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding Litearcy - Already available in 1921 census and several newspaper reports. Already included in the Note section by you. Short-term memory loss?BengHistory (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding issues in understanding - Ok, Show me one scriptural reference (except Brh. P.) which puts Baidyas as a Shudra caste and does the same by not equating them with Ambasthas.BengHistory (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding Vacaspati and Raghunandan - My contention is that Vācaspati Miśra and Raghunandana hold them as Sudras by equating them with Ambashthas (see DC Sircar), and thus making the statement 'it is doubtful if the Ambasthas — were really the Baidyas of Bengal' a contradictory one with this. One can either contend that Vaidyas are Ambashthas (and then regard Vacaspati and Raghunandan which are based on that) or contend that it is doubful that Vaidyas are Ambasthas. Regarding Mukundaram, he never called Vaidyas as Shudras (you can read the currently available versions instead of waiting for 'reliable' modern authors to quote them), that is purely Sanyal's hypothesis that Chakraborty Indicated so, which you are writing as according. BengHistory (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding Indicating and according - Basic English usage which one needs to know if he/she is editing an English encyclopedia. 'Accord' stands for 'undisputed declaration', whereas 'indicated' stands for a speculation or hypothesis. Sanyal was only speculating as no verse of Chandimangal calls Baidyas as Shudras, rather it only mentions them after the Vaishyas (not in hierarchical way) in the same chapter.BengHistory (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding Style : And he was unjustly casting aspersion (by putting the word 'Apparently' regarding Binodlal's compilation) although Projit Behari does not hint in that direction. BengHistory (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding examples - Multiple examples are already given. 1) Apparently 2) SemiBrahmin 3) Accorded 4) Changing the order in Chandimangal 5) Fallen Brahmin 6) Exclamatory marks. Do you need more? BengHistory (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding "my choice of words is good enough" - I disagree and I would like to see the opinions of other editors like @LukeEmily: or the respected admin @RegentsPark:. Chandimangal is a widely available and recognized text, and it is practical to take it literally instead of establishing someone's indication as the only practical (WP:SYN) interpretation. I repeat, Vaidyas are mentioned in the same chapter of Chandimangal (see the one available in Wikimedia Commons) with Kshatriya and Vaishyas (Kayasthas and lower castes come in different chapters), and no hierarchical comparison (and no varna identification/differentiation) between Vaidyas and Vaishyas are made in any of Chakraborty's verses. BengHistory (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • You cannot accuse any editor of 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)
Neither can you accuse any editor of having 'issues in understanding', right? BengHistory (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
One recent article by a non-Baidya person Shrikant Krishnamachary in a reputed newspaper (I wonder why Swarajya link is not being allowed to copy here) discusses literacy rates, which is also found in 1931 census report. Baidyas' literacy rate figure 62.7% is highest among all the castes in all presidencies (check tables) and Baidya females' English literacy rate is shown to be highest in a single All-India table. Check for yourself, please. BengHistory (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Quote

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)

An agenda-free reading of Majumdar would have impressed that his arguments are not exactly conducive to Dutt. Anyway, as RegentPark noted, [n]ew scholarly sources should be preferred over older ones (ceteris paribus). TrangaBellam (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I was wrong to not read the details of Dutt's arguments by myself and accept AS24's ramblings (about Dutt stating Baidyas to be fallen Brahmins) at face-value. Dutt's stance is now corrected. So utterly boring and a waste of time. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "waste of time" (you said it), so ,You mast stop editing and save your time, What's the point of spending your time on boring things over and over again? (You mentioned) Ballal Charit has been proved to be fake, then for what purpose has the information been inserted?

Quote (2)

  • Instead of arguing, please can someone - any editor- provide quote for the statements below? That will help us resolve disputes quickly. Please insert quote after the statement.
  • Quote needed for 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]
  • Quote needed for Works by Vācaspati Miśra and Raghunandana hold Baidyas to be Sudras.
  • Sanyal notes 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.
  • And, this is not an interpretation specific to Sanyal. Every scholar reads the Chandimangal of Mukundaram in the same manner.

Dispute

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)

Yes to first question. Yes to second question, I am editing quite sensitively. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:29, 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)

I might accuse you of the same charges. This section notes WP:PAYWALL to run as:

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.

TrangaBellam (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Literally Mukundaram chakraborty said vaidyas are ranked between Vaisyas and kayastha.but you wrote a different thing here that vaidyas are bellow kayasthas?can you explain ??? Safron710 (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
What does between mean? Yeah, I flipped the two and have inserted additional details. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

Are the Baidyas and Kayasthas jati rivals in Bengal? My flip had granted Baidyas a higher status than Vaishyas when M noted them as Sudras!
Every scholar discusses Baidyas and Kayasthas together. That's why we are following the same standards.
You are undercounting sources. Projit Mukharji, Swarupa Gupta, Hitesh Sanyal, Banglapedia, and other sources note Baidyas to be Sudras or reject their claims to Brahmin status. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:39, 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)

We cannot use WP:PRIMARY sources. I have not cited Brh. P. or Ch. Ma. but modern scholars who have cited them. If any scholar cites Mbh or Bankimchandra's articles in discussing Baidyas of Bengal, we can use them. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:44, 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)

Nobody is justifying the mistaken flip. It was you (and others) who ascribed motivation. Bengal has weird caste/jati rivalries.
I have every right to term Nripendra Dutta's 60 year old scholarship as fanciful. He was not removed but shifted to footnotes because all recent scholars contradict him. WP:FRINGE.
Fyi, I have never edited the page about Kayasthas but agree that the page shall discuss parallels with Baidyas. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Well it certainly smacks of motives (I am not suggesting any) when one who claims to be so choosy and selective makes a blunder like that about an article under paywall, and which makes the argument misleading. And no, you have no right to call anything as fanciful, be it 60-year old or 600 year-old. YOU GET THAT? BengHistory (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • You are giving precedence to Swarupa Gupta (a guest faculty and young research fellow) rather than Christopher S Raj and McAndrews (senior and reputed academicians). You are quoting Banglapedia which hardly has and credence since it is written by some unknown bloke called Hiralal Bala. This is all but a joke. And Hiteshranjan Sanyal and PB Mukharji, both Bengali Brahmins, simply quote Brihaddharma Purana (not only Kayasthas, all the three castes are rivals of each other, something you pretend to be ignorant of, or at the best surprisingly ignorant of); whereas GS Ghurye and others describe Ambashthas with references from Mahabharata and Manusmriti, something which you again chose to ignore. So you are basically quoting one source, and ignoring other vital sources. What is worse, you are being helped by another editor who has allowed discussions on Vaidyas' sudra status on a single interpretation of the Ambashtha (as per Brihaddharma purana) but not allowing the nuances of the status of Ambashtha in this page, thus making the argument a one-sided one.BengHistory (talk) 09:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Banglapedia is published by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. WP:RSN is a venue to dispute its reliability.
  • Hitesh Sanyal and PB Mukharji might be Brahmins but they are reliable. Again WP:RSN. So is Swarupa Gupta, who was an Assistant Professor of History at Presidency University, Kolkata since July 10, 2012.
  • If you see GS Ghurye discussing Baidyas of Bengal, please provide it. Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Rajballabh seeking 'Vaishya' status, if not categorically described in any of the reference cited, should be removed. It is a common knowledge that he was seeking 'Dvija-status' and Pandits conferred Baidyas the same by identifying them as Ambashthas (variously considered as Brahmins or Vaishyas, but a Dvija nonetheless, cf. discussions on Ambashtha vide Mahabharata and Manusmriti by Muir, Ghurye and others).BengHistory (talk) 09:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I see Curly L David mentioned in the reference list. So I guess he is not fanciful or something at this moment. He has cited a medieval text which distinguishes Brahmin and Baidyas from Sudras. Can that be quoted? If not, something is seriously wrong here. BengHistory (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • BengHistory (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC) Curley L David cites a text that distinguishes Baidyas from Sudras, I am asking if I can cite that. If you understand English I don't see why you are not getting the idea. And if Swarupa Gupta and PB Mukharji are reliable, then so are Christopher Raj, Nripendra Dutta and Vaidya authors like Sengupta and others. If you question the neutrality of an author because he/she belongs to that particular community and treat it as unreliable in a prejudiced way, then by the same logic authors belonging to rival castes (i.e. castes engaged in pamphlet-wars with the former for centuries) should be considered as less neutral.
  • I am a native speaker of Dutch and not highly fluent in English. You can cite David's reading of the text but not the text directly.
  • I have never said that Vaidya authors shall be discounted. Please provide diffs. What is the the source by Sengupta? I have never rejected using Dutt. WP:WEIGHT
  • Someone notes Raj's volume to state - 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.
  • From now onward, do not tag acclaimed women scholars as young and go on to denigrate their professional achievements. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

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) 09:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC) Ghurye discusses Ambashthas. BrihaddharmaPurana-based identity of Vaidyas (the single source of all the authors being accepted by you) is totally dependent on identities of Ambashthas. So Ghurye is important/relevant in any discussion about Vaidyas. Hardly Rocket Science.
  • BengHistory (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC) Please do not twist my statements. I have made no reference to anyone's gender. I have seen you making arguments about reliability of authors on the basis of one's academic recognition, and I merely pointed that you are disregarding senior and acclaimed academicians like Christopher and Mcdrew (or ridiculing Dutt because he wrote 60 years ago) but relying on someone who has hardly written a significant number of articles or book chapters. Do not move the discussion in that way in a shrewd way and do not put words in my mouth. And for someone whose native speech is Dutch and who claims to be an Indian by birth (saw your page), you are showing a surprising amount of commitment towards banglapedia and towards establishing Baidyas as below Kayastha Sudras (your misquote).
  • Nowhere did I comment anything on Christopher or McDrew. They do not make any exceptional claim like Dutt and you can use them. Please read my replies or provide diffs. If you attack me one more time without accompanying evidence, I will ask for a block.
  • I have shown the same commitment at Rathore, Bhonsle, and Cinema of Turkmenistan. I think Banglapedia to be reliable because of ASoB, which ought to be as good as Asiatic Society of India.
  • I do not know if Baidyas are below or above Kayasth Sudras. If you have sources, that information belongs here.
  • Swarupa Gupta has written 3 entire books. 2 have been published by Brill and one by Manohar. Besides that, there are edited volumes and journal articles. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "They have claimed Brahmin status but such claims remain disputed" Are you sure about that??? because baidyas are allowed to enroll in the Sanskrit college along with brahmins.Sanskrit college is exclusive for brahmins. and please can you quote the line which gives you the verdict to write that line??Safron710 (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I see a lot of personal attacks on TrangaBellam; this is not acceptable here, that too for a human error, which has been rectified. Stop this nonsense, and engage in constructive discussions. Also, a note for new users suddenly active here; I am here for years, and can easily differentiate between a genuine editor, and a sock of an indefinitely blocked user. Be cautious, or else you will be blocked again. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:47, 25 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?

You need to sign at the end of each post.
I had written "more lower castes". Why are you blabbering about "other"?
Your claim is that Sircar doesn't talk about a rivalry with Kayasthas? Or is it that the word rivalry cannot be used since Sircar hadn't?
There were three exclamation marks, initially. As far as I remember, 2 were copied from the source while one was mine. I have now removed 2 of them and the one that remains has been used by the source.
I can only wonder why LukeEmily does not respond despite getting close to a dozen pings each day. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Trangabellam, you NEED to be respectful in your tone otherwise I would bring it to the notice of admins, what kind of word is blabbering? Is it something you use in formal communications? 'More' and 'other' are synonymous here. About Sircar, I would really like to know where he used 'rivalry with Kayastha', otherwise you canniot simply put it in between to give it an appearance as if Sircar has opined so. And I am still waiting for the page numbers for the phrases 'illegitimate son', 'raped' and 'forbidden union'. About exclamation, who had given you the right to even put 'ONE' exclamation marks here? Are you doing original research here?BengHistory (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Does it really appear that I care about your concerns and threats? LukeEmily has noted that rivalry with Kayasthas is a fair description. I have provided the quotes for 'raped' and 'forbidden union' at RegentPark's talk-page. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Well it does really appear that you do not care about threats, although you yourself repetitively threat others (by sending notices and so on). But, then, you can at least try to converse in a civilized way. And if you could give page numbers to RegentPark's talk page, why are you not giving it here instead of putting myriad of abbreviated wiki rules? BengHistory (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: He is correct. Why such information are located in foot-note? Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a general reply addressing some points. I think TrangaBellam has done a great job in general and has gone into a lot of depth. Definitely much better than what I could have done. Kayastha rivalry is mentioned by sources. For that conference paper(Christopher Raj/ Ray), that uses "semi-brahmin", TrangaBellam clarified on 23rd that it is is not a reliable reference since it is a conference paper presentation. I do not have access to all of TrangaBellam's sources but I did find a few very high quality sources that do not put the *present* varna of Baidya in the Brahmin category. For example, all three sources below - there are more- put the present(post-independence) varna in the non-twice-born status (for both Bengali Kayasthas and Baidyas probably due to the non-existence of the Vaishya and Kshatriya category in Bengal).
1.Caste, Entrepreneurship and the Illusions of Tradition:Branding the Potters of Kolkata by Geir Heierstad (historian, Netherlands)
Quote: See this.
2.Malcolm McLean(historian [2]
3.in Talk:Baidya#Ritual_status section R._S._Khare from the University of Virginia says the same thing.
Moreover, the ritual status is also discussed in the Cambridge university press books in Talk:Baidya#Ritual_status do use the phrase "ritually low" for the colonial era.
I am sorry and I personally feel this is a sad and unfortunate state of affairs to describe such a highly educated caste in such words because of some rituals, but the "semi-Brahmin" does seem to be minority view as Ekdalian also suggests. Disclaimer: I do not have context and am only basing my views on the limited sources. I am against footnotes but that is a personal choice. LukeEmily (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The only thing you should be sad about is how you are failing to see the design here. I wonder if it is so difficult to notice that an entire community is being villified by casting aspersions on authors coming from that community and selectively using opinions of certain authors and even tampering with quotes. How can putting something in notes be a personal choice? Notes are small-fonted and they are hardly noticeable. It is evident that important facts (like the highest literacy) should be emphasised and be put in a position where people can see them. Is it too difficult to see that arguments against a claim are being given precedence by putting them in main section, and all arguments in support of it, when unable to reject, are being thrust in the footnote? I wish I could request you to come to Bengal to see the reality of varna-status of Vaidyas of present times and check for yourself whether Brahmin priests conduct their customs in Sudra rituals or Brahmin rituals. Here everything is being determined by the Brh. P myth, even in recent papers. And one source like Mukharji is cited 10 times and others being considered minority. Also note that the word 'claim' is being used for Baidyas and 'assert' is being used for KayasthasBengHistory (talk) 08:04, 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)

Annapurna Chattopadhyay might or might not be obscure. (I am not acquainted enough with historiography of Bengal to make a judgement on any author except Chatterjee, Sircar, and Majumdar.) But, Chattopadhyay got his PhD on this topic from under a very eminent guide. And his book was published by Firma Klm.
I sourced the word apparent, from PBC's narration style. Majumdar has elsewhere noted that almost all Kulajis, produced during these times, were of a dubious value and must be rigorously scrutinized by proffesional historians. Some N. Vasu (variably, N. Bose) wrote famed books on the social history of Bengal but actively refused to show the manuscripts. Finally, when he died (and Dacca University got his archives), it was discovered that most of the manuscripts were fabrications and bore no sign of ancience except tall claims by authors, which had been accepted at face value. I am not able to check the intricacies of this controversy (disputations held in Bengali, which I cannot read) but it seems fascinating.
I can read Sanskrit and will try to access Binod Sen's works. I won't be surprised if the quotes from scriptures are not found in their extant editions. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:23, 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)

I need to check sources. I am not very aquainted with history of Eastern India. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:59, 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)

Read the pages. The source explicitly notes that Kayasthas went as far as paying bribes to Brahmins, in order to have Vaidya claims rejected. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:18, 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 hereAbhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

See hereAbhishek 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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source with quotes. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:12, 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 SKDR? 1960 is obviously not 2021. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
According to this logic, all the authors during and before 1960, be it Sircar, Majumdar or other historians were not academically qualified, and all the newbies, like Mukharji, Chattopadhyay and others erudite simply because they are writing in present times.BengHistory (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure what you intend to mean. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:59, 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)

Abhishek Sengupta 24, it would be great if you can cite a somewhat recent source which says something like Baidyas are considered as twice-born and not Shudra nowadays; I have a source, which mentions the same about Bengali Kayasthas, since it doesn't mention about Baidyas, I am not citing here. If you search, you may get something similar. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
This source was given before [4] . Nityapriya Ghosh is a reputed scholar, and he mentions Vaidyas' sacred thread in this book published in 2001. Probably this will be ignored this time as well, or be termed unreliable. BengHistory (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Our article already notes, Baidyas wear the sacred thread. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Ekdalian Here is the source (After 1960) see here page124. TrangaBellam see it pls.

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.

Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk)
Our article already notes, Baidyas wear the sacred thread and 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)
  • The sentence that Bharat Mallik claimed a Vaishya status for Vaidyas is not citing any references. I have read the manuscript and I know that he did not do the same, but of course my words are not proofs. So I ask that reference, with proper quote and page number be given for this claim BengHistory (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Majumdar notes eighth-century inscriptions in S. India to mention of a Baidya group. Who, in the opinions of H. Shastri, enjoyed similar stature to Brahmins. You, for mysterious reasons, think an appropriate summary to be: [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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baidya/Archive_4&oldid=1079514227"