Talk:Bengali Brahmin

• A little tidying up is required. --Bhadani 08:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Plz remove chakraborty from kulin brahmin  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:AC00:60A2:49B4:472A:5126:33B8 (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 

Stupid and non-sense interpretation

How culture and Happlotype became related? Wow wow wow wow wow 3rd world! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.197.10 (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

placed appropriate tags

due to lack of citations and other appropriate tags are placed , kindly try to improve the article by placing necessary citations and/or rewrite it according to wiki . regards : --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Baidya

Hi,

   Can anyone provide more details about Bengali Baidyas and how they are a part of Brahmin community? I want to know more.

this article says that kayasth clan was formed by the servants of Brahmins. Historically, this is wrong. The history of Kayastha community can be veiwed in its wikipedia entry.

Hi some user named Sourav421 is trying desperately to add Amartya Sen as brahmin who belongs from Baidya caste. Kindly protect the page from Vandalism.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1998/sen/facts/

The official Nobel prize website clearly saying amartya sen is a brahmin.he is also a bengali so thats why I added him.the fact is Baidyas are also brahmins.traditionally baidyas are Ayurvedic Doctors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourav431 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Vaishya Sudras

Vaidyas are vaishya sudras I think but after the British Govt. advrtsed for caste mobilisation , they applied for higher status like Ayurvedic Brahmins.117.194.199.64 (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Tags

The article Bengali Brahmins was in a bad shape. I added a lot of well referenced material, although I was not able to get as many sources as I would have liked, because most of modern scholars are not interested in such topics. I think present tags are too strict to implement, and may induce some less informed editor to destroy this article partially or wholly. Instead of placing tags, one should ask editors to improve this article. I fear one will not get editors to one's liking, because relevant academic sources are hard to find, as far as this article is concerned. If one pushes the matter, he/she will attract only chauvinists who will destroy this article. -VJha (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

yup i agree , hope these tags will attract bengal members so tht it may take a good shape , its a good work from ur part . regards:--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Added 'Genetics' Heading

Mr. Fylind Brahmin and Bengali Brahmin are not same.The zonal and local character is most important.Many mysterious things are there.117.194.202.227 (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I added a section on genetics of the caste group. Hope that is beneficial for the article... --Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The reference of Haplogroup percentages under Genetics section is absolutely as per wikipedia guidelines listed Wikipedia:PSTS.

Policy on Primary Source-

Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

Took Sengupta et al as the primary source. I did not misuse the data provided by it. Check the references.

Policy on Primary Source-
A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge.

Policy on Secondary Source-

Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.

Any educated person may calculate the percentages as such. Besides it is a norm to present the data as percentages. Check any article on Haplogroup in wikipedia or outside sources.

As far as the analytic and evaluative claims are concerned, I’ve taken the "….as a founder lineage for this caste group." line from Sharma et al which is a significant secondary source for the Sengupta study. Besides these Sengupta et al has been referenced in 19 articles listed here which according to WP guidelines provide plenty of secondary sources for the published Sengupta Data. --Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Genetic Data Doubtful

Hindu Genealogy

The 49 established gotras are clans or families whose members trace their descent to a common ancestor, usually a sage of ancient times. The gotra proclaims a person's identity and a "gotraspeak" is required to be presented at Hindu ceremonies. People of the same gotra are not allowed to marry.

One company says it can use a 37-marker Y-DNA test to "verify genetic relatedness and historical gotra genealogies for Hindu and Buddhist engagements, marriages and business partnerships." This has not been supported by independent research. Any Y-DNA test can be used to compare results with another person whose gotra is known.

Doubts and drawbacks Genealogical DNA tests have become popular due to the ease of testing at home and their supplementing genealogical research. Genealogical DNA tests allow for an individual to determine with high accuracy whether he or she is related to another person within a certain time frame, or with certainty that he or she is not related. DNA tests are perceived as more scientific, conclusive and expeditious than searching the civil records. But, they are limited by restrictions on lines which may be studied. The civil records are always only as accurate as the individuals who provided or wrote the information.

The aforementioned Y-DNA testing results are normally stated as probabilities: For example, a perfect 12/12 marker test match gives a 90% likelihood of the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) being within 23 generations, while a 67 of 67 marker match gives the same 90% likelihood of the MRCA being within 4 generations back.[5]

As presented above in mtDNA testing, if a perfect match is found, the mtDNA test results can be helpful. In some cases, research according to traditional genealogy methods encounters difficulties due to the lack of regularly recorded matrilineal surname information in many cultures.(see Matrilineal surname).[7] [edit] Drawbacks

Common concerns about genealogical DNA test are cost and privacy issues (some testing companies retain samples and results for their own use without a privacy agreement with subjects). The most common complaint from DNA test customers is the failure of the company to make results understandable to them.

DNA tests can do some things well, but there are constraints. Testing of the Y-DNA lineage from father to son may reveal complications, due to unusual mutations, secret adoptions, and false paternity (i.e. the father in one generation is not the father in birth records.) According to some genomics experts, autosomal tests may have a margin of error up to 15% and blind spots.[citation needed]

Some users have recommended that there be government or other regulation of ancestry testing to ensure more standardization.[24] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.207.244 (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Phenomenological Anthropology does not support the statistics. Different groups reported different proportions.The data shows an intentionality towards establishment of an old system.The high percentage in a far away valley from its origin at central Asia is really astonishing. Hands of Brahma should be kept aside first.117.194.199.201 (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of only 39 individuals cant say more than that r1a1 and r2 presence.It is also without chi-square test.And also that ISI Calcutta analysis changed the % from below 40 to more than 70.All data changed but mysteriously maintaining the Caste gradation.And that Bengali Brahmin have % equal to the Turkies but more than Pakistanis and Afgans.Very funny research scholars India. This is also not clear How Indo-European culture got related with this.Which stupid or idiotic theory does conform to such conclusion.Are you trying to build the basis of another Apartheid .117.194.202.227 (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The jewish data a popular Gossip

he Cohanim (or Kohanim) is a patrilineal priestly line of descent in Judaism. According to the Bible, the ancestor of the Cohanim is Aaron, brother of Moses. Many believe that descent from Aaron is verifiable with a Y-DNA test: the first published study in genealogical Y chromosome DNA testing found that a significant percentage of Cohens had distinctively similar DNA, rather more so than general Jewish or Middle Eastern populations. These Cohens tended to belong to Haplogroup J, with Y-STR values clustered unusually closely around a haplotype known as the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH). This could be consistent with a shared common ancestor, or with the hereditary priesthood having originally been founded from members of a single closely related clan.

Nevertheless, the original studies tested only six Y-STR markers, which is considered a low-resolution test. Such a test does not have the resolution to prove relatedness, nor to estimate reliably the time to a common ancestor. The Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH), while notably frequent among Cohens, also appears in the general populations of haplogroups J1 and J2 with no particular link to the Cohen ancestry. So while many Cohens have haplotypes close to the CMH, many more of such haplotypes worldwide belong to people with no likely Cohen connection at all. According to researchers (Hammer), it is only the CMH that is found in J1 that is to be attributed to the Aaron lineage, not the CMH in J2. Jews with the CMH in both J1 and J2 cannot all be descended from one man who lived approximately 3,300 years ago, because J1 diverged from J2 10,000 years ago.

Resolution may be increased by the testing of more than six Y-STR markers. For some, this could help to establish relatedness to particular recent Cohen clusters. For many, the testing is unlikely to distinguish definitively shared Cohen ancestry from that of the more general population distribution. So far no published research indicates what extended Y-STR haplotype distributions appear to be characteristic of Cohens.

Although some high-resolution testing has been done, to date the results have not been released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.207.244 (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Brahmins and Slavs have high proportion of R1a1a. Genetics don't lie. These groups are closely related to each other. 77.9.5.240 (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

In "Bengali Brahmins" article about "Kayastha Bengali Brahmins" are not mentioned. why?

In "Bengali Brahmins" article about "Kayastha Bengali Brahmins" are not mentioned. why? According to the "Kayastha" article in wikipedia Kayastas are Brahmins and holding dual cast status Brahmin and Kshatriya. So kindly mention all "Bengali Kayastha Brahmins" peoples name and there titles in the "Bengali Brahmins" Article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.227.130.233 (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Caste Mobilisation and Demand of Higher Status

After the British India Govt. gave notice for application for Higher cast status then only different cast started demanding higher or in most cases having some proximity with the Brahmins.Even a section of one caste-group started wearing sacred thread.This custom later spread to many communities in different states of India.

But neither ever The British Govt. changed any status nor ever the Brahmin acknowledged any community into their sect. In Bengal they were always very rigid to the status of Sudra status for all and the lowest part beyond consideration. Any one can find the documents of Mahafejkhana( Govt. Archive) .Any demand or forceful inclusion is vandalism .Everyone knows in Brahmasamaj also such demand was turned down and never ever acknowledged.We find some vandalism .117.194.201.134 (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Modifications and Reorganization

Hi Everyone,

I have made edits/ modifications to the History section which I am listing below:

--- Organized the section in a verifiable chronological sequence (earliest to latest)
--- Added description of a copper plate of Dhanaidaha and provided reference
--- Then talked about literary sources which may not always be chronologically verifiable (llike Mahabharata, Ramayana, etc)
--- Updated the classification of Bengali brahmins to the scholarly format as described in various texts like "Hindu Catse and Sects", "Banger Jatiya Itihaash" etc
--- Have cited multiple references wherever possible including specifying page numbers wherever possible.

The Traditional Accounts section needs to be organized properly and chronologically as the traditional history of each type of Brahmins are different:

--- Sapta-shati's are pre Adisura and migrations of some are linked to Chandravarman (4th century C.E)
--- Shakdvipi related to Shasanka (7th century CE)
--- Radhi and Varendri - migration related to Adisura (possible Jayanta of 750 C.E) - ref to Kalhanas Rajatarngini esp the exploits of Jayapida (contemporary of Jayanta) grandson of Lalitaditya
--- Paschatya Vaidik - migration during Muhammad Ghaznis invasion (1000 C.E)
--- Dakshinatya Vaidiks during 1050 C.E during Chalukya king Vikramaditya VI reign

Subdivions like Pirali, Patati need to be treated under each section. We should finalize a basic template which we may discuss.

Subhodeep Mukhopadhyay (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Attitude Problem

I feel there is an attitude problem in the presentation of the article.Mythological identity can't be substantiated.Indians have destroyed there tribal identity or had been so, and adopted instead ,the profession based caste identity [ preceded by colour based ( fare , dark and very dark )] and subsequently these were justified in the name of religions though it would have been better if they could have preserved their tribal identity.

This article basically a bad mixture of so many mythological hypothesis.Then there is an effort of substantiation through genome analysis.But the decision has been pre-meditated ; At least some people must have remembered the "Volga To Ganga" by some Rahul Sankrittayan ( is he an Indian ? ) .Most probably he was influenced by the German Jewish Haters and thought of huge Aryan World.

India is a miserable admixture of everything like the Latin America. So to interpret the Genome data of a community which is spreading over a large geographical extension like Bengal a large number of data is necessary.Over the regions the phenomenological anthropology varies sharply for every caste. Only those spreading over a small region show uniformity.I may be wrong but so far my knowledge goes about India ( as their last British monarchy had documented) , this is the reality. And the interpretation becomes a ugly fiction.

Genome identity is like Quantumgenesis theory .Both Y-clad and Mitochondrial dna- clad are two imaginary functions determined statistically with respect to a standard reference and the product of these two is the reality .If you see an r1a1 Russian and an Indian ,you will feel like comparing a hell and heaven.So this is an absurdity.

Biased and Full of Discriminatory Attitude and Interpretation : Worst Article

The harappadna.org ,paper or gobbledegock , what it is , does not contain any specific information ,What is other Bengalis? There is no data of Bengali Kayasthas or Vaidyas .This private financed research had no credibility.The research of Cohanim ancestry had revealed the fact. I think the crude data and the detailed analysis has to be given. 30 - 40 rich people managed a sample analysis that gives no reliability. It is extremely insulting and demeaning to use terms like other Bengalis. A Govt survey of at least 50% of a community population can give such credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.205.219 (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

About Panchavedic Brahmins

Sources need to be cited for "Panchavedic Brahmins". Original research is not as per wikipedia policy - plus the neutrality of the section was questionable as user Anionmission used terms like "greatest" / "highest" which is not as per Wikipedia usage policies.

He/ she needs to: a. Remove capitalization and use proper cases b. Cite verifiable sources / articles/ scholarly articles/ peer reviewed research c. Desist from original research d. Use proper formatting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhodeep Mukhopadhyay (talk • contribs) 13:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The R1a and Proto-Indo-European connection

R1a has been variously associated with:

• the re-colonization of Eurasia during the Late Glacial Maximum.
• the expansion of the Kurgan people from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, which is associated with the spread of the Indo-European languages.

The Modern studies for R1a1 (M17) suggest that it have originated in South Asia and have found its way initially from Western India (Gujarat) through Pakistan and Kashmir, then via Central Asia and Russia, before finally coming to Europe"..."as part of an archaeologically dated Paleolithic movement from east to west 30,000 years ago. so its clear that R1a has clinical connections to the PIE people. Nirjhara (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What is your source for the words "found its way initially from Western India (Gujarat) through Pakistan and Kashmir, then via Central Asia and Russia, before finally coming to Europe"? This very specific itinerary does not appear in the Underhill et al article you cite.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

References

References in Bengali Brahmins

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bengali Brahmins's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Semino2000":

• From Brahmin: Semino et al. (2000)
• From Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA): Semino et al. (2000)
• From Haplogroup H (Y-DNA): Semino O, Passarino G, Oefner PJ; et al. (2000). "The genetic legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in extant Europeans: a Y chromosome perspective". Science. 290 (5494): 1155–9. doi:10.1126/science.290.5494.1155. PMID 11073453. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Here is the reference link: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/290/5494/1155 I guess the parents are found.Nirjhara (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The Brahmin and R1a references you cite are using a "harvard citation" template which takes you down to another part of the article, where you can see the details and check properly...

• R1a has Semino, O.; Passarino, G; Oefner, PJ; Lin, AA; Arbuzova, S; Beckman, LE; De Benedictis, G; Francalacci, P et al. (2000), "The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective", Science 290 (5494): 1155–59, Bibcode 2000Sci...290.1155S, doi:10.1126/science.290.5494.1155, PMID 11073453. Copy can be found at http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ConciseMacedonia/Y_Hromosomes.pdf.
• Brahmin seems to show signs that the "harvard" reference was copied from another article, incompletely. In order for these references to work properly you need to have a references section below, using a citation template. See R1a for examples.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Can any member from any of the Tribes of Bengali Brahmin confirm whether Vaidyas are Brahmin or  ?  ? 117.194.195.242 (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2014

Bengalibrahmin22 (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Actual history Of Bengali Brahmin : Original- to- Sanskritized -to- English (anglicized)

Barujjye (original) -- to -- Banerjee (anglicized) Bandoghati (original) to Bandopadhay (sanskritized) to Banerjee Mukhoti (original) to Mukhopadhay (sanskritized) to Mukherjee (anglicized) Gangal (original) to Gangopadhay (sanskritized) to Ganguly (anglicized) Chatto/ Chattoraj/ Chattokhandi (original) to Chattopadhay (sanskritized) to Chatterjee (anglicized) Bhatto/ Bhat (original) to Bhattacharya (sanskritized)

Explanation-1. Shandilya clan (gotra) had three varieties- Barujjye, Batabyal and Bandoghati. Banerjee (anglicized) has distinctly come from Barujjye (like Banaras came from the Baranasi). Bandoghati (original) became Bandopadhyay (sanskritized). Later they also started using Banerjee in English. However Batabyal remained and continued the same.

2. Gangal (original) became Gangopadhyay (sanskritized) then Ganguly (anglicized). Some say why Gangopadhyay is not Gangerjee like Benerjee or Mukherjee. It is because symmetry was drawn from Gangal (original). Some mistakenly think that the term Rarhi is derived from Rarh region of western Bengal. But that Rarh is derived from Ruksha (dry). It is a modern geographic term while Rarhi is a traditional term. The term Rarhi (shreni) is derived from Gaudiya (shreni). Gaud (Malda) was a place of Sanskrit studies later shifting to Nabadwip. Hussain Shah was also a patron of Gaudiya pundits and invited Rup, Sanatan and Srijiv Goswami in his royal court.

The Gaudiya pundits established a distinct philosophy and rituals in Bengal. Many followed the path of Gaudiya pundits and came to be known as the Gaudiya shreni Brahmans and later Rarhi Brahmans (Gaudiya = Rarhi) by alternative accent. The sect established by Sri Chaitanya Dev is called the Gaudiya Vaishnavism and he is often called the Gaud. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is revered by devotees as an incarnation of Krishna and Radharani as avatars of the Parmatma, or Supreme Godhead. He was born in an Bengali Hindu Brahmin family (Mishra).Some denied the newly originated path of the Gaudiya pundits and claimed to be follower of original Varanasi pundits later known as Vaidik shreni.Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is not known to have written anything himself except for a series of verses known as the Siksastaka, or "eight verses of instruction",[23] which he had spoken, and were recorded by one of his close colleagues. The eight verses created by Mahaprabhu are considered to contain the complete philosophy of Gaudiya Vaishnavism in condensed form. Chaitanya requested a select few among his followers (who later came to be known as the Six Gosvamis of Vrindavan) to systematically present the theology of bhakti he had taught to them in their own writings.The six saints and theologians were Rupa Goswami, Sanatana Goswami, Gopala Bhatta Goswami, Raghunatha Bhatta Goswami, Raghunatha dasa Goswami and Jiva Goswami, a nephew of brothers Rupa and Sanatana. These individuals were responsible for systematising Gaudiya Vaishnava theology. Later the term Rarhi became popular to distinguish from the Barendra Brahmans. It is to note that Barendras are homogenous but Rarhis are heterogenous. The Rarhi Brahmans (not all) are presumed to have migrated and come from north India. It is from the Ananda Bazar matrimonial advertisement that the term Rarhi became popular forgetting its origin from Gaudiya. Rarhi—Gaurhiya Gaurh-- Rarh

4. The origin of Barendra Brahman-

Barendras are known as the Brahmans of the Five (later Seven) ancient villages (5 Gramer Bamun) of Bengal. First they developed and spread in Five (5) ancient villages (Adi Janapad) of Bengal along lower Ganges and later on extended to 7 villages. The term Barendra has come from the king (landlord) Birendra of Pabna. Some say that Birendra was one of the 12 great landlords of Bengal (Baro Bhuniya). Birendra hailed in the Pabna district of North Bengal. He was patron of his own community and encouraged their migration from the Five ancient villages (lower Ganges) to his territory (Pabna). The migrants continued their village names to distinguish among themselves. The village names later became their surnames. The Barendras use Five (5) different surnames associated with original villages. These are.

1. Bagchi from Bagcha village presently located near Barrackpur of 24 Parganas 2. Bhaduri from Bhadur village presently located near Bangaon of 24 Parganas 3. Lahiri from Lohori village presently located near Jessore district of Bangladesh 4. Moitra from Mohit village - mohitra –then- moitra – presently unknown 5. Sanyal from Sen Lal village – senlal – then-sanyal

The 5 ancient (later 7) villages can still be traced along lower Ganges in Hoogly and 24 Parganas districts. One is Adi Saptagram on Ganga in Hoogly district. Bhadur village is presently located near Bangaon of 24 Parganas. Bagcha village is presently located near Barrackpur of 24 Parganas. Barendras are indigenous Brahmans of Bengal while the Rarhis have come from outside, north India. Both are different in physical structure. (Senlal was a landlord. The village was named or called after him. This tradition is found in many other cases. Bogura, a district of Bangladesh is from Bogra Saheb, commander of Hussain Shah and also Mymen Singh, a commander under Ruknuddin Shah)

Baidya Brahmin in Bengal : Baidya or Vaidyais a Hindu caste community of Bengal. Baidyas are regarded as the highest Hindu castes along with Brahmins and Kayasthas in the caste system of Bengal During historical times, Brahmin, Baidya and Kayastha together formed the next elite group apart from rulers, in the power structure and all the rulers of Bengal - Palas, Senas, Pathans and Mughals, had to rely on their support. Baidyas shared the knowledge of Sanskrit with Brahmins.[10] These three castes held major landholding and control over education and major professions. Vaidyas hold surnames like Sengupta, Dasgupta, Gupta, Sen-Sharma, etc. The term 'Baidya'/'Vaidya' also literally means a physician in Bengali/Sanskrit,which further corroborates that the caste may have traditionally been named after their profession.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

History

This article does not have much on the history of the community through the Islamic and British eras.The community was probably the first one in india to take up western education, and played a prominent part in struggle for social reforms and independence struggle. Adding this information to article will greatly enhance the quality of the page.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Raja Krishnachandra

The page was semi protected by some admin while I was trying to add Raja Krishnachandra of Nadia Raj family as a notable people. The Nadia Raj family is a descendant of Bhatta Narayan like the Thakur or Tagore family. Original surname of Krishnachandra Ray was Bandyopadhyay as mentioned. He belonged from a Shakta Bengali family. He is revered as he started Jagadhatri Puja in Bengal. He was a patron Sanskrit learning. Kindly add him. If needed find more relevant sources. http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article5882.html Dasgupta R. Maharaja Krishnachandra: Religion, Caste and Polity in Eighteenth Century Bengal. Indian Historical Review. 2011;38(2):225-242. http://nadia.gov.in/district%20gazetteer/Ch15%20-%20THE%20NADIA%20RAJ.PDF https://www.getbengal.com/details/did-you-know-nadia-s-original-capital-was-matiyari

Your edits were problematic, especially since you tried to include Shaktism as a Category. It may be mentioned as a Category under Hinduism, but why did you add it here? Are all followers of Shaktism considered as Bengali Brahmins? No, right! Now, coming to Krishnachandra, he was an elite and a notable in his own right. We are not sure whether we can mention him here as a Bengali Brahmin merely because of their original surname. Please provide a WP:RS where it is clearly mentioned something like 'he was a Brahmin' or 'was born in a Brahmin famiily', or some equivalent statement, and mention the same here, so that we can include his name. Do mention the page number, etc. so that it can be verified as per WP:V. Most of the sources are simply saying they were followers of Shaktism; therefore you need to come up with reliable & verifiable sources supporting that he was indeed considered as a Brahmin. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Kindly check this article http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article5882.html Part 1 of the above article where it is clearly written that his surname was Bandyopadhayay. As I mentioned earlier that Nadia Raj family is a descendant of Bhatta Narayana.

Why are you citing the same article again & again; can't you find a proper text by a reliable author. Anyway, I have found one, check this. I am adding his name based on this. Don't engage in unconstructive edits like inclusion of a Category, which is not supposed to be here. Ekdalian (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is full of unsourced information, myths and legends

Bengali brahmin being a socially, economically and politically dominant caste in Bengal has been subject of many scholarly studies. But this article consists mainly traditional accounts which have been debunked by many scholars and historians such as RD Banerjee , RC Majumdar , Lokeshawar Basu etc. I am working on adding real history , instead of traditional accounts which are basically myths and legends. I am inviting for some suggestions from experienced editors. Dear Debasish (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not have any objections but what is the explanation for this edit? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

"I do not have any objections"

This article has been allowed to stay on Wikipedia with unsourced, poorly sourced or mythical data for long. I want your co-operation to improve this article. "What is the problem with wikilinks?" No problem. I have explained the problem. Please let me know if it's a valid concern or not. Dear Debasish (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

As already explained by TrangaBellam in the talk page on Baidya, this is not a valid concern at all. As far as Bengal is concerned, the caste structure is completely different from other parts of the country; therefore, the information & wikilinks are pretty much relevant to the article. You are most welcome if you can come up with other constructive edits or improvements. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

One editor has just made two reverts, then a talk page discussion has been opened regarding improvement of this article, and this page has already been protected from editing ! How would you explain this TrangaBellam? You said you had no objections! Dear Debasish (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Indent your posts. You can work on the content in your sandbox and propose it to get included. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions.But I think I will wait till I get Extended Confirmed User status. It was too early to get this article protected. Dear Debasish (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Ekdalian You're late. This page had already been protected before you have replied. Looks like There's disproportionate amount of members of particular castes among influential and senior editors here ! Subjectivity, Bias, and prejudice is very much active in this types of articles. But if you want add citations to unsourced contents, remove unsourced and poorly sourced contents, add real history instead of traditional claims and myths, you surely can. Thanks Dear Debasish (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Your mention of "disproportionate amount of members of particular castes among influential and senior editors here" is a nasty assumption of bad faith, Dear Debasish. Who is it directed at? EdJohnston, who protected the article? Or who? Bishonen | tålk 14:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC).

I think EdJohnston is not Indian.So I was surly not directing towards him nor any particular editor. It was too early to get this protected.Thanks. Dear Debasish (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

You tell me that you're not talking about anybody when you call people here biased and say it's because they favour their own caste? That's not convincing. Don't attack your fellow editors. Bishonen | tålk 14:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC).

It's saddening to see that that You're ignoring the whole thread, terming a "deduction" as just "assumption", and reframing my logic. I am not trying to convince you. But please review the article once. It's missing citations and real history,but containig traditional claims (many of which have been debunked by Scholars and historians) and British raj era sources. I think it's a waste of time for a novice editor to touch caste articles. I don't face that much challenge in other articles. Thanks Bishonen. RegardsDear Debasish (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is objecting your noble goals of basing our article on modern scholarship. Propose your inclusions and exclusions using this template.

What is being objected to, is your (a) throwing of un-subtantiated aspersions and (b) edit-warring. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Ekdalian You're late. This page had already been protected before you have replied. Looks like There's disproportionate amount of members of particular castes among influential and senior editors here ! Subjectivity, Bias, and prejudice is very much active in this types of articles. But if you want add citations to unsourced contents, remove unsourced and poorly sourced contents, add real history instead of traditional claims and myths, you surely can. Thanks Dear Debasish (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Dear Debasish, your advice would be more helpful if you would propose specific changes. As in 'Change A to B'. If you care about the topic of this article you must have some knowledge about the Bengali Brahmins and hopefully you also have some references to propose. Advice with no specifics will not help us make progress. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you EdJohnston for your suggestion. I will try to be more specific next time. I was actually talking about traditional accounts to be removed or explicitly mention it's falsehoodness(It has been removed), add citations to history section(which has been given, but it's too short now, more contents can be added), and maintaining the uniformity in lead section with other caste articles (which has been opposed by two editors here).In my first comment I have mentioned about some scholars whose works can be referred too. Further I have read works of Atul Sur, Nihar Ranjan Roy, BS Guha etc regarding history of bengal and anthropological study of bengalis, which can be referred. But I want to gain some experience before touching cast articles, because it is often bringing troubles. Thank you. Regards, Dear Debasish (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Traditional accounts

Why are traditional accounts regarding Rarhi, Varendra, Paschatya Vaidika, Dakshinatya Vaidika removed from this page?Mikemarssss (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mikemarssss: Please See WP:HISTRS . Best Regards. Jiggyziz ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 09:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Brahmakshatriya

The Senas and their descendants probably merged into the Kayastha or Baidya caste groups as Bengal adopted Maithili caste system. So please remove it.Mikemarssss (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of Alpine Aryans theory

Hellow viewers the speciality of the author, who proposed this theory is in the field of Political Science. see here. The theory should be given by Historians or Anthropologist see WP:HISTRS.Thanks; Satnam2408 (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Prof. ‪Razia Akter Banu is a political historian in her own right, author of several books, and a scholar at the University of Dhaka. Being a Professor in the Department of Political Science, University of Dhaka, doesn't mean they do not qualify as a historian. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:HISTRS "Historians carry out original research, often using primary sources. Historians often have a PhD or advanced academic training in historiography, but may have an advanced degree in a related social science field or a domain specific field". Ekdalian (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian He is partially correct. I have sources, would add them later. Thanks Satnam2408 (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I have added. Thanks.Satnam2408 (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Satnam2408 (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2022

Nitish Sengupta is not a historian. remove his book and the contents regarding his theory. Nobita456 (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. It appears he has a Master's degree in history. I suggest you raise your specific concerns at WP:RSN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Sengupta is not a historian he is a Economist not a hitorian.Even he dont have any master digree in history. see

Adisura

The whole migration part is a myth where brahmin kulajis mention king Adisura as a vaidya supported by Baidya kulajis but opposed by Kayastha kulaji(which hardly make any sense over historians). The cited source, Inden, and the other two sources which Satnam provided mention Adisura as a vaidya. please give your opinion on why Adusura as a vaidya king should not be added. Nobita456 (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

What is the necessity of same discussion again ? TrangaBellam explained to you on Kulin Brahmin talk.Chanchaldm (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

TB raised question regarding that source which was an oral history. but this source which is present in this article also mentioned the same. Thats why I raised another quary. we have four sources that mention Adisura as a Vaidya but we have nothing against it except that Kayastha kulaji claim(undue). Nobita456 (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The whole thing is a fabricated story, better to put under a new section - "Origin myth". If you put Baidya claims , Kayastha claims also need to be mentioned. But is that necessary?Chanchaldm (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The kayastha claims are definitely not supported by historians so that makes it WP:UNDUE. But many historians branded Adisura as a Vaidya. this is undoubtedly a myth but we should provide the detailed myth to the readers. Nobita456 (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Since there was a long discussion about this on Kulin brahmin talk page, you better put your counter argument there if you have something new to say, and get consensus.Chanchaldm (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Adisura is also present here. Your suggestion was also good. But please give your views here. Nobita456 (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Sena kings and the Nidhanpur Copper Plate

Sena kings were not Bengali brahmins neither became so after coming to Bengal. How does the content relevant here? Please explain.Chanchaldm (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't know. But they were Brahmins who had a major contribution in Bengal and almost spend their whole life here. So if we go by this, this should be added here. Nobita456 (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The sena kings were Brahma-Kshatriya not Brahmins. It is possible that they might have been abosrbed into the Brahmin fold, but would require sources for that. Anecdotally, they might have been absorbed into the Vaid caste since Sen is a Vaid surname now.

This copperplate thing is much more relevant since those were actually V'aidik Brahmins that were given land grants per Shin 2018. Doesn't matter if the surnames they had were speculated to be found among Kayasthas now, since old clan names have been replaced with Sanskritised titles in most Brahmin communities of India. These Brahmins settled in Nidhanpur region of Sylhet which is considered to be part of Bengal. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Brahmmakshatriyas are also Brahmins but in a warrior role as far I know. Your given source is reliable, I added it, please check it,Thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nobita456: Thanks and welcome. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Chanchaldm, edit warring is always a matter of concern. As rightly pointed out by Fylindfotberserk, "Doesn't matter if the surnames they had were speculated to be found among Kayasthas now, since old clan names have been replaced with Sanskritised titles in most Brahmin communities of India. These Brahmins settled in Nidhanpur region of Sylhet which is considered to be part of Bengal." Why are you edit warring on relevant content, when you have a clear lack of consensus on removing the same?? Ekdalian (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian, you still wanting to include that racists contents? and why you are are giving wrong interpretation of Fylindfotberserk? His source is reliable not like yours,which TB also raised concern. Kayasthas use this surname is WP:UNDUE. Chanchaldm did right to revert your POVs. Nobita456 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobita, as mentioned in the other talk page, will ignore your disruptive comments till you get a clean chit from the serious allegations against you by multiple experienced editors at WP:AE.

Chanchaldm, will wat for your response. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk's suggestion has been incorporated and that has been acknowledged by him. Please share your opinion about Sena kings. Thanks.Chanchaldm (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Ekdalian you don't need to repeat that everywhere. ongoing AE and fake allegations by you on me is not relevant to this discussion. Nobita456 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Chanchaldm, I completely agree with you; the Sena kings were never considered as Bengali Brahmins. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Food issue

Can we have section on food practices…namely a comment on why Bengali Brahmins eat fish counter to some other Brahmins in India ? 192.184.133.221 (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you add something about the food habits of Bengali Brahmins? @Ekdalian: Mikemarssss (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Islamic aggression in lead

Ekdalian, CharlesWain we should also do the same in English article. What do you guys think? কবির চৌধুরী ১১ (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

What is this all about?Chanchaldm (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Related Ethnic Groups

Also add Assamese brahmins in the section. Mikemarssss (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request

In the article’s infobox, can West bengal (uncapitalised b) be changed to West Bengal? I’m unable to edit it myself due to the ongoing block.

Kind regards AllfadrOdinn (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Done ✅. Chanchaldm (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you add Assamese brahmins in related ethnic groups please? 2405:201:8016:DA22:FDE7:2638:CF3D:2061 (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging Kulin Brahmin into Bengali Brahmin. These two articles are so identical. I think we can just add a seperate section in Brahmin Brahmin article to describe the Kulin Brahmins who are just a sub-caste of Bengali Brahmins.JudeB5 (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Wrong info: Bhattacharya is a title, not a surname, unrelated to gotra

The fifth surname for Rarhi Kulins is Ghoshal, not Bhattacharya. Bhattacharya is a title given to a senior teacher and can be any one of the Bandyopadhyay, Chattopadhyay, Gangopadhyay, Mukhopadhyay or Ghoshal; even Shrotriya Brahmins can have Bhattacharya a title. 111.93.130.157 (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Bhattacharya is mentioned as per reliable source! Please provide a reliable source (modern scholarly work by reliable author) supporting your claim! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Jogendranath Bhattacharya (who was a Bengali Brahmin Pandit and President of the Bengali Brahmin Sabha) wrote a book on Hindu Castes and Sects, which is used as one of the sources in the main article. Here is the link (Internet archive) : https://archive.org/details/hinducastesands00bhatgoog/page/n62/mode/2up

This is the page that clearly mentions Ghosal as Kulin Rarhi.

The book also mentions that Bhattacharyas are primarily Vaidik Brahmin.

Of course, a Bhattacharya pandit in the late 1800s will know what castes are Kulin Rarhi and which are not.

Here is my evidence to the claim that Bhattacharya is not Kulin Rarhi but Ghosal is.

The source you are referring to mentions Bhattacharya in a 1 page chart, providing no source for the claim , neither in the bibliography nor in the footnotes, which is unbecoming of a scholarly work. Moreover, the book is about ISKCON and the Hare Krishna Movement. The authors specialise in cults and new age religious movements. How is some obscure book by non specialists a more reliable source than one written by a literal Bhattacharya pandit. I am presenting evidence straight from the Horse's mouth

(this is literally a book based on Hindu castes and sects).

I have replied to two more questions with evidence. By the way, I like your level headed unbiased moderation @Ekdalian. Hope to have a conversation Justaghost4 (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2024

The five Brahmin clans, which later became known as Mukherjees, Chatterjees, Banerjees, Gangulys and Ghosal/Ghoshal, were each designated as Kulina ("superior") in order to differentiate them from the more established local Brahmins. Sovanwd (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable and verifiable source (modern scholarly work by reliable author) supporting your claim! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not the person who wrote this article. But in Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya's work Hindu Castes and Sects(1896) page 38 clearly mentions Ghoshal and not Bhattacharya being mentioned as part of the Rarhi Kulin clan. In the same book Bhattacharya are mentioned as being Vaidik Brahmins. I am linking the page in the text that clearly mentions this :

https://archive.org/details/hinducastesands00bhatgoog/page/n62/mode/2up

Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya was a pandit who was also President of the Bengal Brahman Sabha. Now the castes which were Rarhi Kulin back in 1896 certainly have not changed in the past century. Classification of castes in the old, traditional way is something which has remained the same for at least a few centuries and there are very few modern scholarly articles that study these things of the past.

On the contrary,I can find no source where Bhattacharya is a Kulin Brahmin. In fact, a Bhattacharya pandit( the author above) mentions that Bhattacharyas are not Kulin Brahmins and are instead Vaidik ones. Bhattacharya has been included in this article as being Rarhi Kulin Brahmin without a source for the same( The Krishna Consciousness in the West Book only mentions Bhattacharjees in a chart, providing no source for the claim neither in the bibliography , nor in footnotes). The book is not even about castes and sects, but about ISKCON, Hare Krishnas etc. The authors specialize in cults and new age religious movements(an entirely different field). It would be much better if they provided some authoritative source for their claims.Every scholarly work(it is to be kept in mind that this obscure work is not a research paper nor a collection of research papers) should provide the right sources. I believe actual pandits( like Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya) will know what castes are Kulin Rarhi and which are not.

Initially, when I was browsing this article which I stumbled upon after browsing through Hooghly(where I live and which used to be part of what was Rarh Banga), I saw Bhattacharya being included in the Rarhi Kulin section inspite of this being contrary to conventional wisdom. This is why I want to draw your attention to this discrepancy. There are 5 Kulin Rarhi Brahmins- Mukherjee(Bharadvaj Gotra), Banerjee(Shandilyo gotra), Chatterjee(mine)(Kashyap Gotra), Ghosal(Vatsa gotra) and Ganguly(Savarna gotra). There is no fixed gotra for Bhattacharya. Many have Vishwamitra gotra, many have something else.

I have, therefore presented my evidence and counterevidence(to the opposite claim).

Willing to have a thoughtful, open minded discussion.

Regards. Justaghost4 (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Kulin Brahmin

The five Brahmin , which later became known as Mukherjees, Chatterjees, Banerjees, Gangulys and Ghosal/Ghoshal, were each designated as Kulina ("superior") in order to differentiate them from the more established local Brahmins. Sovanwd (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Bhattacharya is not Rarhi Kulin Brahmin. It has been wrongly used in place of Ghosal.

There are five Rarhi Brahmin clans along with their gotras: Mukherjee/Mukhopadhyay( Bharadvaja gotra), Banerjee/Bandopadhyay (Shandilya gotra), Chatterjee/Chattopadhyay(Kashyap gotra), Ganguly/Gangopadhyay( Savarna gotra),and Ghosal(Vatsa gotra). Bhattacharya is not included in the Rarhi Kulin classification. In this article as well as several others, Bhattacharya/Bhattacharjee has somehow replaced Ghosal/Ghoshal. Bhattacharya is predominantly a Vaidik Brahmin sect. Evidence for the same has also been provided in Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya's Hindu Castes and Sects (1896). The section on Rarhiya Brahmins clearly mentions this (See page 38). I am linking the exact Internet Archive page from this text which clearly mentions Ghosal as Kulin Rarhi Brahmin. This book is one of the earliest on Hindu social anthropology. https://archive.org/details/hinducastesands00bhatgoog/page/n62/mode/2up

I have saved you the hassle of turning so many pages.

Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya was himself a pandit and president of the Bengal Brahman Sabha. The most accurate accounts of castes and sects can be found in these old texts. The aforementioned book is already included as one of the sources for this article. I hope an editor sees this and makes the appropriate changes. Caste is a controversial topic and is rightfully a thing of the past and I am just pointing out to some historical inaccuracies.

  Had Bhattacharya been a Rarhi Kulin surname, the writer of the book, as is evident from his surname would surely have known about this.  @Ekdalian and others, I urge you to see this. If this line of text has been too long, I again apologise. Willing to have an open minded discussion. Regards. Justaghost4 (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a problem; you need to find reliable post Raj era source! The content in this article is sourced and follow our policies! The source you have mentioned is a Raj era one, cannot be cited per WP:RAJ. Justaghost4, you may search for modern scholarly work by reliable authors. Ekdalian (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Who decides what's a good source or what's bad? The essay you have linked me is not official wikipedia policy and is not binding on users to abide by it. It is the opinion of a user. Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya's text has been cited by several modern works by modern scholars too. Sekhar Bandopadhyay's Caste,Culture and Hegemony(Page 18(can be viewed in google citations),Page 56,Page 87) .Sekhar Bandopadhyay's book mentions JN Bhattacharyas name along with his seminal work again in page 55. He is mentioned again in page 86, page 122 and in several other pages. Jogendranath's book may be old but but he was himself a pandit and President of Bengali Brahman Sabha, and is still considered as an authoritative source on castes and sects. Please read the book by Sekhar Bandopadhyay and not just a few pages from google preview. Caste is not something that has to be updated. What was valid back in the Raj era is still valid today. We should handle sources on a case by case basis. Look at the content and not the age. Ultimately, in history old works will inevitably be cited and mentioned. All scholarly work has citations to older literature. Also, I have found no evidence of Bhattacharya being a Rarhi Kulin Bramhin. The Krishna Consciousness Book mentioned in the sources does not provide any references to the fact that Bhattacharya is included in the Kulin clan, either in the bibliography or in footnotes. This cannot be reliable evidence. Also there are serious errors in that book. In page 41 (available in Google Preview), the author writes that Raja Ram Mohan Roy was born in a non Kulin family( impossible, as he was born a Bandopadhyaya). In one chart(page 37, also available on google preview) wrongly mentions the birth year of Gadadhar Chattopadhyay(Ramakrishna) as 1834 when he was born in 1836). In the same chart, the author mentions Pirali Bramhins as Pirili Bramhins. Also, there is absolutely no mention of the Barendra Bramhins, as if they don't exist. Probably(I'm not sure) not even Rarhbhumi has been mentioned. There are many such errors and omissions in the article .Also, I repeat that it provides no source for the Bhattacharya claim. It is not a peer reviewed scholarly work and is not even about castes or the history of Bengal but about new age movements and the reaction to them in the West.

Here is a 'modern' source(1976) which shows Ghosal as Kulin Bramhin and Bhattacharya(mentioned as Bhatt) in the Srotriya Bramhin section : https://archive.org/details/marriagerankinbengalicultueahistoryofcasteclaninmiddleperiodofbengalronaldindenb._202003_239_N/page/39/mode/2up . This is Marriage & Rank In Bengali Culture A History Of Caste & Clan In Middle Period Of Bengal Ronald B.Inden.Ronald B. Inden is a professor emeritus in the Departments of History and of South Asian Languages and Civilizations at the University of Chicago and is a major scholar in South Asian and post-colonial studies.

I hope to continue the conversation with you, @Ekdalian and I absolutely trust your unbiasedness,judgement and level headedness. Please see the link provided, it will take you directly to the page. Justaghost4 (talk) 09:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding WP:RAJ - while it is an essay, there are consensus at WP:INB to not use Raj era sources. Also any work derived from those would be WP:FRUIT. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you read my comment properly. The book by Sekhar Bandopadhyaya actually has been used as a reference in the original article and it, along with other sources cite the book by Jogendranath Bhattacharya, because it is one of the only authoritative sources on castes and sects till date written by an actual Bhattacharya pandit. I am trying to highlight the importance/quality of the text, when Sekhar Bandopadhyay, a noted historian cites him and mentions him several times in his book. It is,in my opinion wrong and contradictory to use the book as a reference in the main article but completely disregard the book it cites due to artificially rigid rules.

Also, I provided a modern 1976 source that mentions Ghosal as Kulin and Bhattacharya(as Bhatt) as Shrotriya Bramhin. This is a work by Ronald Inden, professor emeritus (History), University of Chicago. This is a post raj source, as requested. https://archive.org/details/marriagerankinbengalicultueahistoryofcasteclaninmiddleperiodofbengalronaldindenb._202003_239_N/page/39/mode/2up

Thank you,

Regards. Justaghost4 (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I read your comments. My only point here was to correct your notion of WP:RAJ, that is, consensus exists. As for the validity of other sources, this one whihc cites 'ghosal' can be discussed, but the one already used in the article (this) is also a reliable source, which mentions 'bhattacharya' as the fifth surname. I also mentioned WP:FRUIT since Sekhar Bandopadhyaya cites Jogendranath Bhattacharya. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for replying! Its nice having a conversation with you! I just wanted to bring to your attention that there are serious errors in that book you are referring to. In page 41 (available in Google Preview), the author writes that Raja Ram Mohan Roy was born in a non Kulin family( impossible, as he was born a Bandopadhyaya). In one chart(page 37, also available on google preview) wrongly mentions the birth year of Gadadhar Chattopadhyay(Ramakrishna) as 1834 when he was born in 1836). In the same chart, the author mentions Pirali Bramhins as Pirili Bramhins(which could be a typo but even then, it should have been proofread correctly). Also, there is absolutely no mention of the Barendra Brahmins, as if they don't exist. Probably(I'm not sure) not even Rarhbhumi has been mentioned. There are many such errors and omissions in the article . You can see for yourself in the Google Preview. Moreover, it is actually a book on ISKCON and the reaction to it in the west. Why is this particular source considered reliable? This is not a book on the history of Bengal or the history of Bengali castes( unlike the book I mentioned). The book also shows no source of the claim that Bhattacharya is included in Kulin Rarhi Brahmins(Not in the bibliography or in the footnotes).

Regards. Justaghost4 (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We understand what you mean; the existing source is unreliable, that's what you want to say. But in order to include Ghosal, we need a reliable source specifically mentioning them as Kulin! The source provided above is reliable, but it doesn't categorically mention the same; the term Vamsaja is included along with Kulin, which means that the list of clans (surnames) includes both Kulin and Vamsaja! Ekdalian (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

EVEN MORE EVIDENCE FOR THE GHOSAL/BHATTACHARYA PROBLEM: EVIDENCE AND COUNTEREVIDENCE:

Here is a 1960(post Raj) source that mentions Ghosal as Kulin Brahmin, and Bhattacharya is not even in the list. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.124919/page/n13/mode/2up?view=theater

This is the Origin and Growth of caste in India (Volume 2, not the earlier volume 1 which came in 1931 which violates the Raj era condition) See page 4.This is a book by Nripendra Kumar Dutta. It was published by KL Mukhopadhyaya(himself a Kulin Brahmin). Bhattacharya as usual is nowhere in sight.

2. My next source, even if old, deserves to be at least seen.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Calcutta_Review_Vol._II_%28Oct._-_Dec._1844%29.pdf . It is the Calcutta Review. See page 11. There is a quote in the bottom half of the page: "In these orders were comprehended

the most meritorious of the descendants of the five colonists

from Kanouj; that is, the most virtuous of the Banerjeas, the

Chatterjeas, the Mookerjeas, the Ghosauls, and the Gangoolies."

3. In an earlier comment I had pasted the link of a 1976 book : https://archive.org/details/marriagerankinbengalicultueahistoryofcasteclaninmiddleperiodofbengalronaldindenb._202003_239_N/page/39/mode/2up that puts Bhattacharya as a Shrotriya Brahmin and Ghosal is kept in the Kulin section. The work of Ronald Inden, Professor Emeritus, University Of Chicago.

4. In my previous comment I have clearly pointed out that there is simply no credible source that mentions Bhattacharya as Rarhi Kulin Brahmin. The only source Krishna Consciousness in the West(not even a book on the history of Bengal/castes but on the tangential topic of ISKCON and the reaction to it in the west) has glaring errors which I have meticulously pointed out in my last comment( above the one made by @Ekdalian). Lastly, even the book by Jogendranath Bhattacharya Hindu Castes and Sects mentions Ghosal as one of the Rarhi Kulin. I know that this is an "old" book but the catch here is that several sources(like the book by Sekhar Bandopadhyay) that are used in the main article of Bengali Brahmins cite this source. So those sources should be removed and by extension, the content of those sources should be deleted! No matter what the consensus on Wikipedia is, on matters such as caste often "modern" sources have to cite older sources. I can emphatically say that every source used in the Wikipedia article Bengali Brahmins cites something older the Pre Raj era.

https://archive.org/details/hinducastesands00bhatgoog/page/n62/mode/2up. Justaghost4 (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to find better sources. One of the sources provided by you mentions other surnames like Simlai as Kulin as well; according to the source, they were descendants of the five original clans who were brought to Bengal by Adisur, as per the legend. I shall dig more into it. Ekdalian (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The source does not mention Simlai as Kulin, but simply as Rarhi Brahmin. The page only shows Rarhi Brahmins and the origins of the names. You have to turn a few pages to get to which Brahmins are Kulin. To save you the trouble please click on the following two links:

Here are two pages from the same source which mention the Kulin Brahmins:

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.124919/page/n15/mode/2up?view=theater (Page 6) (See bottom of page 6)

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.124919/page/n17/mode/2up?view=theater (Page 7) (See top of page 7)

See the bottom half of the page 6 and top half of page 7.

This exactly corroborates the list given by the Ronald B Inden source.

Page 7's top half also mentions how the mass of other Rarhis became Srotriyas(which inclues Simlai).

I am sorry for any confusion. I hope this addresses your doubts.Justaghost4 (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The source does not mention Simlai as Kulin, but simply as Rarhi Brahmin. The page only shows Rarhi Brahmins and the origins of the names. You have to turn a few pages to get to which Brahmins are Kulin. To save you the trouble please click on the following two links for Kulin classification: Here are two pages from the same source which mention the Kulin Brahmins:

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.124919/page/n15/mode/2up?view=theater (Page 6) (See bottom of page 6)

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.124919/page/n17/mode/2up?view=theater (Page 7) (See top of page 7)

See the bottom half of the page 6 and top half of page 7.

This exactly corroborates the list given by the Ronald B Inden source. Page 7's top half also mentions how the mass of other Rarhis became Srotriyas(which inclues Simlai). I am sorry for any confusion. I hope this addresses your doubts. Justaghost4 (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The same statement also mentions Kanjilal and Putitunda, along with Ghosal, as Kulins! We need a statement saying who all were the original five clans (surnames) who were brought to Bengal and declared as Kulins according to the legend; hope you understand. Ekdalian (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

1.Here is another source(1977) which mentions Ghoshal as Kulin Brahmin. This is Calcutta: Myths and History by SN Mukherjee. Please read the preface which mentions that this article was part of the Modern Asian Studies, Cambridge University Press.

This link will take you to the page:

https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.12344/page/n57/mode/2up?q=ghosal

See the Ghosal marked in blue. It also mentions Majumdar, which is a titular surname and can be held by any caste.

2. Regarding your previous statement about the need to find the names of the five clans in the Adisura Legend, I am afraid you will only get the names of the Five Brahmins with the names of the gotras. The surnames under consideration simply did not exist back then. It is however conventional knowledge that they were:Shandilya(Banerjee),Vatsya(Ghosal),Savarna(Ganguly),Kashyap(Chatterjee),Bharadvaja(Mukherjee). Here is Ronald B Inden's source that mentions the names of all the gotras: https://archive.org/details/marriagerankinbengalicultueahistoryofcasteclaninmiddleperiodofbengalronaldindenb._202003_239_N/page/57/mode/2up See bottom half of page 57. This is Marriage and Rank in Bengali Culture(1976), the same source that puts Bhattacharya under Srotriya Brahmin section. Here is that page in case you have forgotten. https://archive.org/details/marriagerankinbengalicultueahistoryofcasteclaninmiddleperiodofbengalronaldindenb._202003_239_N/page/39/mode/2up

Thank you, @Ekdalian

Hoping to continue the conversation. Have lots more to say.

Regards. Justaghost4 (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

No, we cannot use gotras to derive the clan names! You must be aware that the same gotra may be used by different clans, and we cannot allow original research. I agree that some Ghosal families were granted Kulin status along with some Kanjilal, Putitunda & other Brahmin families, as per the source provided, which may be added to the article. But, the most common four surnames (Banerjee, Chatterjee, Mukherjee, Ganguly) are mentioned in sources & considered among the Kulins brought by Adisur. What you are trying to justify is considered as WP:OR/WP:SYN! If you can come up with a reliable & verifiable source mentioning Ghosal along with the four other clans mentioned above, then it can be included along with them. Ekdalian (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, can you mention which modern,reliable source mentions Mukherjee,Banerjee,Chatterjee,Ganguly as Kulin Brahmins?

I can bet one cannot find a 'modern' source for the same.Because,if we go down this slippery slope, all sources that mention these are older than 1947 (violating the self imposed WP:RAJ condition). So we have to remove all these surnames altogether.

You cannot say that this is conventional knowledge. We need a valid source for your claim that Banerjee,Mukherjee,Ganguly,Chatterjee are Kulin Brahmins. How will you prove their Kulin status?

If you want to go by older,authoritative sources there are ( as I have demonstrated :JN Bhattacharya,Calcutta Review,.. etc) many that mention Mukherjee,Chatterjee,Banerjee,Ganguly and Ghosal as the 5 Kulin Brahmin surnames.

I need a concrete proof for the inclusion of Banerjee,Chatterjee,Mukherjee and Ganguly as Kulin Brahmin with no handwaving.

I hope you understand that I have no skin in the game. I am neither Ghosal nor Bhattacharya. My surname is one of the four you have considered as Kulin Brahmin. There is no agenda pushing going on from my side. But when I saw Bhattacharya and not Ghosal being included in the Wikipedia page of my surname(Chatterjee), I felt it was necessary to correct it.Some people have been going around putting Bhattacharya everywhere, with no source to back it up.

Regards. Great talking to you.

Thanks. Justaghost4 (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Serious concerns regarding a new source posted today. Please read the whole thing

@Ekdalian has posted a new source today : Social Mobility in Developing Countries that mentions Chakravarty and Bhattacharjees as Kulin Brahmins. The book,however, produces no sources for the claim. How can this book be an authority on the history of Bengali surnames when it is largely a book on developmental economics and social indicators written by development economists(not historians).

What is shocking is the presence of Chakravarty here. In a previous comment, Ekdalian rejected two of my sources just because they mentioned Putitunda and Kanjilal. So, I can similarly reject this source for mentioning Chakravarty. Ekdalian, you also mentioned the Adisura legend and the five surnames. So, five suddenly became six because of a book written by developmental economists.

It is not a book on history of Bengal, or Bengali castes or religion in Bengal.

It is also contradicted by Marriage and Rank in Bengali Culture by Ronald B Inden(1976), wherein Bhattacharya is a Srotriya Brahmin( lower in rank than Kulin). Ronald Inden actually was an indologist/orientalist.

https://archive.org/details/marriagerankinbengalicultueahistoryofcasteclaninmiddleperiodofbengalronaldindenb._202003_239_N/page/39/mode/2up .Ronald Inden was Professor of South Asian History at the University Of Chicago. In his work he has mentioned various sources for his claims.

https://archive.org/details/marriagerankinbengalicultueahistoryofcasteclaninmiddleperiodofbengalronaldindenb._202003_239_N/page/1/mode/2up . In the introduction here, he mentions his sources.

If there is a conflict between two sources, what is to be done?

It is beyond my understanding how anyone can consider this as a reliable source when it itself does not provide a source for its claims. The chapter was not even about the topic at hand. If you are to pass peer review, you have to produce a source for your claims(citations to relevant literature). This is a book,not a journal article.

Why are developmental economists now considered authority on Bengali castes? This book is one on an entirely different topic altogether. Sources should be reliable(that is be written by recognised experts in the relevant fields). Books written by economists should only be considered sources for economics related articles. Biologists should not write stuff about Physics,especially with no source.

ERROR IN PAGE 292:Please also see Page number 292 of the same book you linked. At the bottom of the page footnote number 16 mentions Dasgupta as being one of the surnames used by both upper castes and scheduled castes. Dasgupta is a Baidya surname, definitely upper caste. As expected, these non experts fail to provide correct information.It also provides no reference to the fact that surnames like Roy etc. are also used by scheduled castes

WHEN EXPERTS IN OTHER FIELDS DIP THEIR TOES INTO SOMETHING ELSE, THESE KINDS OF THINGS HAPPEN.

The article is not even peer reviewed. It is a working paper. See the article's name : MEASURING SOCIAL MOBILITY IN HISTORIC AND LESS DEVELOPED SOCIETIES BY GREGORY CLARK. Economics is my field. I know what I am talking about. It is not even a paper published in ECONOMICS Journals( let alone HISTORY). Most Economics Working Papers worth their salt are usually put in the NBER Working Paper Series/ SSRN Working Paper Series. In case it is not known to Wikipedia editors, published research(peer reviewed) in econ is published under JOURNALS like the Quarterly Journal of Economics,Journal of Political Economy,Econometrica and the like. The article under question did no make it through peer review.

This is by no means a mean spirited comment.I am just disappointed by the quality of the source. I am sorry if it comes across as one. But, as an academic, I feel like I have the responsibility of correcting notions about citations and fields of expertise.

THE ARTICLE USED TO CITE THIS, THAT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE BOOK IS A WORKING PAPER. SEARCH THE NAME OF THE ARTICLE : MEASURING SOCIAL MOBILITY IN HISTORIC AND LESS DEVELOPED SOCIETIES BY GREGORY CLARK . IT IS A WORKING PAPER(NOT YET PEER REVIEWED.)

I repeat, there are no citations for the Chakravarty, Bhattacharya claim .What can be claimed without evidence can be rejected without evidence.The expertise of the writer(on the subject of caste/surnames) of the article on the matter of caste is called into question. Take the view of economists on matters relating to the economy and not history. That should be left to the historians.

I hope that the editors inlcuding @Ekdalian and others continue to have an unbiased and common sense approach to sources and not tag sources just for the sake of it. What is considered reliable to you might not be to someone else. The onus is on you to show how/why it is reliable. What source depends on the context. The claim is made by non experts, no one cannot deny this. The names have been pulled out of thin air. There is also a grave error/ ignorance on part of the authors as mentioned above. Regards. Justaghost4 (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPA! Ekdalian (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is called classic deflection . You have not addressed my concerns about the relevance/authority/reliability of your source. I pointed out a flaw in the source, about which you have not produced any counterarguments. Instead you have indirectly questioned my integrity and have accused my of pushing my point of view. I have not engaged in any kind of edit warring. Neither have I edited anyone else's answers/or articles. I thought we were having an open minded discussion based on facts and logic. Yes, this account was created when I spotted misinformation in the name of unscrupulous sources and wanted to correct the same. If a few of my counterarguments in the talk page have made some people so angry as to send me a discretionary sanction notice, I have no interest in arguing with you further. I hope, in the end common sense prevails over internet clout. Justaghost4 (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Other experienced editors are also active here! They may respond to your concerns or may question me regarding my source. I am tired of your lengthy discussions, and did whatever seemed to be best in the interest of the article! The article now talks about the five original clans as per all reliable sources, and mentions the six most common surnames used by them, which is again sourced! There's no contradiction, and the content is supported by sources as per our policies. I have nothing more to say. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Your source written by economists contradicts a reliable source,written by a historian, as I have mentioned in my previous comment. I simply did not wish to reply back, but you have mentioned that there is no contradiction. What is to be done if there is a contradiction between two sources? Are you saying that your source is better than mine, just because I am new to Wikipedia. "best in the interest of the article" - is not clearly defined. Who decides what is "best interests"? Justaghost4 (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Since it has been changed from 'clan' to 'surname' recently, Ghoshal can be included? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, the problem is the statement from the relevant source which mentions that some Ghosal, Kanjilal & Putitunda families were also granted Kulin status. You may suggest what can be done, or else edit the article citing the source. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Where are you getting the fact that "some" families were given Kulin status. Where in these sources is it mentioned that only a few and not all of them got Kulin status? I am not being argumentative, I just need the source, the specific line that mentions this. I supplied you those sources and have read them before linking them here.

Besides, the fact that Putitunda and Kanjilal got Kulin status does not make those sources bad by themselves. Justaghost4 (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@FylindfotBerserkAre you replying to me? In that case, I don't know what should be done. I don't have the power to make changes but I am only trying to reach a consensus through debate . My answers are lengthy(as pointed out by the previous exasperated commenter) because I try to clearly mention what is written in the sources in what page as well as try to provide some sort of evidence as to why these sources are credible. I am sorry if I bore you. I request that you take the time to read them and read them only when you have time. No one has to reply to me.

The recently added source(on developmental economics and not even related to the topic at hand) used to mention the five(now,six) surnames has a few problems that I pointed out, namely its contradiction with Marriages and Rank in Bengali Culture (1976) by Robert Inden(indologist at University of Chicago) wherein Bhattacharya is a srotriya Brahmin,not Kulin and Chakravarty is nowhere mentioned. I have also mentioned about the wrong information about the Dasgupta surname in my previous comment ( in footnote 16 of page 292). You can check it out. The full book(Social mobility in developing countries) is freely available in Google Preview.

Also, I know that there is consensus about WP:RAJ on here but most of the sources used in the actual article actually cite books/articles/monographs dating back to the Pre Raj era. The work by Sekhar Bandhopadhyay is one such source. Some sources even cite works by Rabindranath Tagore! A few days back, you mentioned WP:FRUIT. So,by that logic most sources to the main Bengali Brahmin article are compromised. In the Wikipedia References(not sources) section, there are also a number of Pre Raj era sources, including the one by JN Bhattcharya.

I have also recently found that even though the JN Bhattacharya Hindu Castes and Sects was written originally in 1896, there exists a 1968 reprint with a foreword by the then Director of the Archaeological Survey of India. https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.4189/page/n1/mode/2up. This link will take you to the place where the date is mentioned. The director mentions why this is a good source. Again,if you do not accept this, I completely understand. Justaghost4 (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

A grave misconception of Bhattacharya, Chakraborty being Kulin Brahmins and about what Kulinism is in general. With new evidence .

@Fylindfotberserk @Ekdalian I am tagging you both for the sake of a renewed discussion. Also, Ekdalian, our last exchange was unnecessarily heated, partly owing to my inexperience of the Internet and wikipedia in general. It should be in the best interests of the article that we bury the hatchet and start to see things from each other's perspectives with mutual appreciation. I know my replies are lengthy, but I try to show my line of reasoning and try to make my position as clear as possible to prevent misunderstandings. Please do reply only when you have read this in all its entirety. I have brought forth two preliminary sources. For my other sources I need Internet archive to be functional but it is undergoing technical disruptions

1. I begin by posting a new source : https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Changing_World_of_Caste_and_Hierarch/bKh4EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=the+changing+world+of+caste+and+hierarchy+ghosal&pg=PT43&printsec=frontcover. Please read most of the page. It contains relevant information. This is The Changing World of Caste and Hierarchy in Bengal by Sudarshana Bhaumik,sociologist, published in Routledge. It mentions how Banerjee ,Mukherjee,Chatterjee,Ghosal and Ganguly are Kulin Brahmins whereas Bhattacharya and Chakraborty are merely titles which can be used by anyone.

2. The book : Against High Caste Polygamy (2023). These are words of Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar himself: https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Against_High_Caste_Polygamy/SynFEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=against+high+caste+polygamy+ghoshal+kulin&pg=PA59&printsec=frontcover Bandya,Catta,Mukhaiti,Ghoshal,Ganguly,Putitunda,Kanjilal,Kundagrami are the Kulin Brahmins

3. Previously in my past comments, I have linked Professor Ronald Indens Marriage and Rank in Bengali Culture(1976,Uchicago Press) which corroborates the views of Vidyasagar. Professor Inden is Professor Emeritus, South Asian Studies at Uchicago. There is one more clarification I need to make regarding the book. It states the number of Kulin Brahmins to be 8 in another page. But,I need Internet archive to be functional before I can link to it. I believe his words will carry a greater weight than the books written by non expert developmental economists that is used to cite sources for the Chakraborty and Bhattacharya claims, which moreover does not even mention sources for claims made by them.

4.For my other sources I need Internet archive to be functional but it is undergoing technical disruptions. I will also demonstrate via the book Linguistic Studies of Bengali Surnames by Bhabataran Dutta, University of Calcutta Press how Bandya,Chatta,Mukhaiti,Ghoshal,Ganguly, Kanji, Kunda, etc are the names given to Rarhi Brahmins based on the villages in which they settled. On the contrary Bhattacharya and Chakraborty are titles which can be used by any Brahmins, even Shrotriya. I will put up the link one Internet Archive is operational.

5. Andre Beteille is a sociologist and writer known for his studies on the caste system .https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Sunlight_on_the_Garden/Ai3iXLLXz3kC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=ghoshal+kulin+brahmin&pg=PT18&printsec=frontcover This is his autobiography, admittedly not a scholarly work but nevertheless written by a qualified sociologist, which does not mention Bhattacharya or Chakraborty anywhere but instead mentions Ghosal.

I hope we continue this discussion. Justaghost4 (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Please note that we cannot remove sourced content; I have added relevant additional content citing one of the sources, though it is from pre independence era. Let's see! Ekdalian (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)