Talk:Nagar Brahmin

Wikified

Wikified as part of the Wikification wikiproject! JubalHarshaw 15:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Peacock terms and possible bias

"Around great men gathers many a legend that obscures history. But what is history if not legend agreed upon ? This applies equally to Nagars - a great social group." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.61.24.5 (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

"Nagar history dates back to 10,000 years BC,supported by Nagar Khand in Skandh Puran [Nagar chapter given in Skandh Puran, a sacred religious book of Hindus world wide which is 15000 years old]" -According to [ sources], the Puranas were written in the past 2,000 years, and the Skandh Pura is dated to be around the 11th or 12th century CE. Juggadore (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)juggadoreJuggadore (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

References

aryan?

classification :Aryan

what does that mean ,please clarify.Nijgoykar (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I just restored sourced material on this that was deleted without explanation. Looks like it needs an rewrite and a close examination.

I've removed the classification bit as highly dubious. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Nagar Brahmin/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have added personalities from Prashnora section and few Vadnagara names of National fame. which are not found.Some names appearing are of persons of mediocre fame. Bharat pandya.

Last edited at 06:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 00:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Relation to Bengali Kayastha

CharlesWain, as mentioned in my edit summary, you were the one who removed the long standing content from this article when a debate was initiated in the article talk page of Bengali Kayastha by a sock! Why didn't you incorporate the consensus version (obviously relevant here) after we arrived at consensus? Such selective POV pushing is not acceptable in Wikipedia! And this time I shall take it to WP:AE or any admin for arbitration enforcement against you! You may discuss here if you want any improvement. But the content added is WP:DUE and was part of the long standing consensus version! I have strictly adhered to NPOV! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

You're free to go wherever you want to go. But this type of a title for a discussion and writing these things here is agressive behaviour, and I must say personal attack.These behaviours will not help this discussion thread go smoothly or editing collaboratively here.

Coming to the dispute, among the scholars, who discussed this theory supporting a connection or against it, most mentioned it in the context of formation/history of Bengali Kayastha, not the other way around. And there are quite a number of opinions; How're these relevant in Nagar Brahmin article ? All these lengthy discussions apparently UNDUE and IRRELEVANT in this article at least. Furthermore, you're well aware that we told you in Bengali Kayastha talk page to consider Chakraborty as disputed until a better source is found about this extraordinary claim; multiple concerns were raised in Bengali Kayastha talk page, and RFC was suggested; If you have it, put it in that talk page since we have very lengthy discussions there already. CharlesWain (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

CharlesWain, while removing the content, you had mentioned Fringe and Raj era author, not UNDUE! Because you were aware that the content was an integral part of the consensus version and is highly relevant here! Why are you now saying UNDUE, when we have an entire discussion leading to the consensus version in the article talk page, Talk:Bengali Kayastha!

@LukeEmily: please join the discussion since you were part of the consensus. Also pinging an experienced editor, Fylindfotberserk for their opinion and pinging admin Abecedare for monitoring the discussion! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Let's restore the longstanding and build a WP:CONSENSUS here per WP:BRD. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, Fylindfotberserk! Thanks for your suggestion. I am restoring the long standing content and let's build consensus from here, as you rightly said. Ekdalian (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ekdalian, Fylindfotberserk, and CharlesWain:, we can build a consensus as suggested by Fylindfotberserk. Personally, I do not have any objection to Ekdalian's edit for four reasons.

1. The Nagar-Brahmin and Bengali Kayastha connection has is mentioned by reliable sources. There are several modern sources. Varna mobility was quite common in those days and thiswikisource also talks about the connection between some Nagar Brahmins who gave up their Brahmin status and became Banias. :::We do have opposing theories like those of Majumdar for Bengali Kayasthas and we need to mention opposing theories also as per WP:NPOV.

2. The Harald Tambs-Lyche source is actually discussing Nagar Brahmins and their history. Yet he brings up Bengali Kayasthas in that discussion.

3. Even in cases where there is only one source, we can attribute it to the source. We are not passing a judgement as to whether the theory is right or wrong.

In general, I am always in favor of including any well sourced text, backed by reliable sources as long as opposing views (like Majumdar) are also included. But including only one side of the story(that is happening on some other pages like Kshatriya) is not WP:NPOV.

4. That text regarding the connection is already on the other page i.e. we are not adding anything new to wikipedia.

LukeEmily (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey,I have a small doubt here. I believe that the primary focus of this page should be on the Nagar Brahmin community itself – their history, traditions, and cultural aspects. If the said connection is not a significant aspect of Nagar Brahmin identity or history as understood by most sources, then how should this be relevant in this article? Thanks, Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 19:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Btw, I have checked the discussions on the Bengali Kayastha talk page after my return. Thanks, Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 19:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

There was a huge discontent about the source used in this article, and several concerns were already raised. Please refer to the previous discussions. Thanks, Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 04:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Satnam2408, the source you are talking about is a reliable one, and even LukeEmily has accepted the same after noting the qualifications of the author and the guide (Professor). Also, the current sources cited in the long standing version say that both the communities evolved from the same group! Moreover, as rightly pointed out by LE above: The Harald Tambs-Lyche source is actually discussing Nagar Brahmins and their history. Yet he brings up Bengali Kayasthas in that discussion, which indicates that no discussion on Nagar Brahmin origin is complete without mentioning the common origin theory (both the arguments in favour of as well as against the theory). Therefore, there's no question about relevance and DUE. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about Chakraborty! But I just realised that you are talking about Banu, which has been removed long time back! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I am talking about Bakahi Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 10:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Satnam2408, we shall remove it anyway. Please check my revision of this article which has been reverted by CharlesWain, which is basically a shortened version of the latest content (consensus version, Nagar related) in the article on Bengali Kayastha. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey, Ekdalian, could you please elaborate on what the 'common origin' theory entails according to Harald Tambs-Lyche? I do not have access to the page and only read the added content of the source in the Bengali Kayastha article. Thanks, Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 14:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Satnam2408, while all other sources cited either support the common origin theory or else do not find it to be convincing (we have shown all possible opinions here, per NPOV), Harald Tambs-Lyche doesn't take any side! After talking about Enthoven (Raj era author strongly supporting the theory) in an earlier page, Harald Tambs-Lyche states that Nagars are usually associated with Kayasthas across India although only they were influential in the traditional society in Gujarat. He notes that neither Anavils nor Nagars were predominantly priests and questions whether they became Brahmins due to their position or if the position was delegated to them. He further states that "even if we do not accept the theory of a common Nagar/Kayastha origin, it would seem that the Kayasthas of Bengal are a parallel case. Yet they never attained Brahmin status. Perhaps this should be explained with reference to the presence of important high - status priestly Brahmin elements in Bengal." Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

In fact, we had verified the source, and all Harald Tambs-Lyche states is mentioned in the article on Bengali Kayastha, which you have already read! I have quoted the same above. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I have not asked for the quote, but I just want to understand the context. Thanks, Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 19:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the source of Tambs-Lyche. While I understand that his comparison provides a point of relevance, it's important to note that the direct claim of Kayastha descent from Nagar Brahmins in Bengal seems to primarily stem from Chakraborty's interpretation of medieval texts. Das is not giving his own interpretation, he is just upholding what the Kayastha activist Nagendranath Vasu propounded. I think CharlesWain has raised some issues regarding Chakraborty. Considering this range of viewpoints and the importance of ensuring the Nagar Brahmin page remains focused on the core history, culture, and identity of the community itself, perhaps the most balanced approach would be to either omit this connection entirely or include a very brief mention, considering all viewpoints. Let's wait for other editors to reply. Thank you, Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 04:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Satnam2408 for sharing your opinion! I can further shorten the NPOV summary that would be included, if others agree. @Fylindfotberserk, LukeEmily, and CharlesWain: please share your final opinion on this so that we can arrive at consensus! LE has already clarified why we need to include the content, therefore LE may skip this. I have also explained my views above. Waiting for your final comments. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ekdalian, you have written "CharlesWain, while removing the content, you had mentioned Fringe and Raj era author, not UNDUE! Because you were aware that the content was an integral part of the consensus version..." Is there any discussion and consensus on this page ? Then show us the link. Is there consensus anywhere else for the content you recently added ? Then cite the link here. And, why have you restored problematic content in a rush which was removed months back citing UNDUE , WP: FRUIT, obsolete race theory as reasons? Multiple editors including you are active on this page in between. It's definitely not what you have mentioned. I don't want editors to be misguided by misrepresentations. Cite the link(s) I requested. Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

CW, I don't want to fight unnecessarily for some content which is DUE and relevant here. Sorry for the personal attack; I withdraw all my allegations against you on this page! I restored the last long standing version temporarily (it is problematic, that's why we shall replace it with an NPOV summary) since I accepted the suggestion given by Fylindfotberserk. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Another thing we should focus on, and this is one of the reasons for my dilemma, is that Tambs-Lyche, a reliable modern scholar directly discussing Nagar Brahmins. His focus on the association and parallel with Bengali Kayasthas, without explicitly endorsing a 'common origin' theory, seems significant. It raises the question of whether the 'common origin' theory holds strong support within current historical scholarship, especially when a reliable contemporary source like Tambs-Lyche doesn't emphasise it as a key aspect of Nagar Brahmin history, even while making comparisons with Bengali Kayasthas. Thanks, Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 06:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Satnam2408, as you are aware, we don't engage in OR and personal analysis! Our job is to represent all possible views, per NPOV. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey Ekdalian, I am just clarifying the reason behind my dilemma, as you can see in my final output and want to share with other editors. You can understand why it is necessary to clarify. Thanks, Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 06:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Got it, Satnam! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Satnam has already clarified his point. LukeEmily has clearly expressed their opinion. @Fylindfotberserk and CharlesWain: please let me know in case you have any objection, or any other suggestion for improvement! Please treat this as the last call before closing the discussion! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Since no one has further commented after LukeEmily's convincing arguments (apart from my discussion with Satnam), I can assume that we have arrived at the consensus as far as addition of the origin theory (NPOV version) is concerned. Thanks, all! Ekdalian (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey LukeEmily, CharlesWain just check what Ekdalian added. The current text states that Chakraborty mentions both groups "evolved from the same group." However, a closer reading of his cited work (and the consensus on the Bengali Kayastha page) indicates a more specific claim: that medieval texts (Naishadha Charita and Usanas-samhita smriti) suggest Bengali Kayasthas descended from Nagara Brahmins who had a settlement in Bengal in the 8th century AD. The current phrasing dilutes this specific claim and its timeframe. Ekdalian has removed the direct counter-argument from historian R. C. Majumdar, who stated that the "evidence in support of a significant immigration of Nagara Brahmins in Bengal is not much convincing" interestingly after mentioning Chakraborty's claim based on Smriti texts. Chakraborty's specific descent theory is not widely accepted within the broader scholarly community studying the origins of these groups, giving it prominent placement without clearly indicating its weight could violate WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia aims to present all significant viewpoints fairly and in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. The way these different pieces of information (surname similarity, general association, specific descent claim, rejection of common origin based on surnames) are presented together without clear distinction and weighting could inadvertently synthesise a stronger or different conclusion than what the individual sources explicitly state. Moreover, the history section of the Nagar Brahmin page should primarily focus on their own history and origins. A highly debated and minority view about their potential role in the ancestry of another community should be presented with extreme caution and appropriate weight. Thanks, Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 09:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Satnam, the entire discussion above was related to this version only, and LukeEmily's arguments in favour of inclusion of the same are pretty strong! As earlier mentioned, we have no dout about relevance and DUE! And other experienced editors are welcome to discuss or contribute to the NPOV summary included! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

LukeEmily emphasises on building consensus. My issues remain unresolved. Thank you for your input. However, I must respectfully disagree with the assessment that the current presentation adequately addresses concerns regarding neutrality and due weight.

While I acknowledge your points:

* Reliable Sources Mention Connection: The issue isn't whether a connection is mentioned, but the nature of that connection (descent vs. similarity/association) and the disproportionate emphasis on a single interpretation (Chakraborty's) without adequately contextualising its weight or the existence of direct counter-evidence.

* Harald Tambs-Lyche's Mention: While Tambs-Lyche includes Bengali Kayasthas in his discussion of Nagar Brahmins, his observation is a broad sociological association and does not constitute support for a specific historical descent from an 8th-century Nagar Brahmin settlement in Bengal. Its inclusion should reflect this broader context, not imply endorsement of Chakraborty's specific textual interpretation.

* Attribution Alone is Insufficient: While attributing claims is necessary, it doesn't supersede the requirement of WP:DUE. If Chakraborty's descent theory is a minority view (as the limited support in the cited text suggests), giving it prominent placement without clearly indicating its weight and the existence of direct scholarly opposition (like Majumdar's) is still problematic. Furthermore, attribution doesn't justify the removal or downplaying of significant counter-arguments, which is a core tenet of WP:NPOV.

* Information Existing Elsewhere Doesn't Justify Imbalance Here: The presence of this information on the Bengali Kayastha page doesn't automatically validate its presentation on the Nagar Brahmin page, especially if it leads to undue weight or a misrepresentation of the scholarly landscape concerning Nagar Brahmin history. Each page should adhere to WP:RELEVANCE and present information with appropriate weight within its own context. Thanks, Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 14:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but you are wrong when you say, Harald Tambs-Lyche's Mention: While Tambs-Lyche includes Bengali Kayasthas in his discussion of Nagar Brahmins, his observation is a broad sociological association and does not constitute support for a specific historical descent from an 8th-century Nagar Brahmin settlement in Bengal. Its inclusion should reflect this broader context, not imply endorsement of Chakraborty's specific textual interpretation. The context was included by CharlesWain in the other article, and I haven't changed the context. Even, any random reader would understand that it has not been used to support or endorse "Chakraborty's specific textual interpretation." I have tried my best to keep all POVs in the NPOV summary, and also requested other editors to get involved, if required! Anyway, let's wait for others' opinion! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Its seems like the current version is not the consensus version as @Satnam2408 and CharlesWain: have some unresolved issues. Ekdalian, please can you propose a statement on the talk page? I feel we should restore it to the long standing version until consensus is achieved. There is another issue - a modern source says that in the early 20th century - several shudras in Bengal started identifying as Kayasthas "While it associated Kayasthas the with “upper classes” of Brahmins and Vaishyas, it also observed that the label “Kayastha” pulled their rank in Bengali society downward. Significant numbers of Shudras over the past 30 years had entered “Kayastha” on their census returns, which hinted at the very “ritual equaled varna” argument that the Calcutta justices made in 1884 and 1916, who in turn cited Sarkar's Darpana. And those Calcutta High Court rulings were inescapable." This is from | here. But it does not say if they continued to identigy as Bengali Kayastha. If they did, there is no way that all of Bengal Kayasthas and Nagar Brahmins have the same origin today - even if they did in the 19th century.LukeEmily (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@LukeEmily: the court rulings have nothing to do with this origin theory! Your statement - But it does not say if they continued to identigy as Bengali Kayastha. If they did, there is no way that all of Bengal Kayasthas and Nagar Brahmins have the same origin today - even if they did in the 19th century is equivalent to OR/synthesis, and we must avoid our own interpretation! Moreover, we are not discussing the purity of the caste. For example, Bengali Brahmins are having regular inter-caste marriages with Kayasthas & Baidyas, as per reliable source (and personal experience, which is not important)! Shall we take such marriages into consideration while discussing their origins? My proposed text is shared below: While discussing about past and present surnames, Tej Ram Sharma, an Indian historian, says that D. R. Bhandarkar had pointed out that identical surnames are used by the Nagar Brahmins and Bengali Kayasthas. Referring to some medieval texts, Rabindra Nath Chakraborty mentions that the Kayasthas of Bengal and the Nagar Brahmins evolved from the same group. Although according to historians H. K. Barpujari and R. C. Majumdar, the theory of common origin citing identical surnames is not convincing. Again, Harald Tambs-Lyche states that Nagars are usually associated with Kayasthas across India, although they were influential in the traditional society in Gujarat only. He notes that neither Anavils nor Nagars were predominantly priests and questions whether they became Brahmins due to their position or if the position was delegated to them. He further states that "even if we do not accept the theory of a common Nagar/Kayastha origin, it would seem that the Kayasthas of Bengal are a parallel case." Awaiting response from all the involved editors! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

LukeEmily correctly identifies that if a substantial portion of the individuals identifying as Kayasthas in Bengal have origins in social mobility from Shudra communities relatively recently, it fundamentally complicates any theory suggesting a singular, direct lineage for all Bengali Kayasthas. This isn't about "caste purity," as Ekdalian mentioned, but about the demographic and social evolution of a community over time. We can understand weight of a source by these findings. Thanks, Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 17:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Here is my proposed draft,

Tej Ram Sharma, citing D. R. Bhandarkar, notes that Nagar Brahmins and Bengali Kayasthas share certain surnames, while Harald Tambs-Lyche emphasises their distinct social roles and historical developments. A unique theory proposed by Rabindra Nath Chakraborty suggests a common ancestry between the two groups based on interpretations of medieval Smriti texts. However, such views have been contested by scholars such as H. K. Barpujari and R. C. Majumdar, who reject the notion of a shared origin based on surnames, with Majumdar also questioning the evidence for significant Nagar Brahmin migration into Bengal.Thanks, Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 17:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Satnam2408, Chakraborty is disputed, check last couple of discussion threads here. It was kept temporarily; we need to fix it. CharlesWain (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, CharlesWain, for your thorough investigation and for highlighting the WP:EXCEPTIONAL nature of Chakraborty's claim regarding the medieval texts. The fact that this specific interpretation and connection to modern castes isn't corroborated by other major scholars like Ray, Majumdar, or even seemingly Bhandarkar and Vasu raises serious concerns about its weight and reliability, especially for a significant claim about origins. Thanks, Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 04:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

As CharlesWain pointed out, the lack of citations for Chakraborty's work in the broader academic community also suggests that this particular theory hasn't gained significant traction or acceptance within the field. Therefore, I strongly support the proposal to fix it first. Thanks, Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 05:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

What about the Kulin Brahmin marrying (technically) ritually lower castes, Kayastha or Baidya, Satnam2408? Shall we change the origin theory for Kulins for their offsprings? Anyway, Satnam's version is not acceptable due to WP:SYN involved! @LukeEmily: please share a draft version, if possible! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey Ekdalian, please revisit all the sources cited in the Bengali Kayastha article so that you can understand what LukeEmily is trying to point out. There is a significant difference between individual inter-caste marriages and a large-scale social mobility event recorded in census data. By the way, Chakraborty is also disputed in the Bengali Kayastha article, as pointed out by CharlesWain. Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 05:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Satnam2408, all the sources cited in the article on Bengali Kayastha are not only reliable, but has gone through scrutiny by multiple experienced editors like LE & all. This EXCEPTIONAL/FRINGE claim was raised by Timovinga, a sock of Nobita, known for their WP:TE, who has been blocked as a sock! It was followed up by CW, but we could achieve consensus considering the reliability of the source! We don't revisit consensus so frequently! Please note that Dr. Rabindra Nath Chakraborty is a triple MA, PhD and belonged to the University of Sambalpur; moreover, this particular work (book cited as reference) was done under the guidance and supervision of Prof. B.S. Das, MA, LLB, PhD, D.Litt, Professor of History, IIT, Kharagpur. Needless to mention, it is a WP:RS and compliant with WP:HISTRS! Anyway, I am waiting for LukeEmily's response! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

There's NO CONSENSUS for keeping Chakraborty. If you imply or assert otherwise, you may please share the link of discussion thread where consensus is achieved. I requested for it in one of my previous comments too, but didn't get any. I referred to last two discussions regarding this in Bengali Kayastha t/p , where we good standing editors have very lengthy discussions for an extended period of time. We doubted if only mention of medieval text without any scholarly analysis belongs to to history section. It was found out that this decades old source hasn't been cited by any scholar (one further reading mention by another non-cited author); and it matters to decide reliability in Wikipedia. LukeEmily even took the trouble to check the mediaeval text, but found nothing of that sort as claimed in this disputed source. Any editor can check these discussion threads , there's no need to repeat the same discussions here . LE suggested RFC, but I chose to give more time if some better source can be found; But I will go for the same when I will have more spare time to focus on this topic. In the meantime any other editor are welcome to volunteer and go for request for comments or broader discussion in Bengali Kayastha t/p, or appropriate forum. CharlesWain (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

As long as relevance of this Bengali Kayastha relation theory in this article is concerned, I must say surname theory's significance is net zero ( support by Bhandarkar, Sharma, oppose by Majumdar, Barpujari, Bhaumik , Ray). This type of discussion is undue in Nagar Brahmin article space. Tambs-Lyche, who is the only reliable author I can find here, who brought this topic while discussing about Nagars, but never stated that Kayastha and Nagar Brahmin were descendents of same group; he only mentioned surname theory of Raj era administrator Enthoven. But only thing he asserted is role in society and occupational similarity of Nagar with Kaystha( "parallel case" with Bengali Kayastha) , and which I believe has relevance in this article. Tambs-Lyche also mentioned some distinction between Nagar and Nagar Brahmin, and roles and history of Nagars in Saurashtra, which are much more relevant as far as this article is concerned.CharlesWain (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

CharlesWain, I don't want to repeat my previous mistake (personal attack)! But, your role in this encyclopedia, as far as the article on Bengali Kayastha is concerned, can only be viewed as WP:TE! I had earlier mentioned about such editing pattern on admin Bishonen's talk page (regarding creating a poor version of the same article in Bengali Wikipedia along with Nobita); admin Abecedare was also a part of the discussion! You have never actually contributed to the article, but resisted reliable sources as far as English Wikipedia is concerned! I respect you as an editor for other contributions, but doubt your neutrality in this case! As mentioned earlier, I am waiting for a neutral opinion from LukeEmily! Hope I could clarify that this is not a personal attack, but a reminder of my previous action on an admin's talk page, which is allowed in Wikipedia! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't do obvious personal attack by just stating it's not so ! I have constructive contributions in wide range of topics ( History, Linguistics, Art and Movies, Commerce, Science etc) in Wikipedia; and I am doing the same here. I would request you to focus on the content too. CharlesWain (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey Ekdalian, I believe the most productive path forward is to focus on the content of the article and how best to represent the available sources in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, such as WP:UNDUE and WP:RELEVANCE, particularly on the Nagar Brahmin page. Regardless of individual editors' backgrounds or past interactions, the core of our discussion should be about the weight and relevance of the information presented. CharlesWain has raised specific concerns regarding the prominence given to the Bengali Kayastha origin theories, based on an analysis of the cited sources and their standing within the broader scholarly landscape. Similarly, LukeEmily has also expressed reservations about the corroboration of Chakraborty's specific claims. Engaging with these content-based arguments, supported by policy, will be more helpful in reaching a consensus that improves the article's neutrality and accuracy for all readers. I also look forward to LukeEmily's perspective on the content-related arguments that have been raised by multiple editors. Thanks, Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 13:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Ekdalian, Satnam2408, and CharlesWain:. Ekdalian, I think after reading Satnam2408's and CharlesWain's arguments, I feel both of them are making some valid points. There is no doubt based on sources that there is a significant Brahmin component in both Baidya and Bengal Kayasthas. But Bellenoit is also making a strong point(unrelated to the court verdict- which is irrelevant). Here is my reasoning as to why social mobility is different from intercaste marriages. I will take an extreme case and one generation only for simplicity(more cases can be taken to make the point but are unnecessary). Assume that the real Bengali Kayasthas did not intermarry with the shudra caste members who called themselves Bengali Kayastha. Then we have a group of people (shudra) but the government and the society consider them Bengali Kayasthas - yet they have no ancestor who has been Bengali Kayastha. In an intercaste marriage, the caste claim of the child - no matter what case we take, will have ancestors from the caste they are claiming to be. For example, if a Baidya woman marries a Bengali Brahmin, their child will be considered a Bengali Brahmin and he/she will have Bengali Brahmin ancestors. Yes, there were times and societies when mixed marriages resulted in children being assigned another caste(not of the father). Even if we dismiss my previous analysis as WP:OR, what remains is that many modern and prominent writers are not accepting this theory of descent as per the examples given above by Satnam2408 and the question of WP:DUE on this page - on which we are unable to reach an agreement. BTW, India's Communities - Volume 6(Oxford University Press that Sitush said was reliable),page 4022 lists Chakraborty's book as one of the references. But I am not able to see the full page or prior pages in google books. Also, it is strange that hardly any scholars have listed it as a reference despite it being decades old. I strongly feel that since we all do not agree, and some of our opinions may be quite subjective or based on WP:OR(in my case at least), we need an uninvolved senior editor like Sitush or an RFC.LukeEmily (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks LukeEmily for your time and effort as well as your valuable suggestions. Also, thanks to my Bengali co-editors, Satnam2408 & CharlesWain for effectively raising (weird) objections and opposing the inclusion of reliably sourced content! I am losing interest in this and will leave it to you to decide. Unlike Dympies' POV pushing through RfC (Rajput & Kshatriya), I shall stop here! I have contributed to a lot of caste articles, especially Bengali ones when you guys were not there on Wikipedia. Look at the version of Baidya where we (myself & Sitush) tried to be as neutral as possible, and the term Shudra was used once only in our version! Same is applicable for Mahishya, where I had used the sourced term "middle ranking" instead of the sourced term "lower caste"! I rest my case, and as mentioned, leave it to you all to decide! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Ekdalian, I actually remember interacting with you about four years ago when I first came to Wikipedia, and I've learned a lot from you all since then about how these discussions work and the importance of focusing on policies like due weight and relevance. I appreciate you outlining your contributions to other Bengali caste articles as well. My aim remains on ensuring the Nagar Brahmin article adheres to these guidelines. Let's see what consensus we can reach moving forward. Thanks, Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 14:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Ekdalian, I am not against reliable sources as long as all views are presented with appropriate weight. As far as Chakraborty is concerned, he may be reliable as far as wikipedia rules are concerned, I was only doubting how prevalent that theory is in Bengal given that almost no one has cited him. But as far as Wikipedia rules are concerned, Mittal Publications is not banned (unlike some other publications) and Chakraborty has the necessary qualifications of a historian. I think we can work towards a consensus version first and resolve Chakraborty later. Satnam2408 had suggested a draft that you did not agree with. Please can you suggest modifications to it? We should work together to get a consensus version on this page.LukeEmily (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@LukeEmily, If you were talking talking about this source in a previous comment, I just want to point out that this is totally different book by different authors (B. Chakraborty and others). Rabindra Nath Chakraborty is essentially cited by no one. I agree with you that the "Chakraborty" issue can be resolved later. There's too much on my table ( in real life, not here) now. Due to paucity of time I am not going for RFC in relevant page(Bengali Kayastha) right now. Any other editor may please go for it if they want to. Thanks for all your efforts and Regards - CharlesWain (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Ekdalian, I couldn't get relevance of major part of this comment in this discussion; it's off topic. I was away from this page for several days, and came back after getting pinged by you all 3-4 times in total. I differ a little with Satnam;I would say bringing up past interactions, contributions or something else is okay only if it's true, relevant and presented with proofs( diffs/links). Anyway, since you brought it up, here are the revision histories of some pages from the topic range you mentioned- Kayastha, Sadgop, Subarnabanik, Gandhabanik, Tili, Namasudra, Sadgop, Subarnabanik, Gandhabanik, Mahishya, Tili, Namasudra, Baidya;

You see there are two ways to rank editors' contributions- 1. By number of edits made 2. By texts/bytes added. Although I appreciate both if done with good faith, I personally prefer the latter. Also, please note one thing you probably already know that "Shudra", "Middle caste", "lower caste" tags are sourced for all these castes. That's why we have policies like WP:DUE to decide what to incorporate. We are discussing to decide due weight and relevance of contents in this thread too. CharlesWain (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks both, Satnam2408 and LukeEmily for your positivity and support! Here's my modified form of Satnam's version: Tej Ram Sharma, citing D. R. Bhandarkar, notes that Nagar Brahmins and Bengali Kayasthas share identical surnames. A unique theory proposed by Rabindra Nath Chakraborty suggests a common ancestry between the two groups based on interpretations of medieval Smriti texts. However, such views have been contested by scholars such as H. K. Barpujari and R. C. Majumdar, who reject the notion of a shared origin based on surnames, with Majumdar also questioning the evidence for significant Nagar Brahmin migration into Bengal. Again, Harald Tambs-Lyche seems to focus on their professional roles, and states that Nagars are usually associated with Kayasthas across India, although they were influential in the traditional society in Gujarat only. He further states that "even if we do not accept the theory of a common Nagar/Kayastha origin, it would seem that the Kayasthas of Bengal are a parallel case." Common surname and common origin theory (supporting & opposing views) must be presented separately and not clubbed with the views of Harald Tambs-Lyche; this is my opinion! Rest, you all may suggest changes to the above proposed version. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Following our discussion, I'd like to propose the following summary for the section on potential connections between Nagar Brahmins and Bengali Kayasthas after a little modification of Ekdalian's draft after taking the EXCEPTIONAL nature of Chakraborty in mind. This version aims to accurately reflect the range of viewpoints presented in the sources available within the Bengali Kayastha article and those I have been able to consult:

While a few scholars have explored potential connections between Nagar Brahmins and Bengali Kayasthas, this remains a subject of debate. D. R. Bhandarkar, as cited by Tej Ram Sharma, notes the presence of identical surnames in both communities. Separately, Rabindra Nath Chakraborty proposes a theory of common ancestry, suggesting a settlement of Nagar Brahmins in Bengal in the eighth century CE from whom the Kayasthas descended; however, this view and its historical basis have not been widely supported by other scholars. Historians such as H. K. Barpujari and R. C. Majumdar have contested a shared origin based on surnames, with Majumdar also questioning the evidence for significant Nagar Brahmin migration into Bengal. Harald Tambs-Lyche, in his analysis, observes an association between Nagars and Kayasthas across India, noting their similar professional roles, particularly in Gujarat for Nagars. He suggests that Bengali Kayasthas represent a "parallel case" in terms of societal function, even without accepting a shared origin.
This summary is constructed by summarising the information presented in the sources cited within the Bengali Kayastha article and other relevant materials I have consulted during our discussion. Please Note:-This is a temporary remedy for the situation, but Chakraborty would still remain disputed. Thanks, Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 19:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Satnam2408 for your time and effort; I am okay with this version! Let's see what LukeEmily says! Ekdalian (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

EkdalianI agree with Satnam2048's proposal. I also agree with his comment about Chakraborty. LukeEmily (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks LE! At least, all three of us have come to a consensus! In case any editor has any valid concern or suggestion, please let us know! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have taken the liberty to change the section heading. Best to limit the discussion on article talk pages to content and sources, and report any conduct issues to the appropriate pages or boards. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, Abecedare! Sorry, it was my fault; I should have been more careful while creating the section! Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks @Abecedare for changing the inappropriate section heading. I would have personally liked it more if Ekdalian, who is here for long enough to know better, do it himself since I already pointed it out and this is not the first time it happened. CharlesWain (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Tambs-Lyche notes that Nagars and Kayasthas are similar in their professional roles, not that they are associated with each other across India. His information is on Nagars of Gujarat (particularly Saurashtra). He provides no information on the occupation of the Krashnoras and Chitrodas, who he states cannot be found in Gujarat. A better wording for the last sentence would be "Harald Tambs-Lyche, in his analysis on Saurashtra, observes that the majority of Nagars are engaged in non-priestly roles as bureaucrats, ministers, and urban landowners, quite similar to Kayasthas. He suggests that Bengali Kayasthas represent a "parallel case" in terms of societal function, even without accepting the hypothesis on shared origin." Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Chariotrider555 for your suggestion! @LukeEmily, Satnam2408, and CharlesWain:, are you okay with the suggested changes? Please share your opinion! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, Chariotrider555! I totally agree with the suggested changes for the Tambs-Lyche section. Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 13:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@all concerned editors: please consider this as the last call for sharing your opinion or suggestion! It's been quite some time now since we (Satnam and myself) have accepted the proposed changes by Chariotrider555. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ekdalian, Satnam2408, and Chariotrider555:, no objection from me to Chariotrider555's suggestion.LukeEmily (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

References