Talk:Baidya/Archive 7

Feb 18
Ekdalian please provide the source that gives different opinion about the caste ranking in Modern era between Bengali Brahmins,Baidyas and Kayasthas. Nobita456 (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a subject of debate. Neither anyone in modern Bengal nor anyone in Wikipedia (except you probably) is interested in such POV debates. Anyway, you are asking for source, right? Check source1 page 65, and source2 page 216. Ekdalian (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The books I cited were written in modern era by scholers.and coming to your sources,first book didn't mention about caste ranking between them and the book himself is a matter of doubt,Second book is not the opinion of the author and also the book mentioned about only medinipur's Caste precedence.You cant compare these low quality sources with the high quality sources that I provided. Nobita456 (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I purposely cited the second one just to show who all are interested in such ranking. On a serious note, Jyotirmoyee Sarma clearly states here page 111 that "In common observation, the status of the Vaidyas and the Kayasthas seem to be about equal. The Vaidyas, however, claim to rank higher than the Kayasthas." Also, you need to wait for and  for their opinion. Ekdalian (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We have more modern sources that describe the exact caste ranking. Sarma said about social status, not caste ranking also that "In common observation" Nobita456 (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I checked the quotes provided by TB in the previous sections on this page and also the sources provided by EkDalian and Nobita456. Too many conflicting opinions. I think we will never reach a consensus if we try to create a hierarchy based on different sources and anyways it will be equivalent to WP:SYN. We can just list individual sources and attribute each opinion to each source. I can write a small section on the talk page and we can discuss/modify it and once we have consensus, we can paste it on the main page. For WP:NPOV, we need all views and there are sources that differ in opinion. Not only do they differ, but they are diametrically opposite in many cases. In such situations, when there is so much discrepancy between sources, we cannot have a final judgement based on synthesis of multiple sources or that would be WP:SYN. I will follow my usual dumb approach: Is the source reliable and relevant? If yes, use it. If another source is reliable but has a different opinion, use it also and attribute it to source. That is WP:NPOV. Let me put on the talk page what the section should be citing all views. If we all still cannot come to a consensus, we can use help of admins familiar with India related topic or RFCs. I feel that is the fairest approach. This is taking too much of everyone's time and I also want to move on to non-Bengali topics. Thanks,LukeEmily (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes LukeEmily please provide the caste ranking sources of modern era.but don't provide low quality sources like Ekdalian. Nobita456 (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Will work on it. We can discuss source quality once done. I will only use sources after checking the author credential as well as the publishing mechanism. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Ekdalian your revert is unexplained.if you dont have more sources to counter my edits,please revert yourself. Nobita456 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Sanskrit/IAST diacritics
I thought the consensus at WT:INB was to avoid use of diacritics but they appear quite a lot here. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Acronyms
Please can we expand acronyms such as Brh. P. and Ch. M. They are not helpful in those forms and very probably contrary to WP:ACRONYM also. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Bhp= Brihaddharma puran,Chm= Chandimangal Nobita456 (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No objections though I am not convinced on the MOS aspect. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Note aj
The footnote currently shown as aj is gibberish, sorry. It cannot be parsed using any English grammar of which I am aware. - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Not sure how it ended up in a gibberish. Please remove, for now. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

notable
hey ekdalian I will me adding notables with citations, seriously you guys are making it so hard for other editors to edit. Nobita456 (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Nobita456, as per the consensus on Sitush's page - see our discussion here last month =>User_talk:LukeEmily, please can you make sure that the citations for living people is a self-identification? For non-living people, self identification is not necessary.LukeEmily (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * is this reliable enough for Amartya sen? they publish the interview there. Nobita456 (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Source looks fine to me. Akshaypatill (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Use of "would"
There is a lot of unnecessary usage of would in this article. Almost always, it is unnecessary; eg "they would go on to ..." should be "they went on to". It is padding and very irritating to me as a Brit. I see it quite often in US-centric articles and assume it is some sort of literary tic in that country. - Sitush (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Padding by a word? That being said, I offer no objections. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Could is used to talk about something that can happen; would is used to talk about something that will happen in an imagined situation; and should is used to talk about something that ought to happen or must happen.Above copy/pasted from some random website months ago but it aligns with what I was taught many moons ago. Of course, language usage changes over time but this is as unnecessary as phrases such as "at this moment in time" (aka, "now").I do suspect it is predominantly a US thing and, for reasons of cultural history, India still tends to follow British English more than US English. The same applies to -ize versus -ise, although I doubt there is any stopping of the US linguistic juggernaut in the long run. Sitush (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the intricacies of Indian English but it has its share of idiosyncrasies. I recall an (Indian) graduate student who had requested of me to "revert back" on a submitted assignment!
 * But English is not my first language either and I appreciate your note. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * (Please adjust indenting if necessary - the app doesn't render it). TrangaBellam, I am a native English speaker and still mangle the language! I didn't intend my comments as personal criticism of any contributor to this article. I am not presently in a great position to do any deep-diving into this article but I do appreciate the efforts of those who have worked on it. We are all learning, always. - Sitush (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * TB did a great job! I am amazed at his ability to find resources for almost any topic.LukeEmily (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Purans and litratures
Sitush please give your opinion are these detailed discussion of Purans and litratures important to this article.Ekdalin said this will make these type of articles even more contentious which I also agree. others can also give there opinions.
 * Don't put words into my mouth! I have raised the question, is a separate section on 'Medieval varna status' required or is it the convention in Indian caste articles? Ekdalian (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your efforts to misrepresent other editors persist. We mirror academic scholars in deciding the weights to accord: consult Furui et al who are already cited. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Varna status is often fluid both over time and circumstance. Groups may aspire and even campaign and/or manufacture a status; the rest of society may view them differently in different localities; outsiders (notoriously, the Brits) may seek to impose a status. It is all relevant but the key generally, I think, is to be aware that trenchant labelling is rarely good and rarely right. - Sitush (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate wikilinks In lead section
Hello, I am writing this to bring a major concern to the notice of all the senior editors who are engaged in editing this page with good faith. I have checked major caste articles of different regions of India and I have noticed wikilinks of currently distinct castes has been avoided in the lead sections of all the articles. But few caste article of Bengal is not following the same rule. This article is one of them. We are surely commited to provide sourced and valid information in Wikipedia articles. But wikilinks of distinct castes should be avoided (as it has been done in other articles) to prevent POV push-up by some biased editors. But sourced relevant information surely can be provided in other relevant section of the article. Dear Debasish (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How is MOS:LEADLINK violated? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have already explained. Have you ignored it? Every other articles are following this standard. Why this particular article be exempted? Dear Debasish (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not a reason grounded in our policies. Article content is (gen.) decided on an individual basis. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I am late to this party, sorry. The lead is intended as a summary of the article. Links and citations are discouraged, especially in our best articles. Exceptional circumstances may apply (eg citations for a highly contentious statement which has been subject to considerable edit warring) but these are few and generally avoidable. I don't think the lead for this article contains anything which might be considered exceptional. - Sitush (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

modern section rewrite
The modern section is a mess and the text does not even match the inline citations. I am proposing the following: , please can you help here? Also, I am not a fan of popup notes as they are hard to see unless one actually goes looking for them.

=
================================================ The ritual status of Baidyas is a disputed. While some scholars classify them as Shudras, other scholars classify them as twice-born non-Brahmins. However, baidya claims to Brahmin status continue since the 19th century.

As per Sengupta and Roy Chowdhury, Baidyas' place in caste-hierarchy follows Brahmins — they wear the sacred thread, have access to scriptures, and use the surname Sharma (among others) but cannot conduct priestly services. Other Indian and westerns scholars disagree, stating that Baidyas along with the other higher non-Brahmin castes such as Bengali kayasthas are included in the Shudra varna. Although, Sudra, they are considered "clean sudras" or "satsudras". Observations post independence show that they were treated as Shudras in orthodox religious functions. Baidyas enjoy the social status almost at par with Brahmins. As of 1960, inter-marriages between the Brahmins, Baidyas and Kayasthas were common and increasing.

Baidyas wield considerable socio-economic power in contemporary Bengal as part of Bhadraloks; though in absence of rigorous data, the precise extent is difficult to determine. Parimal Ghosh notes this Bhadralok hegemony to have effectively disenfranchised the rest of Bengal from staking a claim to social capital.
 * Hey some schollars also mentioned them as a sub-caste of Brahmin or probably Brahmin, for example this p. 187 classified baidya as a sub caste of larger Brahmin castes.He is phd in Cultural studies. Satnam2408 (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This source, I gave it previously, claims Vaidya as Possibly Brahmin. please see here p. 395.She is a socialogist of religion So IMO,here dispute is among the shudra Brahmin or non brahmin. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The current version is fine. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The constant acrobatics to insert every bit of POV from every source without regards for lucidity and flow needs to stop. We are not drafting a legal note and it is getting boring. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree with TrangaBellam; the current version seems fine. Ekdalian (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * OK TB and Ekdalian. Lets keep it the way it is. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey, and  thanks for your reply. Can we write like dispute is between shudra or twiceborn, it is also suggested by Ekdalian and I also have no objection to it. By this way we can align all sources here. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Twice-Born includes Brahmins also. There is no reliable source that considers Baidyas a subcaste of Brahmins(the source you mentioned is by an English professor) and would anyway be WP:FRINGE. Its only the community claim that no scholar seems to agree with. Whenever there is a caste reference to them its always "Baidyas, Kayastha Brahmins". That being said, let TB or EkDalian take the call.LukeEmily (talk)
 * Hey please see this in his way of describing Kavi Karnapura mentions he is born in a Brahmin Baidya caste.He is the processor of religion. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Its not clear what he means. He may be referring to them by a name they call themselves many scholars do that - for example Daivadnya Brahmin(goldsmiths) or Bhumihar are not Brahmins but many scholars call them with the Brahmin suffix or prefix, just because of their claim. Its different from saying that they belong to Brahmin varna. And anyway, it would still fall under WP:FRINGE since there are hundreds of sources readily available on Baidyas and none of them seem to consider them Brahmin. Another example is "Bhavsar Kshatriya" who were tailors. Anyway, let TB and also state their opinion.  I think there is consensus among sources that Baidya, Brahmin and Kayastha are 3 distinct castes in modern Bengal. They might have had some common ancestry given the high education of these three.LukeEmily (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with LukeEmily; well explained indeed! Ekdalian (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Pascale Haag
LukeEmily can you please provide the digree or qualification of Pascale Haag? Thnaks Nobita456 (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * she is a psychologist and has a phd in India Studies( which I have no idea),does that make her qualified to be included in this article? if yes then I have no objection,thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also please provide me who is the publisher of this book. Nobita456 (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My main point was that TB has mentioned this source many times on this page, including once in a discussion with you. Hence you should at least discuss with him on talk page before or right after deleting as it cannot be expected that he will be watching every edit on this page - now that he has moved on to new pages. To answer your question, she is doing her second PhD in psychology but she has published other papers related to Sanskrit literature and Mukharji also mentions her in "For the long-term association between Sanskrit learning and Baidya jati mobility, see Pascale Haag, “I Wanna Be a Brahmin too: Grammar, traditions and Mythology as Means for Social Legitimization among the Vaidyas in Bengal,” in Sanskrut-Sadhuta "Goodness of Sanskrit":Studies in honor of  Professor Ashok Aklujkar, ed.Chikafuni Watanabe, Michele Marie Desmarias...(D.K.Printworld, 2012).LukeEmily (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it, but I can't remember where I and TB discussed hag. the hag's book was not published by a publisher(I can't find it) but the book is present inside it. does that make it reliable? I mean in that case, the journal of Aparnita Bhattacharya can be treated as the same.Nobita456 (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I said TB has mentioned this source many times on this page, including once in a discussion with you. He mentioned it in a reply to you here: . Bhattacharya was already discussed on RSN and TB and Ekdalian also commented on her unreliability on this page. Does not matter to me either way as long as there is consensus. My only request is that since this article is so contentious, please work with other editors before undoing or adding the edits that they have already discussed on talk page.LukeEmily (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Recent Revert
I reverted by Multiple editors does not me you can revert me, Wikipedia is not a democracy. I only reverted TB, who reverted first see it. all are sourced and relevant Nobita456 (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Dr.Pinsky why did you revert my and others' sourced content? Nobita456 (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sourced != automatically mean reliable or valid. I welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers. Editing in this way is also a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest in Wikipedia – please see WP:MEDCOI. Finally, please be aware that the editing community highly values expert contributors – please see WP:EXPERT.  I do hope you will consider contributing more broadly. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * revert yourself first and then we can discuss in which parts you have Ishu. Please see sources are High quality. Nobita456 (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for that broken link see this https://www.cinnamaracollege.org/Publication/journals.php (volume 8) Peer reviewed journal indexed. Nobita456 (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Baidya as a caste group not have mentioned in old and genuine Smriti
Majumdar, cited against the information "None of the old and authentic Smritis mentions the Baidya as a caste group" in the Upapuranas section has explicitly noted. "The Vaidya as a caste-name does not occur in the old and genuine Smritis, The Usanas Smriti referes to a caste called Bhishak (physician) born of illicit union between Brähmaņa male and Kshatriya female, and designates it as Vaidyaka".I have rephrased the previous version "No other Hindu scriptures mentions the Baidya as a caste group" to this latest one.Hindu Scriptures may contain Mahabharata, Vedas, Other Smritis (e.g. Manu Smriti, Yajnavalka Smriti). Majumdar is not claiming that Vaidya as a caste group is not mentioned in All other Hindu Scriptures. Anything deviation from the source will fall under WP:OR.Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Chittaranjan Das
What expertise has the author of the news source cited to support the claim that Chittaranjan Das was a Vaidya? I clicked through his name & he appears to have written nearly 300 pieces for The Print but across a wide range of subject matter. If anything, he seems to be a columnist, which means his writings are op-eds. The Print itself is somewhat odd, with its mission statement of youthful journalism not boding well. I am wary of including sources such as this, bearing in mind how many Indian news sources rely on Wikipedia itself or sort-of plagiarism of other news sources. - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see this book, P.420thanks.


 * I can't see it here but if it is reliable etc then please substitute the citation. - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You are unlikely to find a proper citation in English, as caste affiliation was rarely of interest to writers in that medium. CR Das himself was Brahmo, but his family - the Das family of Telirbagh - were well-known Baidyas. rudra (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2022
Notables ==> Lakshya Sen, international badminton champion Acharya 1983 (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There is no source in his article saying he's from the community. —C.Fred (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * , caste for living persons needs self identification.LukeEmily (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

31.05.2022
Hey Luke I have made some changes following your suggestion on kayastha talk page. Ekdalian kindly leave that review part to lukeEmily and respect his opinion also before doing any edit war and revert. you suggested way before that he is more suitable and neutral for these caste articles because he is a non Bengali. Luke I am leaving the trim work to you. Please judge it by your self how much we have to describe these fake uppurans. Nobita456 (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, my suggestion was to reduce verbiage not to remove sources. Also, my suggestion does not mean anything unless there is consensus from other editors. Also, I mentioned that this consensus version was edited by Sitush and he has not deleted any sources. I think you need to get consensus from TB or Sitush to remove these as they both approved the sources.LukeEmily (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks luke for the reply. I think Sitush is not very active and TB is busy with other articles. That's why I asked you for your help. I don't think Sitush checked this article thoroughly because he was hardly active at that time. The sources were too old and has some very controversial statements in them which no other modern source repeat. I did not delete those sources completely rather I only removed the controversial parts. The sources are still there in this article. Don't you think the recent version of this article is more balanced and easy to understand for normal readers? Nobita456 (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Ekdalain getting a consensus with you will be very hard, that's why I asked LukeEmily to give his opinion. LukeEmily since you are very experienced in caste articles I think you need to act like a decision-maker here. You opinion will be so impactful in both Baidya and Kayastha articles. Nobita456 (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Strange content removal
, in this edit you quoted The source itself is 50 years old, full of non sense myths. No other modern source repeat these theories to remove the following passage from our section on Brahma Vaivarta Purana:

Under what wiki-policy you feel entitled to classify views espoused by eminent historians and sanskritists as "non sense", and act upon such a belief to remove sourced content? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Majumder 1943 and annapurna 1960 is 79 and 62 year old. rocher 1986 is 36 years old. Do we really need to mention them in this article? I mean how many times do you want to mention Baidyas as shudra? there shudra word here is used so many times. Nobita456 (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please short the puran part? because these purans are all myths highly criticized by modern historians. Nobita456 (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * purans are all myths - No.
 * Do you read the cited sources? Say, Furui, who wrote an entire article off Brh. P in 2013? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead
What is the issue? Not a single line is remotely contestable.

And, you cannot handwave at some "consensus" to mince words because of the "controversial" (to whom?) nature of certain factual details. A lead is meant to be the summary of body, by policy. To cite from the lead of Yadav, we say unequivocally: TrangaBellam (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Big issue. The lead was a long consensus of many editors. Wikipedia is not a one-man show. You cant change a long consensus lead like this. Nobita456 (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have specific issues with the lead, I will like to hear them. Not stonewalling non-arguments. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't change the long consensus version. Nobita456 (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, I did not follow all the edit history in the last 24 hrs but there is a wikipedia consensus that we do not mention Varna in the lead. Please see Sitush's comments. He states . The issue is not the accuracy but the fact that such additions will invite more disruptions across pages. It seems that Varna is discussed in the lead in the current version. Thanks.LukeEmily (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sitush was commenting on the aspect of mentioning caste for biographies in lead. You cannot decontextualize his arguments and extrapolate them to articles on caste.
 * You had been told at Talk:Yadav that no consensus to such effect exists. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Sitush meant that, in caste articles, varna should not be discussed in the lead. It is of course only a local consensus, and not policy. But since Sitush is extremely experienced with caste articles, he could make up rules that worked.
 * I support following the rule. It is unnecessary heart burn. There is a lot more to a caste than its varna status. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Asumming that are correct about the existence of such a consensus (please provide a link to the discussion), why is Yadava not governed by it? Local consensus, much less one editor, cannot make exceptions to core content policy, which is, that the lead summarizes body.
 * Haag, Mukharji, and many other scholars concern themselves with how the Baidyas mobilized up the ladder of social hierarchy by staking claim to Brahmin status using a variety of innovative means. Did you read either of them? Haag's chapter-title is quite suggestive of the contents.
 * But obviously, we shall not discuss any such aspect in lead lest it causes "heart burn". Classic violation of WP:NOTCENSOR. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * TrangaBellam, I shall not get into the debate whether the said consensus exists (or else is valid) or not! Let us respect the objection raised by LukeEmily, Kautilya3 & myself. You may be correct, but considering the opposition by others, let's stick to the last best consensus version. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You cannot refuse to point to an apparent consensus yet cite it to oppose me. And, Wikipedia is not a democracy either. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please forget about the so-called consensus; let the current discussion prevail. Would request you to wait for further comments by, & others concerned. Wikipedia is not obviously a democracy, but you are aware of the fact that consensus is of utmost importance here! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi
 * Summary of 's comments that I found using a quick search. There might be more.


 * 1. from Talk:P._K._Rosy (repeated from above)
 * see this


 * For example, one of the most controversial verifiable statements is the varna of a caste but we very deliberately- by long-standing consensus - avoid putting it in the lead because it just creates a storm. We discuss it in the body, showing all opinions with equal weight.-13:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 2.Talk:Rajput/Archive_24
 * It is probable that neither of you are aware of this but there has long been a consensus that we do not mention varna in the lead sections of articles. For that reason, the change is not acceptable.-Sitush 14:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * 3.Talk:Ror
 * [see this]
 * Even if we had a reliable source for it, consensus has long been that varna is not mentioned in lead sections (and, by extension, in infoboxes & short descriptions). - Sitush 10:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * 4.Talk:Yadav/Archive_11
 * this revert by Sitush
 * Explanation in Talk:Yadav/Archive_11
 * There is a long-standing consensus that we try to avoid mentioning varna in lead sections because the issue is very frequently complex. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2016


 * 5.Talk:Nair/Archive_18
 * ''Forward caste issue is dealt with in the article body and the issue is complex.
 * There is a consensus not to include varna & this sort of stuff in lead sections Sitush 17:26, 7 January 2012''


 * 6.Talk:Maratha_(caste)/Archive_3
 * Please note that even if these come to light, we would not be showing the varna status in the lead section or infobox as there is a consensus that such things cause only problems. The statement would appear within the body of the article. - Sitush 14:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is wild cherry-picking; nowhere do we state in wiki-voice that the Baidyas were (or are) Shudras. Instructively, Sitush did not object to the current version of lead at Yadav. And unlike the case of Marathas etc., the issue at hand is quite simple. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Apart from Sitush's wisely summarized consensus, there is also the guideline MOS:LEAD: The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. @TrangaBellam, your proposed lede contains a lot of material that is not mentioned anywhere in the rest of the article. My suggestion: do expand it in an appropriate section, and then we will see how much of it can be summarized in the lede. If this will result in mentioning the varna status in the lede – not as a plain and ever debatable fact (which is at the heart of the local consensus), but as a more complex story – so be it. –Austronesier (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Some queries regarding the article
Hey TrangaBellam, I have put some tags requesting pages, citations, and quotes. You can remove tags after providing the inquired information. Further, I have a concern regarding the origin section of the article. The unit mainly depends on early scriptures written in the medieval era. Some information is provided without any interpretations by the latest scholars.

" In contrast, the Brahma Vaivarta Purana (Bv. P.) —notable for a very late Bengali recension (c. 14/15th c.)— treats the Baidyas as separate to Ambasthas but notes both to be Satsudras. Ashvin, a Kshatriya, raped a Brahmin pilgrim and she, along with the illegitimate son, were driven out by her husband. This son, who was brought up by Ashvin and trained in Ayurveda, went on to become the progenitor of Baidyas " - From the first paragraph we can get to know that the Upa-Purana has taken Ambastha and Vaidya synonymous but from the above-mentioned paragraph we come to know that Vaidyas were mentioned as the illegitimate son of Ashvin and a Brahmin pilgrim. What is the relevant interpretation regarding the Brhmavaivarta Purana.? The article at the beginning of the origin is declaring the Baidya and Ambastha connection is tenuous but in the interpretation section, all scholars gave interpretation regarding Ambastha, not for Baidya. The section seems inconsistent. The inconsistency is because the whole section is mainly depending on these early scriptures. Further, these types of edits are recently discredited by WP:DRN. You can check. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Tagging most experienced and  for help.We have a history of migration of Ambastha as well. I think that should be added as well under proper history. Thanks Satnam2408 (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey I am sorry to disturb you. I probably did not make you understand properly about what am I asking. I am asking for analysis and interpretation of Brahmabaibarta Purana regarding Baidya. Furui, Chanda has analyzed Brihadharma Purana. Dutt has given an analysis regarding Ambastha by equating Baidya with Ambastha, So the analysis of Brihadharma Purana stands valid. Thanks, Regards, Satnam2408 (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There are several experienced uses here already. Please work with them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Origin
Hey, , , sorry for disturbing you. First of all, I want to express my gratitude to LukeEmilly and TrangaBellam for their support. I have used sources, provided by them. The origin section of the article is mainly depending on mythical roots with no underlying historical events. The origin section opens with such contentious Scriptures. I have created a draft which incorporates the relevant theories regarding the origin of the caste as propounded by the majority of historians. I want to incorporate the section above the said Upapuranas. It's not only reasonable but also chronologically correct. Thanks Satnam2408 (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with your proposal . I went through your draft. I did not verify the sources but assuming good faith that all the content is well sourced. Let us wait to get input from Ekdalian and TrangaBellam.LukeEmily (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How are Sahay (2001), Sinha (2003), Garg (1992) and Chakraborty (1985) considered to be RS?
 * Why do we have a paragraph on Ambasthas and their origins when a majority of scholars find Baidyas' claims to an Ambastha lineage tenuous? I do note the ample amounts of synthesis used in writing the paragraph with sources being used that speak nothing of the Baidyas, our subject. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey I have provided the relevant quotes. Hey  So you think Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha is not RS? and Sahay, an Anthropologist, and what about Ram Sharan Sharma? They have associated Vaidyas with Ambasthas and have noted the underlying history. BTW the "majority of scholars find Vaidya and Ambastha connection tenuous" is not the case. I would like to claim that The majority of scholars have associated these two. Further, I have only added relevant history up to the migration of Bengal and removed others. Yes in Ambastha article all would be covered including their migration to the South and Bihar. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sinha was a RSS/VHP apparatchik who believed, like his fellow brethren, that Mahabharata, Purana etc. can be construed as positivist histories. And, "Impression Publication" - seriously? How many scholars have they published excluding Sinha? How many times has Sinha's book been cited in the two decades since publication?
 * You cannot cite a bevy of little known/unreliable scholars from 50 years back to claim numbers in your favor and write extraordinary things. And before you point to my usage of old sources like Chattopadhyay as a gotcha, I have used them to reinforce selective aspects which have been supported by recent scholars like Mukharji et al.
 * Such is your inclination to push an agenda that you have even managed to cite Sharma's nonchalant line in his review of a book, as in support of the Ambastha-Baidya hypothesis! Reviewers use phrases like ABC might be true for XYZ but definitely not for PQR when their grasp of scholarship about PQR is strong enough to provide a definitive judgement (rebuttal) but not around XYZ, thus necessitating the practice of collegiality. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So we are judging scholars? I would request to review such a desperate remark before going any further step and their input in this regard. BTW in this connection, it is necessary to inform here that Chakroborty is provided by LukeEmily and already used by . Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC).
 * Hey, what I understand is, TB is questioning whether we need the paragraph; she's not just talking about the reliability of the sources, though the reliability issue has clearly been raised by TB. Now Satnam2408, please understand, even if you come up with reliable sources, you will tend to pick up statements selectively (you know why); but we have some unpleasant statements as well from some reliable sources regarding the connection. I would wait for more comments before commenting further. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "We are judging scholars" since we are allowed to, in the pursuit of applying RS, but without applying OR. Here's a light-weight source for your aid. For precise critiques of Sinha, consult Guha-Thakurta (2004; CUP) et al. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As per WP:BIASED. Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.. If we were wrting for an academic journal, yes, we can judge scholars we think are biased. But for wikipedia, we only see if the scholar is reliable as per wikipedia standards. I don't believe as editors we can judge scholars, that would be WP:OR. But we can provide opinions of other scholars who judge their work. TB, if these are WP:FRINGE, can we add modern views as well as these views? For example, Sinha says XYZ but Guha-Thakurta(CUP) do not agree. One of the most biased "scholars" I have come across is B.N.Puri and he published in some low quality non-academic publication. See Khatri for Susan Bayly's opinion about him. Unfortunately, as per wikipedia rules he is reliable hence he is used everywhere but we had to give Bayly's opinion also. For trivial (non-contentious) issues we use non-scholars and even news papers but I agree that origin is not a trivial issue and requires modern views and deep study, however the sources that Satnam2408 has provided are reliable as per wikipedia standards IMHO. We add opposing views where other scholars have disagreed with these views.LukeEmily (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, I have summarized the content and removed the extraordinary claims (the concern is raised by TrangaBellam). Not only Sinha, Vijay Nath, Sharma, Poonam Bala, Dutt, Pascal Haag, or Nicholas but also Kumar Suresh Singh accept the Ambastha and Vaidya identification. Sircar has after analysis hypothesised that S.Indian Ambastha migrated and merged into Vaidyas. Sinha has also claimed such S.Indian Ambastha migration in the Sena period. As far as I have checked only Projit Bihari Mukherjee rejects such a connection. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * K.S. Singh is hardly a reliable source. Anyway, nothing about the Ambastha goes in. Btw, what's with the first paragraph? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, I have raised concern about that the article opens with contentious Upapuranas. The S.Indian inscription was mentioning about Vaidya much earlier than the 12th or 13th century. Chronologically should come first. Further, K.S Singh is reliable as mentioned by Sitush. I have the book published by Oxford press of Peoples India Series. Sinha is reliable IMHO. Sircar also has given such a hypothesis. Migration towards Bengal is covered by many scholars apart from Sinha or Sharma. Further, if someone has a different opinion about this connection should be mentioned. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing is contentious about the Upapuranas except your belief that they are. Editors are not arbitrators about the reliability of sources; scholars are. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's appreciable. Regards, Satnam2408 (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , Singh (OUP) is reliable but not the state series by Singh. See .Please avoid citing the "states" series of The People of India because it is not considered reliable. The "national" series, which was published by Oxford University Press, is fine-Sitush That being said, it is a book that focuses on customs etc. and not so much on history so I don't know how reliable it is for origins. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have the book titled "People Of India, National Series volume IV" of (OUP). I have never used this book. Here I have informed editors that Singh also has equated Baidyas with Ambasthas. At this moment I don't have a consensus on the Ambastha hypothesis, so I am not going to insert it. BTW You always act as a lighthouse and help editors to be on track. Thanks for such extraordinary contributions, would be grateful to you. Thanks, Regards, Satnam2408 (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey LukeEmily, Satnam2408, TrangaBellam: if LukeEmily is quoting Sitush (regarding the reliability of sources), let me give you a hint of what was accepted by Sitush as far as this article is concerned. I am quoting from the last stable version (for years, before LukeEmily & especially TB improved/revamped this article), accepted/written by me & Sitush: These migrants, probably Ambashthas as well as the other groups like Vellala Vaidyas, started moving from north and south to Bengal during the period of the Pala Empire. They mainly dealt with medicine and other fields of study. See here. Thanks, all! Ekdalian (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , Chakroborty is also reliable IMHO. He says that Baidyas as a group were considered equal to brahmins. As per other sources in the article, Brahmins might have degraded all upper castes later using the two varna system.LukeEmily (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, to the best of my knowledge, after the conclusion of the Pala era a group of Brahmins went on to degrade some social groups. Although it would not be wise to claim that Sena dynasty had any role in such amoral engagement. Vaidyas and Kayasthas were not involved in any laborious work and are with Bengali Brahmins considered the three traditional upper castes of Bengal. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC).
 * There is more to Baidya history than what Ekdalian is trying to portray. He has even recently modified the Ambashtha article to suit his narative. I have undone it to the stable version. I am of the opinion that editors here may contribute to the Ambashtha page and also keep it neutral. Ekdalian is also invited to correct and edit it with his reasons but enmass revert to his favourite version ruins genuine efforts of many editors who have used references from noted archeologists and historians. కాయస్థ శిరోమణి (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As TrangaBellam said we need some modern high-quality sources regarding the Ambastha-Vaidya migration @కాయస్థ శిరోమణి can you please provide any high-quality modern source of this connection?  Yashnapaul (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Ruth
Hi LukeEmily, Ruth Harris is a prominent Historian she is taking about the origin of Baidyas. Mahendranath Gupta is also not very old. The book is also published by Harvard University press. Why you removed it? কবির চৌধুরী ১১ (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi কবির চৌধুরী ১১, I agree with you. It is a temporary removal only. As mentioned in my edit summary, we can add her back in the correct section. It looks that she is talking about the Raj era. She says "Another Brahmo “convert” from Presidency, Gupta was from a Baidya family of doctors, a subcaste of immigrant origin which associated with Brahmins and shared many of their privileges". It looks like she is describing the Baidya community at the time of Gupta i.e. Baidyas associated with Brahmins and shared many of their privileges during M.Gupta's time. About origin, she says that they are immigrant. I think we can add her in the Colonial era section.For her statement, she is referencing 93. Gwilym Beckerlegge, “Swami Vivekananda's Iconic Presence and Conventions of NineteenthCentury Photographic Portraiture. Please correct me if I am misreading it.LukeEmily (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Mahendranath Gupta is a 19th-century Baidya scholar. Ruth has summarized the origin of the baidya caste in connection with describing Mahendranarh Gupta. ' 'Immigrant origin' phrase indicates it. Baidya as a caste or sub-caste formed in the medieval era, not in the 19th century. কবির চৌধুরী ১১ (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the first part of her sentence is about immigrant origin but the second part "associated with Brahmins and shared many of their privileges". What timeframe is she referring to? Is it the time of origin? Is she saying they associated with the Brahmins and shared their priviledges in the medieval era? It looks like only the first part of the sentence is about origin. Second part of the sentence is a general observation at the time of Gupta. Requesting, , for their opinions.LukeEmily (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey @LukeEmily Ruth is clearly talking about that period when migration happened of Baidyas. According to Ruth Clearly she associated the immigrant-origin with Brahmin Links. Please see Annapurna Chattopadhaya also. She also linked Baidyas as a migrant sub-caste of S.Indian Brahmin origins. Obviously, we can't merge them together because it will be a WP:OR and WP:SYN but we can definitely add ruth opinions regarding Baidyas. There is also a Bengali book by Sankar Sengupta (anthropologist) that give us the same information about privileges enjoyed by Baidyas but I chose to use Ruth here because it is a more recent work. Please understand, that your statement to add Ruth's opinion in the colonial section is completely wrong. Going by your logic we should move the Upapuran section to medieval history. Hope I made you understand the whole scenario. কবির চৌধুরী ১১ (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * LE, thanks for the revert; Ruth is talking about the Raj era. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just an assumption? and may I ask LukeEmily why the Upapuran section is there in the origin section instead of mediaeval history? so I think we are going towards a dispute. I will wait for other editors to comment and after that would take this to DRN. Thank you editors for your valuable efforts. কবির চৌধুরী ১১ (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @LukeEmily The phrase 'which' use to follow the immediate antecedent. Here it is 'immigrant origin' So it is clear that ruth is talking about the origin. কবির চৌধুরী ১১ (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I see what you are saying. I had interpreted which to refer to subcaste not to 'origin'. I might be wrong in my interpretation hence pinged TB. TB is an expert on this caste and if you go through the history, he has written most of the article (especially the origin/Upapuranas section). Please can you quote what the other sources are saying? We can add statements about Brahmin origin from them. The reason the original sentence you added looked out of place was because Bengal had a two varna system. I think the issue here is parsing the sentence and we should also look at the inline source she is using (93) for her statment so it becomes clear. Given the high literacy of the Baidyas of Bengal it is very likely they had Brahmin origin - that is my personal opinion. Anyway, we can wait for input from the other.LukeEmily (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about the specific time period of what Ruth is talking about. By the line "Baidyas were associated with Brahmins and shared many of their privileges" I think she is supposed to talk about the professional and traditional similarities. Baidyas were teachers and also there were some professional similarities even before the writing of Upa-Puranas (according to sources). Baidyad also used to have a regular Upanayana ceremony even before the composition of Upa-Puranas. Most probably ruth is talking about such privileges. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey LukeEmily, TrangaBellam, Satnam2408, I had not responded earlier, since we had initiated an internal Sockpuppet investigation, and I was pretty much sure that the sock would soon be blocked. Anyway, I agree with both LukeEmily & Satnam. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Dinesh Chandra Sen
Please add Dinesh Chandra Sen as a Baidya notable. Sigmaron (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Still waiting for response. Sigmaron (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , added. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Please sort it according to letters. Sigmaron (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Going to do it by myself, Thanks. Sigmaron (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

too much emphasis on sudra
Just a thought. Is there any way we can remove multiple mentions of shudra? I dont understand Bengal's caste system well but it seems that Baidyas are now considered upper caste. The word 'sudra' may be mentioned once or twice but it is mentioned so many times all over the page. Is that really necessary, especially as they are not considered sudra and were never peasants or pastoral people - but an educated caste? On the Rajput page even one line valid addition from the scriptures about sudra rituals was restricted(I don't agree with the objection but simply acquiesced for now). How can we have different rules for different pages? LukeEmily (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey yes, I think it can be an issue here. In the Bengali Kayastha article, I was advised by a moderator of DRN to remove more inclination towards old literary sources which were inconsistent for several years. I have removed the shudra part and added only the Karan - Kayastha connection in the article. Hey  and, may I ask you to express your opinion here? Thanks, regards, Satnam2408 (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC).
 * Yes, agreed; though it would be a difficult task considering the flow of the current version! Let's wait for TrangaBellam's views, who is the main architect of the present consensus version. And regarding the DRN stuff, I had pointed out this discrepancy related to centuries mentioned (regarding the Karana connection), and the moderator had agreed! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Brahma Vaivarta Purana
Hi @Ekdalian primary sources like Brahma Vaivarta Purana without any modern scholarly interpretation should be avoided in caste articles. Pages like Rajput and Yadava, editors are following the same rule. Would request @LukeEmily to also look into this. Sigmaron (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The BvP separated the Baidyas from Ambasthas but didn't mention them as Shudras. Furui, Nicolas did not even mention about BvP puran, only Annapurna(1960) did. I wonder how these things did not get any attention from any editor. Sigmaron (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have already mentioned in the edit summary that mythological origin theories do not require interpretation, rather they should be presented as they are! Wait for other opinions. Ekdalian (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am ok with this version. I fixed some errors in my recent edits, thank you. Sigmaron (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey @Ekdalian and @LukeEmily as per WP:PRIMARY "", but in this article we are clearly not obeying this policy. The sources like Annapurna, Sircar they are not reputably published, very old and also have no interpretation of primary source, Hence we should not use them to describe the primary information. Sigmaron (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Further, as per wikipedia terms we can not cite Sarma, Annapurna, Dutt to describe the origin of Baidyas written in purans. We can use Furui, Nicolas here. Sigmaron (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Primary Source
Annapura, Dutt, Sircar all sources cant be use as citations against primary Informations. As per WP:PRIMARY "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". These sources are old and were not published by an academic or reputed publisher. We can only use them if they give any interpretation of primary source. Other sources like Furui, nicolas, Mukherjee can be use to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. I am deleting some poorly sourced content, if you have any doubts please raise your concern. Sigmaron (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * "Primary source" - is this sophisticated trolling? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I generally don't troll anyone, in a reputed platform like Wikipedia we should definitely not troll. Please come to content related dispute as you reverted my good faith edits, thanks. Sigmaron (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you claim that Chattopadhyaya, Dutt and Sircar were involved in (or close to) the writing of the Upapuranas? How are they primary sources? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As per policy primary source without any interpretation required to be reputably published. Annapurna, Dutt, Sircar all are old(more than 60 years) and not reputably published. Please find any modern source to cite those informations. Sigmaron (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Bhp, Bvp all are primary sources. Dutt, Sircar in their books wrote what BhP described the Ambasthas without any interpretation. Furui, Nicolas did not mention about Baidya's position in Bvp. Sigmaron (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Go to RSN. Bye, TrangaBellam (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of wiki policies my friend. If you want to include those primary sources like BvP please find sources like Furui, Nicolas. Sigmaron (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I request @LukeEmily @Ekdalian and others to look into this before going to DRN. Sigmaron (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I won't partake in either DRN or 3O. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 11:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear, TrangaBellam I respect your knowledge and contribution on Wikipedia but You are not obeying wiki policies. Sigmaron (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear, TrangaBellam I respect your knowledge and contribution on Wikipedia but You are not obeying wiki policies. Sigmaron (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @TrangaBellam please come to the content related dispute one by one. "" this information has the citation of Nicolas and Furui. I am fully ok with this line, Do you have any issues regarding this?Sigmaron (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ekdalian thanks for your effort, do you have any issue related to BhP information of Baidyas given in the above line? Nicolas, Furui both are high quality modern sources. Nicolas wrote Brahmins ordained the Ambasthas to follow the Sudra code, as per STICKTOSOURCE I gave that exact information. I don't see any reason why you reverted that line.Sigmaron (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why did you change Brahmins had them ordained to be the highest of Shudras to Brahmins ordained the Ambasthas to follow the Sudra code? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)