Talk:Jalia Kaibarta

Content
Hello mates. I've seen that you guys have been removing this. But the content has been re-added. Are the sources supporting the content? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not been able to verify that Luipa was a Jalia Kaibarta. The Paniker reference does not mention it, and I do not have access to Dasgupta.  If you see it, then I shall let it be.  Thanks for bringing it to my notice. Chaipau (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Couldn;t access Dasgupta either and Panicker doesn't mention it. I beleive we can remove it. Ekdalian has been reverting this, so I wonder. Lets wait for him. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. Fylindfotberserk, I also could not access Dasgupta, and Paniker does not mention it; seems to be a POV edit in order to promote the community. Since the same couldn't be verified, I believe it should be removed. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed it. Thanks for the suggestions. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Restored the edition removed by you
The fact that you, guys, do not have access to some source quoted by someone else, can never be a good reason to remove an edit. The fact is only a proof of your incompetence in searching for a book that is very easlily accessible through Internet Archive - in four copies of different editions. Therefore I have restored it. and edited a bit. noychoH (talk) 13:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for adding this but refrain from making personal attacks and maintain WP:CIVIL. Also do not add unsourced content, original researches and POV content that looks like promotion of certain community as you did by writing "Kaibbarta community have a great contribution in shaping towards modern Assam.". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * footnote 4 in page 384 (3rd edition) mentions that Luipa belongs to the fisherman caste in a Buddhist book. It is WP:OR to claim that this fisherman caste is Jalia Kaibarta, unless it is specifically mentioned.  Chaipau (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why I reworded it this way, since Matsyendranath, with whom Lui-pa is identified, is mentioned as a Kaibarta in the source. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Need some expert attention
This page seems to require some expert attention because the situation is complex. This is a brief description. There are problems with this source (too much reliance on racial types etc.) but it is a good starting point. Chaipau (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Kaibarta people are spread over a large area, not just Bengal. They are found in Assam and Odisha too.  It is probably best to develop this article as Kaivarta people.
 * In Assam, they find mention very early. They are also called as Keots.  Their position in Assam is comparatively better than in other places.
 * The Doms and Nadiyals (at least in Assam) are different but they sometimes call themselves as Kaivartas. It seems non-Dom and non-Nadiyal Kaivartas resent this.

Caste or a community
Is this social group a community or a caste? If it is a caste, as implied by its inclusion in the Scheduled Caste List of these states, the WP:BLP rules will apply when including names under the 'Notable people' list. That is this edit by Homogenie will not be valid here, since the subject Hima Das is a living person and as per multiple consensus including this→Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_49, a person should self-identify his/her caste. The accompanying source doesn't demonstrate anything like that. No self-identification. On top of that it seems like an essay piece on the subject. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right; this is a caste. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Caste, as in jati. Yes, BLP applies.  Also Sentinel newspaper is not reliable. Chaipau (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * They used to be a tribal community, which took caste identity through Sanskritisation in much later period.Chanchaldm (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your inputs. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The 2012 consensus in WT:IN was about mentioning caste in BLPs. Although this might appear as hair-splitting, the current issue is with the inclusion of a person that has a WP page in a list of notable people in a XXX people/tribe/caste article. It is of course the mirror image of mentioning group/caste etc. identity in a BLP, so I agree to apply the creiteria of the WT:IN-consensus here; otherwise we will have insufficiently supported information entering through the backdoor. –Austronesier (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)