Talk:Namassej

Proposed merger with Namasudra
This article should be merged with Namasudra. BengaliHindu (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger with the inclusion of the term " Namassej" as Namasudra ( Namassej)
No community in Bengal is called by sudra and at a time when people from all walks of life are engaged in Public Service a community should not be made scape-goat.

"Shudra was not a pejorative term" is a bloody lie
This type of dirty clever ploy are used by the upper-caste to include new population groups in Hindu Apartheid Religion of Manusmriti, Ved and Gita. It's a shame they are still now faking so shamelessly.

Shudra was not a pejorative term, Namasudras may have been Brahmins long ago
According to Brahmabaibartapurana, all non-Brahmin castes were categorized as shudras, including higher castes like Baidyas and Kayasthas. Therefore the term shudra was applicable for all non-Brahmins and if it carried any pejorative sense, it was applicable for all. However, in the said text there is no mention of any caste called Namashudra or Namassej which provides a possible clue for the claim that Namashudras were originally Brahmins, just like the Jogis.BengaliHindu (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Better if we ever be able to get away with these "sudra" bashing tags.117.194.198.36 (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It is better not to enter into this debate.Everyone knows what is what.In a democratic socio-political set-up the " sudra " tag is no more tenable.117.194.201.65 (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Justification for the proposed merger
In the early Indian censuses, government schedules and orders, Namasudras have been identified as Namasudras only and not as Namassej. Even if Namassej is another name for the caste, then also having two articles is violation of Wikipedia conventions. Therefore either of them should be merged to the other. BengaliHindu (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Not Justified
The fact given under the heading " Justification .." is true .The discourse was on the lips of minstrels, followers of Sri Harichand but the educated section never proposed it .Rather they wanted to belong to other caste-names. Naturally that was not acceptable.But the proposal was always there in the form of story of the people.An excluded population ( we have conflicting informations. ref: namasudra dot com website ) can't have better documentation. There is no reasonableness in the demand .It will maintain the status of social bashing.They must sympathetically think of the Black - Nigger controversy and withdraw the notice and launch a social reformation movement.Bahujan Hitaya, Bahujan Sukhaya : ( Betterment of every one , Happyness for every one ) , that is the motto of Great Hinduism .So is expected of you .117.194.202.142 (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Justified But If
Since long past in the History the community were made out-caste, now to revoke That Past may not be possible. The folk discourse which the community people once knitted as originated from Namas should be the only option and that is best preserved if named as "Namassej" .No community now-a-days tagged with shudra among  Bengali Hindus. The "Namasudra" page actually been moved to "Namasudra ( Namassej )". Then if at any time the Bengali Hindus agree the tag may be removed completely to Namassej from " Namasudra (Namassej) ". So the merger may be to "Namasudra ( Namassej)". Most of the folk tales of such uneducated and under-privileged communities are lost .They are just knitted and vanishes.The demand for Namassej is documented for not more than two decades although the story of  Sreejan from Namas is of the time of Sri Harichand.First published in Little magazine in 2003(anushtup).No need to revert to insist for to add sudra-tag for nothing by hanging a " citation needed " tag.117.194.201.65 (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger NOT JUSTIFIED
Many communities have more than one Wikipedia page. The Humanitarian perspective must be considered first. No movement of self-identification by giving up the Bashing can have a better media than Wikipedia. It should not be forgotten that 100 years have passed no effort was there.Now when the community has proposed it, this must be respected by the Bengali Hindus.117.194.200.251 (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a simple humanitarian demand of more than 150 years old. They may be requested to launch a social awareness movement for the Govt. of different countries to include first the alternative name and after 20-25 years after the matter may be resolved. Till then the page should be there.They have a large number of followers.117.194.202.142 (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Justified it seems
The name and all the facts and stories are incorporated in the page Namasudra (Namassej).Now it is a matter of consensus ,first among the namasudra community members and then among their neighbours. 117.194.196.211 (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Meger is possible
The page was not created to give rise to any debate or confusion. It is true in course of time many contributors have introduced the stories of the Namasudra community which were not documented or the proposals which the community could never propose.Lot of debates I find here but the main problem is not addressed. How the bashing terms attached to different communities could be removed. However the page Namasudra (Namassej) contains everything so it may be merged.Arniban Ssej 09:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnibanssej (talk • contribs)

Why the Merger Template ?
In the Vyabastha( Resolution of the Problem of Bashing Tag) ,in 1901. hundred years before forty Pundits all over Bengal advised not to use the tag "Sudra" and on the basis of facts accepted the demand of being identified as descendant of " Namasa".So the natural identity is "Namassej". If "sudra" is not a pejorative bashing tag why every community has stopped using the tag ? We hope Bengali Hindu people would realise the practical situation.117.194.192.65 (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Boldy redirected
This was ridiculous and I have boldly redirected to Namasudra_(Namassej). No, I have not merged it. It was pretty much uncited and useless. Can we now concentrate on improving the much more detailed but extremely poor target article, please. - Sitush (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)