Talk:Suvarna Banik

Recent changes
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I would argue the followings:

Lead section is ok. Indiatimes is not a WP:RS. Roy, Tirthankar is a copyrighted material. Links and citations are discouraged in lead unless the statements are highly contentious.

Origin and early medieval period: Remove Furui, Ryosuke : author never mentioned about suvarna banik. Then in next paragraph, “Brahmins probably attained some level of hegemony in that period with which they could attempt to impose their idealized social order” out of context, remove it per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I do not have opinion regarding Niharranjan Roy(non-english text). Could anyone verify those claims?

Late medieval and colonial period: “being gold merchants they were moneyed people. They owned good houses” the claims could not be verified. Seems like WP:PUFFERY.

Modern period: none of the sources mentioned them ‘prominent’, WP:SYNTH. Both news18 & banglapedia fail WP:RS.

After Ekdalian’s edit the article looks balanced and neutral. I am pinging several users who have recently been involved in either removing or restoring content to enter this discussion: -- Dr.Pinsky (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Since recent changes and your raised concerns are quite different, let me start with the recent changes.
 * I oppose content removal as it's well sourced p.107 The discrepancy between low ceremonial rank and high-secular rank is always a problem. TI1ccaste of the Subarnabanik, and all the banik or merchant caste!I, provide the most glaring examples of this anomaly. It has already been noted that the Subarnabanik caste has held a low ceremonial rank for centuries, and this low rank may be due to the edict of a king. But being gold merchants they were and still arc moneyed people. In the days of the East India Company and the early days of the British rule, they were important persons in the new political system. The British merchants borrowed money from the Subarnabaniks, and maintained other economic transactions with them. The Subarnabaniks gained important positions in the secular urban society which was then developing under the influence of foreign rulers who were not involved with the sacred aspects of the Hindu society. Persons of the Subarnabanik caste were among the oldest settlers of Calcutta. They owned good houses, and in the early days certain parts of the city became identified as their settlements. With a long tradition of city living, the Subarnabanik caste kept gaining in the secular values of the society. Not only are they prosperous, but they are also among the most educated people of Calcutta.
 * We can align the contents with the sources (Tirthankar Roy and Census report) in lead section.
 * Suggest any alternative of prominent word? I think active word isn't appropriate. Consult Sarma. Thank you.Chanchaldm (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Banglapedia is a reliable source. It's published by Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. Reputed news articles can be cited, however any major contents haven't been used here from those. Ryosuke Furui gave good contexts about Origin of mercantile groups of Bengal including Suvarnabaniks. I haven't cited only Nihar Ranjan Roy, also cited Sarma( which is English source, but seems like haven't been verified). I believe there are issues and scopes of improvements in this article. Recent changes haven't done so.Chanchaldm (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You have finally participated in discussions, that too after being initiated by Dr.Pinsky. When an editor expresses concerns, you need to discuss Chanchaldm and not engage in edit warring! Was it the consensus (implicit/explicit) version? No! Will wait for Dr.Pinsky to respond and share their opinion. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edits aren't constructive. Not only you have engaged in edit Warring, your last input is far from being an appropriate reply in these circumstances ! You need to explain your edits. Thank you Chanchaldm (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Greetings, "Although Suvarnabanik caste held a low ceremonial rank for centuries, but being gold merchants they were moneyed people.....". Sorry, I could not verify those claims. I hope this is not the case of WP:PUFFERY.
 * You can mention "prominent or an important" only if it is supported by the sources. Furthermore, you have mentioned "the community continued to be a prominent merchant class", but you have  cited "Sarma, Jyotirmoyee (1980)". Could you provide a modern source( preferably post 2000) that supports your claims?
 * Banglapedia is a tertiary source and Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on secondary sources. In rare cases, reputable tertiary sources may be cited. But I would expect tertiary sources to have references to secondary sources. Banglapedia doesn't appear to do that. Which is concerning.
 * "Ryosuke Furui gave good contexts about Origin of mercantile groups of Bengal including Suvarnabaniks”, is not a convincing argument. Author never mentioned about Suvarna banik. See, in order to determine whether the content should stay, we need to consider how much weight it is given by reliable sources that cover the topic "Origin of Suvarna banik" broadly.
 * thank you for your response. Would be happy to hear your thoughts. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Dr.Pinsky; seems to have explained each and every point clearly and logically. please mention here in case you have any valid objection to any of the points raised by Dr.Pinsky above. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Dr.Pinsky, Thanks for your inputs. Let me answer one by one.
 * 1."Sorry, I could not verify those claims." Really?! I have gave quotations, which clearly mentioned so. What else I can do?
 * 2. 1980 is modern period and past tense has been used !
 * 3.Banglapedia is reliable !
 * 4."Author never mentioned about Suvarna banik." You're simply wrong ! I will request you to go through the source again. Thank you.
 * , kindly share your opinion. Thanks.Chanchaldm (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ekdalian, I expect much better inputs from you. Thanks.Chanchaldm (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Chanchaldm, I assure you that I shall check your points, each & every one, when I get some spare time, may be by tomorrow, and will revert back here. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey Chanchaldm, Dr.Pinsky, I tried to re-check the sources, and finally, I am sharing my opinion: 1) Regarding Banglapedia, I completely agree with Dr.Pinsky. 2) I cannot verify Furui since I neither have a copy nor access to it; sorry, I am unable to comment. 3) I strongly believe that the word 'prominent' cannot be used here, no WP:OR / WP:SYN is acceptable. 4) Terms like 'moneyed people' and 'owned good houses' should be avoided even if sourced! Copy-paste from source(s) is as good as copyright vio; we can mention in our own words without generalizing (but citing the source) e.g. "as gold merchants, some of them were affluent". 5) THE HISTORY OF BENGAL by Sinha (pages mentioned) doesn't support what was attributed to it, and seems like OR. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for your response. 1. Let's start with Ryosuke Furui :"The presence and activity of mercantile groups in Bengal becomes visible in historical records from the mid-fifth century onwards, thanks to theso-called land sale grants issued under the Gupta provincial administration of Puṇdravardhana-bhukti in North Bengal. After two-and-a-half centuries of absence, merchant groups reappear in the inscriptions of Bengal and the adjoining areas from the early ninth century onwards...".


 * "The social order described in the text, which also lacks kṣatriya varṇa, con-sists of bipolarity of brāhmaṇ a s and śūdras without intermediate varṇas. Brāhmaṇ as attained some level of hegemony with which they could attempt to impose their idealized social order . The imposition, however, entailed tension and negotiation between brāhmaṇ a s and other social groups including merchants, as the text tells us". @Chanchaldm, you have literally copy-pasted entire texts, doing so is WP:COPYVIO. You’re supposed to write in your own words. See, this not a criticism. It’s just a suggestion, nothing more.


 * Would like to quote some texts from the same source: "Among the social groups described in relevant parts of the text, those clearly recognizable as merchants are gandhika vaṇik (condiment merchant)/vaṇik and svarṇavaṇik/kānaka vaṇik (gold merchant), while tāmbūlin and taulika can also be included for their occupations, defined as sales of betel leaves and arec nuts respectively. All of them belong to the category of saṃkara/saṃkarajāti claimed to be the progeny of the intermarriage of different varṇas and their descendants. Saṃkaras, also called thirty-six jātis, are deemed to be śūdras and divided into the three hierarchical ranks of uttama(best), madhyama (middle) and adhama/antyaja (lowest) according to the com-bination of their parents . The gandhikavaṇik, claimed to descend from a brāhmaṇ a father and a vaiśya mother, belongs to the first, while the svarṇavaṇik is assigned to the second madhyama rank as an offspring of an ambaṣtha (physician) father and a vaiśya mother . Tāmbūlin and taulika, both deemed to be the pro-geny of a vaiśya father and a brāhmaṇ a mother, also belong to the uttama rank. This is a ritual hierarchy in which the first is said to deserve ritual service by qualified śrotriya brāhmaṇas, while the second and the last are to be served by fallen brāhmaṇas with the same status as themselves. The last rank is also claimed to be outside varṇāśramadharma". (page.406) can be added to have a WP:NPOV.
 * 2. Please try to avoid "Sarma, Jyotirmoyee", fails WP:V. "1980 is modern period and past tense has been used !", is not very convincing. I hope you’re aware that, social and economic status are fluid, subject to change over time.
 * thank you for your time and effort. Let's make it quick! Regards. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Banglapedia, an encyclopedia published by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, is a reliable source. Wikipedia does not require that a source cite its sources in order for the first source to be considered reliable. Dr. Pinsky is correct that it is a tertiary source, and the bulk of any Wikipedia article should be based on secondary sources. You're using it to support a single sentence, 13 words in a 673 word article, so that degree of use doesn't present a problem. The real problem with citing Banglapedia in this case is that I don't see how it directly supports the statement you are making: "Bengali Suvarnabaniks still continued to be an active merchant community in West Bengal." You would need to explain what sentences from Banglapedia you are paraphrasing to come up with that. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Banglapedia: Thanks Worldbruce for clarification. The sentence you've quoted is actually recent modification of original version, which had prominent in place of active, and I haven't used Banglapedia to support that sentence. It is actually from Sarma and census report of 1951.1 Prominent is a synonym of "the most well known". Further Sarma mentioned- they are "moneyed people", "prosperous","among the most educated people of Calcutta". I do not object to use of another word which had close meaning/synonymous to prominent, prosperous or the most well-known. NK Sinha: Like Banglapedia and some other sources, I haven't used any contents from NK Sinha(it's actually from Sarma and I gave quote), so no question of OR or synthesis arises. But I am now thinking of adding some contents from Sinha. We also need to restore the dealing with EIC part. And Ekdalian, I have no objection to use of "affluent" instead of "moneyed".

Lead section:We need to align the contents in lead section with the sources, both the original draft and recent modification isn't doing so.

And Dr. Pinsky You have mentioned many concerns which aren't about "Recent changes", the title of this section. But I will consider all the valid concerns and try to rewrite those. Or you yourself may do so.

Thanks, and  for taking some time to look into this and sharing your opinions. I will consider all the valid and logical points and try to rewrite consulting the sources, when I will have some spare time. Regards,Chanchaldm (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)