Talk:Baidya/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

No Reference

None of the references are true!?The only information that is substantiated and know to all is that Brahmin and the Brahminetar Kayastha and Vaidya flocked together to form the upper crust of Brahminical society.Do north Indian Guptas have anything common with Bengali Guptas.Why many of them do not use the Gupta part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.199.141 (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to add this information to the article, just provide a reliable citation that supports the information. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 21:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Ekdalian again doing his dirty work. please go through all sources provided by Mr. Abhishek Sengupta. all are from a third-party neutral valid source! why can't accept the fact that vaidyas of Bengal are pure Saraswat brahmins?

Serious distortion of truth

Please inform me the procedure of talking as a named contributor. I am providing e-copies of old texts ad other links to support my inputs. Yet they are repeatedly being deleted and a concocted version based on some irrelavant news articles is being restored. I prepared a list of eminent vaidyas but that too was deleted by a user named "Ekdalian". I am trying to make the page truthful and constructive whereas they are deleting my inputs and representing a vague version.Yet I am the one who is being accused for vandalism !!! Even they deleted the fact that vaidyas had the highest literacy in India although I had given the documents proving that. Anyone who is acquainted with Bengali society knows thatt Vaidyas, though forms a separate cluster from priest brahmins, are Brahmins in Varna-status and they perform their rituals as Brahmins. They are called Vaidya-brahmins. Some sheer propaganda is going on here to give a wrong history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.9.64 (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You may create your login, and discuss as a named user, and sign your posts using 4 '~' signs at the end, as mentioned. I must tell you, you are taking the article personally, which is detrimental to a neutral point of view. By the way, the text cited is by Sengupta, and will not be considered as reliable/neutral by Wikipedia standards, since it is meant for consumption by his own Baidya community. Please go through Wikipedia policies regarding sourcing, especially before editing sensitive articles. Now, please note Wikipedia ensures that articles are based on secondary sources, which must be reliable. You may believe that whatever you are contributing is truth. But the fact is that you need to cite reliable sources, typically books (check those available on Google Books) by reputed authors, which are easily verifiable. You cannot simply cite a website, and obviously not one promoted by the caste itself (which cannot be granted as neutral). If you seriously want to improve this article, please discuss what you would like to add/remove here citing reliable sources, as explained, and we need to agree. If you simply keep on editing the page and reverting sourced information, that will not help, and finally this page may even be protected from editing. You may contribute and add the list of notable 'Baidyas', obviously valid ones, please remember not to name persons having surnames like Kar, Dutt, Roy, Roy Chaudhuri, Das, Mullick, which are commonly used by other castes mainly Kayasthas, unless you can specifically cite sources mentioning them as Baidyas. Also, you may check other similar articles for the conventional format, and follow those. And you may also add information regarding their literacy rate citing reliable source(s).

I have now reverted your removal of sourced information at Baidya quite a number of times. If you have an issue with the statements that are clearly reliably sourced then it is best to discuss them here rather than engage in what can rapidly escalate into an edit war. Certainly, you should not remove/add content, as far as caste information is concerned, without discussions here.

The community have recently imposed sanctions in relation to Indian caste articles etc and I think it wise for you to be aware of them. For this reason, please find below a copy of the notice. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions.

Answer to ekdalian

I think it is illogical to think that one needs to cite an author from a different caste to discuss about a caste. For example, all the discussions about Brahmins are taken from books written by Brahmins (or from authors who cited these books). Rather, I believe, it is often detrimental to truthfulness because he might have a grudge against the concerned community, which was surely the case with Bijoy Chandra Majumdar, who could not cite a single evidence in support of his Vellela hypothesis, either from baidya traditions or from other documented history. So it is unjustified to cite an unproven hypothesis in a general page unless that is the established social norm. If you are acquainted with Bengali society than you will know that all Baidyas perform their rites and rituals as Brahmins, observe 10 days of mourning , use "sharma" surname and wear sacred threads. I can even provide you different "Byabasthapatras" (directive letters)by Brahmin pundits of different area (including that of Late Pandit DakshinaCharan Smrititirtha of Kolikata Pandit Sabha) opining that Baidyas are Brahmins. Still, if you want more references from authors belonging to other castes, I request you to go through " Amar Bikrampur" by Hariananda barori (Ananda Pub.) or "Gane Ramprasad" by Amiyalal Mukhopadhyay. So what I have written is NOT my belief/suggestion (unlike Mr.Majumdar), it is based on old texts (Jaysen Biswas's "Vaidyakula Chandrika" clearly states that vaidyas are "Yajurvedi kanva shakha Saraswat" and even today the vaidyas follow the yajurvedi kanva-shakha rituals), socially and religiously accepted norms and I feel that unwillingness to consider them and giving importance to some particular author is improper.

Moreover, you have wrongly linked the page of "ambastha kayastha" group with this page. The "Ambastha" hypothesis for vaidyas came from the medical profession assigned to the Ambastha clan in Manusamhita in other texts. That Ambastha was the offspring of a Brahmin father and a Vaishya mother (check any standard Hindu text) and hence belonged to the Brahmin varna (note the verse "trishu varneshu jatahi brahmanah brahaman bhavet" by vedavyas in mahabharata, i.e., children of a brahmin from wives belonging to the first three varnas will be a Brahmin). These Ambasthas have no connection with Ambastha kayastha just as Rarhi Brahmins have no connections with Rarhi kayasthas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.4.87 (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Vellelas or Vellalrs never functioned as priests or physicians, neither did they study vedas. They are a agricultural landlord clan which claim a yaduvanshi/chandravanshi kshatriya status (search anywhere for vellalars and you will get no account of their performing priesthood or ayurvedic treatment, as Mr. majumdar had claimed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.4.87 (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, you seem to be logical when you say that it is illogical to think that one needs to cite an author from a different caste. Ideally, it shouldn't be, but caste issues especially those where a caste claims some status, require neutral citations. In this case, the Baidyas have traditionally, through ages, claimed Brahmin status, therefore it would be improper to cite Sengupta, or any article/website promoted by the caste itself. Its good to see that though you have already edited caste related information in the article without discussions here on the talk page, you have at lease learnt how to cite sources. Honestly speaking, if you can cite reliable sources, we would be glad to accept those and improve this article. But see, you are citing sources selectively, like your first source 'The Dharmasutras' clearly states that 'a Brahmin fathers a Brahmin from a Ksatriya wife, an Ambastha from a Vaishya wife', you have purposely chosen the other source by J. Muir to support that offspring from a Brahmin father and Vaishya mother is a Brahmin. This is not only contradictory, but also selective quoting. It is known to all, that Indian caste system is full of fallacies and contraditions, several sources state otherwise. But interestingly, everyone claims Brahmin status, and in case of SCs and OBCs, you will find there exists some folklore relating them to a Brahmin ancestor, though the Brahmins mostly refuse to grant or acknowlege it.

Ambashthas are Ambasthas. I have a fair knowledge about Hindu caste system, and have gone through a lot of texts, infact you are the first one to say that there are Ambashtha Brahmins and Ambashtha Kayasthas. Even the Vaidya Kings seems to have claimed that they are Ambashthas/Vaidyas. And, why should a historian have grudge on a particular community. Bijay Chandra Majumdar, rather seems to glorify their past, including military prowess, etc. He may be right or wrong, as far his hypothesis is concerned, but he has logically tried to trace their origin.

Anyway, I will go through your sources in details, before actually editing (if required) the article. By the way, we all intend to improve the article, and add more valid information (not just caste status) from relaible sources, so you are most welcome to provide such sources, and discuss here. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I hope you would realize that the case for vaidyas is pretty much different than the other so-called lower caste communities claiming a higher status. There were no brahiminical tradition associated with them and hence their illogical claim was rightly refuted by Brahmins. But vaidyas have since ages written books in Sanskrit, studied other Brahminical disciplines like Nyay, tarka, vyakaran etc., officiated as "Sabha-pundits' in different kings' courts (including those of Brahmin kings like Bhurisrestha king in Burdwan-Hooghly region), taught Brahmins in "chatuspathis" at a time when it was forbidden for any non-brahmin, held upadhis like Tarkaratna, Shiromoni, Sarbabhuoma, mahamahopadhyay etc. That's why Brahmin Pundits all over Bengal perform vaidyas' rituals as Yajurvedi Brahmins. By the way the terms "ambastha-brahmin' and "ambastha kayastha" are quite well-known and they clearly relate to the place "ambastha" mentioned in mahabharata and in other texts. In old utkalkarika the term "Ambastha-brahmin" was mentioned as well as the in the copperplate of Sen Kings found in madhainagar (which was deciphered by Durganath Devsharma of Pabna). Again Ambastha Kayastha is a well-known sect of kayasthas which derived their name from their ancestral place like other kayastha clans as Srivastava, Mathur, Bhatnagar etc.

−

Now regarding my citing, I could not understand why you termed it as contradictory. I first cited a source showing that Ambasthas are born from brahmin father and vaishya mother and then cited a source to show that they fell in the brahmin varna (likewise Murdhavishikta, being born of a brahmin father and kshatriya mother, also belongs to the brahmin varna). Even there is a verse in "Daybhaga Prakarana" which states that "kshatriyaaymcha ya putro brahmanah sohapyasamshaya sa cha matubirsheshattu trin-angshan hartumarhati || brahmanachhaiba jatastu vaishyayang brahmanascha ya dwirangshastena hartabya brahmanaswad yudhisthira" (i.e., a brahmin born of a brahmin father and kshatriya mother will get three parts of paternal property, and the brahmin born of a brahmin father and a vaishya mother will get two parts of paternal property).117.194.6.246 (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your other statements, whatever I have seen so far is that most of the so-called lower castes claim kshatriya status, not brahmin status. For few low-castes who claim brahmin status like valmikis etc., their folklore might be true having a brahmin ancestor. But going by the verse in mahabharata already cited by me (J. Muir), they are non-brahmins as they were born from Sudra or Non-aryan mother. Mahabharata is obviously authentic and I don't see why one should call it selective posting. that verse is not an interpolation.

Finally, let me give you 2 more inputs . Both of them are from Shivkali Bhattacharya's " Chiranjeevi Banaoushadhi " (Ananda pub.). In the foreward of Vol. 6, Prof. Devipada Bhattacharya has cited a verse from "Charaksamhita" stating that the Vaidya title can only be obtained by a dvija Brahmin and that too when he completes Ayurveda . Secondly, in page 63 in Vol 4. Sri Shivkali writes "pipul nibandher seshe baidyakbrittir adi katha smaran kore bola jay je rishider kaj e chilo arter seva. Se sampraday je aikantikbhabe kebol brahmin srenir e etao sarbata swiakarya. kintu sei rishi sampradayer ekti shreni jakhan jeevika hisebe baidyak kritya ke grahan korlen ebong sanmanik dan dwara binimay banijyer antargata kore ante laglen artha, ar seva dharma ta takhan gouna hoye gie sei chiktsavritti tader jibika hoye dariechilo, sei theke tara baidyak hoyeo ba yajurvediya brahamn hoyeo arthat charakiya shakhar chikitsak ba baidya-brahman hoyeo ekti swatantra sreni te porinoto holen. tobe eta beshi najar pore banglay". i think you are conversant with bengali so I am not translating it (however, if needed, i will). Probably that's why Mukundaram Chakravarti in his "kobikankan chandi" placed baidyas and agradani brahmins together as both their professions were disliked at that time by usual brahmins. 117.194.6.246 (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me tell you first, that there is no comparison between Baidyas and the so called lower castes. Baidyas, along with the Brahmins and Kayasthas truly form the upper layer of the Hindu society in Bengal. And yes, I meant Brahmins and Kshatriyas, the two traditional upper castes, when I said Brahmins, and lower castes mostly associate with Kshatriya lineage. As far as Baidyas are concerned, my personal opinion is that they are brilliant as a community, and equivalent to Brahmins in Bengal in terms of social status. Even if the Brahmins refuse them Brahmin status in Medieval Bengal, that hardly makes any difference. But, when it comes to this article, we need to cite reliable sources as per our policies, and not Mahabharat or the Puranas. And there are hardly any reliable text mentioning Ambashtha Brahmins, even if you find one, it is well known that Baidyas are associated with Ambashtha caste or sub-caste (related to Kayasthas, not Brahmins) as per most caste related reliable texts. Regarding the contradiction, your first source (and similarly other common sources) distinguishes beteen Brahmin father-Kshatriya mother and Brahmin father-Vaishya mother, and calls the former Brahmins and the latter Ambashthas, thus distinguishing beteen the two. The second source classifies them all as Brahmins. That's what I wanted to say. Anyway, I must appreciate your research, keep up the good job! Ekdalian (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your appreciation. However, Mahabharata is considered as an authentic and reliable source for many fields of ancient Indian life, so something in it cannot be termed unreliable , in my opinion. The term "Mrdhavishikta' is used for a son born of a Brahmin father and a kshatriya mother. Secondly, though there have been enough instances of vaidyas being associated or even termed as Ambasthas, you will nowhere find any association between kayasthas and vaidyas. Ambastha subcaste was specifically assigned the medical profession just as Karana subcaste was assigned the profession of a scribe,( this even led to the term "ambattan" being associated to the barber surgeons in south india) but no such medical tradition was there with the Ambastha kayasthas and it is more or less established that the term Ambastha is regional in their case like Mathur, Srivastava etc.

Anyway I would be happy if you at least mention that they perform their rituals as Brahmins (you can easily check this and this is a state-wide custom) and the opinion of Shivkali Bhattacharya (who along with medicinal studies, was a commentator of Hindu society and religion as well). Regards and thanks again.117.194.0.249 (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S.- In the line "kulagranthas of rarhi and barendra brahmins", the word vaidya must be included, as among the texts I had entered the "chandraprabha" is a vaidya kulaji text, written by Bharat Mallik Sen - Sabhapundit of Bhurisrestha rajsabha and a commentator of different Hindu-shaastras.117.194.0.249 (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have modified the article and included Vaidyas among kulagranthas. Mahabharat is not a reliable source as far as Wikipedia's sourcing policies are concerned. Your statement 'Ambastha subcaste was specifically assigned the medical profession' can be incorporated if you cite a reliable source, and same for the part that they perform their rituals as Brahmins. It would be easier if you can cite a text available on Google Books and mention the url/link here. Ekdalian (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I must say I am a little surprised that wikipedia policy does not consider Mahabharata as authentic, or a scholar of Shivkali Bhattacharya's repute as authentic. Anyway, for the moment let me provide three links in support of Vaidyas performing rituals in Brahmin customs (It is so well known anyone can easily check it). (1)First is a research article by Dr. G. K. Ghosh and Shukla Ghosh titled "Vaidyas of Bengal and their declining" (presented at social anthropology section of Indian Science Congress, 2005). Here is the url : [[1]] Please check the second paragraph of the 12th page. Although Dr. Ghosh has written that a number of Vaidyas wear sacred thread, actually he has referred to the upanayana at early age. All the vaidyas wear it during marriage if they are not initiated before. (2) Check this book "Samar Sen" by Nityapriya Ghosha, it cites such a case where poet Samar Sen took the sacred thread just before the marriage because he had avoided it at his childhood : [[2]] and finally (3) This is the translation of "Pratham pratishruti" by Ashapurna Devi where the reason of vaidyas degradation has been cited with a link to Dr. Zimmerman's article and also the reference of vaidyas' sacred thread is given : [[3]]. The article states that vaidyas had degraded from usual Brahminhood just like Brahmins embracing the war profession. If you consider with a wider aspect, same was the case for Pirali brahmins (like Rabindranath Thakur's family) and Agradani Brahmins who were prohibited from social relations with Brahmins. But in all cases, the basic Brahmanic rituals remained the same.117.194.15.203 (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I was actually looking for some better sources, where the ritual status of Baidyas are also mentioned. Anyway, soon I 'll improve the content of this article, and also incorporate the fact that most of the Baidyas perform their rituals (like wearing sacred thread) as practised by Brahmins. Ekdalian (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Sir. I will also provide you more links whenever I find them. Thanks again.117.194.6.197 (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

while mentioning the ritual of sacred thread, I think it should also be mentioned that they perform the rituals as Yajurvedi Brahmans, use Sharma as surname and have 10 days of pollution (it is mentioned in Dr.Ghosh's paper). Furthermore, if you consider the rituals of Hinduism, then it is easy to realize that the term "optional sacred thread" is meaningless. Some of them take it in proper time(in childhood), others take it during marriage. varna-status cannot be optional and every ritual has to be performed according to proper varna-status. So either one has to mandatorily wear the thread during rituals, or he is not entitled to wear it. during Lakshmana Sena's regime (not Ballal), one section of East-Bengali vaidyas were barred from the sacred thread ritual (it was not 'optional' but directive punishment),but they returned to Brahmin ritual during Raja Rajballabh's regime by performing a Shudhhi. You may see the Ballalmohamudgar I have referred to.117.194.3.55 (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have just quoted from a reliable source (obviously including the reference to Ballal Sen), you may go through the source. This is the only way, if you want to improve the content of the article. If you can cite some other reliable source(s), as per our policies (preferably reliable texts available on Google Books, as already mentioned), then we can consider. Whatever you are mentioning regarding sacred thread and ritual status, may be correct, but requires such reliable sources in order to be mentioned here. I could not open 'Ballalmohamudgar' using the link available, if possible you can provide the url/link here. Ekdalian (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok Sir. The problem with Google books is that most of them show only limited pages, hence it at times becomes difficult to find references in Google Books. Anyway, I will certainly look for links like those. On a personal note, what I feel is that even authors who are deemed authentic (most of them are from western background) often fall prey to some errors and speculations, probably that's why first-hand texts on Indian society/rituals/religion , written in Sanskrit/Bengali seem more reliable to me in these cases. Anyway, that is a personal opinion.117.194.3.11 (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I am amazed at how dishonest a person can be. This Mr. Ekdalian asked me repeatedly come with sources. I cited books then he told only google books or online excerpts are considered. Fine, then I gave Online links, yet he continues to delete it whenever I give them. I am surprised why this double-standard is being tolerated here and why this is not considered as vandalism. This Mr. Ekdalian is linking the Ambastha description to a page with Ambastha Kayasthas. That is factually incorrect, Ambastha KAyasthas have no tradition of being born of Brahmin fathers and vaishya mothers and no such thing is mentioned in that Ambastha kayastha page either. On the other hand, that is very definition of Ambastha (i.e., one which is attached to Vaidyas) in shastras and historical works alike. This cannot go on. I have given the link showing that Ambasthas, when applied to vaidyas, refer to that Brahmin-Vaishya offspring. He should have minimum conscience to not repeat such fraudulent vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.23.65 (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Please check the revision history before abusing someone. Check properly who has removed the references and do check the reason he has mentioned in the Edit Summary. Check the revisions one by one so that you can understand. By the way, this talk page is meant for constructive discussions and not for personal attacks. Instead of complaining, you could have improved the content of the article on Ambashtha citing reliable sources. And last but not the least, we have to follow our policies; its not about me, other senior editors and reviewers are also there to take care. Ekdalian (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I have mentioned earlier as well that you should refrain from personal attacks; we can always discuss about edits, and we may agree or disagree. Especially, you are not a regular editor on Wikipedia; therefore, you may not be fully aware of our policies. But personal attacks, and that too in 'Edit summary' is not acceptable. Please note that I have no grudge against any community (forget about hatred). But as far as my edits are concerned, neutrality has to be maintained, and I have to stick to our policies like WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. All senior editors & reviewers are regularly abused, when it comes to sensitive articles like caste related ones; and this is not going to help you. Rather you should use this talk page for constructive discussions.

Coming back to your last edit, please note that we need to arrive at a consensus here before you insert that part. Please explain why a particular statement related to the varna status of the Ambashthas has to be mentioned selectively out of context here, when it is mentioned in details in the article on Ambashtha. Also note that we generally do not accept Raj era sources (and moreover this one is mythological), as far as caste articles are concerned. Still, it has been incorporated in the article on Ambashtha along with context and all. Now, we cannot selectively mention one such statement here; in case this statement is incorporated, we have to mention related statements including counterviews and what differentiates an Ambashtha from a Baidya, which is covered in Ambashtha. You cannot simply cherry-pick one particular statement here. Ekdalian (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

I've just fixed the lead due to some gross misrepresentation of the sources. Am I going to have to check all of the recent changes for similar problems? I'm getting fed up of doing this when it involves people who should know better by now. - Sitush (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Sitush, I should have handled it better. And yes, Bhattacharya and Sadasivan should not be cited, and I 'll take care of the same in the article on Ambashtha. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Bijay Chandra Majumdar is also raj-era, is not it? Jogendranath's book is quoted and referred to by any researcher discussing caste history. Regarding difference between Ambashtha and Vaidya, it is Ambasthta which corresponds to Bengali Baidyas, not the other one. And the reason for putting the varna-status there is because that is the one of the most important reasons vaidyas identify themselves as Brahmins. Lastly, I would like to you know that this allegation of vaidyas themselves starting the upanayana is false, as has been mentioned in many bengali books (including 'Banglar samajik itihas" by Durgabar sanyal)about vaidyas taking sacred thread during Balllal sen era, Vaishnava cultural revival etc., i.e., much before Rajballabh. Now you are taking any online sources and hence I cannot give that (since you do not accept even scanned copies of book), but at least understand that what I am trying is to enrich the article by honest and verified facts, so that the socio-cultural history of the vaidyas get reflected in the article. It is very much saddening and unfortunate that you are using the technical loopholes to prevent others from giving facts and selectively accepting sources to give a skewed look of vaidya history through the scantly available online resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.0.183 (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sitush is a very senior editor, and has expressed concerns regarding "misrepresentation" of sources after reviewing this article. I also agree with his views; both Bhattacharya (not only Raj-era, also too old) and Sadasivan are not acceptable. Therefore, you need to discuss and arrive at consensus here and not just revert to that older version, which has been rejected. Please understand that no one has any grudge on Vaidyas here, and there's no question of using technical loopholes to prevent you from editing as you said. In fact, I have always tried my best to find reliable sources in order to improve this article and did so for years. Also note that its not just online sources, we accept all reliable sources which are verifiable; if the source is reliable, the scanned copy of the relevant page is acceptable. Discuss here instead of engaging in edit war, if you actually want to improve the article.

Do note that the burden of bringing in new references/sources is on you, as per our policies. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Inden

Instead of removing the statement attributed to Ronald Inden, whom even the remover only a few hours before said was a "recognised Indologist", the solution surely lies in providing reliable sources for other opinions. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Well-known Baidyas

There are lists under Dasgupta and Sengupta, but quite a few Baidyas had non-Baidya surnames: e.g. Mohitlal Majumdar, R.C. Majumdar, Bimal Roy. Also, the "Gupta" part of "Dasgupta" and "Sengupta" was a 19th century addition as a definitive caste marker that was by no means universally adopted; so there are plenty of Das and Sen among Baidyas, e.g. Chittaranjan Das, Jibanananda Das, Amartya Sen. And these don't exhaust the surnames. So, given the variety, this article is probably the logical place for a list, as opposed to the specific surname articles. rudra (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

A very late response but here goes ... Surnames are not a guide to caste anyway. At least, not on Wikipedia. See User:Sitush/Common#Castelists for some background on this issue. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

While you are mostly correct, in the specific case of Baidyas, certain surnames (such as Dasgupta and Sengupta) are definitely dispositive. The relevant social history has not been treated at all in the article, which may actually be a good thing, as wikilawyering over content - not infrequently a reaction to enthusiastic contributions of at best anecdotal provenance - generally results in an incoherent mishmash anyway. One of the reasons for my losing interest in Wikipedia, long ago. Cheers. rudra (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Upanayan or Sacred thread Sanskar

The facts regarding Sacred Threat sanskar as written in this article is not completely true. Actually Rahri Baidya never stop this sanskar. The tradition is continued since all ages. Baredra baidya were debarred from this for some time. In 1890 they also started tradition after 'Praschitya' https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.289333/page/n31/mode/1up Go to page no 30. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Will surely check this, Abhishek Sengupta 24; only issue is the source is a Bengali one. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Ekdalian I thought You are Bengali. In case of english the page number at the bottom will be 32.I have given the link, that will directly land you to the page. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

No, Abhishek Sengupta 24. I was talking about other senior editors/admins, who will not understand Bengali. I shall go through the same soon, and validate, and will obviously let you know. Thanks, Ekdalian (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Abhishek Sengupta 24, I have gone through the source provided, and it seems more or less okay. It would be great, if you can find some English source supporting this claim; otherwise, we will see what can be done about this part. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mr Ekdalian You can go through the following source. https://www.scribd.com/doc/292425503/Journal-of-Bengali-Studies-Vol-4-No-2 Page No 95 Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Page 95-96 Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Abhishek Sengupta 24, I could go through one of these two pages due to restricted access. But then, what exactly is your point? Which statement(s) are you referring to from this source? Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I have given two source one in Bengali and other in English.From thsese two sources it is cleared that Ballal sen not divided Vaidya in two part for whom the Upanayan is compulsory and other it's optional,A part of Vaidya was punished because they were in touch of Ballal Sen‍,Who married a hadi woman. Secondly you have mentioned the quote of Mr.SN Mukherjee which is also half true as the part of Vaidya who were debarred from upanayan during the reign of Ballan Sen by Lakshman Sen Re started (Not Started) their tradition after praschitya,Where as Rahti Vaidya Never stopped their tradition. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Connection between Vaidya and Mohyal clan

Hello Ekdaliyan, I want to highlight the following statement from my source T.P Russell Stracy suggested a connection between Vaidya and Mohiyal Vaids" Vaid is a sub-clan of Mohiyal Brahmin as it mentioned in Wikipedia itself. https://www.scribd.com/doc/292425503/Journal-of-Bengali-Studies-Vol-4-No-2 page no-81. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Also the author of the article himself indicated it by defining several similarity between Vaidya and Mohiyal Vaids.

Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, got it. Go ahead with your edit, Abhishek Sengupta 24. I shall review and refine the same later, if required. Thanks.Ekdalian (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks Mr. Ekdaliyan. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Waiting for your reply? Thanks. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Vaidya Kulaji text information.

I have added Kulaji text information to make the document unbiased and also logical. Vaidya claimed Brahmin status -It is true. But reason behind this claim is their Kulaji texts. In the Citation I have given link https://www.scribd.com/doc/292425503/Journal-of-Bengali-Studies-Vol-4-No-2 Please refer to page 81 - 82.In this journal Author first establish relation between Vaidya and Saraswat Brahmin and then stated What kulaji text says starting from the line "The above points are all consistent to the proposition stated in the Vaidya Kulajis (and in later texts) that Saraswata Vaidyas (as mentioned by Durjoy Dash and Jay Sen Biswas)........" Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

In Bengali Brahmin and Kayastha page their Kulaji describtion have already given. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

For detail you may consider page 80-82. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

In saraswat Brahmin Dictionary They also accepted it. However the site is down. I am giving the archived link https://web.archive.org/web/20141106114015/http://saraswatdirectory.com/saraswat6.php Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Abhishek Sengupta 24, let me tell you first that such sites like saraswatdirectory.com are not considered as reliable at all. What we precisely need are sources by reliable & neutral authors. Same is applicable for Journal of Bengali Studies. Is it a reliable source? Nope. Why? Who is the editor? Tamal Dasgupta, a Baidya, as clearly evident from the surname, who will obviously put forward what the Baidyas claim. Please note that for this purpose, we can't consider it as a neutral & reliable source. Baidyas' claim cannot be validated by such biased sources. Please find neutral and reliable authors for such sensitive claims like connection with Saraswat Brahmins. Moreover, there were other issues as well like selective quotation from the page(s) mentioned. Anyway, since the source is unreliable, I am not discussing any other point at this juncture. Hope you understand, and come up with proper reliable & verifiable sources for improving this article. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Kulaji texts of Baidya should be considered here. He just quoted what kulaji texts described. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.56022/page/n488/mode/1up Census report clearly mentioned Vaidya s were invited and given equal treatment as other brahmin. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.237762/page/n142/mode/1up T.P. Russell Stracey is not vaidya. He clearly mentioned Vaidya is actually Vaid of Mohiyal Saraswat. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.50087/page/n215/mode/1up page185 Panchanan Raya also not vaidya he clearly mentioned Vaidya as brother of Mohiyal Vaid. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Go saraswat brahmin wiki page. They already mentionef vaidya as saraswat brahmin.

Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Waiting for your quick reply. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

In this http://dictionary.sensagent.com/Saraswat%20Brahmin/en-en/

Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It is biased view. Kulaji texts should be added. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

All three sources mentioned above - Census Of India 1931, The History Of The Muhiyals (1938) and A Historical Review Of Hindu India (1939), are Raj era sources, and cannot be considered as per long-term consensus. Sites like dictionary.sensagent.com are highly unreliable again. And regarding the Kulaji texts, look at who's interpreting the same? We can't interpret it right? Interpretation by a reliable author may be considered. Last but not the least, if the Wikipedia page on Saraswat Brahmin is incorrect, we need to fix it. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Ekdaliyan The journal is welknown and given what is correct. In this journal authors are of several caste. Check first. I have given all sources above which proves that the journal is correct. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saraswat_Brahmin They accepted vaidya as saraswat brahmin. Who are you? Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I am reverting as I have given each and individual main sources that is mentioned in this journal. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Ekdalian again doing his dirty work. please go through all sources provided by Mr. Abhishek Sengupta. all are from a third-party neutral valid source! why can't you accept the fact that vaidyas of Bengal are pure Saraswat brahmins?

Due to your so called long term consensue I have given the journal as source as it published in 2015 Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

And all claims of journal have proper valied sourcing as I have given. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No personal attacks please! I have clearly explained why each of your source is unreliable. You are citing 3 Raj era sources, one unreliable site (where the same unreliable source is cited) and a journal (2015) edited by a Baidya only thus making it all the more unreliable. You have no point now, it now seems that you are simply what we call here, a caste warrior. So, stop reverting my edits before reaching consensus here; else you may be blocked for edit warring, and the article may also be blocked from further editing, if required. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I want other admin for this. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Bc Mazumdar's book is also from Raj Era Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Leslie's Book is also from Raj era. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, will definitely check these soon (within a day), and remove the content if these are Raj era sources. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Bengaliwikipro pls stop reverting until consensus. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I have called Sitush for this. Pls stop reverting Bengaliwikipro. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Mr abhishek we need a non biased and educated admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengaliwikipro (talk • contribs) 10:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry for this.but this admin ekdalian continuously disrespecting the baidya community!! why would we claim the brahmin status? we are giving all information regarding the connection between bengali Baidyas and saraswat brahmins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengaliwikipro (talk • contribs) 10:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

https://www.scribd.com/doc/292425503/Journal-of-Bengali-Studies-Vol-4-No-2 This is the given journal that I have provided.According to Mr Ekdalian as it is edited by A Dasgupta hence is unreliable because because "Tamal Dasgupta, a Baidya, as clearly evident from the surname, who will obviously put forward what the Baidyas claim". But starting from page 80 to 82 for information given I have provided the main sources which he quoted, Hence reliability is proved here. All books tha is written by other authors is based on individual facts. In case of Baidya caste it is very difficult to find modern author books. The history is most neglected in this case. You might realise it. Hence sime Raj Era books which is written by neutral author Should consider. And the Census Report is not a Book it's Govt Of India Record itself. How it can Be unreliable. By the way How you claim that books written by other authors is non biased wher as There is longterm history of Baidys-Brahmin-Kayastha war is exist. The reliability should not be decided by Surname But By facts that is provided there. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

In my previous edit He accepted it. See the talk page. Now He refuses. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Why Raj Era books are unreliable. Can you elaborate. And Hoe government of India Record itself is unreliable. Most of the caste information are based folklore itself. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ekdalian I have not provided Raj Era books. In the journal citation is already provided. He told about the Census Report Here it is https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.56022 He told about the T. P Russel Stracy's View regarding Vaidya and Vaid Here it is https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.237762/page/n142/mode/1up He told about the view of Panchanan Raya Here it is https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.50087/page/n215/mode/1up page185 Then why my previous edit is also removed?

Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

What he did is just cited other books that is already written by others just what any non baidya writer do. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

In Every claim He provided cotation is given and you can check it. Still it is unreliable. Is it a joke? Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there any other admin available here??? no one is coming to discuss this matter!

Ekdalian is still editing this article even after we are provided valuable sources! is Ekdalian the owner of Wikipedia??

Hello Abhishek Sengupta 24, I can see the source by Mazumdar is a Raj era one. The statement is there probably because no one has contested it. Do you want to remove the same? You can. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No that should be there as He is eminent one. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Search about Stracy He is also eminent and His book is one of the primary sources used by many other historian. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I just want to tell you taht some Raj era sources which are written by neutral writers should be considered at least in case of baidya as I already told you in Sitush page. At least consider my last verson for which you gave me approval. Its my request. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

My last verson regarding Vaidya and Mohiyal is based on those neutral sources. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I stopped after your warning then why protection imposed here. Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I had told you to proceed with your changes, and had also mentioned that I shall review the same later. Anyway, I haven't asked for page protection, this page has been protected by an admin, not involved in this discussion. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)