Talk:Baidya

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 LukeEmily yes, I think it can be an issue here. In the Bengali Kayastha article, I was advised by a moderator of Wikipedia: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 TrangaBellam and Ekdalian, 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 "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them", 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)

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event ... An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment.
— WP:PRIMARY

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)

• @TrangaBellam please come to the content related dispute one by one. " It mentioned the Baidyas as an occupational caste, equivalent to the Ambasthas, deriving from a famous mythical episode. Brahmins ordained the Ambasthas to follow the Sudra code and conferred a monopoly to practice Ayurveda." 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 Wikipedia: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)

Vaidyas are Brahmins

Hello everyone. Here after a long time. Had a good fight with Ekdalian two years back. Took the help of Arnold Sir, I think Mr Arnold Reinhold. For everybody's information, I am going to Kashi for Vedic analysis regarding the Brahminical status of Vaidyas. Vedas hold the highest authority in Hinduism. And all Vaidyas are not from South India. Please read Vaidyas of Bengal modified Scribd article by Mr Raibatak Sengupta. The first stream of Vaidyas ( Sadhha Vaidyas) came from Karnataka and the second stream (Sidhha Vaidyas) came from Ambastha ( ancient Punjab). Anirban Kolkata Anirban Kolkata (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey Anirban Kolkata, please note that Vedas and Puranas are considered as primary sources here (read WP:PRIMARY) and cannot be cited here. The article by Sengupta is again unreliable; we use high quality reliable sources only especially in caste articles. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I think there is Double standard going on. In the Baidya article of Wikipedia, Brahma vaivarta purana has been used to prove that Vaidyas are Shudras.

Wikipedia must understand that Vedas are the ultimate authority in Hinduism regarding any dispute. Hinduism without Vedas is an utopia.

The best quality reliable source of Hinduism is Vedas. It is the DIVINE TRUTH, AND NOT ANY MAN MADE TRUTH.

Hope you understand Ekdalian :-)

Anirban Kolkata Anirban Kolkata (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

No, sorry! You have simply failed to understand, Anirban Kolkata! High quality sources by modern scholars have been used here which interprets the Upapuranas, the Upapuranas have not been cited. Vedas, Mahabharata, etc are not accepted by us, and several editors trying to cite the same (even after warnings) have been blocked from editing. Ekdalian (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Bold

The Upapuranas played a significant role in the history of Bengal: they propagated and established Brahminic ideals in the hitherto-impure fringes of Aryavarta and accommodated elements of the vernacular culture to gain acceptance among masses. In the process, they became evidence of sociocultural negotiations that transpired in late-medieval Bengal.

Bṛhaddharma Puraṇa (Brh. P.; c. 13th century) was the earliest document to chronicle a hierarchy of castes in Bengal and it became the standard text for popular negotiations of caste status. It mentioned the Baidyas as a occupational caste, equivalent to the Ambasthas, deriving from a famous mythical episode where Brahmins had them ordained to be the highest of Shudras and conferred a monopoly to practice Ayurveda. 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.

THIS IS A PART OF THE BAIDYA ARTICLE CURRENTLY PUBLISHED IN WIKIPEDIA. IT IS CLEARLY STATING ABOUT TWO PURANAS WHICH ARE OF MEDIEVAL BENGAL ORIGIN THAT HAS BEEN RE-WRITTEN BY BENGALI "PUNDITS" SUSPECTED TO HAVE BIASED MINDSET TOWARDS THE VAIDYA COMMUNITY.

I THINK THE CHATURVEDAS OF THE RISHIS ARE FAR BETTER SOURCES THAN THESE TAMPERED PURANAS EKDALIAN :-)

Anirban Kolkata Anirban Kolkata (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you fear the truth Ekdalian. I will consult with the highest editorial board of Wikipedia regarding this. Anirban Kolkata Anirban Kolkata (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I AM GOING FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION EKDALIAN AS ADVISED BY ARNOLD REINHOLD SIR. SEE YOU THERE :-) Anirban Kolkata Anirban Kolkata (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I am talking about our policies, Anirban Kolkata! Unlike you, I am not here to promote any caste, I edit hundreds of caste related articles for years! And, please note that I am not the main architect of this current version! Wikipedia will continue to maintain the standard irrespective of the views of WP:SPAs! Ekdalian (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution process started. Thanks Arnold Sir. Anirban Kolkata Anirban Kolkata (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I can provide Govt. of India website where the views of Sayanacharya establishing Vaidyas as Brahmin is clearly there from Vedic shlokas. Sayanacharya is that ancient Indian Vedic scholar who has been followed by all modern Western Vedic scholars like HH Wilson. Wikipedia is that reliable, verifiable source ? Anirban Kolkata (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess you have posted in the wrong page, not the DRN (rather the talk page), Anirban Kolkata!

@TrangaBellam, LukeEmily, and Satnam2408: you may enlighten this new user if you want to! Pinging these editors since this represents the last consensus version! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey Anirban Kolkata , please understand the Vedas, Puranas and related sources generally fall under the primary source category. These sources can not be accepted as reliable until duly interpreted by some modern scholars. Those sources which refer to and analyse the contents of primary sources are secondary sources. We consider these secondary sources for such caste-related articles. The secondary sources should also be of good quality. Please note original research or your interpretation is strictly prohibited in Wikipedia. Hence Ekdalian is correct. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC).

Hello Mr Abhishek Sengupta 24, I have posted my Veda primary and secondary source in the Dispute Resolution page. Hope Transporter Man sir will mediate between me and Ekdalian soon. Thanks Satnam for atleast accepting the koulinno of Vedas :-) Anirban Kolkata (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello Anirban Kolkata, I was pinged here. We cannot use primary sources directly. Ekdalian and Satnam2408 have explained it very well. If you have a modern interpretation (not just literal translation) by a scholar, please can you quote it? Second, the Baidyas(or Vaidyas) did not exist as a caste in the Vedic times. If you are saying the ancestors of present day Baidyas could have been Brahmins, maybe that is true IMHO given their high literacy and knowledge of Sanskrit - but we need reliable sources for such opinions.LukeEmily (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Mr Emily, I have stated my primary and secondary Vedic source of Baidyas being Brahmins in the Dispute Resolution page of Transporter Man. The Bengali Baidyas are actually linked to the North Indian Vaids. As a political election is going to take place in my state West Bengal, I will continue my work here after 11th July, 2023. Thankyou. Anirban Kolkata (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes Mr Anirban Sengupta you are right. Joaquinreal (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Vedic Vaidyas may or may not be Brahmins but Bengali Baidyas represent a distinct caste (varna status is disputed)

Hey Anirban Kolkata, this section is basically meant for you! You seem to be so much engrossed, desperately trying to promote the caste that you have forgotten that Vedic Vaidyas and Bengali Baidyas are not the same! Anyway, Vedas are not allowed to be cited here (primary source, already explained); but even if we could find proper interpretation of the Vedas by a modern reliable author, it would not be applicable for Bengali Baidyas! The Bengali Baidya represents a distinct caste, which was initially a professional group like the Kayastha and possibly recognized as a full-fledged caste during the Senas, as per reliable sources. It has got nothing to do with the Vedic Vaidyas! Hope you understand that the Vedic society was completely different from the medieval society and this article clearly represents the Baidya caste of Bengal, the only region where this professional group went on to form a distinct caste, thanks to the peculiar systems introduced by the orthodox Senas! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Well Ekdalian, My personal ritualistic surname is SenSharma and according to Bhavishya Purana, Sensharma or Sharma is the first Brahmin surname. You can easily find this out in Google. There is no difference between Vedic Vaidyas and Bengali Baidya Brahmin caste. The only difference is that Vedic Vaidyas lived in Aryavarta/Brahmavarta and Bengali Vaidyas lived in Bengal ( Patitbhumi, outside Aryavarta.) Caste history is best known by the members of the caste, not by outsiders. Baidya Brahmins are linked to the Saraswat Mohyal Brahmins of Punjab, and I can give you multiple evidence of that, if you can accept it. The Sidhha Vaidyas had migrated from Ambastha (ancient Punjab) to Bengal. Veda was mainly written in the Saraswati river region. Thus this is the clear proof that Sen Brahmin like myself is clearly linked with Vedic people.My ancestry is from North India.

As far as Sen kings are concerned, they are a mysterious and controversial lot. Many people claim that Kulinism was started by them, but that is disputed. Kulin Brahmin theories regarding origin from Kanauj/Kanyakubja and the other myths are also disputed by modern historians. So the caste system formed by Sen kings is actually a disputed subject.

BEING A LAWYER OF HON. CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, I HAVE DECIDED TO CONTINUE MY WORK IN THIS SITE AFTER THE RESULTS OF THE WEST BENGAL PANCHAYAT ELECTIONS ARE DECLARED ON 11TH JULY, 2023. THIS IS BEING DONE FOR THE GREATER INTEREST OF THE SOCIETY OF WEST BENGAL. I HOPE EVERYBODY WILL UNDERSTAND. THANKS. Anirban Kolkata (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey Anirban_Kolkata, your surname SenSharma hardly means anything! Anyone can change their surname, you must be aware as a legal professional! As per reliable sources, most of the Baidyas appended either Gupta (in order to claim Vaishya status) or Sharma (in order to claim Brahmin status) during the medieval/late medieval period; and thus Sen became Sengupta or SenSharma! You have not yet come up with any reliable source, and all your narratives are oral, typically what we hear from our Baidya friends and families! We all know that the Baidyas (in spite of being a great community in terms of education and qualities) have literally left no stone unturned in order to claim Brahmin status through centuries, but failed! Therefore, no one believes in your narratives, which are mostly fabricated ones promoted by a part of the Baidya community! We only believe in reliable sources and fortunately we have plenty of them. If you are serious, please avoid your original research (WP:OR), and bring reliable sources (supporting your claims) here.

I shall no longer participate in such discussions unless you provide reliable sources, as per our policies. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Joaquinreal (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2023

Many Baidyas didn't give up their right to wear the sacred thread after those pseudo purans. Please add that. Joaquinreal (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Add this information "But in places like Srikhanda in Burdwan district and Senbhum in Manbhum district , the Vaidyas continued to practise the usages of the Brahmanas in as much as the right of wearing sacred thread was not given up" after the line "Nripendra Kumar Dutt held these Upapuranas as tools for Brahmin law-makers to deprive Vaidyas of its mixed-caste privileges such as a sacred thread." Joaquinreal (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

source : https://www.scribd.com/document/368079149/Vaidyas-of-Bengal-Modified Joaquinreal (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey Joaquinreal, this is not a typical "change X to Y" sort of modification. You want to add a statement to this WP:STABLE version, and such changes require discussion and WP:CONSENSUS among editors! Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Mr Ekdalian how to apply for it? Joaquinreal (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this your only source? In that case, you need to find reliable & verifiable source(s) by modern reliable authors and typically published by reputed publisher(s); the source cited above won't be considered as reliable! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Mr Raibatak Sen Gupta is a professor, why he is not reliable? Joaquinreal (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Where? I mean which institution/University? And more importantly, which subject? Which publisher has published his work, which seems to glorify his own community! Please note that this is a contentious topic! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I searched a bit about him but couldn't find anything about him, I guess he is not that famous. Can I use a source which is already present in this page? Joaquinreal (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I have already mentioned about consensus; anyway, you may place your request here citing an existing source. Ekdalian (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

A sention of Brahmins tried to reduce the status of Baidyas by using these puranas and mythical stories. But many Baidyas still didn't give up their Brahminical rights. Please add that. Joaquinreal (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Why I can't edit this article? there is a lock sign. Joaquinreal (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Provide source details including page number, url and quote. The article is blocked from editing in order to prevent vandalism! Ekdalian (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

link - https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.124919/page/n80/mode/1up?view=theater

quote - "But in places like Srikhanda in Burdwan district and Senbhum in Manbhum district the Vaidyas did not give up the right of wearing the sacred thread." Joaquinreal (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

We can close this semi-protected edit request now; and as a user, you may start a new topic with an appropriate name, say 'Addition of related content', where you can share the details mentioned above & request for consideration of the same. Ekdalian (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

ok, I will copy and paste this. Joaquinreal (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Addition of related content

Please add this information "But in places like Srikhanda in Burdwan district and Senbhum in Manbhum district the Vaidyas did not give up the right of wearing the sacred thread."

Source link - https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.124919/page/n80/mode/1up?view=theater Joaquinreal (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)