Talk:Sengupta

Recent Revert
Mr. Ekdalian seems to be very selective about what he considers as unsourced folklore and what is sourced. The origin of Bengali upper castes are primarily depended on such folklores. It is folklore that tells us that 5 brahmans came from kannauj with 5 sudra (kayastha) servants. That is being accepted as history in all pages and academic discussions everywhere. Similarly the 4 Vaidyas' migration is documented in kulaji. Let me search for the e-copies for the kula books (which Mr. Ekdalian will again disregard as "partial") and I will post them. Just amazing how some people misuses their power and authority. Let me know some details about this page magazine, this one-man tyranny cannot continue, this is too much.117.194.14.74 (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Please note that this is not a one-man show. If I don't revert your unsourced information, some other experienced editor or admin will do so, as soon as they notice. Please read WP:RS and WP:V for details. And, as far as articles on caste are concerned, there is a long-standing consensus on what is acceptable and what is not. Since you have mentioned about five Brahmins from Kannauj and five Kayasthas, I would suggest you to go through the article on Kulin Kayastha and check the sources, which are texts by reliable authors, and not based on any kulaji. Even the fact that the Adisur legend is considered as folklore by historians, is supported by valid references in the article. If you actually want to incorporate such stuff, please find reliable sources as per our policies, and not kulajis. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

In that case I must say that the admins are following a illogical way of deciding which is authentic and which is not. The articles or books which you are describing as "valid" or "acceptable" does nothing but refers, compares and supports/rejects various kulajis when it comes to old community-histories. When these things happened there was no so-called valid (as per western printed standards)writings other than kulajis and needless to say, historians meant kulajikars only. The term historian as we mean came only in recent times. "Reliable" authors were not present there As a result they cannot help depend on old texts and gather information ONLY from that. Show me one instance where the historians have not taken into account the old texts/kulajis. Did they invent things out of thin air ? They had to depend on materials from that time and these materials were nothing but various old texts including kulajis. Show me one text, I repeat, where they have not taken into account old texts as their source.

Only if you stop your visible bias against vaidyas and stop distinguishing between kulaji texts (i.e. taking brahman texts regarding rarhi brahmins as authentic and rejecing vaidya texts regarding vaidyas as partial), you would be able to see reason. It is really surprising that you even deleted the sections regarding Dhanvantari and shaktri gotra (these facts are documented in various modern texts also as they involved modern personalities like Dinesh chandra sen). Some other admin will not delete (and in fact have not deleted so far) my facts because of the reason that they do not have hidden bias or agenda. All my articles remain perfectly intact until you come in the stage.117.194.14.74 (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand you are new to Wikipedia. Please go through our policies, before accusing someone of bias. Why should we consider the kulajis of Brahmins and reject that of the Baidyas. Such texts are equally unacceptable. Referring to kulajis would amount to original research based on primary sources, which is not acceptable as per the policies of Wikipedia. And, please stop making comments such as "the admins are following a illogical way of deciding which is authentic and which is not". Any experienced editor or any admin would only act according to our policies, which is obvious. Now, if you question our policies, you should not edit here; this is not a blog. Editing here implies that you agree to the terms and conditions of Wikipedia. For example, if you join an organization or say a government job, you sign certain documents declaring that you would abide by the terms and conditions of service. Now, if you say later on that such terms are illogical, it does not make any sense. I would suggest you once again to go through our policies on reliable sources before further discussions. Also, you may check related articles on caste and the references cited. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

source for ekdalian
1951 census report by A Mitra link - click here p.37 first para, clearly mentioned there is no doubt the vaidya caste was formed by brahmins.Miller110 (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I am also providing you the source from WorldCat library with OCLC details click hereMiller110 (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The user claims to have read our article on Baidya which details the different views on origins of the caste-group and their respective basis in literature, inscriptions etc. Despite, they are hell-bent on adding that Baidyas were originally Brahmins (something not supported by any modern scholar notwithstanding the ahistoricalness) and cite a census document to the same effect.I tried to engage with the editor at my talk-page but it is hard to get across their sealioning tendencies or gross incompetence (take your pick) coupled with an aggressive attitude.TrangaBellam (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am even not even trying to prove the varna status of the vaidya caste.I just mentioned the Bengali Baidya caste was formed by many brahmins who were the component elements of this caste. Miller110 (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

see here in Mitra article the component elements of this caste is clearly mentioned, and I think it is right. the same thing I did here. I just mention the component elements of this baidya caste,also that citing a government cesus report.Miller110 (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Combination of two surnames
Satnam2408, can you provide the quote from the source mentioned? I have no issue with the edit, but will try to improve the language. Ekdalian (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for your query about the improvement of the section. Here is the complete quote  Thanks, Regard Satnam2408 (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey I have made a little modification to make it precise and euphonic. I think The current version is much more consistent with the source. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)