Talk:Bengali Brahmin

• A little tidying up is required. --Bhadani 08:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

placed appropriate tags

due to lack of citations and other appropriate tags are placed , kindly try to improve the article by placing necessary citations and/or rewrite it according to wiki . regards : --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Baidya

Hi,

   Can anyone provide more details about Bengali Baidyas and how they are a part of Brahmin community? I want to know more.

this article says that kayasth clan was formed by the servants of Brahmins. Historically, this is wrong. The history of Kayastha community can be veiwed in its wikipedia entry.

Vaishya Sudras

Vaidyas are vaishya sudras I think but after the British Govt. advrtsed for caste mobilisation , they applied for higher status like Ayurvedic Brahmins.117.194.199.64 (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Tags

The article Bengali Brahmins was in a bad shape. I added a lot of well referenced material, although I was not able to get as many sources as I would have liked, because most of modern scholars are not interested in such topics. I think present tags are too strict to implement, and may induce some less informed editor to destroy this article partially or wholly. Instead of placing tags, one should ask editors to improve this article. I fear one will not get editors to one's liking, because relevant academic sources are hard to find, as far as this article is concerned. If one pushes the matter, he/she will attract only chauvinists who will destroy this article. -VJha (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

yup i agree , hope these tags will attract bengal members so tht it may take a good shape , its a good work from ur part . regards:--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Added 'Genetics' Heading

Mr. Fylind Brahmin and Bengali Brahmin are not same.The zonal and local character is most important.Many mysterious things are there.117.194.202.227 (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I added a section on genetics of the caste group. Hope that is beneficial for the article... --Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The reference of Haplogroup percentages under Genetics section is absolutely as per wikipedia guidelines listed Wikipedia:PSTS.

Policy on Primary Source-

Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

Took Sengupta et al as the primary source. I did not misuse the data provided by it. Check the references.

Policy on Primary Source-
A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge.

Policy on Secondary Source-

Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.

Any educated person may calculate the percentages as such. Besides it is a norm to present the data as percentages. Check any article on Haplogroup in wikipedia or outside sources.

As far as the analytic and evaluative claims are concerned, I’ve taken the "….as a founder lineage for this caste group." line from Sharma et al which is a significant secondary source for the Sengupta study. Besides these Sengupta et al has been referenced in 19 articles listed here which according to WP guidelines provide plenty of secondary sources for the published Sengupta Data. --Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Genetic Data Doubtful

Hindu Genealogy

The 49 established gotras are clans or families whose members trace their descent to a common ancestor, usually a sage of ancient times. The gotra proclaims a person's identity and a "gotraspeak" is required to be presented at Hindu ceremonies. People of the same gotra are not allowed to marry.

One company says it can use a 37-marker Y-DNA test to "verify genetic relatedness and historical gotra genealogies for Hindu and Buddhist engagements, marriages and business partnerships." This has not been supported by independent research. Any Y-DNA test can be used to compare results with another person whose gotra is known.

Doubts and drawbacks Genealogical DNA tests have become popular due to the ease of testing at home and their supplementing genealogical research. Genealogical DNA tests allow for an individual to determine with high accuracy whether he or she is related to another person within a certain time frame, or with certainty that he or she is not related. DNA tests are perceived as more scientific, conclusive and expeditious than searching the civil records. But, they are limited by restrictions on lines which may be studied. The civil records are always only as accurate as the individuals who provided or wrote the information.

The aforementioned Y-DNA testing results are normally stated as probabilities: For example, a perfect 12/12 marker test match gives a 90% likelihood of the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) being within 23 generations, while a 67 of 67 marker match gives the same 90% likelihood of the MRCA being within 4 generations back.[5]

As presented above in mtDNA testing, if a perfect match is found, the mtDNA test results can be helpful. In some cases, research according to traditional genealogy methods encounters difficulties due to the lack of regularly recorded matrilineal surname information in many cultures.(see Matrilineal surname).[7] [edit] Drawbacks

Common concerns about genealogical DNA test are cost and privacy issues (some testing companies retain samples and results for their own use without a privacy agreement with subjects). The most common complaint from DNA test customers is the failure of the company to make results understandable to them.

DNA tests can do some things well, but there are constraints. Testing of the Y-DNA lineage from father to son may reveal complications, due to unusual mutations, secret adoptions, and false paternity (i.e. the father in one generation is not the father in birth records.) According to some genomics experts, autosomal tests may have a margin of error up to 15% and blind spots.[citation needed]

Some users have recommended that there be government or other regulation of ancestry testing to ensure more standardization.[24] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.207.244 (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Phenomenological Anthropology does not support the statistics. Different groups reported different proportions.The data shows an intentionality towards establishment of an old system.The high percentage in a far away valley from its origin at central Asia is really astonishing. Hands of Brahma should be kept aside first.117.194.199.201 (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of only 39 individuals cant say more than that r1a1 and r2 presence.It is also without chi-square test.And also that ISI Calcutta analysis changed the % from below 40 to more than 70.All data changed but mysteriously maintaining the Caste gradation.And that Bengali Brahmin have % equal to the Turkies but more than Pakistanis and Afgans.Very funny research scholars India. This is also not clear How Indo-European culture got related with this.Which stupid or idiotic theory does conform to such conclusion.Are you trying to build the basis of another Apartheid .117.194.202.227 (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The jewish data a popular Gossip

he Cohanim (or Kohanim) is a patrilineal priestly line of descent in Judaism. According to the Bible, the ancestor of the Cohanim is Aaron, brother of Moses. Many believe that descent from Aaron is verifiable with a Y-DNA test: the first published study in genealogical Y chromosome DNA testing found that a significant percentage of Cohens had distinctively similar DNA, rather more so than general Jewish or Middle Eastern populations. These Cohens tended to belong to Haplogroup J, with Y-STR values clustered unusually closely around a haplotype known as the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH). This could be consistent with a shared common ancestor, or with the hereditary priesthood having originally been founded from members of a single closely related clan.

Nevertheless, the original studies tested only six Y-STR markers, which is considered a low-resolution test. Such a test does not have the resolution to prove relatedness, nor to estimate reliably the time to a common ancestor. The Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH), while notably frequent among Cohens, also appears in the general populations of haplogroups J1 and J2 with no particular link to the Cohen ancestry. So while many Cohens have haplotypes close to the CMH, many more of such haplotypes worldwide belong to people with no likely Cohen connection at all. According to researchers (Hammer), it is only the CMH that is found in J1 that is to be attributed to the Aaron lineage, not the CMH in J2. Jews with the CMH in both J1 and J2 cannot all be descended from one man who lived approximately 3,300 years ago, because J1 diverged from J2 10,000 years ago.

Resolution may be increased by the testing of more than six Y-STR markers. For some, this could help to establish relatedness to particular recent Cohen clusters. For many, the testing is unlikely to distinguish definitively shared Cohen ancestry from that of the more general population distribution. So far no published research indicates what extended Y-STR haplotype distributions appear to be characteristic of Cohens.

Although some high-resolution testing has been done, to date the results have not been released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.207.244 (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In "Bengali Brahmins" article about "Kayastha Bengali Brahmins" are not mentioned. why?

In "Bengali Brahmins" article about "Kayastha Bengali Brahmins" are not mentioned. why? According to the "Kayastha" article in wikipedia Kayastas are Brahmins and holding dual cast status Brahmin and Kshatriya. So kindly mention all "Bengali Kayastha Brahmins" peoples name and there titles in the "Bengali Brahmins" Article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.227.130.233 (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Caste Mobilisation and Demand of Higher Status

After the British India Govt. gave notice for application for Higher cast status then only different cast started demanding higher or in most cases having some proximity with the Brahmins.Even a section of one caste-group started wearing sacred thread.This custom later spread to many communities in different states of India.

But neither ever The British Govt. changed any status nor ever the Brahmin acknowledged any community into their sect. In Bengal they were always very rigid to the status of Sudra status for all and the lowest part beyond consideration. Any one can find the documents of Mahafejkhana( Govt. Archive) .Any demand or forceful inclusion is vandalism .Everyone knows in Brahmasamaj also such demand was turned down and never ever acknowledged.We find some vandalism .117.194.201.134 (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Modifications and Reorganization

Hi Everyone,

I have made edits/ modifications to the History section which I am listing below:

--- Organized the section in a verifiable chronological sequence (earliest to latest)
--- Added description of a copper plate of Dhanaidaha and provided reference
--- Then talked about literary sources which may not always be chronologically verifiable (llike Mahabharata, Ramayana, etc)
--- Updated the classification of Bengali brahmins to the scholarly format as described in various texts like "Hindu Catse and Sects", "Banger Jatiya Itihaash" etc
--- Have cited multiple references wherever possible including specifying page numbers wherever possible.

The Traditional Accounts section needs to be organized properly and chronologically as the traditional history of each type of Brahmins are different:

--- Sapta-shati's are pre Adisura and migrations of some are linked to Chandravarman (4th century C.E)
--- Shakdvipi related to Shasanka (7th century CE)
--- Radhi and Varendri - migration related to Adisura (possible Jayanta of 750 C.E) - ref to Kalhanas Rajatarngini esp the exploits of Jayapida (contemporary of Jayanta) grandson of Lalitaditya
--- Paschatya Vaidik - migration during Muhammad Ghaznis invasion (1000 C.E)
--- Dakshinatya Vaidiks during 1050 C.E during Chalukya king Vikramaditya VI reign

Subdivions like Pirali, Patati need to be treated under each section. We should finalize a basic template which we may discuss.

Subhodeep Mukhopadhyay (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Attitude Problem

I feel there is an attitude problem in the presentation of the article.Mythological identity can't be substantiated.Indians have destroyed there tribal identity or had been so, and adopted instead ,the profession based caste identity [ preceded by colour based ( fare , dark and very dark )] and subsequently these were justified in the name of religions though it would have been better if they could have preserved their tribal identity.

This article basically a bad mixture of so many mythological hypothesis.Then there is an effort of substantiation through genome analysis.But the decision has been pre-meditated ; At least some people must have remembered the "Volga To Ganga" by some Rahul Sankrittayan ( is he an Indian ? ) .Most probably he was influenced by the German Jewish Haters and thought of huge Aryan World.

India is a miserable admixture of everything like the Latin America. So to interpret the Genome data of a community which is spreading over a large geographical extension like Bengal a large number of data is necessary.Over the regions the phenomenological anthropology varies sharply for every caste. Only those spreading over a small region show uniformity.I may be wrong but so far my knowledge goes about India ( as their last British monarchy had documented) , this is the reality. And the interpretation becomes a ugly fiction.

Genome identity is like Quantumgenesis theory .Both Y-clad and Mitochondrial dna- clad are two imaginary functions determined statistically with respect to a standard reference and the product of these two is the reality .If you see an r1a1 Russian and an Indian ,you will feel like comparing a hell and heaven.So this is an absurdity.

Biased and Full of Discriminatory Attitude and Interpretation : Worst Article

The harappadna.org ,paper or gobbledegock , what it is , does not contain any specific information ,What is other Bengalis? There is no data of Bengali Kayasthas or Vaidyas .This private financed research had no credibility.The research of Cohanim ancestry had revealed the fact. I think the crude data and the detailed analysis has to be given. 30 - 40 rich people managed a sample analysis that gives no reliability. It is extremely insulting and demeaning to use terms like other Bengalis. A Govt survey of at least 50% of a community population can give such credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.205.219 (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

About Panchavedic Brahmins

Sources need to be cited for "Panchavedic Brahmins". Original research is not as per wikipedia policy - plus the neutrality of the section was questionable as user Anionmission used terms like "greatest" / "highest" which is not as per Wikipedia usage policies.

He/ she needs to: a. Remove capitalization and use proper cases b. Cite verifiable sources / articles/ scholarly articles/ peer reviewed research c. Desist from original research d. Use proper formatting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhodeep Mukhopadhyay (talk • contribs) 13:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The R1a and Proto-Indo-European connection

R1a has been variously associated with:

• the re-colonization of Eurasia during the Late Glacial Maximum.
• the expansion of the Kurgan people from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, which is associated with the spread of the Indo-European languages.

The Modern studies for R1a1 (M17) suggest that it have originated in South Asia and have found its way initially from Western India (Gujarat) through Pakistan and Kashmir, then via Central Asia and Russia, before finally coming to Europe"..."as part of an archaeologically dated Paleolithic movement from east to west 30,000 years ago. so its clear that R1a has clinical connections to the PIE people. Nirjhara (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What is your source for the words "found its way initially from Western India (Gujarat) through Pakistan and Kashmir, then via Central Asia and Russia, before finally coming to Europe"? This very specific itinerary does not appear in the Underhill et al article you cite.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

References in Bengali Brahmins

• We have FACEBOOK GROUP as a platform for discussion in subject to enrich our inner soul, Bangali Bramhan {{citation}}: |last= has generic name (help)
• We have FACEBOOK COMMUNITY PAGE as a platform for discussion in subject to enrich our inner soul, বাঙ্গালী ব্রাহ্মণ Bangali Bramhan {{citation}}: |last= has generic name (help)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bengali Brahmins's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Semino2000":

• From Brahmin: Semino et al. (2000)
• From Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA): Semino et al. (2000)
• From Haplogroup H (Y-DNA): Semino O, Passarino G, Oefner PJ; et al. (2000). "The genetic legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in extant Europeans: a Y chromosome perspective". Science. 290 (5494): 1155–9. doi:10.1126/science.290.5494.1155. PMID 11073453. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Here is the reference link: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/290/5494/1155 I guess the parents are found.Nirjhara (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The Brahmin and R1a references you cite are using a "harvard citation" template which takes you down to another part of the article, where you can see the details and check properly...

• R1a has Semino, O.; Passarino, G; Oefner, PJ; Lin, AA; Arbuzova, S; Beckman, LE; De Benedictis, G; Francalacci, P et al. (2000), "The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective", Science 290 (5494): 1155–59, Bibcode 2000Sci...290.1155S, doi:10.1126/science.290.5494.1155, PMID 11073453. Copy can be found at http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ConciseMacedonia/Y_Hromosomes.pdf.
• Brahmin seems to show signs that the "harvard" reference was copied from another article, incompletely. In order for these references to work properly you need to have a references section below, using a citation template. See R1a for examples.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)