Talk:Vaishya

Trolling

Vaishyas (General Category|OBC in Some region) are given below : Vthera, Patwa,gupta,garg ,Sinduriya-Bania, Mahuri-Vaishya, Avadh-Bania,.. Sinduriya-Bania,Mahuri-Vaishya,Aggrwala, Sudi, Halwai, Roniyar, Pansari, Modi, Kasera,Kesarwani, Thathera, Patwa, Sinduriya-Bania, Gupta teli Tayal,their profession is cow protection , Business. Mahuri-Vaishya, Avadh-Bania, Agrahari-Vaishya(gupta,mittal,garg),marw… Teli,Garg,modi,modh vaishyas,Sudi, Halwai, Roniyar, Pansari,Patidar ,soni,sunar,patel,borwa,rao,reddy, SC bania are Garg,teli,kasyap,birttal bania Ambanis are Vaishyas. small>—Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.151.247 (talk • contribs)

It seems that you haven't yet stopped trolling.

• Singhania is not Rajput, but Vaishya. Read Lakshmipat Singhania: his concepts and creations by P. Chentsal Rao (University of Michigan).
• Ambani is also a Vaishya caste. Read The concept of rājadharma by Dr. Michael (ISBN: 8175741570, 9788175741577).
• It is a well-known fact that Dhoot belongs to Maheshwari caste, not Jatt caste.
• You haven't provided a single source to back your above claims.

Due to the fact that you have a dynamic ip, no action can be taken against you for your repeated disruptive edits. As a consequence, the only option left was to temporarily protect the article. Continue with your antics, and this article will be protected indefinitely. --King Zebu (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

lohana are not vishya.by Y cromozome lineage and bita thalasemiya DNA test report lohana,bhatiya,meena rajput syryavanshi,jats,sindhi panjabi,percian are same lineage people so please remove lohana as a vaishya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.47.114.6 (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

lohana prove their connection with rathod(jaychand of kanoj),and prove that they are suryavanshi kshatriya,so i suggest to remove it from this page.Bhavinkundaliya (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

90% of Vaish subcaste originate from kshatriya. Agarwal : Maharaj Agrasen Maheswari:God Shiva Khandelwal:Raja Khandel Barnwal:Raja Aherwarn Porwal:Raja Puru The list is very long. Prominent Vaish King : Chandragupt, Ashok, Vikrmaditya, Harshvardhan,Hemu etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuarun (talk • contribs) 12:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources? - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Indian ancient society was a group of different tribes or clans. The important Clans were Lunar Dynasty ( the Chandra Vansa), Solar Dynasty ( the Surya Vansa.) etc. Vaishya also originate from above clans. Reference: 1)The Tribes and Castes of the Central , Provinces of India,By R.V. Russell, Macmillan and Co., Limited St. Martin’s Street, London. 1916. Chapter 6. The Banias derived from the Rājpūts. 2) Mittal, J.P. (2006), History of Ancient India (4250 BC to 637 AD) 3) Bharatendu Harishchandra, Agrawalon ki Utpatti, 1871.etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuarun (talk • contribs) 10:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Russell is a poor source and anything from 1871 is too old (as well as most likely exactly the sort of stuff that Russell, Rose etc relied upon). We have to be extremely careful regarding sanskritisation, which really muddied the waters. I have a vague feeling that Mittal has been criticised as unreliable but I'll look into it. - Sitush (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, can you give me an ISBN for Mittal. And a page number where he refers to 90% etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Banyan merchants

Banyan merchants redirect here, but only Banyan (clothing) mentions them. Whyzat?--Pawyilee (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Banyan merchants no longer redirect here, but may drop by to visit. --Pawyilee (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Naming Vaishya groups

There are a few communities named in the article and the text clearly says that it is not an inclusive list. Nor should it be, since it would be long. I suppose that there might be an argument for creating List of Vaishya communities but we do have Category:Vaishya community and that should suffice. - Sitush (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

dvija

Vaisyas do not claim the dvija status,but all scriptures mention then as dvijas,the reference sources used needs to be changed. Nijgoykar (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that the existing source is unreliable? What source do you propose instead? Why should we not show both opinions? - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Guides on pronunciation (phonetic) would be useful for each of the varnas, either/and here or in their respective articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.200.25 (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hospitals

The History of hospitals article lists a Vaishya as an early type of hospital. That is why I added the Category:Hospitals to this article. -- Talk to G Moore 00:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

No, Vaishya is an Indian social class. While a few Vaishyas may have created hospitals, their traditional occupation was mercantile. Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sage Jajali is honoured by the Vaishya Tuladhara.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Is vaishya Newar?

I wanna know that is vaishya Newar?? 2407:1400:AA19:6720:B069:8539:1147:1F72 (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Reversion of edit

It is abundantly clear to me that the reversor, who claims to be from India, is quite ignorant about the Hindu society, otherwise he/she would not have reverted it. Anyways, per the comment, I am bringing this up on the talk page. The statement, Therefore making it their responsibility to provide sustenance for those of higher class, since they were of lower class. is a blatant falsehood in all parts: All the varnas were to work hand in hand. The vaishyas were rich business people who maintained the economics of the society and it was not their specific responsibility to provide sustencance for "those of higher class". The "lower class" statement also makes no sense: they were high class by means of their wealth and patronage from the kings; they were indeed considered lower in caste or birth from the Kshatriyas and Brahmanas but they are always included in the "twice-born" group in Hindu scriptures and traditionally also wore the sacred thread by the means of Upanayanam. There are endless sources that support this, including the scriptures and a lot of books. For now, I will be editing it to improve its accuracy without removing the statement. 2405:201:300E:2031:1D2D:91DE:43ED:47C1 (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment on the content please; personal attacks are not acceptable at all! We all know what you have mentioned above. Anyway, please avoid WP:OR/WP:SYN and stick to the reliably sourced statements. I am not reverting your edit now; let other experienced editors review the same! Ekdalian (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for not reverting again. I apologise if you think I personally attacked you, but comment was not intended as such: ignorant about the Hindu society did not have any negative connotations. It is just that I frown upon edits made without knowledge or reversion just for the sake of reverting to the status quo before that edit. As someone who has tried correcting informations on Wikipedia before, I have often got the impression that IP edits are considered second-class and are more prone to reversions.

We all know what you have mentioned above. Let me be frank, this is certainly not the impression I got from your reversion. 2405:201:300E:2031:20DE:6D14:4667:AB34 (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)