Talk:Varna (Hinduism)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sikh texts

SimranSidhu, there is no point in reinstating content without addressing the the objection. You need to use SECONDARY sources and summarise what they say (not quote them). And PRIMARY sources should only be quoted as examples, but only if the SECONDARY sources do so. Since the Sikh texts are not promoting varna, there is no need to quote them at all. Perhaps Ms Sarah Welch can help you work out a reasonable content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3, apologies if I am shaky on the rules. I'm not the most experienced Wiki contributor and am still learning how to give quality contributions.

Are you suggesting that I paraphrase the writings of Patwant Singh and follow them with a citation? If so, I am more than happy to do that.

Regarding citations from the Guru Granth Sahib itself, I think if there is a section titled "Varna in Sikh Texts" the first "Sikh text" that ought to be cited is the Guru Granth Sahib itself. Beyond that, Patwant Singh is a Sikh writer of repute.

The idea that Eleanor Nesbitt's is the only "Sikh text" quoted to explain Sikhism's position on caste/varna seems an oddity, especially when there appears to be an issue quoting Sikh scripture directly.

Again, please bear with any mistakes or misunderstandings on my part. I assure you that I am doing my best. SimranSidhu (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, my revert was based on the format. I don't have all that much to say about the content itself, except that, when writing about religion, it is best not to cite the insiders. They will generally tend to present their religion in the best light and won't be critical about it. Other editors more knowledgeable about the Sikh literature might have comments on whether Patwant Singh is acceptable or not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@SimranSidhu: Primary sources should be avoided here, for reasons @Kautilya3 explains. Patwant Singh is a Sikh writer, but per WP:NPOV and WP:Fringe, we must avoid sources that do not reflect peer-reviewed mainstream scholarship. Wikipedia articles attempt to cover a subject as an encyclopedic reference source, not an advocacy nor every interesting or unusual idea/opinion/interpretation. Prof. Nesbitt's publication by Oxford University Press is a fine source and meets wikipedia's quality and other guidelines. I made a quick check into Nesbitt and the section looks fine, though I would reword a few things in there and add a few more scholarly sources. This a high level article on varna, and that should the focus here. Kautilya3/others: should the article be retitled to Varna (Indian religions) rather than Varna (Hinduism)? It can't be Varna, as that is a seaside city in Bulgaria. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah. I think that, for balance, we need do something like what this encyclopedia does. The Sikh texts don't condone caste distinctions, but in practice it still happens. (I think the term caste in this article is basically used in the same sense as varna.)

I am fine with Varna (Hinduism). Hinduism is the mother of the concept, even if the other religions borrow it in bits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3: Indeed, the 3rd and 4th para of page 42 in the Singha source in particular. Please summarize it in. Another good scholarly source with a historical summary of varna in Sikhism is by Prof. Oberoi. See pages 105-108 in particular along with the footnotes. History has been complicated, as it often is!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC) (I can email me you scans of those pages, if you do not have them handy) Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3: I have updated the Sikhism section. Please review and revise to improve it further. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

VarnAshrama Dharma includes both Varna Dharma and Ashrama Dharma

VarnAshrama Dharma is leading to this page which includes only Varna and not Ashrama posted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashrama_(stage) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.78.165.224 (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Sooo... what do you want to change? PepperBeast (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Narration of path introduced Varna's

The Ravibggayathri (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

External linkage to the hymns

In this article (and others that belong to Wikipedia Hinduism) there are inline inclusion of the Hymns, which are either from the Vedas or other texts. But are there any unified and reliable external sources that we can link out-of-band of Wikipedia? For example, in the Biblical doctrines, people include external linkage to blueletterbible or bible gateway (there are also Wikipedia templates for those) and for Islamic doctrines, there are sites like www.perseus.tufts.edu for instance which are included inline. Do we have a similar provider for Vedic and Bhagavad Gita hymns? Any idea? Wiki Linuz ( 💬  ) 06:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Wisdom Lib carries old non-crit. translations TrangaBellam (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Wisdom Library does sound promising, but I'm not sure if it's allowed to link it in Wikipedia, excluding the fact that the URI doesn't exactly matches the verses (I guess they do some internal processing). Wiki Linuz ( 💬  ) 08:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned about a template because, if we agree on a reliable source for external linkage, we could create a template which just fills-in the URI parameters (assuming that source/site supports intuitive parameter values, just like template/sites that exists for Bible or Quran verses linkage) and use it under the articles, thus we'd use a unified source. Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 09:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

• Wikilinuz, please obtain a consensus for such massive additions of content. There are at-least a few thousand books on Varna and mere verifiability of content does not guarantee inclusion. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• WikiLinuz, Wikipedia needs to describe religious beliefs neutrally using WP:In-text attribution where necessary. For instance your addition to the lead uses Grimes, which is a dictionary of Indian Philosophy, to put words into "Brahmanical texts". And your gunas are not stated in the source. The second passage attributing to "classical literature of India" is too vague and unverifiable. So on. There are literally hundreds of sources on caste and varna. We should only use the higest quality sources that fit the RNPOV bill. For example, Suvira Jaiswal's paper is titled "Varna ideology", a term you chose to ignore entirely. Ideologies are not necessarily real. Neither are they universally believed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

In contrast, varna is real. And it is universally applied. Prior to modern laws, nobody could survive in a Hindu society without adherence to his/her varna. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I don't understand any reason for my edits to be removed. All of my material are from peer-reviewed academic sources. The word “Brahmanical texts” isn't added my me, it's added by TrangaBellam. And I did maintain the religious beliefs neutrally on my edits, I'm not sure where I slipped off. Gunas IS stated on the material, I don't understand why you don't see that, it's stated up front. I don't understand what “high-quality” sources your looking for other than JSTOR or other peer reviewed journal. Given this, I don't understand why you removed the material, because I don't see any valid point. Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 17:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm also onto including more diversified materials with “high-quality” sources, which I'm researching on my draft. But you came and removed the whole content without first notifying me neither did a consensus since I'm already working on this. And you edit summary, “why so called traditional perspective is important”, because Varna is based on the Gunas, it's explicitly stated on multiple sources which are included inline, it doesn't make sense when you say not stated in the source when it indeed does. If you've read my manusmriti edits, you would've known that. And on your 2nd edit summary, you're talking about undue weight. I did give due weight to the material, not undue one. Why is excessive weight given to Olivelle, Patrick (2008). "Caste and Purity". Collected essays. Firenze, Italy: Firenze University? Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 17:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

WP:WEIGHT says, in addition, Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

Picking up some random two papers that you happen to like ("editorial bias") without any regard to how widespread these views are in the published reliable sources (i.e., "fairness" and "proportionality") , and then filling up the whole Wikipage with their contents, is not NPOV. To achieve NPOV you need to a holistic understanding of all the literature. Failing that, you need to use standard texts written by reputed scholars and published by reputed academic presses. It is one thing to add a little comment saying so-and-so says this. But it is quite another to use such fringe sources as the main basis for a Wikipage. (Why is Patrick Olivelle get so much weight? Because he is an established authority on Dharmashastras.)

The second revert I made was based on WP:RNPOV, which is a separate policy. Simply put, it means that Wikipedia doesn't have a religion. It doesn't believe in any of these ideologies. You might believe them. But you can't put it in Wikipedia voice. In the paragraph you mentioned, Suvira Jaiswal is describing the "traditional view of varna". She is not describing it as a fact. The fact she describes is:

Thus the varna divisions had a historical origin in the real conditions of existence; and these conditions gave rise to an ideology which legitimized exploitation.

You might agree with it or disagree with it. I don't care. But that is the kind of info that can go into a Wikipage, possbly attributed to her. Not the ideology. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, could you tell me what does he is an established authority on Dharmashastras means? Also what makes the sources which signifies the proportions of Gunas a fringe source? (Given those sources also do mention the exploitative nature of the varnas which was also included?) I've also provided multiple sources to support that, not a single scholar with one dimensional view. Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 19:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

he is an established authority on Dharmashastras - Olivelle is the leading academic scholar on Dharmashastras. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, isn't varna part of Hinduism, Kautilya3? If it is, why we're not allowed to include what Hinduism has to say into the varna article; that is, division on the basis of Gunas? This theoretical perspective was mapped into “practical implementation” (for the lack of better words) by Manu and Dharma Sastras, which is more birth oriented and socio-centric, in contrast to cosmo-centric as per Hindu sources. This is also supported in the Bhagavad gita, which subverts the “birth” argument in flavor of “guna, karma and vibhagasah”, a person's “worth” rather than a person “birth” as stated by Krishna (which the source material mentioned). Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 20:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Hinduism is a religion, a collection of beliefs, that millions of people love and practise. It is not what Manusmriti or any other smriti says. Bhagavadgita has a bit more weight, but as a spiritual guide, not as a dharmashastra. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Going back to the earlier question, academic work is measured by how much influence it has on other academics. If it has influenced them, you would find citations, and a lot of people discussing it (agreeing or disagreeing). The papers you have used have practically no citations. We can't give undue prominence to their views. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2022

There is no Hierarchy in the definition of Varnas. There are only horizontal equal groups. Varnas are horizontal equal groups.

The line

Varṇa (Sanskrit: वर्ण, romanized: varṇa), in the context of Hinduism,[1] refers to the Brahminic ideology of hierarchizing society into classes.

Should read

Varṇa (Sanskrit: वर्ण, romanized: varṇa), in the context of Hinduism,[1] refers to the Brahminic ideology of horizontal social groups classified as the following based on their daily contributions to the society. Brahmins: vedic scholars, priests - Brahmans, doctors, administrators, management and teachers. Kshatriyas: Rulers, Warriors, Police. The one who maintained law & order and protected the borders. Vaishyas: Trading merchants related to mercantile. Shudras: Skilled workers, laborers and service providers/servant.

Let's debate if required SD840 (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Janam kundli

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Why did you revert the cited text on the Varna (Hinduism) page?

What bothered you? Riteshmmec (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

what made you think that the edits were off-topic? Did you went through the citations? Riteshmmec (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Riteshmmec: the topic of the article are the social classes, not astrology. The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; astrology isn't even mentioned in the article. At best, you can add a section on astrology, but the sources you provided diff fail WP:RS. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Excuse me sir, the topic is "Varna (Hinduism) (i.e.वर्ण)".

2. The edits were directly related to वर्ण which is a field in Janam Kundli.

3. Janam kundli in Hindu Astrology is an integral part of Hinduism, where every hindu has a Janam kundli in his name created at the time of their birth.

Therefore, the edits were fully in-sync with the topic.

Hence, I request you to kindly restore the edits.

Regards. Riteshmmec (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

End of copied part

"Off-topic" was the wring choice of words, but the topic is the social classes, not astrological calculations. Please read the guidelines to which I provided links, and consider the suggestion I gave. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Incomplete section

The section Etymology and origins, is incomplete without the mention of astrological varna. Ritez (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Your extensive commenting here is worrying and arguably tendentious. I suggest you take the warnings on your user page to heart, and find another topic to work on. Ovinus (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus, i am not commenting on but requesting edits to articles. 2. Tendentious editing is a manner of editing that, when taken as a whole, is partisan, biased, or skewed. The requested edit is Neither partisan Nor biased because it is not asking to 'change' anything but add something. It is Not skewed either because it is not asking to reduce the content of the article, but conversely to expand it. 3. As per your suggestion to find another topic to work on, do you want Wikipedia to remain imperfect? Ritez (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation in the article.

The article says that caste system is hierarchical, while in practice, it's not because hierarchical means that the lower levels are subordinate to (i.e. bound to obey) the higher levels, but in practice it is not true. The correct word is 'quantized'. -Riteshmmec (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Therefore, either the word 'hierarchy' should be replaced by 'quantized' in the lead section or the sentence containing the word be attributed to the author cited in the reference i.e. adding the phrase 'according to South Asia Scholar Activist Collective based in North America ' at the end of 1st line. -Riteshmmec (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The word hierarchy is uncontroversial, but I've added a ref. Hierarchy does not necessarily mean anything like one group obeys the other. It can simply mean that one tier is better or more important than another. I don't see why the South Asia Scholar Activist Collective needs to be mentioned. PepperBeast (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The second line says, Manusmriti classifies the society, but the referred citation doesn't mention the word classifies/classified. Manusmriti only tells the duties and/or preferred occupations of the existing four varnas. Riteshmmec (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, stop. We don't need a ref for every single word. PepperBeast (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

As shown here (https://books.google.co.in/books?id=PnHo02RtONMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false page 8), Manusmriti's 3rd division talks only about the dharma of the four (pre-existing) social classes (i.e. varnas). It does Not defines or classifies or ranks the social classes (i.e. varnas) afresh. Ritesh (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

This is just plain nonsense. If you read past page 8, you'd find out that Manusmriti is absolutely and exhaustively explicit about definitions and of how varna are ranked. PepperBeast (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

To argue that the varnas are not hierarchical is close to WP:DISRUPTIVE. See also WP:CHEESE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Joshua, in the last post, I am not talking about the first line on hierarchy but about the second line on Manusmriti. And as per WP: CHEESE, I have provided the citation in support. Ritez (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Varnas are classified and ranked by Vedic (Hindu) Astrology (Shangari, Himanshu. Match Making & Manglik Dosh. Notion Press. p. 26 (Varna and Vashya Koot). ISBN 978-1-946280-42-8.) and not by Manusmriti. -Ritez (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

That's not even what your source says. All it says is that in Indian astrology Astrological signs belong to different varna, and that that has some impact on matchmaking. It does not somehow cancel out the Manusmriti and everything written about it. PepperBeast (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't cancel out the Manusmriti but, the point is that the Manusmriti content on varna refers to the Astrological varna. Ritez (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't jive with anything in Manusmriti. PepperBeast (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Manusmriti repeatedly uses the word varna, which is defined only in Vedic Astrology.

The point of view mentioned in the article that varna is based on one's occupation fails when we come across instances where, for example, varna of a king is mentioned as shudra (Patrick Olivelle (2005), Manu's Code of Law, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0195171464, page 39) Ritez (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

So, you're trying to counter a claim that isn't in the article with one that simply doesn't jive with reality. PepperBeast (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

In reality, Manu's Code of Law, p. 8 clearly says that Manusmriti describes the dharma of the four varnas. Ritez (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

And? The fact that it's worded that way by Olivelle doesn't mean that it's the best or only wording. PepperBeast (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Varna does not apply to Southern Parts of India

For my NON-Indian Wikipedia Authors - who never stepped to any southern part or state of India. Please note this "Misunderstanding" on what you might have read in a text by a white author who never stepped in South India - Varna does NOT apply to Southern Part of India (5 states - Half a Billion People). It is ONLY used in Northern States of India and you CANNOT use it (NOR was used, OR is USED today) to classify any castes or social status in South India. Varna is Invented by Brahmins of North India and applies only to northern parts of ancient India. The Varna system is not accepted by Southern (Dravidian) people, nor was used, nor is used to classify castes of Southern parts of India.

For my NON-Indian Wikipedia Authors - who never stepped to any southern part or state of India. What you read in texts by White Authors who never stepped in South India, this is like saying ALL Christians are Catholics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.190.208.200 (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2023

vaishya also are bussiness persons and traders please add this also 103.100.4.5 (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Not done, please provide a supporting source. --Mvqr (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)