Content deleted Content added
Swadhyayee (talk | contribs) |
HeBhagawan (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1,034:
Apologies. I have removed two paragraphs from caste system as I feel it's not in line with the subject of the article. Looks bit foreign. It's result of prejudices. Shudras were considered to be fit for assisting other communities and the very nature of their work made other castes like Brahmins and Vaishyas superior. I think, superiority or inferiority is not supported by Hindu doctrines. Kshatriyas being warriors commanded a special respect. I think, if we exclude this, the article is not going to suffer but help in avoiding controversies, anti-Hindu attacks and help to reduce the size. [[User:Swadhyayee|swadhyayee]] 12:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
==Please do not show your presence in this way==
Dear Swadhyayee,
Everybody has been making an effort not to make any major changes to the article without discussing them ''first''. Please try to do the same. I am open to changing the varna section to make it shorter. However, the current length is the product of laborious collaborative efforts between editors, and a careful attempt to present both sides in the debate. If we can do this effectively in fewer words, or in a more neutral way, I am in favor. But one thing you cut out of the section is the very reason caste is controversial. It is controversial because in today's society, some castes are treated with discrimination, as though they were less important. Without mentioning the reason for the controversy, the rest of the section becomes meaningless.
You also removed the important point that the Indian government has taken steps to attempt to remedy caste discrimination, which I think is important.
The problem with controversy in wikipedia articles is when an article is inappropriately biased in favor of one side or the other. That may be the case with the section on caste--if so we should work on removing the bias. But it is not inappropriate to note that a controversy exists, and to point out the reasons for the controversy and the arguments of both sides.
Again, I'm open to rewording the section, but please don't remove entire paragraphs--especially ones that contain multiple citations--without FIRST discussing it. I thought we had already come to an understanding about this--hence my posting of the Monasticism section on this page for two days before incorporating it into the article. Thank you. [[User:HeBhagawan|HeBhagawan]] 13:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
| |||