Content deleted Content added
TrangaBellam (talk | contribs) |
BengHistory (talk | contribs) Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 1,307:
*[[Ping| Regentspark]]: I think you will be able to clearly see that [[WP:NPOV]] is flouted here. The dominant editors here are clearly promoting a view and taking a stance against a community's assertions. I would like to draw your attention about the following few things : 1) The editors are trying to focus only aspect of Vaidyas , viz. their ritual status, and nothing much has been allowed in the main section (e.g. - a fact as important as Vaidyas being the most literate community in India has been thrust in the note section) 2) Apparent contradictions are there in the selection of sources. While it mentions that equations of Ambashtha with Baidyas is doubtful, it uses the same fact (mentioned in other sources) to opine that Baidyas are Sudras in most of the Brahmanical literature (in reality, none other than Bv.P mentions Baidyas as distinct from Ambasthas when considering at as a Sudra caste). This is a bizarre and garbed application of [[WP:Synthesis]]. 3) Again, Vallal Charita has been discussed without referring to a single source, and while mentioning Chandimangal the word 'indicating' has been changed to 'accorded' 4) A tone of ridicule and disdain is visible in the article and what is worse that is not coming from any references. When I asked why the word 'apparently' has been used regarding Binodlal Sen, the editor simply retorted that he was following the source's (Projit Behari Mukharji) writing style ! He was also inserting exclamatory marks (not available in the source) on his own, and removed them only when charged. 5) They are freely changing the quotes of the cited authors (removing and changing words) and justifying them as interpretation of 'the real stance' instead of considering them verbatim. [[User:BengHistory|BengHistory]] ([[User talk:BengHistory|talk]]) 17:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
:*{{tq|Vaidyas being the most literate community in India.}} Citation needed.
:: Already available in 1921 census and several newspaper reports. Already included in the Note section? Short-term memory loss?[[User:BengHistory|BengHistory]] ([[User talk:BengHistory|talk]]) 19:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
:*{{tq|in reality, none other than Bv.P mentions Baidyas as distinct from Ambasthas when considering at as a Sudra caste.}} - You have issues in understanding.
::*Our article states, {{tq|However, Brahminic literature continued to regard them as Sudras. [...] [T]he Chandimangal of Mukundaram Chakrabarti (c. mid 16th century CE) places the Baidyas below Vaisyas and accords a Sudra status but notes the Kayasthas to be below them. Works by Vācaspati Miśra and Raghunandana hold Baidyas to be Sudras.}}
::*Is it your contention that (1) Vācaspati Miśra and Raghunandana don't hold them to be Sudras, ''or'' (2) Chandimangal of Mukundaram Chakrabarti doesn't hold them as one, or (3) these are non-Brahminic literature?
::
:*{{tq|the word 'indicating' has been changed to 'accorded'.}} And?
::Basic English usage which one needs to know if he/she is edit an English encyclopedia. 'Accord' stands for 'undisputed declaration', whereas 'indicated' stands for a speculation or hypothesis. Sanyal was only speculating as no verse of Chandimangal calls Baidyas as Shudras, rather it only mentions them after the Vaishyas (not in hierarchical way) in the same chapter.[[User:BengHistory|BengHistory]] ([[User talk:BengHistory|talk]]) 19:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
:*{{tq|that he was following the source's (Projit Behari Mukharji) writing style.}} And?
:: And he was unjustly casting aspersion (by putting the word 'Apparently' regarding Binodlal's compilation) although Projit Behari does not hint in that direction. [[User:BengHistory|BengHistory]] ([[User talk:BengHistory|talk]]) 19:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
:*{{tq|They are freely changing the quotes of the cited authors (removing and changing words).}} Examples needed. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 18:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
:: Multiple examples are already given. 1) '''Apparently''' 2) '''SemiBrahmin''' 3) '''Accorded''' 4) Changing the order in Chandimangal 5) '''Fallen Brahmin''' 6) Exclamatory marks. Do you need more? [[User:BengHistory|BengHistory]] ([[User talk:BengHistory|talk]]) 19:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
▲::* My contention is that Vācaspati Miśra and Raghunandana hold them as Sudras by equating them with Ambashthas (see DC Sircar), and thus making the statement 'it is doubtful if the Ambasthas — were really the Baidyas of Bengal' a contradictory one with this. One can either contend that Vaidyas are Ambashthas (and then regard Vacaspati and Raghunandan which are based on that) or contend that it is doubful that Vaidyas are Ambasthas. Regarding Mukundaram, he never called Vaidyas as Shudras (you can read the currently available versions instead of waiting for 'reliable' modern authors to quote them), that is purely Sanyal's hypothesis that Chakraborty '''Indicated''' so, which you are taking as '''according'''. [[User:BengHistory|BengHistory]] ([[User talk:BengHistory|talk]]) 19:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
:::* Whatever tortuous logic was used by medieval authors to uphold Brahminism is irrelevant, until discussed in-depth by sources. Their conclusions matter. ''If'' it is your assertion that Vācaspati Miśra/Raghunandana hadn't used the word Vaidya even once (and were talking about Ambasthas all along), I am willing to check more sources and reconsider your arguments.
| |||