Talk:Bhumihar/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Bhumihar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Experienced editors, please preview my edit.
Lead=
At Vishnupad temple Gaya, bhumihar brahmins are traditional priests known as Gayawal Pandas.
Source, [1]
History= Chait singh of benaras revolted against British in 1781.
Source, https://www.jstor.org/stable/44147866
|govind| (talk)
- Modern scholarly work by reliable author is required; additionally you need to achieve consensus here for any changes in lede! 1st source seems to be unreliable, not a scholarly work! You may share the academic qualifications of the authors so that I can share my views on reliability more precisely. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk)
- 1st source is from Ministry of External Affairs.
- https://www.mea.gov.in/images/pdf/India-ChinaEncyclopedia_Vol-1.pdf
I have another reliable source for same pdf, Embassy of India, Bejing.- https://www.eoibeijing.gov.in/public_files/assets/pdf/file1.pdf
- @Ekdalian Now it's fine.
|govind| (talk)- Sorry, we don't give much weightage to Government sources, especially when caste related contentious claims are concerned; we need modern scholarly work, as mentioned above. You may check Talk:Vanniyar where we have not accepted the caste name as per government records! Hope you understand. Ekdalian (talk)
- This source is not for changing caste name or modifying any existing fact. You can replace it only when some authors reject the given fact.
- We should mention the fact according to these available sources. If you find any better source, you may replace accordingly. @Ekdalian
|govind| (talk)
- Sorry, we don't give much weightage to Government sources, especially when caste related contentious claims are concerned; we need modern scholarly work, as mentioned above. You may check Talk:Vanniyar where we have not accepted the caste name as per government records! Hope you understand. Ekdalian (talk)
- @Ekdalian You have asked for authors qualifications.
- Authors from India include; Professor Sabaree Mitra of Jawaharlal Nehru University, Professor Madhavi Thampi of Delhi University, Professor Kamal Sheel of Benaras Hindu University and Professor Arttatrana Nayak, formerly of Visva Bharati University.
Source, - https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/india-china-release-first-encyclopedia-of-cultural-contacts/articleshow/37512541.cms
Now it's perfect. ✅
|govind| (talk)- No, you didn't understand. I asked you to refer to that talk page in order to understand that we don't attach much importance to government sources. Anyway, I need to consult other experienced editors for consensus! @Sitush, LukeEmily, Satnam2408, and CharlesWain: please share your opinion if you are interested! The caste/varna status has some similarities with Baidya; obviously you would go through the article before sharing your opinion on this! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk)
- I think I have understood that discussion. First of all, this is not a general government report like survey reports, which do not have a connection with history of the subject. This is a proper scholarly work, by a group of Scholars, Published by government. @Ekdalian
It's good to take advice from other editors. |govind| (talk)- @$govindsinghbabhan$ As I understand it, the Proceedings are papers presented for discussion, just as academics presented papers for discussion at the Kelvin Club and other societies when I was a student at Cambridge. The point of them is to get critical input prior to publication of a more definitive study and, as such, they are a sort of draft version. - Sitush (talk)
- @Sitush
- Umm. I have gone through the news. And as of my understanding, The idea of India-ChinaEncyclopedia, was mooted in December 2010. The work of compilation was undertaken by a committee of scholars from both countries. With intentions to bring their Shared History into public domain.
- And according to this News Article of Jun 30, 2014; this was published.
- That doesn't mean it is in draft stage! Also it clarifies that the article is not for presentation purpose, it is for people of both countries to know about their shared history.
I have already mentioned the names of authors from India side.
Thanks |govind| (talk)- @$govindsinghbabhan$ That just makes things worse! Do you honestly think a co-operative agreement between the governments etc of India and China - both notorious for rewriting history - can produce a reliable source? - Sitush (talk)
- The point is, it's written by scholars, not administrators |govind| (talk)
- @$govindsinghbabhan$ That means nothing. As you should be aware, there are many scholars in India and in China who write in accordance with their governments' desires. One such caste scholar was K Singh, whose editorship of the "states" series of caste socio-history was tainted by government demands and is deemed to be unreliable for use on Wikipedia.
- How significant are these scholars whom you mention outside of India itself? How many non-India scholars cite them? - Sitush (talk)
- I have spent an hour searching for independent reviews of this encyclopaedia project and either I am searching incorrectly or there are none of note. I'm also a bit mystified regarding why, for example, Mitra would be some sort of authority on Bhumihars etc when she appears to be a China-centric specialist. - Sitush (talk)
- @Sitush I was searching for their citation, as you said |govind| (talk)
- @Sitush Sheel's work is cited by 14 scholars, according to research gate. See names; from international institutions
- https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kamal-Sheel-3 |govind| (talk)
- @$govindsinghbabhan$ It all looks completely irrelevant to me. It's the equivalent of citing a neurosurgeon for their opinion on climate change. - Sitush (talk)
- @Sitush Okay. It means the work needs independent review. |govind| (talk)
- @Sitush I was searching for that.
- By Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Core
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-asian-studies/article/abs/chinaindia-studies-emergence-development-and-state-of-the-field/78B50E23E802EB7C774B2AA2C0326948? |govind| (talk)- @$govindsinghbabhan$ What relevance has this to anything here? China-India studies and Bhumihars have many degrees of separation. - Sitush (talk)
- @$govindsinghbabhan$ What relevance has this to anything here? China-India studies and Bhumihars have many degrees of separation. - Sitush (talk)
- @$govindsinghbabhan$ I don't see why. It has been queried by two quite experienced contributors.
- In any case, that sentence would not go in the lead section because it is massively undue weight even if reliably sourced. Gayawals are a tiny group, I think. - Sitush (talk)
- Thanks @Sitush for explaining why it can't go to lede. I understand that the work is even related to a tiny group. But that is important for showing the community's roles in society, that is totally relevant to the topic.
It would be better if this fact be written in relevant section for describing people's role in various fields. Thanks for looking into it, and improving my awareness towards reliability. |govind| (talk)
- Thanks @Sitush for explaining why it can't go to lede. I understand that the work is even related to a tiny group. But that is important for showing the community's roles in society, that is totally relevant to the topic.
- @Sitush I was searching for that.
- @Sitush @Abecedare There is nothing like this exaggeration, neuro-surgeon and climate change. Scholars are cited internationally for social history purpose that's related to caste history. All Wikipedia needs are, reliable scholars, and review process. |govind| (talk)
- @Sitush Okay. It means the work needs independent review. |govind| (talk)
- @$govindsinghbabhan$ It all looks completely irrelevant to me. It's the equivalent of citing a neurosurgeon for their opinion on climate change. - Sitush (talk)
- @Sitush I was searching for their citation, as you said |govind| (talk)
- I have spent an hour searching for independent reviews of this encyclopaedia project and either I am searching incorrectly or there are none of note. I'm also a bit mystified regarding why, for example, Mitra would be some sort of authority on Bhumihars etc when she appears to be a China-centric specialist. - Sitush (talk)
- The point is, it's written by scholars, not administrators |govind| (talk)
- @$govindsinghbabhan$ That just makes things worse! Do you honestly think a co-operative agreement between the governments etc of India and China - both notorious for rewriting history - can produce a reliable source? - Sitush (talk)
- @Sitush
- @$govindsinghbabhan$ As I understand it, the Proceedings are papers presented for discussion, just as academics presented papers for discussion at the Kelvin Club and other societies when I was a student at Cambridge. The point of them is to get critical input prior to publication of a more definitive study and, as such, they are a sort of draft version. - Sitush (talk)
- I think I have understood that discussion. First of all, this is not a general government report like survey reports, which do not have a connection with history of the subject. This is a proper scholarly work, by a group of Scholars, Published by government. @Ekdalian
- No, you didn't understand. I asked you to refer to that talk page in order to understand that we don't attach much importance to government sources. Anyway, I need to consult other experienced editors for consensus! @Sitush, LukeEmily, Satnam2408, and CharlesWain: please share your opinion if you are interested! The caste/varna status has some similarities with Baidya; obviously you would go through the article before sharing your opinion on this! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk)
I have removed the edit about Bhumihars being priests in certain temples because:
- The source is meh; an entry on Gaya (India) written by a Chinese history specialist in a government published encyclopedia produced with an explicit diplomatic purpose; and
- (more importantly) this is typical quote-mining that picks a random factoid in an off-topic source to counter better sourced scholarly content, which is a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. Here the priests in certain temples being Bhumihars is being used to implicitly argue that the community is classified in the Brahmin varna even though the cited source neither says or is focussed on that topi.
Abecedare (talk)
- @Abecedare Priests being brahmin! It's not necessary especially in Bihar and UP. For example, Rajputs are priests at Gorakhpur Temple, UP. One such was C.M. Yogi Aadityanath |govind| (talk)
- @Abecedare for supporting my statements,
- https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/math-that-is-hub-of-politics-has-non-brahmin-priests/articleshow/57714247.cms |govind| (talk)
- @Abecedare You have problem with varna section, that's why I first thought to write in lead. Let it be. Which section is good for this? |govind| (talk)
- I agree that non-Brahmins can be and often are priests, which is why the claim is irrelevant synthesis in the Varna sections. And the particular trivia would be even more undue in the article lede. Abecedare (talk)
- I have already asked, where to place? |govind| (talk)
- @$govindsinghbabhan$ How many Gayawals at the last caste census? Did the government ever release the numbers?
- Regardless, you can't place the info anywhere using the China-India Encyclopaedia source that you have been trying to bludgeon. I suspect the info is pretty trivial in any event but perhaps you know of a decent academic etc source which goes into sufficient detail to give a suitable context for inclusion. Not, by the way, some newspaper - their "features" on caste groups etc are particularly poor. - Sitush (talk)
- I have already asked, where to place? |govind| (talk)
- I agree that non-Brahmins can be and often are priests, which is why the claim is irrelevant synthesis in the Varna sections. And the particular trivia would be even more undue in the article lede. Abecedare (talk)