Talk:Chandala

message: Chandal is a separate community .Plz don't redirect it to Dalit.Its a wrong redirect.Holywarrior 09:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 17:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Arniban Ssej 10:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Chandal, Sudras] 

message: Comparing aborginals of Kerala Ezhava is higher.But, now Ezhava became a progressive community in Kerala.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.136.112 (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Ezhava very lower-caste in Kerala?

message: The article itself describes that this is an abusing term used to marginalise different isolated tribes and also communities.It is a social sanction typical of Indian culture.There is varna and caste classification in Indian society.Those who remained outside it were termed as outcast and were abused as chandala.The article itself maintains that it is a slur. This is Indian version of worst kind of apartheid used by Indian Hindu Kings and Priests or Pujaris .Many communities had been completely mesmerised and pushed to oblivion. 
So there cannot be any article or discussion of any population group under this Name .Simply the meaning of word is sufficient. Some communities could manage to regain the permission to be socially acquainted as they were, some could not.They had bear the hatred and apartheid.
If any community be mentioned as such ,I think it should out-rightly be banned. Not only this I would like to ban the article "sudra" also .Under the disguise of religious discourse Hindus actually practice slavery de facto by these words.
Immediate actions should be taken in this respect.Only meaning is sufficient.There may be articles  In The Name Of The Communities Not under the Apartheid Banner of "Chandal" or "Sudra" .In the name name of Pseudo-religion Wikipedia should not allow de facto  Practice of Theory Of Apartheid -In-Disguise.ThanksRayorpheus (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is based in the United States, where we respect the freedom of speech.  Your approval for this article is not required, and if you have a problem with that, then I suggest you remove yourself from Wikipedia altogether.  We don't need any self-appointed language police here. 2601:647:4F00:3C16:5930:230D:DBB2:F12A (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed 108.39.84.90 (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Then debunk them add a section in this article possibly challenging the narrative the sword of knowledge wins over force any day regarding information. 108.39.84.90 (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of this article 

message: I think there should be one article under this banner and the whole issue of chanadal or untouchable come under it.That is more appropriate.Rayorpheus (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindu Apartheid

message: Original source shows two pictures both of Ghasi caste .The person who wrote the subtitle made a mistake .Brahmins brought the Ghasis but not the Chandalas .That error has somehow crept into.So it is better not to use the picture.117.194.205.97 (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The Picture

message: The article states: 
"Varna was a hierarchical social order in ancient India, based on the Vedas. Since the Vedic corpus constitute the earliest literary source, it came to be seen as the origin of caste society."
I am note sure about that. Upinder Singh writes: "Although there are no clear indications of the practice of untouchability in later Vedic texts, groups such as the Chandalas were clearly looked on with contempt by the elites." A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century,  Upinder Singh, Pearson Education India, 2008 p. 204
Ambedkar believed the antyaja in the vedas were not regarded as either impure or untouchable and  quotes Kane in his suportTHE UNTOUCHABLES, Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Volume 1, chap XVI 
:It is probably not a great idea to cite Ambedkar because he was a political campaigner on the issue. As for Singh, well, books intended for school use are often considered to be simplistic in their approach and, of course, in the case of India there have been significant issues such as the :NCERT controversy. I'm not saying that you are wrong to have doubts but these sources may not be the best to verify the point. We may also have to take WP:NPOV into account. - Sitush (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes for religious text Ambedkar is a horrible source and likely history as well I suggest using literal historical or religious sources instead. 108.39.84.90 (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Vedas?

message: I don't see the point of the paragraph about the meeting with a man and a dog. The additional citation doesn't make things any more clear. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with Sitush; I believe this story is irrelevant in the given context. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of dog 

message: I've just removed this. It has been in and out of the article in the past. I still can't see the point of including some random tale about someone meeting a man and a dog in the road. I've seen the story mentioned in several sources but not one of them explains the significance of it and without such an explanation it is obscure, confusing and pointless from the point of view of an encyclopaedia. Just because something is said does not mean we have to include it. - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaggy dog story 

message: An IP has rewritten the beginning, removing referenced sources. I am neither bonded to the article nor well versed in the subject matter; I simply wanted other editors to comment. Ifnord (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Source" does not support the information, much of it was original research, and Patridge publishing is a self-published source. Article had more unsourced addions in recent weeks. 122.170.21.91 (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Aman Kumar Goel, do you really have any doubt about the content, or else, are you just concerned about the technicality of reliable sources? Other reliable sources can be cited to support the statements. Moreover, a senior editor like Sitush, who is considered as an expert in this subject, and is very particular about reliable sources, has edited the article, and this is the consensus version. I can't really figure out your concern; I sincerely believe, there is no issue with the content; we can add more reliable source(s) for supporting the facts mentioned. I was not sure whether the view of the IP editor is same as yours, and moreover, the heading was 'Edit warring'. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Other uninvolved editors (at least in this particular dispute) are not responsible for your edits. No single person WP:OWN any article here. I came here when I was reverting an editor who had made a number of problematic reverts across many articles and also this article. Sources are self-published and thus unreliable. Issue is that we need reliable sources on subject and should add content without asserting our own assertions. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 12:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Aman Kumar Goel, I completely agree with you that no one owns any article here, and we need reliable sources supporting the statements, not any WP:OR. I would just like to point out that there is no dispute till now; we are working on a collaborative project, and we have a common goal i.e. to improve the article or its content based on reliable & verifiable sources. Please go through the following two sources, and let me know your opinion, so that we can work on these: "Source 1" and "Source 2". Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Added relevant content per the source provided. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 18:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your edit. I shall add some more relevant information from the source(s). Ekdalian (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider keeping the content relevant only to Chandala. The theories about caste, untouchability and other broader subjects should be kept out unless they are directly related to this subject. The most popular source here was merely giving descriptions about "The origins of Caste and Untouchability" than "Chandala". Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 12:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring