Talk:Anti-Brahminism

समणब्राह्मणा
The word pair "Samana Brahmana" occurs numerous times in Pali texts and Ashoka's Edicts. Collectively they represent the two kinds of philosophers/intellectuals.

Samana (Shramana) includes Buddhist and Jain monks. The two quotes with the text "recluse or brahmin" are translations of समणब्राह्मणा and thus apply to both Brahmins and Buddhists/Jains and thus cannot be considered examples of Anti-Brahmanism.

You can search for text string समणब्राह्मणा in the Pali texts here: दीघनिकायो > सीलक्खन्धवग्गपाळि > ब्रह्मजालसुत्तं. You can see translation by Mahapandit Rahul Sankrityayana here.

Malaiya (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"Restore lead"
to what version did you revert here? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  13:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This one. What this new account appears to be doing is WP:SYNTH. LearnIndology (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like this article needs some improvement, beginning with decent sources for it's definition... some time left?  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Reverts
Can the two of you start discussing your reverts? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  18:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , we did. See . Anyways, regarding your addition to the lead, I don't think it does an adequate job of explaining what Anti-Brahminism is. Ambedkar and other reformists may have used the conception of "Brahminism" as a distinct thing but their views on what it is diverge significantly from the European Protestants whereas the the current presentation gives the impression that it's one and the same. More than anything the lead and the article itself should elaborate on the contemporary movement and should not be entirely composed of the term's reference in the colonial period which alone is not an accurate representation of the topic at large. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 19:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not? This is what this source says. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , because the source is about "Anti-Brahminism" in the colonial period? Specifics like "Indian culture was deemed to be corrupt and degenerate, and it's population irrational" is also only attributable to colonists and not the reformists per the source. There's an obvious issue with undue weight and presentation here. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 04:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The source is about the origins of anti-Brahminism, and is clearly attributed to Christian colonialists. Sorry for you if you don't like those roots, but history is messy. No need to censor this. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , are you even reading what I'm saying? The subject of the article isn't the origins which is only an aspect of it and I am not saying that the origins should be censored, so please stop ascribing an intent to me, if anything I like messy histories and would like it expanded further in the section on history. I'm saying the viewpoint of the colonialists shouldn't be the only one present in the lead especially when its presentation attributes its exact formulation to everyone else which isn't verifiable from any source. It also appears that there is a debate over the origins itself per The Brahmin Double article which you have linked above but isn't used in the article, although that's a different issue. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 05:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The subject of the article is indeed anti-Brahminism; that does also include it's roots. The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; this is part of the article. As for the other reverts: Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The Bhargava and Rao definition seems to be okay, though it's only in th elead, not in the article.
 * Early criticism diff may be correct, but is not in line with the notion that anti-Brahminism originated in the 19th century. Info like this should be related to the definition(s) that we use.
 * Instances of anti-Brahminism (Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu): WP:UNDUE
 * , my point is that the conception at the roots shouldn't be given undue weight in the lead, which would outweigh any manual of style considerations in an under developed article like this. It would be the same as say the viewpoint of the Dravidianism derived Anti-Brahminism being the only one present in the lead. Anyways I've modified the lead, see if you agree to this version or not. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 06:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

"Prejudice, racial hostility"
please explain how the sources you have used support the sentence "Anti-Brahminism is a Racist idology of hate, prejudice and discrimination against Brahmins predominantly in India and it is akin to Anti-Semitism." . Vanamonde (Talk) 16:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The Headline from the Hindu newspaper clearly mentions this attacks on the priestly class Brahmins "Six men held for attacks on priests in Chennai" https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/Six-DVK-men-held-for-attacks-on-priests-in-Chennai/article60146153.ece. The mob attackers organise this every year as a show of hostility against Brahminism. There have been death of Brahmin priest due to this mob attacks reference : https://medium.com/@AdhiyajnaSharma/after-hundreds-of-years-of-freedom-struggle-india-got-her-independence-from-foreigners-in-563aeb7db7f7. There are more references https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/they-beat-him-and-threw-away-his-sacred-thread-six-held-attacks-brahmins-chennai.
 * Ambedkar has clearly defined the difference between Anti- Brahminism and Non-Brahminism movement in his work which is elaborated in this reference https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/what-does-it-mean-to-oppose-brahmanism/article28658412.ece
 * In Kudiarasu weekly magazine E.V.Ramasamy Naicker the editor of the magazine has elborated why he find similarities with Jews and Brahmins and calls for Anti Brahminism political movements, a racial hatred that is still being carried out. Ref Kudiarasu Essay - 20.03.1938 reference : https://thewire.in/history/periyar-ev-ramasamy-dravida-nadu-brahmins-dmk Ashgene (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * None of your sources define anti-Brahminism the way you did in the article, and as such your text is original research. Sources discussing violence against Brahmin priests are quite irrelevant to "anti-Brahminism"; the source does not even mention the word "Brahmin", let alone "anti-Brahminism". medium.com is not a reliable source. The opinion piece from the Hindu isn't reliable either; see WP:NEWSORG. Furthermore, the piece doesn't actually contradict the article at all; have you read it? The final line says "Anyone who sincerely adheres to the core principles of the Indian Constitution is automatically anti-Brahmanical." Where does it mention prejudice? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Sources discussing violence against Brahmin priests are quite irrelevant to "anti-Brahminism" "
 * Really is this the way to intrepret and do an exegesis on a subject that is quite racially sensitive?
 * Violence against Brahmins is not Anti-Brahminism?
 * Mob attacks targeting a race is indeed racial attack and casteism what necessarily is a social construct and imposing it on a particular race is indeed prejudice. There are very many parallels between Anti-Brahminism and Anti Semiticism and clear references are provided (including thewire). I have also provided Newsminute a News Media as a websource that document and journals the same incident as the Hindu cleary mentioning Brahmins are attacked. Would you say the Newsminute is also not a reliable source.
 * There seems clearly an editorial bias in administration please refer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia
 * Read the article from https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/what-does-it-mean-to-oppose-brahmanism/article28658412.ece the whole article discusses about the prejudice and acknowledges the fact that the term anti-brahminism extends a generic prejudice and there is need for a better term as such the term 'Anti' refers to 'against and 'Brahminism' to 'Brahmin as an ethinic race'.
 * Not ‘anti-Brahmin’
 * For a start, opposing ‘Brahmanism’ does not entail being ‘anti-Brahmin’. To do so would imply that all Brahmins are responsible for these atrocities. This is as preposterous as ascribing blame to all Muslims for any wrong committed in, say, the reign of Alauddin Khilji, or all British people for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre or, for that matter, all Hindus for the lynching of an innocent Muslim.
 * The term need to be clearly defined as in the context of how the movement has developed as it is of today, a prejudice and hate movement against a race, way more deviant of what the original editors of constitution developed and foresaw.
 * Wikipedia should take preventive steps so that anyone reading the article 'AntiBrahminism' should not take it as a sanction againts Brahmins 'as a ethnic race'. The term need to be seen and interpreted as a context of what it applies as today. Ashgene (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again @Ashgene, read No original research — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What DaxServer said. You need sources explicitly supporting your content; meaning, in this case, that the source needs to say, in its own words, "Anti-Brahminism is a Racist idology of hate, prejudice and discrimination against Brahmins predominantly in India and it is akin to Anti-Semitism." The content needs to stay out of the article until such sources are provided. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The very usage of the term itself is incorrect and misleading. Ani -means opposed or against. Brahminism -are the Brahmins in this case an ethnic group and their ideologies which themselves differ. I don't think the term is at all well defined nor is Brahmin. I suggest using Anti-cast ism instead. 108.39.84.90 (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)