Talk:Parichchedi

Proceedings of the Indian History Congress Vol. 57

The cited source which is available on JSTOR [[1]] says

The Velanatis, Durjayas, Chagi, Parichedis, Matsya, Mrovi and the Natavadis were the samantas of Calukyas who rose from the social groups such as besta(fisherman) and peasant groups of the Sudra varna

and cites the following for the above statement

R.N.Nandi, Clan name and social mobility in the Deccan. PIHC, Vol XXXII. 111.

This source is availabe on JSTOR and I am posting the link below.

[[2]]

While the source does mention about some tribal chiefs and leaders outside of Brahminical organization raising their prestige by adopting brahmanical customs and being successful at claiming Brahminhood and Kshatriyahood, it does not mention the above dynasties like Velanatis, Parichedis etc. Now why the author cites this to make the point that the aforementioned dynasties came arose from fisherman and peasant groups is beyond me. And the author's work doesn't seem to be cited by anyone else(which casts doubt on the strength of the source) which can be checked at google scholar which I am providing the link for below

[[3]]

I am reverting those statements for now, but please feel free to reinstate with stronger sources. It is better to have more than one strong source for statements like these and it is also recommended to not use snippet views as they more often than not lack context. Also check if there are sources contradicting these statements and their relative strength. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sharkslayer87, the source explicitly mentions the Paricheddis as one of the groups that were the samantas that rose from the Shudra Varna. It's in the quote you gave. Our job as editors is to report what credible sources state. It is neither the fault of the author nor the quality of the book that it has apparently not been cited. The author that V Sakunthala derived her claim from, R.N Nandi, is well reputed as you can clearly see with the number of works and citations that are produced when you search his name on Google School: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C36&q=R.N.Nandi&btnG=. When you say, "It is better to have more than one strong source", I that those are not the rules for placing sourced content from reliable authors and publishers. I have been on Wikipedia for years now. I am reverting your revert, but I will identify that the information is coming from V Sakunthala. By LovSLif (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add another point, her work was published through the Indian History Congress, which "is the largest professional and academic body of Indian historians". If it is good enough for them, it is good enough for Wikipedia. If you HAVE sources contradicting the statement that they did not originate from the Shudra Varna, you can post it also. By LovSLif (talk) 04:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you didn't understand my statement. V Sakuntala attributed that claim to R.N. Nandi and I am not disputing that. The R.N Nandi source is available and I have provided that link above. I will provide it once again. Please read it.

[[4]]

The source doesn't even mention Parichedi and the other dynasties. You don't need to subscribe to JSTOR to read it. You can read upto 6 articles per month. I said there is no clarity why she attributed that statement to R.N Nandi when he didn't even mention the dynasty name and her work doesn't have any citations which means that it is not strong. And please don't revert when a discussion is going on. I am reverting your version for now. Please be reminded that I am not here to argue with you. I am just stating that the source provided is not correct for the statement made due to the aforementioned statement and please let me know if you don't agree with me. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted my edit to your version as you have attributed it to V Sakuntala even though I still believe it is not a strong source. Since we don't have any sources at the moment that contradict this statement we might keep it. But please read the link I posted above. She attributes that statement to R.N Nandi and he doesn't even mention the dynasty name in his work. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point you are making. Let's keep the V Shakuntala citation. If there are better sources that come up or information contradicting what she says, feel free to add. As a scholar, she interpreted the evidence before her to give that statement. If we find others saying differently, we can add. Thanks for being cooperative Sharkslayer87. By LovSLif (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]