Talk:Caste system in India/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Verifiability, not truth policy of wikipedia and some Contemporary Sociologists

Wikipedia's core sourcing policy includes WP:V amd WP:VNT. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth." "Verifiability" is used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not object or remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them. I welcome edits by Legolas95 and ask him or her to respect this guideline. Multiple sources, in peer reviewed journals, have published that 'Caste is commonly thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but various contemporary scholars have argued that the caste system was constructed by the British colonial regime." A few of this articles are amongst the most sought after scholarly articles/books. They belong here. Why call them dubious or POV?

Similarly, 'Not many Sudra castes are in Scheduled Caste List' is not discussed in the main article. Such content is welcome, but must be discussed in the main article with adequate secondary source verifiable support; only then should it be summarized in lead. See WP:LEAD. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That is the precise reason why that tag was added, that the assertion was not verifiable (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). While the sources cited analyze caste structure ans its evolution under British times, they dont claim caste system/caste is constructed by British colonial regime. The editors have taken considerable liberty in rephrasing and interpreting the sources (in many parts of the article). This is a violation of Wikipedia policies WP:NOR/WP:PRIMARY. Thought its better to put a tag and discuss before removing it. Another is interpreting the statistical data on Dalit quality of life, the editor makes some loose sweeping conclusions, eg, taking one metric (life expectancy?) and claiming some metrics are better for Dalits compared to poor non Dalits, either be specific or dont have it in the lead. (The claim before I made edits was with even more liberty that the indices are 'statistically similar' to those of overall population!).

The statement that Untouchables and Sudras are classed as Scheduled Castes is wrong. Scheduled Castes Lists follows from previous lists of British Government of Depressed classes for which the primary criteria were caste pollution and untouchability. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2642619?seq=1. Sudra castes dont fall in Scheduled castes list, although some do in some places, but a general statement is better avoided.Legolas95 (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Legolas95 - I assume good faith, and welcome your effort to verify. I am astonished you missed this from Zwart reference: "Most social scientists today agree that identity is a social construction, not a primordial given. They also agree that the state (through its power to dominate discourse) is a key agent in the process of identity construction. The literature on caste in India is illustrative. Caste used to be thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but contemporary scholars argue that the caste system was constructed by the British colonial regime. The social construction thesis should apply a fortiori to a project begun by the Indian government almost 50 years ago and still going strong, namely affirmative action for the 'backward classes'. This project is strikingly similar to the British colonial project that ex hypothesi constructed the caste system." The above is from the abstract of the article. The review article discusses, repeats and explains the same as Zwart discusses numerous sociologists with competing theories on caste system in India. Therefore, I disagree with you that the cited references do not provide verifiable support. The cited references provide direct verifiable support for the claim, and the summary included meets all wiki guidelines.

WP:LEAD requires that the summary in lead must be in main article and the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic. So, if we want this in lead section, we must discuss caste violence far more extensively in the main article. I agree with you that caste violence section can be improved, particularly by including violence stats for both Dalit and non-Dalits. Right now, only violence against Dalit is included, nothing is mentioned about the violence against so-called OBCs, poor non-Dalits, and overall population. Presenting data such as "every hour two Dalits are assaulted, etc" is confusing to international readers of wiki; because it has not been discussed in more detail in the main article, does not explain who assaulted who/why/how do we know, and is without overall context. For what it is worth, Nigeria's population is about the same as Dalit population in India, and contextually for international readers, the violence in Nigeria is far far worse than your summary. For neutrality, we must include an objective context from the reader's perspective. I encourage you to first improve the main article, then revise the lead, because that is what wiki's guidelines require.

Please note this article is already big and complex. In last few months, after a discussion between editors, about 20% of the article and references were deleted, including citations and content that discussed chi-square statistical tests and comparison of quality of life for Dalits and non-Dalits. There was plenty of support on statistical equivalence on various metrics; I removed some of those parts; now, with your comments, I plan to go back, read the deleted content/references again, and if prudent rewrite without making this article bigger and ever more complex. I welcome you to help keep this article small, balanced and readable - from wiki reader perspective. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Durban conference and caste vs race

I have removed this because the cited reference was a dead link. This, however, does not mean that the Durban controversy should not be included. I submit it should be, but with WP:RS sources. Here are a few I have in my library of links, for anyone who wishes to summarize it. A reading and good summary may help remedy the incomplete and incorrect previous version:

• Caste and racism submission to Durban conference by a non-governmental Indian organization
• Statement by Latvian rep on caste, race
• Statements from multiple, non-Indian NGOs on caste and racism at the Durban conference, on both sides of the controversy

These are not exhaustive. Other helpful WP:RS sources may be out there. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

How objective would it be to over-emphasize on a conference that was so controversial that it was boycotted by virtually every country in the civilized world on account of it being taken over by OIC Islamists (who also have an axe to grind against India on account of the Kashmir conflict) and used as a forum to spread antisemitism?Handyunits (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CONTROVERSY, WP:DECISION and WP:NPOV. Both the controversial Durban conference and 'is caste system racism or a form of racism' are notable and relevant. Including a short paragraph or two on Durban isn't equivalent to over-emphasis. A balanced, NPOV summary of all sides from WP:RS sources will enhance this wiki article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

I realise that there are still substantial developments going on with this article but I do think that we need to address the lead section, which is now a complete mess. I have just tightened up a couple of very minor points, but I have also removed citations of Risley and Crook. Aside from the obvious (ie: whereas there really should be no cites in the lead, we actually have a WP:CITEKILL situation at present), neither of those sources are remotely suitable. We could use Risley etc as a source for his own opinions - he was a scientific racist, for example - but those opinions are so discredited that we really should not use him in support of any "normal" statement regarding caste, and when we use him at all then we have to make it abundantly clear that his is an outmoded position.

We could tidy up the lead now and then do further work on it when more happens within the body. What we cannot do is keep putting it off because the thing is an embarrassment of poor writing and even worse style. No offence intended, btw: it is what happens in big articles. - Sitush (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:CITEKILL acknowledges the need for adding inline citations for anything challenged or likely to be challenged. Caste is a difficult and controversial topic, with opinions and prejudices common, a la Risley as you point out. While "the sky is blue" does not need a citation as WP:CITEKILL explains, common sense suggests we think twice, perhaps thrice, before removing citation from sentences in this article that are likely to be challenged, including the lead. And yes, I cheerfully welcome a major clean up. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that CITEKILL does not mean, for example, "only one cite per statement". Nonetheless, there really should not be any in the lead section. If we need them there then we are not doing our job properly (and, believe me, this place does sometimes feel like a job, albeit unpaid!). Leads summarise articles and therefore they rely on (usually) more detailed explanations given in the body of the thing. That is where the sources need to be and in the event that people begin challenging content in the lead, we refer them to the detailed exposition in the body. I acknowledge that WP:LEAD is not explicit on the principle of "no cites" but the proposition does have a significant consensus. There may be very occasional situations in which a cite is needed but certainly not to the extent that exists here.

Again, I stress that this is not a criticism. It is usually best to get the body of an article sorted out and then address the lead, precisely because we cannot summarise something that does not exist or is in poor shape. Nonetheless, things have drifted a bit here and I think that some work is justified, if only on the policy/guideline issues. BTW, the sky is not blue :-P - Sitush (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I browsed featured wikipedia articles, and randomly picked three subjects I suspected as possibly controversial: Philosophy of mind, Tulip mania and Oil shale. The leads of all three have plenty of cites. These examples do not mean all featured articles have leads with cites, or even that every controversial one does. They simply suggest citations in the lead section may be okay for some subjects. WP:LEAD is indeed silent on this. Yes, there is a difference between adequate citations and citekill. We should avoid citekill. One other thing: in the body of the article, adding additional WP:RS sources helps address WP:FRINGE concerns. For sensitive and controversial topics as this caste-related one, adding second source for something likely to get challenged, may help stabilize the quality of wiki article... for curious wiki readers, and compassionate wiki volunteers. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Your random selections date from 2008 etc. Things move on and I am confident that the consensus has shifted. It is perhaps not surprising that James Tod, to which I am by far the major contributor, is cite-free and I rather think that the same applies to my GAs. More generally, for example, of the first five promoted in June (I am too lazy to check more), the only ones with lead cites are where there are quotes in the lead. Of course, we are not permitted to have unattributed quotations. I can think of no need for cites in leads other than in this situation and you should bear in mind that having a cite there usually means duplicating it in the body, which is somewhat irrational. Doubtless there may be one or two exceptions among the June list but the trend is definitely moving away from the idea. - Sitush (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there an archive/page for 'cites in lead' discussion and consensus? James Tod is an interesting article and likely non-controversial. Here are a few more controversial and sensitive wiki articles, similar to this caste-related one, with plenty of cites in lead: Racism in the United States, Israel, Palestine, Palestinian territories, and Feminism. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Tod was/is highly controversial because he is still venerated in Rajasthan etc but the article pretty much hatchets him, which also has a significant knock-on effect with regard to using him as a source in numerous puffed-up caste articles. I'll see what I can dig up about the general issue. Can we not even prune the things, even if some might arguably remain? - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• There are certainly too many cites in the lead by the standards of this decade, even allowing for the controversial subject. The references are very messy, and ideally the titles should be moved down to "references", and the individual cites bundled up into a single note. Johnbod (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Apostle, Johnbod has most likely come here because I have recently queried this point with the Great and the Good. My query is already receiving responses from people whom we really should listen to: they are experienced, many have substantial involvement in the GA/FA etc process and Malleus himself is often referred to as one of the best writers that we have here. Feel free to join in, obviously. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  You make me blush. This is obviously a very significant article, and one that I can well see might be difficult to write, to satisfy all sides, but I really don't think that anyone would doubt that "The caste system in India is a system of social stratification" would they? So there's no need for that to be cited, at least not in the lead, which is really too long anyway; a maximum of four, maybe exceptionally five, paragraphs is the recommendation, but less can often be more. I wish you all luck with this, and I admire your bravery and resolve in tackling such an evocative and potentially controversial subject. If there's ever anything I can do to help, just ask. Just as a suggestion, it's often easier, as Sitush says, to write the lead once the article's written, but in this case I think I'd probably try and write the lead first, without citations, to try and give the article an overall shape, and then come back to the citations in the lead issue later, if necessary. Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  Oops, I've just seen the warning at the top of the page; looks like this isn't a place I ought to be. Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• You would be as fine here as anywhere else ... - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush and Johnbod. On the other question, the lead of this article can indeed be pruned, a lot. If you or someone has time, please clean it up. I may have some time, few days from now; I will join whoever wants to give it a try, or start the prune if no one has by then. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Tibetan scripts

I removed a few Tibetan scripts from the article a few minutes ago. I have since been told that they existed for the purposes of verification. I'll have a think. - Sitush (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Caste system versus class system

What is difference between caste system and social class system such as in the Great Britain? From article, it is not clear. Why does one country or community have a "class system" and another countries be thought to be a "caste system"? All countries have or had class systems, especially during feudal period.

I removed examples I thought were incorrect, e.g. West Indians in United Kingdom were not a class or caste. They were called "darkies" and discrimination because of negro race. Also Burakumin are not a "Buddhist community" nor is the whole of Japan (see Shinto influence).

It seemed that in a few places the authors seem to equate "caste system" with untouchability which is not the whole picture.

It is strange that such a long topic can be written about caste but not mention guna, karma, Vedas or Manusmṛti.

And why also topic Varna (Hinduism)? Same, no? --Januarythe18th (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Caste and Tribes

Sindh and Pakistan Punjab have muslim tribes such as Jat, Awan, Arrain, Rajput etc. In India, the Hindu equivalents of Rajput and Jat would be called caste. So my question is when does a tribe become a caste and vice versa?Jonathansammy (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If they're a tribe then they are not a caste, per your statement. Ours not to reason why etc, since this page is for discussion of improvements to the article and the article relates to caste in India, not tribes in Pakistan. I realise that pre-independence India included present-day Pakistan but we all know that there are Muslim and even Christian communities that were treated as a part of the caste system: you are probably creating an issue where none exists, at least in the context of this article. A visit to the help desk might be worthwhile, although I suspect that you already have an answer and yours is a rhetorical device. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

SiTush, You are absolutely right ! As you have educated yourself a lot over the last year by going over Risley's work, you must have noticed that he and other writers from the colonial era used the two words interchangeably. Rajput is a case in point. Let's put India and Pakistan aside and just talk about Hindu Rajputs and Muslim Rajputs. Why is the former group called a caste and and the latter a tribe ? By calling themselves Rajputs , the muslim group is implicitly acknowledging their Hindu roots and so once again, why this change in definition? This article will not be complete unless this issue is tackled. I will add material to that effect once I find suitable references.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Castes and Tribes

Sindh and Pakistan Punjab have muslim tribes such as Jat, Awan, Arrain, Rajput etc. In India, the Hindu equivalents of Rajput and Jat would be called caste. An 8th century document called Chachnamawhich is similar to the Doomsday book gives detailed information on communities and culture of Sindh. The groups mentioned in that document still exist in Modern day Gujarat as castes and in Sindh as tribes. These are just two examples to illustrate my point. So my question is when does a tribe become a caste and vice versa? Jonathansammy (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please the the section that you started immediately above this one. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I don't know what happened here !Jonathansammy (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Over the past few weeks, there has only been one constructive edit (not including reversions to fix said vandalism). All of these have come from either anonymous users or from an account that appears to have been created solely to vandalize the page (see Special:Contributions/Slaggylindsey). As the volume isn't particularly great and is relatively easily taken care of, I have refrained from requesting semi-protection, however, I am not exactly a frequent contributor, and am unsure if this is the appropriate course of action. The Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection states that 5% of edits being vandalism is common and thus not warranting of protection, however, in the past 3 weeks, more than 50% of edits have been vandalism. That said, this has only recently begun and it seems easy to take care of for the time being. Further input on the matter from other would be appreciated; I don't want to waste admins' time reviewing an article's history that will simply result in the denial of protection. -- Jonathan FarnhamJ 20:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

Is it normal/appropriate for the introduction to read: "The Jātis were grouped by the Brahminical texts under the four well-known caste categories and no one liked them and blah blah blah(the varnas)"? Doesn't quite look encyclopedia-like to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.105.169 (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That was vandalism, automatically reverted by a bot within a minute of it being posted. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Gandhi

please remove gandhi photo from here, he is a castiest, who advocated for chathurvarna system which is the root cause of caste system (Anon User)

Two verifiable sources disagree with this, have you any reputable sources to back up this claim? Jonathan FarnhamJ 16:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there an official list of all caste?

The article List of Indian castes is up for deletion, some arguing whether or not there is proof which are real caste and which aren't. Is there an official government list somewhere, census data from India, or anything official which list every single caste there is? Dream Focus 14:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Geez, I've told you this and you should take it in good faith as someone who contributes heavily to this sphere. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

None that you could find, but common sense, they must be out there somewhere. Perhaps they aren't written in English. Seriously, has anyone checked the census of India yet? Dream Focus 14:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Found it. [1] They started their census in 1881 and stopped keeping track of caste in 1931. So just need to find the census list before that time. Dream Focus 14:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Do you really think that I am that stupid? You are so wrong about that but feel free to waste your time. Those Raj censuses are deemed to be unreliable. Read H. H. Risley for a primer. Honestly, if it were not for the fact that we are all equal here, I'd be pulling rank on you because I really do not like the way you are approaching this. However, you'll learn something from it, so all will end well. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable how? For accuracy of numbers? Not unreliable for listing the names of the caste though. [2] And you are being rather rude and arrogant. Dream Focus 15:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• As I said in the AFD discussion, someone already collected the data from official census documents for the article 1891 Census of India. Even if you doubt the accuracy of their numbers, obviously they wouldn't get the names of their caste wrong. Dream Focus 15:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• You are stumbling on here. It is not merely the numbers that are in dispute, the classifications and names are disputed. The whole thing was an exercise in social engineering by a bunch of ill-informed scientific racists. Try to find the equivalent list for 1881, for example, and you'll wonder how in a decade a shed load of communities suddenly ceased to exist, while another shedload appeared out of nowhere. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The names absolutely are in dispute. Look at Lodhi, for example, or Pallar, two just off the top of my head for which a variety of sources give different names. In some cases, like Lodhi, WP:COMMONNAME seems to narrow us in on the title, but for Pallar the name of the community is actually a point of dispute. In the Pallar article itself we discuss the complex naming issue, but such a discussion could not occur on the list. In fact, I don't even know if either of those would go on the list, since it's unclear that either group meets the definition of a caste. Dream Focus, it has been well established across the project that official government surveys from the British rule were horribly inaccurate, because, in many cases, the British rulers simply asked the group whom they happened to like "So...who lives here?" and, unsurprisingly, those favored groups gave names, numbers, and rankings that benefited themselves. This is established historical fact. Because I love analogies--would you rely on Aristotle for a list of elements? You could rely on Aristotle, of course, to tell you a list of elements that (some of the) Ancient Greeks believed existed (5 of them, in fact), but you certainly wouldn't rely upon it for an article entitled List of elements. So, yeah, I suppose we could create an article called List of castes in the 1891 British census of India, but I'm not sure that such historical minutia is within our remit (since it would basically just be a copy of the source document less numbers). But I guess I wouldn't oppose such an article, so long as someone has a copy of that census. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Any such article (1891 list etc) would need an introduction that explains the modern academic take on the thing. There are books around that discuss such things and frequently rip into the outcomes. I've used a couple somewhere - one being an edited collection of papers - but it will take me a while to dig out the titles. - Sitush (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Foreigners

Maybe I misunderstood the article but where were foreigners (Englishmen or Chinese or others) classified in the caste system? Were they treated as outcaste? Was there something like the honorary whites of apartheid? I only found that the Roman Catholic Brahmins did not intermarriage with the (also Catholic) Portuguese. --Error (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

CASTE IS NOT BASED ON SKIN COLOR/MAHABHARATA MISTRANSLATION

No where in the Mahabharata or any Hindu scripture does it indicate that caste is based on physical characteristics such as skin color. There is a clear mistranslation of the Mahabharata there under Amartya Sen. This is not the general consesus among Hinduism/ Sanskrit scholars.

Please fix this. Or at least add a side note that should indicate that it is his view. -Seeker

Please provide some reliable sources to support your contention. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how I can provide reliable sources for that particular quote as there is no page number or reference given as to which part of the Mahabharata the actual quote came from. From my understanding, there are no references to skin color or any physical characteristics in any Hindu scripture. I can give plenty of reliable sources for that if you need but I don't think thats what you're asking for. In addition, from my search, that interpretation/quote is only found in the book by the auhtor Amartya Sen. Therefore, I think it would be fair to clarify that it is his interpretation.

Hope this helps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.6.20 (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The Mahabharata is not a reliable source in itself because it is wide open to interpretation and that would involve us engaging in original research. So, your suggestion of showing some modern reliable sources is exactly how we should be doing things I recall having some doubts about Amartya Sen on another article & it would be no surprise if they were shown to be problematic here. But we do have to demonstrate that. - Sitush (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I will take some time to find any sources.-seeker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.6.20 (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much. There's no rush. - Sitush (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding modern research on this topic i would refer all to Oliver Cox and his book Caste Class and Race. It is available free online (legally). He argues in the sub chapter "Origins of caste" against race theories and pure blood theories. For example a large part of the argument by people who support race theories of caste is the interpretation of the word "Varna" and also historical claims of the Aryan race trying to protect their blood as the start of caste. Cox argues that firstly the definition of Varna is more complex than what the race theorists claim as they interpret it as simple "Color" whereas it also means appearance, species, and caste itself. Furthermore Cox regards dictionary definitions limited and asks the reader to look at the context where this term is used.

"Vishnu uses it somewhat in the same sense: "That has been acquired by the mode of livelihood of their own caste, by members of any caste, is called 'white.' What has been acquired by the mode of livelihood of the caste next below in order of their own is called 'mottled.' What has been acquired by the mode of livelihood of the caste two or more degrees lower than their own is called 'black.' " In other uses, color seems to be "a symbol of the inherent qualities of nature."" - pg 95 (Vishnu, LVIII, 6-8.) = secondary reference.

"Thus in the Varnapavan of the Mahabharata a god says of himself: "My color in the Krita age is white, in the Treta yellow; when I reach the Dvapara, it is red, and in the Kali black."" pg- 95 (28Verse 12981, quoted by John Muir, op. cit., p. 145, note) = secondary reference

The author sums up his position in the following way. “The writers who use modern ideas of race relations for the purpose of explaining the origin of caste make an uncritical transfer of modern thought to an age which did not know it.” His understanding of racism is that it is mostly formed from class struggle as a fundamental trait of capitalism and did not exist before 1492 (late 15th -16th century) i.e. the early beginnings of capitalism.

feel free to check it out and add it to the main article. I may do it myself at some point if i get time. PAB1990 (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

How?

How are the castes chosen? One cannot choose a chaste. One is simply born into it, like fuderal status. Also, how do 'they' work out who you were in your past lives? I'd love to work these things out about myself too, simply out of interest however. Elcaballooscuro (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In India the caste of an individual dont change because it is by birth, but the changes happen in the four fold division. One can choose how he lives and what work he does and then he will come under different varnas. Varnas are just categories of people and has nothing to do with caste. Everyone confuses varnas with castes and there lies the problem. Caste may be rigid but not varna because anyone can get into any varna. 223.177.31.141 (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

do you know what the caste syestem about let me explain its about going up and down the system so is your good you go up and bad dowm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.18.26 (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

92.*, I think you may be referring to a different concept here: perhaps Buddhist philosophy. In any event, this is not a page for general discussion but rather for discussion of improvements to the article. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding caste system being a system of mobility - yes, on another planet maybe? Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

There are 3 castes. The Shudra is one who has not yet been initiated (onto his/her spiritual journey); the Kshatriya is one who is battling between the real and the illusory (maya); the Brahman is one who is established in Brahma. All discussions, criticisms, speculations are useless.82.194.38.88 (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This is, of course, your personal belief, not something we can put into a Wikipedia article. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Use of Caste in biographies- does it require the individual's self-declaration?

Hi, request those who are watching this page to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Caste_identification on whether mentioning a person's caste (Jati) requires that person to explicitly say that he belongs to XX caste (like in the case of religion and sexuality), or whether caste identity is objective and knowable enough (like ethnic background) to be ascertained without producing proof that the person explicitly identified with a particular caste. For example, can we identify Mulayam_Singh_Yadav as a Yadav based on newspaper articles etc., or whether we need proof that Mulayam Singh Yadav has explicitly accepted 'Yadav' as his caste (by saying, for example, something like "I am a Yadav".) Sreejiraj (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite of lead section

I am attempting a rewrite of the lead of this article inspired by the fact that I came to this article with almost no understanding of the caste system, and left it in pretty much the same state of confusion. Please see my draft here. I think the current lead jumps too quickly into modern debates about caste before giving non-experts enough information to make sense of them. I’m neither an expert nor an Indian, but I’ve tried to describe the traditional caste system in a way that helps people like me. I’ve limited references and citations in this section to a small collection of sources that seem to be representative, authoritative, and well-written, drawn from a 100 year span. There’s imprecision in my draft but I wanted to keep it short. I hope no one will be offended and people will read the draft and offer constructive criticism. I’d like to get support before changing the article. This talk page, rather than my user draft page, is the best place for comments. Jeffrw (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It is complex because the subject is complex. Let's take the opening paragraph of your draft, ie: The Indian caste system is the traditional organization of South Asian, particularly Hindu, society into a hierarchy of hereditary groups called castes or jatis. Marriage occurs only within caste (endogamy) and caste is fixed by birth. Each jati is associated with a traditional occupation, such as weaving or barbering. Hindu religious principles underlay the caste hierarchy and limit the ways that castes can interact.[1] I would dispute that caste and jati are synonymous and that endogamy always does or even did apply. I would also dispute the oversimplification that caste is fixed by birth, if only because the number of identified castes has grown enormously over the decades, they continue to form and disappear due to fission and fusion, and because of sanskritisation. You might also want to consider where gotra fits in. I honestly think that this is an article that will likely always need expert attention. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You may dispute these claims, but it will be necessary to provide evidence to dispute them, all the more because these are in general accepted as the facts of caste society.PAB1990 (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Re-write is better in my opinion then what exists now. I would only add that mention of the caste system being a system of social stratification should be kept and incorporated in (unless i missed it).PAB1990 (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. I'm waiting to see if more people weigh in before answering them. Jeffrw (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, PAB. Go read my voluminous contributions to caste articles - you'll find the sources in them, I am sure. For example, many sources do indeed simplistically equate caste with jati but others consider caste = varna and others consider jatis to be subcastes. A decent overview from the perspective of an anthropologist might be Bayly, Susan (2001). Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521798426. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) but you'll need to read the entire thing because the situation is very complex. Sociologists such as Bernard Cohn and Milton Singer are ok for another perspective but Ramnarayan Rawat's more recent socio-history, Reconsidering Untouchability, blows huge holes in the 20th century academic treatments of this subject, albeit concentrating on one particular example (the dalit/outcaste Chamars). Of course, M. N. Srinivas coined the word "sanskritisation" that has been widely accepted, and that the number of castes has altered over time is a truism that is only partially explained by revised methods of identification by collators, eg: there were 1646 identified communities in 1901, 4147 in 1931 and 4635 in the 1990s, although the latter figure was self-admitted to be on the conservative side (first two are from respective census data; third is the People of India national series, ed. Kumar Suresh Singh). The collapsed table at Nair gives a specific example.

I think a bit of consideration for the practice of hypergamy and exogamy among Indian communities would demonstrate that tying everything to endogamy is another simplification: for example, endogamy commonly exists at one level and exogamy at another.

Some time in the latter half of last year there was a huge bust-up either here or (more probably) at Caste and that resulted in a suggestion from Fowlerandfowler and others who are very knowledgeable on the subject, that I write up our content relating to India - I said then that it was massively complex and I'd probably have to re-read a vast amount of my vast list of sources that had already been read, concentrating specifically on this issue. I've still not got round to a rewrite and, as then, I have doubts whether multi-disciplinary "big scope" articles such as this can ever really do their subject justice. Although, of course, we have to try, until we get the core content of such articles in a decent state there is not a lot of point in rewriting the lead sections that summarise them. - Sitush (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've made my changes to the lead of this article under the guidelines of WP:BOLD and WP:Lead. NO PREVIOUS MATERIAL HAS BEEN DELETED, but it has been moved to later sections in the article. Thanks to Sitush and PAB1990 for the very helpful feedback. I have incorporated your notes into the rewrite, although obviously by WP:Lead some of the more complex issues have to be dealt with more thoroughly in later sections. Jeffrw (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, you've got it wrong. For example, "In rural villages a jati may control a particular occupation, but often the connection between caste and occupation is only ancestral, and a member of a jati may do any work that is not considered low or demeaning." is a misunderstanding even today, let alone in the traditional sense. It was far more rigid, it is still generally far more rigid and, for example, one group considers another's occupation to be "low or demeaning". The impact of the Brits on the caste system is also of massive importance, to the point where many argue that the modern system is pretty much entirely down to them. I have the feeling that you will be reverted or substantially modified when Fowler&fowler return from their travels. Me? I've got too much other rubbish flying around to get involved right now. - Sitush (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I've modified the lead in light of this note and added more references. Jeffrw (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Spelling

There's been a few back-and-forth edits recently changing the spelling of words that have different spelling in regional variants of English, specifically organization/organisation and laborers/labourers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English has guidelines for choice of regional spelling in articles. It's recommended that when articles have strong connections to a particular nation, that nation's spelling should be adopted. Therefore I suggest we adopt Indian English spelling for this article. Unfortunately the Wikipedia article on Indian English is not very helpful on specific spelling questions, so perhaps the adoption of British Commonwealth spellings as described here is the best bet. Jeffrw (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Just use British English. The issue crops up occasionally in discussions at WT:INB and invariably ends up saying this. Indian English is merely a concept pushed on this project by Hindutva and similar groups. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

POV WARNING

I would like to remove the POV warning from the lead of this article. It has been in place since April 2011, and there's no evidence that the editor(s) who placed it there are still disputing the article. It may be the case that some sections are NPOV but I don't think the warning applies to the whole article. Opinions? Jeffrw (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree --Jayarathina (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if the alternative would be that we have to spatter umpteen similar tags across various sections rather than just have one at the top, I don't see the point of this. The article is POV-y but fixing it is a major task. - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

In order for a POV tag to remain on an article, there needs to be active discussion on the matter, or, at least, there needs to be a clear consensus among editors that the article isn't neutral (but can't easily be fixed). This has come up on other pages I've edited on, where one side of a dispute "loses" the dispute, and then wants to brand the article with the POV tag because, well, they don't agree with it, so it must be POV. So, if we want the tag to stay, we do need some sort of rationale for it remaining. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Banning of marriage data bureaus

Appearantly, one major component that is maintaining the caste system is marriage data bureas. These provide "data" (work, caste, ...) which parents use to promise their child to another person. For this information service, people hence don't even need internet connection on an own computer. Banning of these marriage data bureaus or atleast banning the providing of caste information on the biographies of those people subscribed in these services would be advisable. Perhaps this info can be incorporated to the article 80.246.176.2 (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can find reliable sources that moot such a ban, it has no place in this article. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not commenting on wider issues. - Sitush (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Lede section

The lede is poorly written. It does not summarize the article. I am revising it according to the guidelines here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section

My focus is to trim the lede summary to most important aspects, and remove new information from lede that is not covered in the remainder of the article. The lede and the article needs more work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TokunagaM (talk • contribs) 19:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi TokugagaM TokunagaM, I'm going to revert your changes. I totally sympathize with your goal to improve the lede, especially since I'm the last guy to make a big alteration, but I think you have not really taken us in new direction, but rather have eliminated some important information and also made the prose worse. Wikipedia BOLD invites us to make big changes to articles without consultation, but on the other hand this is a case where it might have been nice to write a version in your sandbox and give us a chance to offer suggestions. I very much hope you'll come back and engage in discussion. Jeffrw (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, see the recently-archived talk discussions about the lead. Jeffrw (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jeffrw, I have read the archive. Wikipedia lede guideline says 'new information should not appear in lede that is not covered in the remainder of the article'. The lede you created since March 2013, has too many claims that are new and not covered in the remainder of the article. There is no citation to support it either. As example, see discussion of purity in 2nd paragraph - there is no discussion in the main article, and it has no citation in the lede either. Do you know, and would readers know what 'innate spiritual purity' means? Exogamy is another claim in lede that is not discussed in main article. Nor is garbage handling, nor is "subgroup within a jati"; etc etc. For full disclosure, sociology is my field and Indology has been part of my focus for many many years. With good faith, I must say this lede is a very poor summary of this article's most important aspects. I am re-reverting you, because the lede you like makes claims that are false and does not summarize the article. If you wish to revert it again, please add reliable sources for each major claim that are not discussed at all in the main article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TokunagaM (talk • contribs) 08:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, restored to an earlier version with citations as requested by TokunagaM. Just to explain the history, the citations in this version were subsequently deleted by another editor on the basis that citations did not belong in the lead and were implicit in the bibliography. Also, some of the things TokunagaM objects to, such as the term "exogamy" and "subgroups within a jati", were insisted upon by other editors. Jeffrw (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Jeffrw (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jeffrw, You have added a few citations. Thank you. I believe you are misunderstanding, or not properly clarifying/summarizing what Srinivas, Ghurye and others have extensively written. It is not obvious from lede or the main article what 'higher, purer individuals' means!! Please clarify. If this is beyond your competence, I am willing to help you.

You are also not addressing the previous editor's and my key concern: 'new information should not appear in lede that is not covered in the remainder of the article'. This is wiki's policy for lede, see link above. The lede should reflect the body of the article; and when it does so, citations are unnecessary. Your lede currently ignores the body of the article. It is a very poor, biased lede. I invite you to improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TokunagaM (talk • contribs) 13:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jeffrw - Instead of reverting to my version, I have restored the lede to the version before you made your BOLD change. That old version too needs work, but it is better than your version and summarizes the article per wiki lede policies. I hope we can work collaboratively, and develop a consensus lede. If you wish, we can take this to an appropriate dispute board on wikipedia to get feedback on your lede and wiki policies.TokunagaM (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

This restoration is ridiculous, deploying very poor sources, lacking context, reinstating repetition etc. I and others have asked the contributor to discuss various issues on numerous occasions and, frankly, I'm at the end of my tether here. The article already explains that there are/have been movements of communities, that there are academic debates regarding the rigidity of the system etc. There are literally hundreds of castes who have claimed to be something other than what other castes believe them to be - picking up on a few using synthesis of very poor sources is not the way to deal with it in an overview article. - Sitush (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Violence

I've just reverted Sitush's removal of the "Caste-related violence" section. While I do agree that it appears to be focusing on only one aspect of caste violence, and thus is potentially WP:UNDUE, isn't the best solution to that to add more info, not remove what's already there? Would it be possible to cut just part of that? For example, i did remove the extended details on the Kherlanji Massacre of 2006, since the whole point of summary style is to not have to repeat all of that here. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That's ok, although I am also concerned that there is synthesising of the various United Nations sources. Much of the article has been hijacked to push a dalit-specific agenda, imo, and even before that it needed a complete rewrite. Fowler&fowler may be able to assist - I've got IT problems. - Sitush (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"screen recorded in process" Asking editor on "TALK PAGE" To add more scripture reference

I know of these verses but they seem to be related to a NON-inherited caste system

(Brahman, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras)

Bhagavad Gita, Ch.4, Verse 13 The Lord says: "The fourfold caste has been created by Me according to the differentiation of Guna and Karma;"

Bhagavad Gita, Ch.18, verse 40 the Lord says: "There is no being on earth, or again in heaven among the gods, that is liberated from the three qualities born of Nature."

Gita Ch. 18, V.41: "Of Brahmanas, Kshtriyas and Vaishyas, as also the Sudras, O Arjuna, the duties are distributed according to the qualities born of their own nature."

Would it be possible for more scripture verses instead of less then two?

82.38.161.217 (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Indianvedic

They are obviously newbie translations.. You really believe that we translated this way, even 200 years ago? It sounds like, some translators have been influenced by time, rather than focusing on the real language. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The Question was asked for you to add more scriptures references to show a inherited caste system from the gita,My question was denied due to Modern translations?

Mr jay lakhani states that the hindu caste system is not Inherited as seen in the youtube video Frequently Asked Ques FAQs on Caste System & Hinduism Mr Jay Lakhani link added bellow, he has appeared on the BBC news, British T.v talk shows on religious debates on Hinduism in England,has Also been mention in the top British news papers & he is the head tutor of hindu studies at eton collage london of higher learning and is also the Director Of Hindu Academy of England.

82.38.161.217 (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Indianvedic

Nice idea, i will definitely look at this. Bladesmulti (talk)

NPOV CHECK

Social stratification is one view, there are a few others :

Alex Michaels, Hinduism: Past and Present 188-97 (Princeton 2004) ISBN 0-691-08953-1

The Constitution of India by P.M. Bakshi, Universal Law Publishing Co, ISBN 81-7534-500-4

Mendelsohn, Oliver & Vicziany, Maria, "The Untouchables, Subordination, Poverty and the State in Modern India", Cambridge University Press, 1998

Kevin Reilly, Stephen Kaufman, Angela Bodino, Racism: A Global Reader P21, M.E. Sharpe, 2003 ISBN 0-7656-1060-4.

http://raceandhistory.com/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1021121858,1048,.shtml

http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=N70GiNB8aQ4C&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=Caste+racist+slavery&source=bl&ots=U2qFu6yza8&sig=_lQVMpfI8zczT7lwxby-h6SYNVA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=m9jCUsbTII6AhAeLloC4CQ&ved=0CEIQ6AEwCDge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence first (talk • contribs) 14:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

clarification needed

The lead says "The caste system has no legality in India"(cited to an offline source). Yet there are official legal affirmative action and reserve policies that are in place and have court battles . The statement needs to be clarified. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)