Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:14, 9 August 2012

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:Castewarningtalk Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hinduism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Africa Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. [REDACTED] Discrimination [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Template:Pbneutral It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. Upload

Archives

/Archive 1

Untitled

Doesn't labeling people by castes breed ASPD? Known 11:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there any facts to show such a relation?--Utinomen (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A caste is actually a system of social groups based on birth. 24.7.47.195 (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Michael, Ph.D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.47.195 (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Caste Requires Legal Sanction

Unless I the law recognizes and enforces social boundaries based on birth into a defined social class, there is no caste system. Caste practices may exist, but if they can't be enforced, the social boundaries they rely on can't hold. This doesn't mean that there aren't effects of caste practices that survive, or that classes based on one's momentary position in a given economy don't exist. Caste refers to the specific case where one's social class is fixed simply by classification, and that can only survive by enforcement. If not enforced, it's meaningless. Tmangray 19:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. look up a dictionary. By your definition this entire article is to be deleted because none of the countries mentioned legally sanction casteism.Rumpelstiltskin223 19:59, 1 January

2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rumpelstiltskin223. Tmangray, you are so wrong. India most certainly has government reservations on the basis of caste, but the law--the constitution--claims that caste is illegal. So do we have a caste system or do we not? Caste is a social system, not a legal system. The offenders are not the law makers, they are the people themselves. --Supriya (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The definitions are out of date. They are holdovers from the time when those caste systems were in fact enforced by law, and when the state and religion were, by law, intertwined. However, I will allow that "legal enforcement" includes instances where the law does not provide for effect challenge of surviving caste practices. But realistically, unless a caste practice can be affirmatively enforced, how can it be maintained over time? In the past when the law actually assigned classifications, rights and privileges were accorded based on that classification. Such things are increasingly unusual, and more often than not are employed as legal remedies AGAINST the effects of past practices. Tmangray 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please provide Reliable Sources to back up your first statement, otherwise it is not[REDACTED] policy. What "you will allow" is a violation of WP:OWN. "Realistically", most countries with caste systems have only abolished them legally recently (ie sometime in the 20th century). Casteism going on in Japan, India/Pakistan, Korea etc is social inertia against modern law. In India, for instance, there were many kingdoms and Empires that abolished caste by law (Mughals, Marathas etc) but the practice remained thanks to the social inertia from the period when they WERE legally enforced (Zawabi under Delhi Sultanate etc.). Therefore, legal sanction is clearly not suitable as the SOLE criteria to define Casteism. We have to say legal and/or social. Rumpelstiltskin223 20:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Not Restricted to "Clans", "Gens"

Caste systems are not confined solely to tribal systems. Latin America's caste system, for example, had nothing at all to do with clans or gens, simply race. Japan also did not use tribal criteria. Tmangray 19:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There is not much difference between race and tribe. Race is an artificial construct invented by 19th century Europeans to sugarcoat their ideas of tribalism.Rumpelstiltskin223 20:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between race and village. Race was created to refer to supposed subspecies distinctions within the human species, yes, with an eye to distinguishing Europeans from all others. On the other hand, tribalism is real and starkly distinct from subsequent forms of society. Tribal societies are entirely based on extended family affiliations whereas non-tribal societies are not. Tmangray 20:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What is your WP:POINT? Rumpelstiltskin223 20:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I just stated it. Race and tribe are distinct terms and concepts. Tmangray 20:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Latin America

There is no system of castes in Latin America any longer. The degree of racial mixture and the absence of official classifications makes the idea meaningless today. No one has a birth certificate any longer which specifies their race or caste. There persists racism based on one's appearance (which because of racial mixture is almost always deceiving) and economic status, and practices that echo the old caste system, but these are a far cry from a full blown caste system as once existed. In the old system, there's no way a person who was a Moslem, for example, could be the wealthiest person in Mexico such is the case today. The president of Venezuela is triracial today. Even the despots over the years have included people who would have been officially classified as undercaste before the various revolutions. Tmangray 20:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

By your logic, there is no system of castes in India any longer either. The degree of inter-caste mixture and absence of "official classification makes the idea meaningless today. No one has a birth certificate in India that specifies their race or caste. There persists casteism based on the person's last name and votebank politics and economic status, and practices that echo the old caste system, but htere are a far cry from the full blown caste system that once existed when Dalits' shadow would not be allowed upon an upper caste-ite. In the old system, there is no way by which an untouchable could ever have been the President of India, as was the case prior to India's present one. There are several Dalits in academia, industry, politics etc.Even despots like Narendra Modi are from very low castes. So, what's your point again? Rumpelstiltskin223 21:20, 1 January

2007 (UTC)

Latin America also includes Brazil, that had an diferent social system then that of Hispanic America.The title of this section is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.119.25 (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Then there is no caste system anymore in India, by your description. You may be right. There may be caste practices, but unless they are SYSTEMATIC, that is, fundamental and dominating social interactions in a regular way, it would be incorrect to call it a SYSTEM of castes. You can't call black white. How would you define the distinction between a class and a caste? The critical distinction is that one is immutable, based on birth and the other not. Tmangray 22:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my argument entirely. I was applying your argument to India to show how fallacious it is. Just because there is no caste system mandated by law does not mean there isn't a social system of stratification based on historical beliefs in differences. The extent may have reduced because of the absense of state sanction, but the inertia still keeps it in the society. Many sociologists believe that caste and class are not as distinct as you say. For instance, the US library of Congress makes no distinction between caste and class.Rumpelstiltskin223 23:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In Latin America, physical appearance (phenotype) and economic status are the common form of discrimination, not birth or legal classification. That is not caste. In the same immediate family, one sibling can be dark, another light, and another intermediate. They will be treated differently by some people who pay attention to that. Mostly these days, the trump card isn't even this, but socioeconomic status, mere class. Saying there is a caste system today confounds understanding of what the actual, historic caste system was like, and also confounds understanding the class society that exists there today. Tmangray 23:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:No Original Research. Rumpelstiltskin223 23:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all I would like to note that there was no caste system in Rwanda between the Tutsi and Hutu before Europeans came. When the Europeons came, they used their ignorant ideology and divided the once peaceful Tutsi and Hutu. So in a sense, the caste system in Rwanda was started by Europeans not Tutsi. Besides, the Rwandan Genocide was classified in this article as an uprising of undercaste Hutu against overlord Tutsis, and that is absolutely ridiculus. The people causing the genocide were the French-armed Hutu extremists who wanted to kill every innocent Tutsi and moderate Hutu. Besides at the time of the Rwandan Genocide the Tutsis were not "overlords"! Who wrote this?.

Even if Europeans are partly at fault for the Rwandan "caste system," Hutus and Tutsis have to shoulder most of the blame. THEY are the ones who discriminated each other, which led to the genocide. Europeans didn't make them do that. Chiss Boy 15:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there really a Caste System in Pakistan?

The entry on a Caste system in Pakistan is at the very least partly inaccurate. I am from Pakistan and while there are serious sectarian conflicts between different religious sects (e.g., Shia, Sunni, etc...) and problems between majority and minority tribal groups, these problems have a different root than the Caste system. I have tried to edit this entry three times now but someone keeps reverting it back to the original - incorrect - version with zero discussion. I hope through discussion this entry can be changed to something that represents the true situation in Pakistan.

My problems with the stated definition of caste issues in Pakistan are as follows: jobs are not prescribed or forbidden to different tribal/religious groups; although obviously poorer people tend to have more menial jobs. Intermarriage may occur within tribal groups but this is not the same thing as a caste system. It is rather that minority groups tending to marry within the same group - this happens anywhere in the world - including Scotland, where I currently live.

I have the following problems with the entry on Pakistan:

1. Calling Ahmadiyya, Mohajirs (NOT Mojahirs) and Punjabis, etc... different castes is wrong. They are either from different provinces in the country (analogous to the different nations in the UK) or from different religious sects. This is equivalent to describing e.g., Catholics, Protestants, Scottish and the Welsh in the UK as being different Castes.

2. Furthermore, Mukhtaran Mai is not from a low caste - she is from the Gujar tribe, a poor tribe - the men who attacked her were the village elders who came from a wealthier tribe known as the Mastoi. Mukhtar herself is a schoolteacher - not a "low" job by any description.

3. The discussion of the Hudood ordinance here is totally irrelevant as it is a legal issue and nothing to do with any Caste system at all.

I hope this is reasonable and does not offend any one while still generating reasoned and logical debate.

Thanks, Sraisa 20:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Indian Caste System

It seems that some Indian Wikipedians have to own up to the fact that there is (at least partially) a racist aspect to their caste system. Whether or not this racism existed before British rule, this racism does still exist today, and should be mentioned. Chiss Boy 15:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the "racist" aspect of the Hindu (not Indian) caste system? Each ethnic group has their own caste system and each ethnic group is essentially the same racially... so if a person of one caste discriminates against a person of another caste, they'd be discriminating against someone of their ethnicity/race. I think the word you're looking for discriminatory or bigoted and that only happens if a person thinks their caste is better than another like someone of an educated caste or a warrior caste looking down on someone of a manual labor or agricultural caste. ] (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Ayan

Hinduism tried to remove casteism. But failed in its attempt and still it coexist with hinduism other religions including islam, christianity in Indian subcontinent? When Ramayana and Mahabaratha states that the division on the basis of caste and discrimination is not acceptable to god, how it survived till date at least even in hinduism. Why did lord Ram visit Shabari and ate the food she gave if the philosophy of hinduism is in support of casteism. Was casteism in ancient time meant status as Karna was made a king by Dhuryodhana to help him to attain the status of a king to fight with another king. Why is birth in a particular community does not guarantee the caste, as happened with Karan and why is Mahabaratha highlighting such an incident, is it to state that casteism must not be a criteria based on birth? Why is that nowhere in the two epics the issue of untouchability never higlighted. Was it non-existant at that time. And why is that certain issues suggest even the non-existant of untouchability. 59.92.198.93 13:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding of the two epics here. Ram also murdered Shudrak, a "shudra" man for the "crime" of doing meditation with the aim of attaining Brahminhood (the guy was apparently unarmed and not a fighter by any means). And although Karna was made a king by Duryodhana, Draupadi denied him right to compete in her "swayambar" because of being a "sutaputra" (son of a charioteer). I believe a first hand reading of the two epics will help answer the questions above. Srays (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me or is this rather prejudiced? "However, one significant blow to inherited social status in India came about with the abolition of royalty when India gained its independence from the British Empire. Ironically, India is in this regard ahead of several democratic European countries that still have kings, queens, princes, princesses, including its former colonial master Britain.24.197.174.13 (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I found that some one vandalized the section "Caste in Europe" by adding incorrect information about India, so I had deleted it. For information about Caste in India, please scroll down to the appropriate section which is very elaborate and fair.--vaidix (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

To answer Chiss and others who are puzzled by India's caste system here is the scoop:

The way Indians think, a society is what people want it to be. People like to affiliate with others who are similar to them (birds of same feather flock together) as well as emulate the best in others and avoid the worst in others. Sure, there is a dark side to what people can do to others. But the way Indian system works, several groups of immigrants or locals who have similar origins live together for comfort, job security, productivity and peaceful coexistence in daily life without confusion. Each group also borrows the best features from other groups as time goes. In the end, all groups end up sharing a common culture and religion. In addition, each group takes control of one market for a product or service, and enjoys monopoly in that product or service. Britishers could not break this system as they could not sell their wares and got grustrated, so they started blaming all of Indian society's problems on caste system. Really speaking the problems of Indian society are due to 1400 years of anarchy since Islamic invasions and 300 years of colonialism. The old time kings used to "resolve" problems between the groups whereas the colonials and the new Indian politicians "exploit" the groups and accentuate the problems. To do a thought experiment, I believe Europe would be a more harmonious place without enmities and balkanization if Europe adopted Indian style caste system in which Italians became food suppliers, Swiss became bankers, British did administration, Germans took care of military and so on (seriously .. no jokes).

As for the question raised by Chiss whether caste system is racism: First of all the term racism itself got an undue negative connotation because the concept of "race" was abused by Hitler and others. As some one wrote under Caste in Europe section, the term Pillarisation is a neutral term which simply denotes various categories of people living together in a society but dealing among themselves within each pillar and not between pillars. If the attribute chosen for pillarization is a combination of apparent skin color and features and it can be called "racism". Therefore racism, when used simply for the purpose of pillarisation, is harmless, and can be called "good racism". But when one pillar destroys other, it is bad racism. Similarly the term "caste" had got a negative connotation in India, quite appropriately, because in the recent history of 200 years the pillars of Indian social system were ruthlessly competing with each other to gain favors from British and later Indian governments or to just vanquish other pillars. If the social problems are resolved the Indian caste system would not only be a harmless entity but actually help progress of the society as it had in the paste when India attained 22.6% of world's GDP in 1700CE.

--vaidix (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with Vaidix. I am a viashya (I believe). Anyway definitely not from the upper caste. But I fully support the caste system as a means of division of labor. Large coporations do this because it is plain practical. Civil engineers, Mechanical engineers, electrical engineers all work on a project and collectively bring up a project. A civil engineer do not discriminate against an electrical engineer. They hope to get the information they do not know from the subject matter experts (namely the other field of engineers). My family is very close to a brahmin family. I am amazed at how all members of that family can master the chanting of the vedas. I am sure I cannot do it. It must have been inherited. I am actually very appreciative that a family like this lives in my town. At least someone is chanting the vast vedas. Whereas technically that brahmin family is very bad. I help them to fix all the electrical and civil problems in their home. This is a great advantage India has. We cannot just blame the outside rules of India . There was a discriminatory problem within the caste system and the outside conquerers contributed in lessening this discrimination. Today to a high percentage the discrimination has disappeared. I am a Professional electrical engineer who love the electrical field. I am 46 but know there is lots to learn and keep up in the electrical engineering field. My father had a diploma in electrical engineering. So there was a critical mass that enabled all five of his sons to become electrical engineers. But if my grandfather was also in the electrical field the critical mass would have been even greater. I would have all my first and second cousins involved in the electrical industry. This would have given synergy and it will be good for the country and the world. That is what the caste system can offer India. Specialization of work by a group over generations. Books cannot pass down all the vast information in the electrical field. It has been a continuous adding of knowledge since we first started repairing electrical equipment of friends in our home. —Preceding comment added by 115.134.90.233 (talk) 10:36, wit26 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems some form of patriotism is distorting the truth of Indian caste system here. The caste system is very much present, in different form and intensities in different regions. In states like Bengal and Kerala, however caste system has very little relevance in real life, its importance shows up in marriages. People are usually willing to marry into higher castes, but not willing to marry a person from a lower caste. A scan of the matrimonial section of the news papers can easily reveal this to anybody (one has to aware of the sophisticated hierarchy though, in reality Indian caste system has much finer layers than the four castes in Brahminism and these change from region to region). Intercaste marriages are common and usually accepted without much ado in the aforementioned states.

On the other hand, Southern India has a much stronger history of discrimination. It is not unusual to find apartment buildings being exclusive to one caste. The separation has been so long and so effective that Tamil Brahmins speak a dialect very different from the rest of the Tamil people and unless used to interacting with the other castes, they don't even understand the language of each other. The anti-Brahminism movement under Periyar's leadership and the caste politics that followed (e.g. reservation in academic institutions and jobs severely biased against higher castes) caused Tamil Brahmins to disperse away from Tamilnadu.

Northern India on the other hand, has retained and possibly reinforced the caste system. Indian literature has ample record of the situation (refer to stories by Munshi Prem Chand, for example). All of M K Gandhi's Harijan movement was about that. Even sixty years back, in those parts of India it was not uncommon for untouchables and Shudra's to be physically abused for the "crime" of crossing the path of a Brahmin. Not accepting cooked food or water from somebody of lower caste has been common practice.

I am not sure what kind of data led the esteemed sociologists and historians to conclude that Indian caste system was a British Fantasy, and though the British rulers may have exploited the caste system, they definitely did not develop it. As early as 15-th century the caste system was very much present in India . The movement by Sri Chaitanya tried to, and succeeded for limited time and space, in overcoming the caste based discriminations - which is one of the reasons it was very popular among people from lower castes. His followers abandoned family-names identifying their caste and adopted the surname "Das" (meaning slave, indicating slave of god). This is a common surname in Eastern India today.

Finally, I agree that the discrimination is not completely one way. While Brahmins and Kshatriyas consider themselves higher in the order, Shudras also consider individuals these castes with distrust. Still, they accept the order of the castes as it is in practice (e.g. sometimes individual from lower castes are uncomfortable/not ready to accept "Pranam" (the act of touching the feet to show respect) from a Brahmin.

Srays (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Castes in Japan

snipped because it's utterly a nonsense which is based on a myth of the West. Japanese hierarchy has nothing to do with Indian caste. "Caste" is actually the White supremacy or the Aryan supremacy which defines "White" is superior to the people with darker skin. The "caste" of India is actually the same as the racism and hierarchy of the Anglo-Saxons world which also defines "Whites" are superior to the coloreds. Since Japan is racially homogeneous, and 99.99% of the Japanese are Mongoloids, it has nothing to do with such a White supremacy things.

In fact, generally speaking, the Burakumins of Japan usually have whiter skins than the skins of ordinary Japanese, and the genuine "Eta", the typical Burakumins are much richer than ordinary Burakumins since they own many exclusive businesses such as meat and butcher business, funeral service, financial business, show business, etc.. "Eta" were discriminated against because they were greedy rich making money by monopolizing such filthy businesses.

Also, those who claim they are Brakumins are not genuine Burakumins. They are merely poors of big cities. They are so-called "Ese-Burakumin" meaning "Pseudo-Burakumins" who are taking advantage of the Burakumin issues to get some benefit and official supports from the government.

So the actual situation of Japanese hierarchy is diametrically different from the Aryan supremacy of Indian caste and the White supremacy in the Anglo-Saxon world.

Castes in Korea

The definition of the word "Caste" is too enlarged. If one follows the extended definition of Caste, there is no country in the world that does not have caste system. It should be used specifically instead of as a common noun of the hierarchy. Korea is homogeneous country and there can not be racial discrimination characters like Indian Caste or Western racism in traditional hierarchy.And,the pre-modern hierarchy has totally disappeared in modern Korea society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.157.75.134 (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism section

Someone may want to correct the tone in this section. I'd do it myself, but I'm pretty clueless on the topic.-Wafulz (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangitalaya (talk • contribs) 23:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Urgent Neutral rewrite needed immediately

• The article is not written in a neutral manner and breaks[REDACTED] policies.
• The article is heavily politicized and not written with a neutral political agenda.
• No original research The articles contains many "novel narrative or historical interpretations." It is heavily politicized, contains original research and citations are taken out of context for politicization. Several facts are uncited.
• Verifiability: I have checked the relevant books and certain citations and many do not verify and are fradualent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vniop (talk • contribs) 06:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section on Indian caste to include its relation to religion.

Proposed Overhaul

Since the article on castes appears to be polysubjective, it may be a better idea to break it into several articles. Personally, I feel that this article is a great example of why merging articles together can be, while on one hand a way to 'clean up' WP, it makes reading articles almost impossible.

With that being said, I would propose the following changes made to the article:

• Caste separated into a definition article with a functional summary of castes and the implications of a caste system.
• Etymology section
• Description of caste rules
• Summary of caste relations, linking to full articles for each.

My feeling is that the caste system article would benefit from a format like this, as in its current state it's almost unreadable. redacting the article to the format may be a way to help it fit better into the WP:format, as well as making the article easier to site (in its current state, there are so many topics, there will undoubtedly be errors and needed citations regardless of how many rewrites are actually performed. Larshylarsh (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Something should be done. Vast sections of the article are completely unusable and should be deleted. For example, the Indian section, which is POV, completely unsourced, etc. Umdenken (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, I made some edits to organize the section a little bit better - previously the section was completely discombobulated with various mentions of "jati" and "varna" and so on. I've tried to clarify the whole Varna/Jati business a little bit and added a couple of credible references. (Aditya) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.116.1.173 (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This is hands down the worst article in Misplaced Pages. It reads like someone copied and pasted an impenetrable and third-rate doctoral dissertation on castes. It should be deleted and started from scratch. 72.153.104.195 (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

European Castes

This section is substandard, and there is little scholarly basis for dividing medieval society into the castes provided (mercenary?). There is certainly a fair bit that can be written about European caste systems -- specifically, the Patrician vs. Plebeian caste system in Rome, and noble/commoner dichotomy later on, but what's written here needs to go. Plus, the citation seems sort of questionable. For one, "mercenary" has never been a caste, at least in any European hierarchy. 195.27.20.35 (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobles constituded a caste, originally it was a warrior caste, but it redeveloped into a landlord, and further on to a general upper class including landlords and bureaucrats. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Were patricians actually a caste, or were they equivalent to clan chieftans? I think the problem with understanding caste is there is a multiplicity of interacting groupings and stratifications of people, all of which change over time. --Utinomen (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

6:58 P.M. E.S.T.

I am currious of the term astor in Lancaster, aster is to represent a Center perhaps of town, King John, the 1100's. Just a thought of study in if the two are related somehow, as of the experience of culture.David George DeLancey (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Caste is a must in all Indian Biographies

I think biographies of people from Indian Origin for e.g. Swaraj Paul should disclose their castes. Casteism has been a covert mask for socio-economic collusion in India since 12th century. --Dr. Known-- (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

America

Caste in the United States

I have removed the following section.

Further information: Upper middle class in the United States and White Collar: The American Middle Classes

Many, including W. Lloyd Warner, Gunnar Myrdal, and John Dollard, believe that there is a caste system in the United States based on the colour of a person’s skin. However, some hold that this relationship should not be referred to as a full-fledge caste system. Caste systems are supported by ritual, convention, and law. Status can influence and determine class, which also determines the caste system where a person belongs. Weber stressed that class, status, and political power relate and affect each other.

It goes: Government, politicians, military, business people, farmers, immigrants.

“Caste structure is an extreme form of status inequality in that relationships between the groups involved are said to be fixed and supported by ideology and/or law”. In the US, membership in a specific caste is often hereditary, marriage within one’s caste is mandatory, mobility is impossible, and occupation is determined by caste position. Mobility is possible within one’s caste but not between castes. Race and ethnic stratification is evident throughout US caste systems. Each caste system must abide by specific codes of race relations in which certain behaviors and positions are expected by each group. Caste as metaphor for race relations was developed academically by Lloyd Warner 's “American Caste and Class”, Gunnar Myrdal 's An American Dilemma, and John Dollard 's Caste and Class in a Southern Town. Myrdal argued that “the scientifically important difference between the terms ‘caste’ and ‘class’… is … a relatively large difference in freedom of movement between groups”.

The first line gives the impression that most people think America has a caste system, which is cleary false. While there may be classes, it's far from generally agreed that there is a caste syustem: I think this is an extremely minority viewpoint. There's no ideology keeping the classes apparat, and certainly no law, so even on Hurst's definition this is absurd. You can go for any job you wish, marriage between classes is perfectly common. In short, this section is ridiculous, hence why I moved it here. Larklight (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

President Bush once talked about what he called an 'ownership society'. This implies that landowners are members of a high caste and non-owners are outcasts. Signed Anthony Ratkov,August 9,2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.127.63 (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word Caste to describe Social Insects

I suggest that there be a disambiguation page to distinguish human castes (social science) from social insect castes (biology). Because the biology term is less common, "caste" should take you directly to the former, but there should be a link at the top of the page that can take you to the disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martastic (talk • contribs) 15:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What is a caste?

Racial discrimination is not, that religious apartheid of "pillars" is not. Race and religious apartheid shouldn't be in the article!! Caste is some kind of religious or legislated social groups that are based on a general societal function, and generally there is little intermarriage. The Roman apartheid between patricians and plebejs is a classic, the Western legislative caste systems of nobles/priests/the third caste (or in old Sweden: nobles/priests/bourgeoisi/peasants) are typical as well as the Indian of brahmin/ksatriya/vaishya/shudras are. The other things, like apartheid, pillars and race discrimination should better be in an article of social stratification, system discrimination or some such. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I say leave it like it is; you might not think it's a good thing, but it's a pillar of many societies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangitalaya (talk • contribs) 03:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Arya Samaj

According to the castes in India:

All the Dvija(Twice Born)ie Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas could and did perform the fire sacrifice for themselves. Even this has not always been followed by all sects within Hinduism - for example, in the Arya Samaj, all castes including Shudras can perform the fire sacrifice.

Why is Arya Samaj occurring here? It is AFAIK a modern political renewal movement, not a sect proper, and as much as I know, it is specifically opposed to the caste system, so it is most definitely not a proof in either this or that way. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Caste in Punjab

I think a good idea would be to create an article called Caste in Sikhism or Punajb...there is a controversial talk on Bhappe and its causing a lot of Syappe, so any honest feedback would be helpful. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliosphere (talk • contribs) 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Caste as phenomenon of culture

I think Vniop above made the essential point. It seems articles like this get bogged down by those with a political agenda. Caste is as valid and intrinsic a part of various people's cultures as any other part, surely then the article should just seek to highlight that cultural expression, even if editors personally disagree with the concept? Of course, it could be argued that the very idea of including this subject as part of a 'Human Rights' project undermines the very neutrality of the article anyway... -Utinomen (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Caste System in Fiji

Native fijians also had (and still have) a caste system. The warriors came exclusively from certain families. The priest ( medicine man) came only from certain families and for most the rest were commoners. Can someone reserach the Fijian caste system please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.167.186 (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No castes in Medieval Europe!

Conflating the Indian caste system with the tripartite society of Medieval Europe is historically untenable. A caste system is always based on inheritance. You are born into a caste (i. e. varna/jati), you can't change from one caste into another!

In Medieval Europe, by contrast, a person's belonging to an "état" was determined by the occupation/social status of the father, but it could be altered - similarly to the class society of today. A peasant in the Middle Ages could well become a nobleman if he showed exceptional fortitude in battle for example (and many did). And of course the clergy, as it was celibate, was always recruited from the other two "états", as it could not perpetuate itself by its own means. The example of the "premier état" (clergy) shows especially well that the "three pillars" system of Medieval society was based on social function, not on some unchangeable characteristics that you inherited from your parents. (Especially as it was a Christian society, based on the idea that all men were equal before God.)

I think it's a great problem with this article that it lumps together all kinds of social stratification as "caste" (see "caste in the United States"!!!!), without giving a definition of "caste" that is different from "class" or other types of social groupings. Lumendelumine (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the offending section. Hopefully no-one will put it back. Class and Caste are related but emphatically not the same, and conflating them is either muddle-headed or mendacious. It seems that a spurious section about the United States existed at one time, but it isn't around as of today. Luwilt (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've considered the arguments above but cannot see how the Europe section was 'offending'. The caste system in India and in Europe are descended from the same ordering of society - isn't that Dumezil's argument?; the definition of caste surely is 'order', caste is how the Indo-European's ordered their society. That they are based on social function is not disputed by anyone. Just because in India it evolved into a more closed system (why?) but did not in Europe (why not?) does not invalidate that they are the same thing. And the idea that the majority of people did not inherit their position in society in Europe until recently is laughable. What seems to be the difference in the caste system is that in India there is the retention of tribe and clans (which really are unchangeable characteristics that you inherited from your parents) whereas in Europe this was replaced by rank? I propose that the European section be restored, but that it be flagged up that it should be rewritten.--Rusty Tonic (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

More on caste in America

A Misplaced Pages user named Larklight deleted a section of the caste article because it said that caste existed in America. The deletion was obviously politically motivated. Larklight says that there's no ideology keeping the classes apart,and there's no law preventing them from marrying each other. At one time,America had a rudimentary caste system based on race. There were laws against 'miscegenation',which means there were laws that prevented whites from marrying blacks. I suppose in India it was illegal for an untouchable to marry a Brahmin,so this fits the classical definition of caste. Misplaced Pages has an article about miscegenation laws,and it says that America's first miscegenation law was made in 1913. In the heyday of these laws,30 states had anti-miscegenation laws. The laws were finally struck down by a 1967 court ruling. When they were struck down in 1967,there were 16 states that still had these laws on the books. This alone is proof that America had a racially-based case system between 1913 and 1967.

The existence of political dynasties in America suggests that politicians are part of a hereditary caste. As an example,look at the Kennedy family. John F. Kennedy was president,his brothers,Edward Kennedy and Robert Kennedy were also in politics. Prescott Bush was a U.S. Senator,he had a son (George H.W. Bush) who was president,a grandson (George W. Bush) who was also president,and George W. Bush had a brother (Jeb Bush) who was governor of Florida. All of this suggests that politicians are part of an elite caste,based on heredity. As for ideology,Bush once spoke of what he called an 'ownership society'. He wanted the government to create a so-called 'ownership society' in which landowners functioned as an elite ruling caste,while non-owners were a downtrodden 'untouchable caste'. Your article on caste is poorly written,it needs to be completely re-written. You may also want to include a chapter about racially-based caste in South Africa. In 1949 South Africa made it illegal for whites to marry blacks,and the law was not repealed until 1985. It was also illegal for whites to have sex with blacks until 1985. Since these caste attributes were codified by law,it can be defined as a caste system,in the traditional sense. Signed,Anthony Ratkov August 9,2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.34.160 (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. Americans elect whoever they want, whenever they want. I'd know, I've spent my whole life here. Just because the Bush and Kennedy families go together means nothing. It just means the people are gullable enough to make that matter somehow. If you want, in America, you can get ultra rich, become president, whatever the sky's the limit. Take Lyndon B Johnson for example. Dirt poor poverty, all the way to US President. You can go out now and buy up a bunch of business, real estate, or whatever else and become the next Donald Trump, assuming you have the resources and motivation to do so. It's called the "class" system, meaning you can move up and down at will, so long as you have proper resources (for the most part money). You're not trapped in it forever just because of your birth. Yes, things were racially segregated in the 1960's I will not try to deny that. I just want to point out that this idea of America having a legitimate caste nowadays is complete BS, unfounded, and makes no sense, at least not to me. Also, in terms of your ruling elites, consider it this way: we can all run. Just put your name into the campaign, put out some advertisements, and make the general public think that you'll do what they want and improve the country. The rich often get an easier time because they have more money to spend, yes, but success is not utterly dependent on the family you're born into.

68.40.243.178 (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It is quite wrong to conflate class divisions with caste. Caste is a rigid system whereby status is determined by birth, and cannot be changed by any human means. This was never the case in Europe or most places outside India. Social mobility was necessarily low in all pre-Industrial societies, but in a class system, as opposed to a caste system, people could change their class and a few did. A king could make a peasant a noblemen, and that sometimes happened. Not even an emperor could change someone's caste. This article in its current form seems to be designed mainly to deny that there is anything unusual about the Indian system, but it is unusual. Luwilt (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Racial Theory of Caste

The following quote comes from pages 153-55 of the Third Edition of The Earth and Its Peoples, a commonly-used textbook on world history:

Stories about this era, written down much later but

preserved by memorization and oral recitation, speak of bitter rivalry and warfare between two groups of people: the Aryas, relatively light-skinned speakers of Indo- European languages, and the Dasas, dark-skinned speakers of Dravidian languages. Some scholars contend that some Dasas were absorbed into Arya populations and elites from both groups merged. For the most part, however, the Aryas pushed the Dasas south into central and southern India, where their descendants still live. Indo- European languages are primarily spoken in northern India today. Dravidian speech prevails in the south. Skin color has been a persistent concern of Indian society and is one of the bases for its historically sharp internal divisions. Over time there evolved a system of varna—literally “color,” though the word came to indicate something akin to “class.” Individuals were born into one of four classes: Brahmin, the group comprising priests and scholars; Kshatriya, warriors and officials; Vaishya, merchants, artisans, and landowners; or Shudra, peasants and laborers. The designation Shudra originally may have been reserved for Dasas, who were given the menial jobs in society. Indeed, the very term dasa came to mean “slave.” Eventually a fifth group was marked off: the Untouchables. They were excluded from the class system, and members of the other groups literally avoided them because of the demeaning or pollut- ing work to which they were relegated—such as leather tanning, which involved touching dead animals, and

sweeping away ashes after cremations.

A link to the chapter can be found here. Hokie Tech (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not have even half info about caste in india,previously it was having but now they have modified all pages and having no relevent information at all.............Why its so?

Misplaced Pages does not have even half info about caste in india,previously it was having but now they have modified all pages and having no relevent information.............Why its so?

2-3 years back this website was having most of information but now it does not have even half of the information .............every information is either not complete or having no relevence...................

Now there are so many websites having correct and relevent information.

This website is permorming wrost in few years its very annoying for its fans.

I hope some corrective action will be taken.................... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.199.177 (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation tag moved to the end of paragraph

I have moved the 'citation needed' tag covering the 1901 census decision's motivation to the end of the paragraph in which it is contained. The reason for doing this is that citing only this sentence gives an impression of poor support, while if the following sentences are accurate the support appears reasonably established. Clearly, this paragraph needs at least one source covering all sentences in it.Julzes (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC) My apologies for not attempting a full workover of the article (and merely fixing this one thing). I will attempt on Monday to at least start such.Julzes (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

In the hours since this edit, two edits have occurred from somebody not logged in. I didn't read the first as worsening things, though I haven't time or inclination to go back and recheck. The second added a longish quote that may or.may not be desirable, and attempted to have it say the opposite of what the article had said previously with regards to race discrimination being a correlate of caste division. The quote does not read as the person who edited it in appears to have thought it did. The quote substantiates the way the article had read prior to its being added. If it is regarded as a worthwhile add by somebody, please reverse 'controverted' back to the original 'corroborated'.Julzes (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Note: Just having reread the quote I removed, I note that it is confusing outside of the entire article of which it is a part. It appears that upper castes have a 4th non-Asian, non-African, non-European race--perhaps an indigenous-like South Asian one--more substantially in its bloodlines. At any rate, one simple sentence does clearly indicate the quote in its original source meant what the article meant before the quote was added (corroboration, not controversion). Seeing now that the quote is a little confusing outside of its article, I recommend leaving the quote out.Julzes (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

stale tags

Peremptory removal of tags apparently not under active discussion for named causes for several years, pretty short article imagine a lot of content removed since then (3-4 years). Lycurgus (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Section on India and caste

This article is about caste, not Caste system in India. An undue weight to one nation is distracting, putting more weight to one aspect, presenting content in a manner that is not validly encyclopedic.

The content on India is also poorly supported. Citations such as or or make no sense, and do not support the content. Some paragraphs, although interesting and added in good faith, lack any citation. The sections that do have support, would be better if summarized and balanced out for WP:NPOV.

Images, such as the elephant and soldiers, have nothing to do with caste, or even caste system in India - I tried to go to the source and library archives to verify, but I find no support. Perhaps someone could guide me to literature that can confirm how and why that image belongs to this article on caste.

I like the brief summaries on other nations, each with citations, and link to the main article (e.g. Caste system in Africa). A similar brief summary for India with citations and link would make this article more balanced.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• 24 February edits by 117.205.138.125 The wiki contributor is welcomed to add good faith contributions within WP:LGL guidelines. Adding text without citations, bringing back text for which citation request was pending for months, without providing the citation request is not consistent with wiki WP:VNT guidelines. This article is about 'caste' and not about 'history of caste system, and the role of one historical element.' The added material presents only 'colonial theory', and too much of it, which is not a balanced view for an encyclopedic version. For WP:NPOV version, a summary from all sides must be included. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• 25 February 2012 edits by 117.205.131.223 The wiki contributor is welcomed to add good faith contributions with citations per WP:RS and WP:VNT guidelines. Please provide WP:RS support for claims such as scholar, teacher, etc. into varnas, as inserted by 117.205.131.223. Similarly, please provide WP:RS support for the claim: historically, Indian society has consisted of thousands of endogamous communities called Jatis - without a clarification, it reads inconsistent with your added content on Risley: does historically mean pre-Risley census, or post-Risley census, or something else? Also, I welcome citation for terms such as Antyajas you added. Finally, please note that the article must remain WP:NPOV, and so please explain in talk section why statements such as "the politically active segment of the Scheduled Castes describes itself as Dalit, or downtrodden" belongs in this encyclopedic article on caste? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Herbert Hope Risley - I reread the Rudolph citation, in particular sections on Risley. For example, see page 117 and elsewhere. The authors discuss British ethnographers confession that they had great difficulty in ranking people and castes; most Indian people, particularly in the villages, couldn't identify their varna, etc. or hierarchically rank themselves or their peers; that the caste census during the British Raj continued nevertheless; that Risley premises were wrong. But, the big question is: so what? Remember this article is about caste, it is not about Risley or the book on Risley or census during British rule of India. Whether Risley was completely wrong or completely right or partially right or partially wrong, the India-related section on caste must not forget the context of the article, what[REDACTED] is and what[REDACTED] isn't. The only relevant summary I can extract from Risley reference, within the context of this article, is what the article summary on India includes: "Contemporary scholars thus argue that the social system was made rigid and the four-fold Varna caste made ubiquitous by the British colonial regime..." Therefore, I am moving the cited reference to this part, and deleting the rest on Risley. If another wiki contributor believes that Risley reference provides another aspect to this encyclopedic article, I welcome your explanation, consistent with WP:WWIN, on this talk page. Please explain why Risley discussion belongs here and what encyclopedic WP:NPOV meaning does it add for the general reader that the article doesn't already contain. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ordering of the regions?

It doesn't seem to be by alphabetical... nor have a certain logic to it. Why is South Asia first? I would propose using alphabetical order by continent first and then sub continent and then country.

Ranking India first seems uhh... ethnocentric, but doing it alphabetical seems more NPOV.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I support your proposal, Hitsuji. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Joe Elder on India's caste system

User on 117.205.134.14 (aka 117.205.130.57) has reverted to bring back his or her Joe Elder material. First of, you are most welcome to make edits that meet wiki quality and content guidelines. The newly added good faith material claims "It is, however, a common fallacy to cite ancient Indian texts like the..." - such blog print outs do not meet wiki's WP:SCHOLARSHIP thresholds; you are encouraged to locate a refereed journal / publication / or a WP:RS source that meets wiki guidelines, or alternatively convince why this source qualifies as a reliable source. Furthermore, the content and WP:POV statement "it is common fallacy that has been added is not directly supported by Joe Elder. The cut and paste from Encyclopedia Britannica violates its copyright, and the language is vague (who regulates castes, where, how). It should either be clarified/re-written or omitted. Your clarification and comments are welcomes so that we can improve this article together. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Caste society isn't class society.

The nobility of medieval and modern Europe hadn't moral or religious foundament but only juridical foundament. Examples in Italy: Sforza, Visconti, Scaligeri, Gonzaga, Medici ecc, were of bourgeois origin. The families immigrant into the city could change social status in few generations and with money they could buy titles or to marry member of feudal families. I remember that the butchers' guild families ruled on Florence sometime in Renaissance. The Christian faith made ​​problematic the "social difference", indeed all Christians should be equal for God. The caste society instead is completely close ... generally and morally, passively accepted while in Europe in little villages, the serfs hated the feudal society that was imposed that no accepted passively. Sorry for English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.73.44 (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to wiki talk page, user 84.222.73.44. Wiki articles summarize all sides of scholarly work, include different theories and controversies from reliable secondary sources. Some sources emphasize the possible differences between caste and class; some sources explain the key differences between class/caste societies of our modern world and societies a 100 or 300 or 1000 years ago; yet, other sources urge that we do not close our assumptions and live with favorite prejudices in this matter. For example, Cagots of France and unehrliche Leute of Germany amongst others were castes. These people were shunned by a closed system not just by the society they lived in, but also by church - and these were morally and religiously justified in medieval and modern Europe. Yes, 'caste is a closed system' is emphasized by many scholars, and this article adequately includes that emphasis. This article is about caste, as described by a wide range of peer reviewed scholarly work, a range that includes much disagreement. Wiki can only strive to present all sides with a neutral point of view, not join the controversies on one side. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Law Regarding Caste Discrimination in India

The good faith contributions from user Indian.advocate to this wiki article are welcome. On June 15 2012, the user has reverted changes without any explanation; the user is requested to explain his or her actions on this talk page. The added material has several issues.

• Style inconsistent to wiki MOS for encyclopedic article: The user has combined a mix of excessive emphasis with boldface, use of abbreviations such as sc/st (unknown to a worldwide audience), references in square brackets such as . Please see WP:STYLE for these and other wiki style and format guidelines.
• The added content reads as a repository of paragraphs of Indian law. However as WP:NOTREPOSITORY explains, wiki articles are not such a collection.
• The article is about caste. Undue emphasis on individual legal cases, for one or all countries, places undue emphasis on legal contemporary aspect of the topic, thus raising WP:UNDUE issues.

Explanation is requested. A summary of current law would improve this article and Indian.advocate is welcomed to help evolve a constructive summary of newly added legal content. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The contributions made by the user - indian.advocate were made to explain the latest and crucial development in law relating to caste discrimination in India - The kind in which some parts have been displayed in bold are done with the sole purpose to enable the users to understand the nature and content of the contribution and also so as to give clear cut citation reference to the original judgment of an Indian Court . The kind of contribution made is clearly verifiable and authentic. The meaning of SC is Scheduled Castes and the meaning of ST is Scheduled Tribes - both of these words indicate socially backward parts of Indian Society which need some social benefits by the Government. If any further explanation regarding the contribution is required the user -indian.advocate will be obliged to clear them. The judgment given in this contribution also explains the Indian Legal Point of view regarding the real discrimination which ordinary SC and ST people experience in their daily Indian life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian.advocate (talk • contribs) 10:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Excessive bolds and italics violate wiki style guidelines. Please see WP:WWIN and WP:STYLE. On format, please also see WP:CITE/ES.

You write you added this content because ' of Indian Society which need some social benefits by the Government'. Why is this not advocacy? (please see WP:NOTADVOCATE)

Why include the case law details in this global article on caste? Why not add case law on caste system for India to caste system in India or caste discrimination in India?

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

America: caste free? Not necessarily

There may have been castes in the USA, especially in the American South, where the distinction lay largely along racial lines. First of all, the South practiced slavery, which is arguably a caste system in its own right. When that was abolished, it became a sharecropping system, where racial/class distinctions continued to hold, and then segregation reared its ugly head, another sign of a caste system that somehow refused to die. In this case, segregation suggests untouchability, a desire not to be "contaminated" by members of the other group. South Africa took this to the extreme with apartheid, but it existed in the American South, too. And even after the civil-rights movement, there were redlining and the underclass, as well as dynasties of wealthy families such as the Kennedy family and the Rockefellers. So why not put the USA in? 68.37.254.48 (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Serious Neutrality and Balance Issues

I'm afraid this article has serious neutrality and balance issues. Caste is almost universally associated with India. Sure, the word, in transformed and figurative usage, has been applied to forms of stratification or exclusion in other societies, even those of insects, but I've yet to see a significant tertiary source treatment of the subject that does not mention India in the lead sentence or soon thereafter. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. It has to be beholden to the longstanding standard in other tertiary sources. We cannot at our will turn the article into a personal essay. The citations for the lead sentence not only are highly selective, but are also selectively chosen from within the cited references. Berreman (1972), cited first for the lead sentence, for example, begins his section on caste with, "A widely applied and frequently contested model for systems of birth ascribed rank is that of ’caste’, deriving from the example of Hindu India where the jati (almost literally ’common ancestry’) is the type-case." and after spending a paragraph discussing the Indian case, says, very cautiously, "If one concedes that caste can be defined cross-culturally (i.e., beyond Hindu India), then the systems under discussion here are describable as caste systems." That sort of academic circumspection hardly lends itself to the abstract, ahistorical, "definition" of the lead sentence. Similarly, the second reference for the lead sentence is Merton's Sociology of Science, which uses the word "caste" obliquely (see the book's index on Google books).

If I don't find a cogent explanation for this somewhat bizarre introduction, in which "India" is mentioned as an afterthought—ensconced in a transparently distancing subordinate clause, to boot—at the end of the lead, I will be tagging the article with neutrality tags. I am also posting on WT:INDIA, where editors, many of whom work on caste-related articles, I believe are unaware of this page and its evolution. I will also look for the better-known tertiary source references and quote a few below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some tertiary sources:

• Barnard, Alan (2002), Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Taylor & Francis, pp. 136–137, ISBN 978-0-415-28558-2

  Caste: Caste has been described as the fundamental social institution of India. Sometimes the term is used metaphorically to refer to rigid social distinctions or extreme social exclusiveness wherever found, and some authorities have used the term 'colour-caste system' to describe the stratification based on race in the United States and elsewhere. But it is among the Hindus in India that we find the system in its most fully developed form, ...

• Kuper, Adam; Kuper, Jessica (2003), Social Science Encyclopedia, Taylor & Francis, p. 131, ISBN 978-0-415-28560-5

  Caste systems have been defined in the most general terms as systems of hierarchically ordered endogamous units in which membership is hereditary and permanent (e.g. Berreman 1960). On such a definition a whole range of rigidly stratified societies would be characterized by caste—Japan, for example, or certain Polynesian and East African societies, or the racially divided world of the American Deep South. Hindu India is generally taken as the paradigmatic example. Many scholars would argue, however, that the difference between this case and the others are far more significant than the similarities, and that the term caste should properly be applied only to this context. The morphology of the Hindu caste system can be described in terms of three key characteristics, all of which are religiously underpinned by the religious values of purity....

• Madan, T. N.; Editors (2012), caste, Encyclopæida Britannica Online {{citation}}: |last2= has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |fist2= (help)

  caste, any of the ranked, hereditary, endogamous social groups, often linked with occupation, that together constitute traditional societies in South Asia, particularly among Hindus in India. Although sometimes used to designate similar groups in other societies, the “caste system” is uniquely developed in Hindu societies.

  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I am delighted with your participation, and with your posting of your concerns first on this talk page. Your efforts to improve this article are very welcome.

I disagree with you on many points. Wiki is a tertiary source, not a copy of tertiary sources (see WP:PSTS). Wiki articles rely on secondary sources, and this article does.

If wiki had just one article on caste, the emphasis would shift - and India covered a lot more - just like other tertiary sources you cite that offer just one article on caste. Wiki, instead has many articles on caste, including one just for 'caste system in India'. That article and this 'caste' article cannot be just a copy of each other - as that would violate several wiki guidelines such as WP:CFORK. Misplaced Pages has the capability to be far broader, more updated and current, more comprehensive and complete encyclopedia with multiple, non-overlapping articles. This article does so by focussing on the topic of caste, globally, using reliable secondary sources from history, from recent decades and hopefully in future, as they get published.

Yes, in various tertiary sources, such as a few your cite, the topic of caste emphasizes India and is presented with India as context. This wiki article acknowledges that and includes that view in the article's section on India, citing the scholarly work of Dirks. However, for WP:DUE reasons, we must be careful to not imply that this is the only or the dominant view in the world of secondary sources. Per hundreds of secondary sources meeting WP:RS guidelines, many peer reviewed and widely cited, and some published in the last 20-40 years, caste is not 'almost universally associated with India.' The whole article provides ample support.

The introductory sentence is part of the lead. Per WP:LEAD, it is supposed to be a summary of the article's most important aspects. It is not supposed to stereotype India or Latin America or China or wherever. It would be a poor lead summary, if it purely focussed on one section of the article. For what it is worth, the lead includes 'Indian society is often associated with the word caste' in the summary, as it should per WP:DUE.

If your suggestion is that[REDACTED] should have just one article on caste, like some tertiary sources, please explain why? (I urge you to read the older/archived discussions of this talk page - you will note that other wiki contributors have requested broader, non-ethnocentric focus in this article; please address their concerns too in your reply).

Once again, your input to help improve this article is welcome. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

On Berreman (1972), I quote you: "A widely applied and frequently contested model for systems...". While in this and the other part you quote, you read academic circumspection, I read another evidence of growing dispute between scholars, one Berreman claims is frequent. Per wikipedia's WP:NPOV guidelines, wiki articles must describe the disputes, not engage in them; article must describe all sides/aspects, we must not judge the secondary sources, then pick what we like and summarize that side.

To support that it is more than academic circumspection for Berreman, consider his 1966 paper published in peer reviewed volume 66 of The American Journal of Sociology: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/marilynm/Theorizing_Black_America_Syllabus_files/Caste_in_India_and_the_US.pdf

On page 120, column 2, para 1: Caste can be defined so that it is applicable only to India, just as it is possible to define narrowly almost any socio-cultural phenomenon....

On page 120, column 2, para 2: However, caste can be accurately defined in broader terms.... (my emphasis)

On the three tertiary sources cited above, I checked again. All of them do have just one article. Two of them cover the subject of caste in 4 para each, the third is longer but with a 1962 Srinivas book as the only bibliography. If you have any secondary sources that meet WP:RS guidelines, that are not covered by this article, please do provide. I will read them as we discuss this article, so we can together help improve this article.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Tertiary sources Obviously I'm not suggesting that we abandon Misplaced Pages's longstanding policy of relying on secondary sources. However, tertiary sources are a guide to broad overviews. Misplaced Pages policy on tertiary sources states: "Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other." When the emphasis (and summary) in a Misplaced Pages article runs counter to those in pretty much all other tertiary sources on that topic (and I can cite dozens more), then we can judge the article to be biased; we can judge the article not to be providing a balanced overview. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Content forks This is the flagship article for all caste-related articles, a WP:Summary style article. The Caste system in India is not an independent topic, but a sub-topic; its article Caste system in India is not an independent article, but a spinoff of this article, just as History of India is a spinoff of India (the flagship page for India-related articles). WP:SPINOFF clearly states, "Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary, conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter." In other words, although this article needs to be written in a summary style, its overall emphasis remains the same as that of a single very-long article on "Caste," such as the ones found in other encyclopedias. Again WP:SPINOFF states clearly, "However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." This I suggest is exactly what you have done. By treating the Caste system in India as an independent article, and by emphasizing its topic less in this article, it is you (and others who have contributed to this page) who have created a POV-fork. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

These are the main issues. I don't want to diffuse the focus by going into other issues at this time. I will note that the Caste system in India has had major input from you. Its emphasis too is problematic, citing, as it does, Berreman's single article half a dozen times and early on, and giving weight to Dirks's highly polemical account, whereas Susan Bayly's Caste, Society, and Politics in India, the most widely-used textbook on caste worldwide, goes unreferenced. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:TPG, I invite you to keep our focus on improving this article. Speculating on other wiki contributor's motives and other articles is inappropriate, as you are doing above and you did more explicitly here when you wrote, 'In the past, this sort of distancing of India from its evils, was engaged in by editors who ...' Such assumptions of yours are not constructive. Our goal in this article shouldn't be to distance India or hold India responsible with a stereotyping summary on caste. Our goal must be to create a good article per wiki guidelines. Please do not assume that caste doesn't exist in Nigeria, or Yemen, or Japan, or elsewhere; that journalists from New York Times to Asahi Shimbun; as well as thousands of scholars from around the world are trying to distance India from its evils, when they write in peer reviewed medium that caste has been and is a worldwide phenomenon. Some of these articles are amongst the most cited of all topics and articles in socio-cultural studies - a summary of these secondary sources on the topic of caste belongs here. Misplaced Pages is not about creating article that prevent 'distancing X from evil Y'. I request you assume good faith.

On Susan Bayly, I am the one who added her as a reference to this article. Can she be cited more often on this topic?, sure; but the question is: do we need to? Not really, if you consider WP:OVERCITE guidelines. Bayly's work is tertiary, as many textbooks are. Bayly relies on secondary sources, as does this article. Bayly content is already summarized directly and indirectly in this article. (You are mistaken by the way; Bayly has been referenced in other article too by some wiki contributor - check again.)

On to your other points: Tertiary sources such as Misplaced Pages are indeed guide to broad overviews. Misplaced Pages strives to provide broad summaries, in neutral and balanced way, covering all significant sides, of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources that may contradict each other. To interpret wiki's sourcing policy, you must consider the whole policy, and its full context. On policy, WP:PSTS suggests this:

Policy: Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.

Policy: Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.

Note that the guidelines do not suggest 'wiki articles usually rely on tertiary sources', rather again and again, it is urging us to use published reliable secondary sources. That is what this article currently does with well over 150 citations, many added not by me, but numerous other wiki contributors. You have, as yet, neither suggested nor shown that this article is not based on reliable, published secondary sources. I ask that you do so.

You allege, "When Misplaced Pages article runs counter to those in pretty much all other tertiary sources on that topic, then we can judge the article to be biased." This is your point of view. Show us where in WP:PSTS or any other policy guideline page does it state that this is wiki's content policy?

Futher, WP:PSTS guidelines remind us: Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. We must evaluate a tertiary source or an article in tertiary source. On the topic of caste, there are no reasons to assume that thousands of published, peer reviewed, secondary sources are less reliable, and only the three short articles you cite are reliable or complete. Are there?

Furthermore, your allegation is difficult to understand. You have not shown that this article actually runs counter to any reliable secondary or tertiary source. No tertiary source you have cited so far claims that caste did not exist or is not found in the rest of the world; nor do the three tertiary and Berreman secondary source you cited write that this socio-cultural phenomenon is not a broad phenomenon. Actually, two of your four citations suggest, and one strongly, that caste is a broad phenomena found in non-Indian context. Are you asking that we ignore this part from this article and keep the focus purely on India? why?

On content spin-off and forks: I do not understand your claim that caste system in India is not an independent article. It is both a section in this article and an independent article, see here. This article has a link to the independent, very long article (which, by the way, I encourage you to participate in improving, see its talk page too). One section in this article summarizes the caste system on India. Wiki guidelines suggest that different spin off pages, on related topics, generally offer different levels of detail of a subject, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter. To appreciate this guideline, I urge you to read other complex and broad socio-cultural phenomenon topics, for example, see the related and linked but independent articles: Racism, Racism in the United States and Racial segregation in the United States. The summary sections about United States within the independent article on Racism are short, not an emphasized copy of it. The caste article is and best structured the same way. It would be difficult to maintain two pages with lots of overlapping content. This article on caste does something similar.

Caste is a broad topic, and[REDACTED] at its best strives to include all significant viewpoints in a balanced and neutral way. Thousands of articles by reliable sources have been published about caste system in India, and thousands of articles by reliable sources have been published about caste system outside India (just like thousands on the broad global topic of racism, and thousands on the specific topic of racism in United States). Exclusively limiting the coverage to one nation on this broad article about caste, avoiding coverage on other nations, or avoiding coverage of this socio-cultural phenomenon in history, of the type you appear to suggest would create serious imbalance and neutrality issues. To persuade, you must explain why Nigerian caste system as discussed in reliable secondary sources by scholars and media in Africa is any less important or any less significant than those about India; or for that matter, in Korea, Japan, Tibet, Yemen, or from history such as Cagots, New Spain, and others? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional notes: Susan Bayly (1999), whom you refer to, felt compelled to include this as footnote on page 28 in her book: 'For debate on the existence of caste systems outside India, see... ; ... detailed consideration of caste system in Sri Lanka and Nepal is outside the scope of this volume; ..... have pointed to caste like groupings in China and Madagascar;.... colonial Algeria as a caste system.' Let us note that Bayly book is titled Caste, Society, and Politics in India. For this global article on caste, we must broaden our focus past the scope of Bayly's book. We must read, include and summarize other reliable published secondary sources from around the world, over the centuries.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have only a minute, so let me suggest that you'll waste a lot less time (and space) if you actually read what I've written. Susan Bayly's book, Caste, Society and Politics in India, was mentioned only in the context of the Caste system in India article at the end of my last post, not that of this article. As I had also stated, the book is not cited in that article, only her earlier book, Saint, goddesses and kings is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I see Bayly's Caste, Society and Politics in India included, though not cited, in both articles. My focus on this talk page is on this article. You may have mentioned Bayly in the other context, but on this talk page, Bayly's notes on caste system outside India are relevant. Let us focus on this article here. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Reasons why this article should include Gerald Berreman and Nicholas Dirks. Citations and h-index are a means to measure impact, significance, extent of acceptance of major authors and their scholarly contribution. On the topic of caste, here is the data as of August 4 2012:

• Citations for Susan Bayly = 876, h-index = 9
• Citations for Nicholas Dirks = 4200, h-index = 25
• Citations for Gerald Berreman = 2865, h-index = 26
• Nicholas Dirks' book Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India is well over 250,000 spots higher on books sales list than Susan Bayly's Caste, Society, and Politics in India.

Setting aside the book sales list, both Dirks and Berreman have significantly higher citation index scores (see wiki's WP:RS guidelines for relevance); both are well respected by the community of scholars, and have had more impact/acceptance on the subject than other authors on this subject. The contributions of Berreman and of Dirks should be included in this article about caste. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Conflict in tertiary sources

1. Here is a part of an article on caste from Encyclopedia Americana, the first significant tertiary source encyclopedia published in America. I copy the initial portion of it, because it is from the 1851 version and the copyright has long expired.

CASTE: certain classes whose burdens and privileges are hereditary. The word is derived from the Portuguese casta, and was originally applied, by the conquerors of the East Indies, to the Indian families, whose occupations, customs, privileges and duties are hereditary. This term has been sometimes applied to the hereditary classes in Europe; and we speak of the spirit or the prerogatives and usurpations of a caste, to express particularly that unnatural constitution of society, which makes distinction dependent on the accidents of birth or fortune. The division into castes, among the people of the old world, comes to us from a period to which the light of history does not extend; hence its origin cannot be clearly traced: but it is highly probable that, wherever it exists, it was originally grounded on a difference of descent, and in the modes of living, and that the separate castes were originally separate races of people. This institution, is found among many nations.

The article then goes on to explain caste in Egypt, Persia etc etc., including a note about four castes in India.

Reading this American encyclopedic article on caste and three cited above suggests a conflict between tertiary sources.

2. Is this a unique fringe conflict? I respectively submit, no. Consider Encyclopedia of Africa by Henry Gates Jr., Kwame Appiah (ISBN 978-0195337709). I can not copy and paste it here, because that would be a copyvio. However, if you read it:

There are many articles that discuss castes in various countries of Africa, a continent with great ethnic diversity. For example, see pages 34-47, 132-135, 503-504, 597-598, and other places. Many of these cover socio-cultural facts about caste, are exquisitely detailed, and none of these articles mention India.

Reading this Africa-focussed encyclopedia and those cited above confirms tertiary sources have significant differences/conflicts on the subject of caste.

Tertiary literature about Africa is no less significant than tertiary literature that is India-focussed such as the Taylor & Francis sources cited above. Tertiary publications from America are no less significant either.

If there is conflict or differences amongst tertiary sources, we must consider if one or more of them are comprehensive and complete. The identified conflicts between tertiary sources are more reasons to stick with community agreed Wiki's content sourcing guidelines: use published reliable secondary sources per WP:RS guidelines. That is what this article does.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There are two possibilities: a) you are being facetious when offering as evidence the 1851 edition of Encyclopedia Americana or b) you are being serious. My response to the two scenarios are: a) Haha. b) Can you find any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that will admit a source from 1851 among reliable sources? Can you suggest any forum on Misplaced Pages where you would like to discuss the plausibility of an 1851 Encyclopedia Americana volume as an example of a reliable tertiary source? All the examples I have offered you are contemporary examples. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that in 1851 in America there was little knowledge of India? There are significant changes between the 1851 entry on "caste" in Encyclopedia Americana and the 1920 entry on "caste" in Encyclopedia Americana (also available for full view on Google). The 1920 edition says:

CASTE, a social class whose burdens and privileges are hereditary. The word is from the Portuguese casta, race, and was applied by the Portuguese, who became familiar with Hindustan, to the classes in India whose occupations, privileges and duties are hereditary. This term is sometimes applied to the hereditary classes in Europe; and we speak of thc spirit or the prerogatives and usurpations of a caste, to express particularly that peculiar constitution of society which makes distinction dependent on the accidents of birth or fortune. ... Recent evidence however has made the existence of a strict caste system in Egypt rather doubtful. The institution of caste is best known to us as it exists in Hindustan, where it is well known to have existed since perhaps 1,500 or 2000 years before the Christian era. (Note: The remaining three-quarters of the article discusses the caste system in India.)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Britannica, on the other hand, its knowledge of India more acute on account of East India Company rule in India, had a more up to date treatment even in 1833. See for example, Baynes, Thomas Spencer (editor) (1833), "Caste", The Encyclopaedia Britannica: a dictionary of arts, sciences, and general literature, Volume 5, C. Scribner's sons, pp. 186–192, retrieved 5 August 2012 {{citation}}: |first= has generic name (help) (Full view available.) The main point, however, is that all three sources, while great for coffee table displays and antiquarian discussions, are not reliable for Misplaced Pages purposes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Next, I will list some more contemporary tertiary sources (of the last 25 years) and discuss what they say on the subject of "caste." Tertiary sources are useful for gauging overall balance in article. Again, if a Misplaced Pages article runs counter to the emphasis in articles on the same subject in all other encyclopedias, then the article does not provide a balanced overview (or summary) of the subject. (Please do not interrupt for the next half hour or so while I gather the evidence.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's contemporary tertiary sources

I have produced 15 tertiary sources published during the last 25 years that all emphasize the Indian context very early on in the lead paragraph. I challenge you to find two contemporary tertiary sources (published in the last 25 years) that have the emphasis and balance of the Misplaced Pages article. I am out of time now, but will check again tomorrow. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not wish to repeat my comments and questions on tertiary versus secondary sources. I request you read them. Per WP:TPG, I invite you to answer my questions above, so that we can build a consensus on how we can together improve this article. If it would help you, I will summarize my questions, that I am unable to find answers to in your reply.

I have read your 16 sources - dictionaries, etc.; I feel you and I are interpreting the single caste article in those sources and wiki collection of caste articles differently. FWIW, the current article already has over 100 contemporary reliable secondary sources. To help reach a consensus, I am willing to make the effort and post here a few contemporary tertiary sources as well (and I will exclude dictionaries, see WP:WWIN). It will help me save time, and save space on this talk page, if in addition to answering my August 04 2010 questions above, you can answer the following with yes/no: (a) Do you have access to and have you read the various volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica published from 1901 to 1987? (b) Do you have access to and have you read the various print editions of Encyclopedia Americana published from 1920 to 2006? (c) Have you read the caste articles in Encyclopedia of Africa (2010) that I cited above?

Once again, I welcome your efforts to improve this article and invite you to join me in starting the process of reaching a consensus. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid, I don't see you as responding to my two main points. Instead, you are asking me yes/no questions about encyclopedias published between 1901 and 1987! This is the last time I will make these points here. If I do not receive an cogent response, I will not only tag the article for imbalance and bias, but, more importantly, will be forced to pursue this issue at a more trafficked Misplaced Pages forum.

Let me repeat again: as I see it,

(a)Misplaced Pages relies on secondary sources for individual statements within an article; however, it has no mechanism for evaluating (how the myriad available secondary sources are combined to create) the balance, the overview, or the perspective of the article other than reliable tertiary sources. These include not only other encyclopedias, but also textbooks, and survey articles in scholarly journals. Unfortunately, there are no textbooks (published in the last 25 years) on the subject of "caste" in all its contexts. There are plenty of textbooks about "Caste in India," but they obviously cannot be used to evaluate the historical/geographical balance of this article. Similarly, there are no contemporary surveys (in scholarly journals) on the topic of "caste" in all its contexts (without reference to geography). That leaves encyclopedias. These, as I have already shown you, are unanimously agreed on emphasizing the context of India (and Hindu India) in the general notion of "caste;" and these spend most of their contents discussing India. You will note that I have listed only encyclopedias that do not restrict their geographical contexts. There are, of course, dozens of encyclopedias about specific geographical contexts, such as Encyclopedia of Hinduism (which has an article, "caste," that discusses caste in Hinduism), Encyclopedia of African-American History (which has an article on "occupational castes" in some West African ethnic groups), Encyclopedia of Sri Lanka (which has an article, "caste," that discusses caste in Sri Lanka) and so forth. But these we cannot use for evaluating geographical emphasis within this article. That, clearly, also rules of Encyclopedia of Africa you have mentioned.

(b) The article Caste is the flagship article for all caste-related issues. "Caste in India" is a sub-topic of "Caste;" consequently, the Caste system in India is a sub-article of Caste. There are other sub-articles, such as Caste system (Sri Lanka), Caste system in Africa, Caste system among South Asian Muslims, and so forth. If you are suggesting that the Caste article is about the notion of "caste" in the abstract, then move the contents of this article to Caste (Concept) or Caste (Sociology), but the article Caste has to be in overall perspective what the predominance of tertiary sources have emphasized it to be. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

My response follows. It is longer than I feel necessary to reach consensus, because you have not answered some of my questions. I will try to keep this short.

I have over 20 tertiary sources that show there is no ‘unanimous agreement’ you claim, but ‘frequently contested’ coverage. Of these 20+, I include a few that are relatively more cited, more circulated; my aim is to focus our attention to what constitutes commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. Do note, tertiary sources are not anywhere near as cited as some secondary sources already in this article.

Many of user Fowler&fowler sources seem to be cut-and-paste of internet commercial websites such as encyclopedia dot com. My sources are based on the full, hardcopy print version. I encourage you to verify my citations below, but do so by locating the hard copy version (there are differences between online and print versions).

I have focussed primarily on contemporary/postmodern tertiary works. Since this talk page discussion may be reviewed by future editors years from now, in their attempts to improve the quality and keep this article current, I include two summaries published between 1911 - 1951 as well, and a dictionary claimed by some to the most trusted authority on the English language in America. I have also skipped 2010 edition of Encyclopedia of Africa etc. which are already mentioned above, and must also be considered.

After citing a few sources, I shall summarize what these added evidence mean in context of wikipedia’s content sourcing guidelines and this article.

ApostleVonColorado’s contemporary and 20th century tertiary sources

The above shows overwhelming differences in content and style between tertiary sources. Some ignore India on the subject of caste, some treat India as a mere example of many, some ignore the world and cover just India alleging India is unique in this matter, without showing how?, without explaining why African/other authors are wrong when they publish in peer reviewed journals that castes - hereditary, hierarchical, ritual pollution driven, rebirth believing, local religion inspired, endogamous, closed systems - were and are present in Africa/outside India. Furthermore, one tertiary source you cited strangely asserts India is unique (ISBN: 1-57958-388-1), nevertheless hurriedly add examples of caste in other parts of the world. FWIW, American tertiary sources, in my interpretation, have a more global view on the subject of caste; Some British/Indian tertiary sources (by British/Indian authors) have an India-obsessed coverage of caste (except some, such as the various print editions of Encyclopedia Britannica between 1911 to mid 20th century).

Who is right, I don’t know, nor does anyone else. For wikipedia, this does not matter. We must, to the best of our ability, summarize all sides. Misplaced Pages, an encyclopedia for the world, must cherish and summarize the global view from reliable secondary sources. User Fowler&fowler acknowledges there are many encyclopedias that have caste articles with regional focus, then asserts 'But these we cannot use for evaluating geographical emphasis within this article.' Why? In addition, identify any[REDACTED] guideline that suggests we must ignore all reliable literature from 190+ other countries, and use your favorite country-focussed literature. We do not need Caste (concept) article or such content forks. I counter that if you wish to see India-dominated coverage of the topic of caste, please go to Varna or Caste system in India.

Given this conflict and differences between tertiary sources, where should the emphasis be? I submit this should be carefully reflected upon, not rushed. Bayly, which you and some tertiary sources you included cite, has felt compelled to note that castes exist outside India and those are outside the scope of her book. If you go by citation index, number of citations, extent of coverage, commonly accepted mainstream scholarship, then the sources I have cited, today and over last few days, score substantially higher, when we study literature that includes India with rest of the world. In African literature, in Latin American literature, in East Asian literature, my sources are predominant - it would be WP:FRINGE to assert caste system did not or do not exist in Africa, Latin America, Korea, Japan, etc. Similarly, in reliable secondary sources in anthropology, in history of the concept of caste, and in similar fields, my sources are far far more cited and respected than those you mention.

I disagree that[REDACTED] should measure itself against latest tertiary sources for this article, or that it should focus and summarize the latest content of some tabloid-like source, or ignore the history of publications in reliable sources within the last 25-100 years. Caste and similar socio-cultural phenomena did not erupt in last few years. There is a history behind these. History is important, it is part and essence of context. History is the root that nurtures our emotional knowledge.

It must also be noted that encyclopedias have evolved (see 1851 and 1953 version of Encyclopedia Americana on the topic of caste, for example). Encyclopedias can and have differed significantly in their emphasis on the topic of caste, while they were published concurrently (e.g. see encyclopedias published in early 1900s on topic of caste). The editors of encyclopedias printed a 100 years ago did not try to fit in or copy each other. Misplaced Pages should not strive to fit in and repeat what commercial, advertisement supported 4 paragraph tabloid encyclopedias on internet are offering as content. Misplaced Pages must strive to discover and summarize, where possible, the most respected and reliable published secondary sources. There is nothing wrong or suspicious in refusing to fit in, in being different and independent.

The current article on caste (August 7 2012 version) mentions India first, mentions India twice in the lead. This flagship article already has wiki links to main independent exclusive article on caste system in India. Given that[REDACTED] has a family of articles on caste, there is no need to delete/ignore the rest of the world, and replace the content of this article with overwhelming or major focus on India.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid your list is both misleading and disingenuous. I have Veena Das's article on Caste in the International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences (your first tertiary reference) sitting right in front of me. The entire article is about caste in India!! Where does it mention anything about caste in other parts of the world?? All the 17 references in the article (Louis Dumont, Kim Marriot, MN Srinivas, GS Ghurye, Andre Beteille, ...) are to scholars who have worked on caste in India! She might have her disagreements with previous scholars on the subject of caste, but the article is about caste in India (and nowhere else). I have already provide the link to Leonard, Thomas M. (editor) (2006), "Caste systems", Encyclopedia of the Developing World, Taylor & Francis, pp. 252–, ISBN 978-0-415-97662-6, retrieved 5 August 2012 {{citation}}: |first= has generic name (help), my 10th reference and your third. Here is the lead again:

CASTE SYSTEMS Caste is an age-old institution, evoked through several centuries. As a system of stratification, it has existed in many parts of the world and is being practiced today in some countries. But the caste system of closed endogamous descent groups as prevalent and practiced in India is not found elsewhere (Bayly 2010; Kolenda 1984). Caste is a well-entrenched phenomenon in countries like India. ...

Here, as in other quotes in your list, you stop just short of the first mention of India; in other words you quote only the first two sentences. You then summarize the article in your "Notes" as: "After this generic lead (emphasis added), the article mentions India, then goes on in the next 4 paragraphs to describe caste in generic terms. The article thereafter covers India, Algeria, South Africa, Burma, Japan, Kenya, Somalia, Rwanda, Nigeria, Jews and Gypsies of Europe (with a minor note), Egypt." Well, the lead is "generic" because you have halved it, removing mention of India in the next two sentences (plainly to be seen by anyone who clicks on the link)!! By the way, it's not the next 4 paragraphs, but only the next 3. What you fail to mention is that two-thirds of the article (the next 11 paragraphs) are devoted to India!! Over and over again, you have attempted to distort the quotes themselves using ellipses when there is mention of India. These you have mixed with old, obscure, citations from hundred year old encyclopedias. I'm not sure what is the point of your rambling comment on Encyclopedia Americana when I had already provided the link to its 1918 entry on "caste". Anyone can directly see that three-quarters of the article is about India. As for the modern Encyclopedia Americana (2006 edition), here is its lead:

Encyclopedia Americana, 2006, Volume 5, page 775: CASTE is a largely static, exclusive social class, membership in which is determined by birth and involves particular customary restrictions and privileges. The word derives from the Portuguese casta, meaning "breed," "race," or "kind," and was first used to denote the Hindu social classification on the Indian subcontinent. While this remains the basic connotation (emphasis added), the word "caste" is also used to describe in whole or in part social systems that emerged at various times in other parts of the world. Generally castes are organized, with a chief and a council acting in concerted authority. Often united in the celebration of certain festivals, the members of a caste are further bound by common occupation and by common customs relating particularly to marriage, food, and questions of pollution by members of lower castes. .... (ellipses represent a few sentences of definition. The next section with many subsections is about India.) (Section) Castes in India—Organizational Structure Among the Hindus. According to some estimates, there are more than 3000 castes on the the Indian subcontinent, greatly varying in size from a few score members to millions. Originally there were only ....

Nowhere have I said that this article should be about India only. However, I am saying that the major emphasis needs to be on India, which it currently is not. The Misplaced Pages article on caste perfunctorily mentions India here and there. There needs to be essential discussion of India, and Hindu India in particular, as there is in all other tertiary sources. You cannot have the sections on the caste systems in China, Tibet, Korea, West Africa, and England, be each longer than the one on the caste system India, even if the India section has its own longer parent article!! When we write a flagship article such as this in WP:SUMMARY STYLE, we cannot push essential discussion of India into the subarticle Caste system in India. This article currently focuses on caste outside India, and has thereby become a POV fork. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I clicked on Caste, and there too the lead is what I quoted. Generic.

One of us is misunderstanding the WP:SUMMARY STYLE guidelines. I submit the current article follows this guideline, which reads: A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it. Again in Basic Technique, the guideline suggests: Ideally many of these sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the subtopics covered in those sections.

In this article, some sections - such as one on China - are longer because there is no dedicated separate article for those sections/sub-sections. India is a shorter summary as it has an independent separate article of its own. Any interested wiki reader has all the access and necessary links.

The same format is in the World War II example described in WP:SUMMARY STYLE. Certain sections are short in World War II - e.g. World War II#Japanese invasion of China, with far more details in the linked independent article. This article follows a same format, per the WP:SUMMARY STYLE guidelines.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You disagree? What you have clicked on is not the lead; it is the abstract. The actual lead is even more generic, but that is because the Indian context in the article is understood. Like I said, find me a sentence in the article that mentions any society other than India. It is after all the emphasis of the entire article we are concerned about. Veena Das's article is, in its entirety, about the Cast system in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If the articles on caste in China, Korea, etc., do not have parents articles, then create a parent article Caste beyond South Asia (or some such name), include the details there, and summarize that article's content in a section "Cast beyond South Asia" here. The emphasis on India has to be paramount here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I am delighted by your admission that the 'actual lead is even more generic'. You may assume whatever implicit context you understand or misunderstand, it is none of my concern. This talk page's purpose is to help reach consensus, not to debate or lecture me or anyone else on socio-cultural phenomena topics such as caste. I do not want to repeat my disagreements with you - just read my discussion on leads in various tertiary sources and various prints of same publication from 100 years ago to recent years. I do not want to debate Veena Das, student of M.N. Srinivas - both of whom are Indians known for voluntarily limiting their publications to caste system in India.

As before, I welcome clarifications and suggestions to help reach consensus. Perhaps you can clarify what other summary paragraph(s) you want to add from Caste system in India, that would improve this article. I am open to expanding the summary on India. I insist, however, we respect WP:SUMMARY guidelines on including just a summary, rather than cutting and pasting that independent article into this article.

I do not like the 'Caste beyond South Asia'; or based on your 'India has to be paramount' note, perhaps a 'Caste beyond India' suggestion. It is bad idea because no wiki guideline encourage that approach, WP:CFORK and WP:SUMMARY discourage it, and because it would also be an implicit bias and disrespect for thousands of reliable secondary sources worldwide and to ethnic group-specific scholarship on caste in English language publications.

We must follow wikpedia guidelines on how and when to split this article. You can find some on WP:SS. For what it is worth, at this point, I feel most sections that should be split have already been split by wiki contributors other than me (e.g. Cagots, Caste system in India, Nepalese caste system, etc.). If anything, wiki has stubs such as Priestly caste that need to deleted/merged into this article.

If you can identify which non-India caste section is already covered elsewhere in wikipedia, I would welcome changing revising that section/sub-section with a summary, to help trim this article.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to initiate WP:DR. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits by user@ 117.205.129.69 - on British manipulation of history/caste

The user@ 117.205.129.69 has been trying to add the following two parts to this article on caste, without any verifiable support -

• The British for reasons best known to themselves, and therefore, eventually the rest of the world have not only accepted this manipulation of history, but have earnestly perpetuated it.

• South Asian society has consisted of thousands of castes called Jatis since ancient times. The Brahmins (more correctly Brahmans), who were a small and politically marginal community, became powerful during the British colonial period, and seem to have convinced the colonial masters to adopt their own theoretical view of the society as the only correct one. According to this view, which had no basis in reality at any time during India's long history...

I reverted this once because the above is neither supported nor balanced/neutral. The user is requested to identify and include a reliable source for these viewpoints per WP:VNT and WP:RS guidelines.

The user is welcome here, and I will be glad to read/discuss/help summarize any reliable source that inspires him or her to those claims. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Karunakaran, Prashobh. The History of Earth The Indian Version. Bloomington: Authorhouse, 2010.
2. Hurst, Charles E. Social Inequality: Forms, Causes, and Consequences. Sixth Edition.
3. Myrdal, Gunnar. 1944. An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class India articles
• High-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of High-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class Hinduism articles
• High-importance Hinduism articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• High-importance sociology articles
• Start-Class Economics articles
• Low-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• Stub-Class psychology articles
• Low-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• B-Class Human rights articles
• High-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• B-Class Africa articles
• Top-importance Africa articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• Unassessed Discrimination articles
• Unknown-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of Society
• Misplaced Pages requested images of political topics
• Misplaced Pages requested images of business & economic topics