Talk:Caste system among South Asian Christians

Requested move 18 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 22:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Caste system among Indian Christians → Caste system among South Asian Christians – As the article notes, Christian castes are also found in Sri Lanka, Nepal and Pakistan,[1] thus it would make more sense to provide coverage to those subjects in this article. Also see Caste system among South Asian Muslims. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree.Shakespeare143 (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support I had been thinking of that too when I had edited the article for the first time. Mukt (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be better to change it to Caste System among Christians. This article: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244017709322 mentions how some Christians in Africa have a caste also.Shakespeare143 (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with moving to Caste system among Christians per the scholarly source you provided. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• I too support Caste system among Christians. A good alternative. Mukt (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Caste system among Christians as a good rescoping in view of reference provided above. Andrewa (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Striking out my previous !vote because the RM has changed owing to the previous close but not the resulting move being reverted. See below for a new !vote that conforms to this essentially new RM. Andrewa (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Re-opening RM discussion as requested by several editors. (see below section) Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support: The title Caste system among South Asian Christians reflects the current scope of this article well, covering various countries of South Asia in which caste retains importance, e.g. Nepal, Goa, the Punjab region (which is divided between India and Pakistan). I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 14:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support move to Caste system among South Asian Christians. The Indian caste system is unique and this article deals with castes and conversions to christianity in South Asia. The one article that talks about Africa is entirely different in its emphasis as it talks about the interaction between Christian missionaries and social groups in the Igbo people, a different topic entirely, so a broader scope won't work here. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  There are also excellent arguments against rescoping the article at a previous move request. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support move to Caste system among South Asian Christians per Anupam and RegentsPark. Though the word caste is used in the paper related to the Igbo, a deeper reading shows that it is focused on concepts related to slavery and conversion to Christianity more than caste as is commonly understood in India and South Asia. The paper also fails to establish the contextual use of the term caste which makes one question the reliability of the paper though it appears to be peer reviewed and a strong journal. The first use of the term caste is as follows, The Igbo osu caste system is a practice of traditional religion and culture. Caste system also exists in Egypt, among the Hebrews, in China, in Japan, among the Germans, and in Russia, Spain, and Portugal (Ndulor, 2014), clearly missing out India and its neighbouring countries. Reading through the sources at caste, we see it in the context of Hinduism. VV 17:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose move away from the current title Caste system among Christians. It's rather confusing exactly what the status and format of this RM now is, but this current title is a good one, concise and covers a good topic not covered elsewhere. The current article on Caste describes much wider use of the term than just the Indian subcontinent and the one tribe in Africa, and has references which should be considered. Previous discussions should be considered of course but they are not the last word. Andrewa (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Andrewa: nonetheless, IMHO we would need reliable sources for a general article with a title suggesting that caste systems among Christians exist outside this area and is a real topic, and you haven't provided any. Doug Weller talk 09:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
    • These sources existed in the article references at the time I !voted. No change of !vote. Andrewa (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The article at caste would require a rewrite as there is a disconnect between the lead+etymology section w.r.t. the lower parts of the page. I dont think that is a good argument to support a generalisation of this page name. VV 05:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Whether or not it is a good argument is for the closer to determine. Andrewa (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
      • True. I'm not asking you to change !vote either :-) Just that the sources mentioned on the related pages do not support any generalisation of the Hindu concept of caste to the other instances that are specified. VV 12:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to Caste system among Christians. This article has mentioned at least one other instance, in Africa, with a source, and other article references given in the article have also supported the broader use of the term. The wish of some authorities to restrict caste to the Indian continent is discussed in that article, and we should not take a stand on it here, but go by sources. Andrewa (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support move to Caste system among South Asian Christians. The article, as currently written, is about the phenomenon in South Asia. Expanding the scope beyond this region would require a big rewrite with relevant sources, and nothing on this talk page suggests that this is an option that's on the table. – Uanfala (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I support the move/ name change to Caste System among South Asian Christians It's more diverse and inclusive and comes with wider applicability. It will prevent tedious duplication of the same materials for each of the countries in South Asia. It's suggests a more collaborative, the move will prompt more readers to come together from other South Asian countries, to share their inputs and throw light on the modern Christianised caste system, and Indology/ Hindu culture/ Hindu civilisation. Nolicmahr (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issue with the above

@Andrewa, Mukt, Shivkarandholiya12, Shakespeare143, and Egsan Bacon: this decision seems to have been made on the basis of one source. Shakespeare143 you wrote that the source "mentions how some Christians in Africa have a caste also."

The only relevant statement I can see in the source seems to claim is that Christian missionaries/converts came into conflict with the pre-existing osu/ohu caste system among the Igbo people, not that the "some Christians in Africa have a caste also".

"The Igbo osu caste system is a practice of traditional religion and culture. ... When Christianity came, the missionaries condemned human sacrifice and outcast system. Both Osu and Ohu and other converts started to worship God together in the same church, for in the sight of God, all men are equal. The traditionalists frowned at it but the new Christian converts did not mind having Christian fellowship with the outcasts."

What have I missed? Doug Weller talk 18:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello User:Doug Weller, it doesn't look like you've missed anything. The proper title of this article should be Caste system among South Asian Christians, as originally suggested above, especially as that is the current scope of the article. Feel free to make the page move. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Anupam. The old name of the page was appropriate. VV 19:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the move. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Technically, the article should have remained at its original Caste system among Indian Christians since its scope is limited to India (except for one mention about the existence of Dalits in several other South Asian countries). Either the scope should be expanded to include caste and christians in Pakistan, Nepal, etc., or we should move it back to its original title (imo). --RegentsPark (comment) 20:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That is completely out of process. See User talk:Anupam#Please revert out of process move. Andrewa (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

If there is any problem with the move, then that needs to be discussed at move review now that the RM has been closed and actioned.

I'm also sceptical that there is any problem with rescoping based on this one reference. It's a valid secondary source, and justifies including the material in the article. If other sources contest this claim, then this should be included as well. Andrewa (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

User:RegentsPark, this article covers the Punjab region, which is divided between Pakistan and India and the majority of Christians fall on the Pakistani side of the border. User:Andrewa, I'm not sure that I have the privileges to move this article back over a redirect. Would you mind if we wait and let the other administrators, User:Doug Weller and User:RegentsPark reply first? Thank you for your understanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not agree with waiting. I think your priviledges are adequate. (And if not then you should raise a technical move request explaining your error.) Andrewa (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Andrewa, I can do that, if you think that it is the right thing to do. I just want to make you aware that the article, as it stands now, does not cover any other region besides South Asia. Please advise. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of that argument. That is another issue. It doesn't affect the process now that the RM has closed and has been actioned. Andrewa (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and requested the article to be moved back to the title in the previous discussion, though I disagree with this. Christianity does not have a caste system and the areas in which it is practiced is due to the culture there; note the title chosen for Caste system among South Asian Muslims. I have stated all that I need to. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 21:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This new argument does not affect the RM closure. We can discuss it and in need raise a fresh RM, if you really want to pursue it. Andrewa (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec)@Anupam: I still think the outside India mention is trivial. For example, all it says is that members of certain castes in the Punjab converted to christianity, not that the caste system is still prevalent amongst these christians. While I can see that the move request was closed and technically should not have been reverted, I suggest that we ask the closer to reopen the request in the light of this discussion (@Egsan Bacon:). In particular, the "scholarly source" that seems to be the basis for the move does not seem to be relevant. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

User:RegentsPark, request the closer to reopen the move by all means, that is part of the wp:MR process. But the out-of-process move should be reverted first. The TR has now been raised by User:Anupam, sort of, but again the process has not been followed, resulting in further delays. Andrewa (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

User:RegentsPark, I hardly think that the mention can be called "trivial"; note this article, titled Caste away: The ongoing struggle of Punjabi Christians, published by Dawn, by Asif Aqeel and Sama Faruqi, which states:

In 1947, there were two types of Christians in what was then known as West Pakistan: landless, unskilled, poor labourers and peasants living in villages across central Punjab, and educated Christian professionals, mostly Anglo-Indians and Goans, who lived in big cities such as Karachi and Lahore. The former are generally converts to Christianity from low-caste Hindus and the latter from upper-caste Hindus as well as Muslims.

The Christians did not own the land. It belonged to the government – recorded as shamlaat-e-deh, the extension of the village land earmarked for collective usage.

Anglo-Indians and Goans immediately faced discrimination in jobs and business opportunities in the newly created Pakistan. Their rather privileged social status under the Raj – that prized their English language skills and British cultural mannerisms – started waning. Punjabi Christians, on the other hand, were always treated with contempt due to their caste and their dark skin.

Clearly, the caste of the Christian affects how they are treated by society at large in Pakistan. Additionally, there is a phenomenon in Nepal, in which Christians enter into mixed marriages with others of their same caste, rather than their co-religionists. Both of these things make this article within the scope of South Asia and not just India. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok. No worries. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding User:RegentsPark. I hope you have a great day! With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Reverting the out of process move

User:Anupam has now attempted a TR, but they do not seem to have attempted to revert the move themselves, as suggested by both myself and the instructions there, and the request is malformed. So we have still more delays.

Would anyone object to me requesting a TR Caste system among South Asian Christians → Caste system among Christians myself? It now seems the best way forward to me. Then we can proceed with requesting a reopen of the RM, or going to MR if they reject that request. But we need to clear the air here first IMO. Andrewa (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• For the record, I'm perfectly fine with this request. I have no objections to the RM being re-opened. If we need to wait for the TR first, just let me know when it's ready, and I'll re-open. Or someone else can if I'm not around; there's no need to wait for me. (pinging @RegentsPark:, @Andrewa:) Egsan Bacon (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Andrewa, I've completed the move as requested at the RMT. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 23:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Now, if anyone wants to contest the move closure, the first thing is to read the instructions at WP:MR, and make that request to User:Egsan Bacon. They have indicated above that they will do it. Then we can consider the new arguments that have been raised, and hopefully get to some sort of resolution.

Alternatively and I think preferably, the scope can be discussed at #Rescoping below. Either can work. It seems to me neater to discuss below first. Andrewa (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Rescoping

It is suggested above that the one source cited is not adequate for broadening the scope of this article.

I do not agree for two reasons.

Firstly, this appears to be a reliable secondary source. The material can therefore be included in the article, particularly but not only if it is rescoped.

Secondly, if there are other sources that dispute this claim, then they should also be included. We cover all properly sourced views where there is controversy. But no such sources have been suggested that I can see. Andrewa (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewa: I don't like saying this, but I'm pretty annoyed that you are more interested in the bureaucratic issues than dealing with my argument that the move was based on a source that doesn't back the move. And if I'm right, WP:IAR would justify User:Anupam's reversal. IAR says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." That's basic policy.

I'd appreciate it if you would in your next post respond to the issue of what the source says. If I'm wrong, fine, I've been wrong before. And as far as WP:UNDUE is concerned, we don't need sources challenging the original source, we need more than one source. If the article does indeed mean what you seem to think it means, and there aren't any other sources saying that, we don't use it. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

If you are annoyed with me and believe that I am more interested in the bureaucratic issues than dealing with my argument that the move was based on a source that doesn't back the move then you should first take this up on my talk page, not here. Generally disagree with the rest of this too.

Our procedures are not perfect. But I do not agree that ignoring them on this occasion was a good idea, as you seem to think.

Reopening the RM is fine. And the outcome may well be reversed. That's fine too. Andrewa (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the sources at caste I understand that the concept of caste and caste-based discrimination is unique to India and South Asia. The adaption of the concept as shown by the latest source regarding the Igbo example in the RM is not substantial enough to merit a close with a move. I'd request @Egsan Bacon: to reopen the RM section for further discussion. Thanks. VV 09:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Also very detailed discussions took place in 2014 and the major conditions have not changed since then. VV 09:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

That discussion is archived at Talk:Caste system among Indian Christians/Archive 1#Sources only address Catholic christians no other denominations, is that correct? Yes, agree it is relevant. Andrewa (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've asked Egsan Bacon if they will revert their close.--RegentsPark (comment) 13:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • And they have previously indicated that they would be quite happy to do this. In which case it's the right thing to do. Andrewa (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I have re-opened the RM. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Article title history

The above is an incomprehensible mess, which is confusing both my bot and myself. Researching the page history:

• at 06:02, 12 December 2006 Utcursch created Caste system among Indian Christians splitting from Indian caste system, please see its history for contributors
• at 22:07, 12 October 2007 Nat protected Caste system among Indian Christians (dispute [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 22:07, November 12, 2007 (UTC)))
• at 03:51, 8 December 2013 Bladesmulti moved page Caste system among Indian Christians to Caste system among Christians (Includes Europe, Africa, so it's worldwide.)
• at 21:37, 27 January 2014 Mangoe moved page Caste system among Christians to Caste system among Indian Christians over redirect (reverse spurious move)
• at 14:09, 25 May 2021 Egsan Bacon moved page Caste system among Indian Christians to Caste system among Christians over redirect (per discussion at Requested move 18 May 2021)
• at 19:19, 25 May 2021 Anupam moved page Caste system among Christians to Caste system among South Asian Christians (revert)
• at 23:38, 25 May 2021 TheAafi moved page Caste system among South Asian Christians to Caste system among Christians over redirect (Requested by Anupam at WP:RM/TR: I have been requested by User:Andrewa to have the recent move reverted as there was consensus for the previous name per this discussion.)

– Whoa boys. I'm going to need some time to digest this. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

When this page is moved, care should be taken to move subpages as well, such as Talk:Caste system among Indian Christians/Archive 1 so the archive box doesn't red-link. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for buying in!

Agree it's an incomprehensible mess, and I'm sorry but not surprised that the bot has problems. One problem may be that the RM was incompletely reopened. Fix that and the bot will be happier I imagine. I did not say necessarily or completely happy!

Not only have procedures been repeatedly ignored, but I've been severely criticised for saying that they should have been followed, and probably misquoted as to exactly what I have suggested. I am trying to help and am still happy to do so. But as you say, it's a mess. Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I've finished restoring the reopen and re-stablized things. The bot's happy with this again, but I've barely read the discussion yet. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Syrian Christians descent

The article says

The Saint Thomas Syrian Christians claim to derive status within the caste system from the tradition that they were descendants of Assyrians, Jews and that they were Upper castes

Since this is contested, please provide the quote from a source that says so. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello User:Lembit Staan, I'll try to provide some sources

• [[2]]
• [[3]]
• [[4]]
• [[5]]
• [[6]]
• [[7]]
• [[8]](Micahhadar (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC))

Thanks, but I asked for quotes which say something equivalent to what the phrase in question says. I cannot read all these books. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Lembit Staan, Hello I had shared the most reliable sources available, those are very elaborated essays on the Saint Thomas Syrian Christian community. This souces presented here could be helpful.

• [[9]]

Here in this news publication it is said that:-

"The most popular claim is that their story begins around 52 AD when Saint Thomas, the disciple of Jesus Christ landed at Maliankara near Cranganore and spread Christianity. It is believed that he converted a good number of the local inhabitants in present-day Kerala, mostly the upper caste Nambudiri Brahmins and also established seven churches in Kerala (Brown 1956)."(Micahhadar (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC))

Says nothing about Assyrians and Jews. Colleague, please realize that you cannot just write something off your head; you have to summarize exactly what source said. For example, "mostly the upper caste Nambudiri Brahmins" is not the same as "that they were Upper castes". And some other sources say "Among those early conversions were several Namboodiri Brahmin families, from whom many of the present-day Syrian Christians trace their roots." - meaning that "mostly the upper case" is a dubious claim. Lembit Staan (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)