Talk:Caste system in India/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Brookings Institution is not RS

Its a private think tank. Not a university.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You realize that doesn't mean it's not reliable. You have not outlined why it's not reliable. All you said it's a think tank. That does not mean it's a reliable source. You can't just say it's a think therefore it's not a reliable source.

Please see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources. You must clearly say why it's not reliable for the statement it made. You must do that for every statement it says. You can't just blindly say it's a think tank and we can't use it has a source. I would like to know your argument on why it can't be used as a source in this context. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Until then the article shall remain from its static state. IE the statement should be restored in the meantime. As it was there far before I edited to properly match the source.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The point is that is it self-published. See Wikipedia policies on that. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That's for blogs, wikis, etc. By your logic any newspaper won't qualify. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy states: "For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." How can you edit Wikipedia since 2009 and not know this?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me ask you this. How is this book self published? BTW, your last sentence is a personal attack.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You can see the copyright page on Google Books preview. Its published by the Brookings Institute.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Joshua Jonathan, Kautilya3, Sitush, Ms Sarah Welch, and Cullen328:.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"Self-publishing is the publication of any book or other media by its author without the involvement of an established publisher." So, with that said how is the author self publishing. Self publishing is about the author NOT the publisher.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If you give me one source, which says Brookings doesn't have an editor and their books are 100% from the author. You'll be 100% right. However, you haven't done that.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Is Brookings Institution a Reliable Sources

Is the think tank publisher Brookings Institution a reliable source.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion below. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Before discussing the publisher, first discuss the edit, which changed

"The caste system is tough to get rid of and caste-based differences are still practiced in other religions in the Indian subcontinent like Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism"

into

"The caste system has been challenged by Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and many reformist Hindus. However, the caste system is tough to get rid of and caste-based differences are still practiced in other religions in the Indian subcontinent like Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism"

NB: the present lines now say:

"The caste system has been challenged by Buddhism, Islam, Sikhism, Christianity, and many reformist Hindu movements. However, the caste system is tough to get rid of and caste-based differences are still practiced in other religions in the Indian subcontinent like Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism."

References

Are these statements stated as such by these sources? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The sentence "and caste-based differences are still practiced in other religions in the Indian subcontinent like Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism." is weird; it suggests that the caste-system is not being practiced within Hinduism. In the specific section on Buddhism, I see nothing about a caste-system among present-day Indian Buddhists. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, the article says very little about Buddhists etc challenging this system. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Reliable Sources

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The discussion seems to indicate both that Brookings is generally reliable and that the use of Brookings here is also as a reliable source. --Izno (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Is Brookings Institution a reliable sources. Brookings is a think tank publisher and VictoriaGrayson is says that it falls under Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. However, my understanding is only blogs, self published books (so books that are 100% from the author and not edited/reviewed by the publisher), etc. are part of it.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable - Why not use the many secondary academic books on this topic published by university presses? There are so many better sources on this subject.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

So now your argument has changed to there's better source. You know that doesn't say it's not reliable by one bit. You realize that Wikipedia discussion are not votes right, but about the validity of arguments? You still haven't clearly laid your down. Still waiting on you to tell me how it's self published.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Brookings Institute is an advocacy group.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)\

Hah, that is hilarious coming from someone who happily cites Rajiv Malhotra and the infinity foundation as a "reliable" source.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's try to avoid personal attacks. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

How is that self publish when I gave you the definition. You really are clinging to it. Even when I gave you the definition.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The author is part of this advocacy group.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That's different from a newspaper how? By your logic they'd be NO newspaper sources from Canada has they all endorse political parties. Let me explain self publishing for you. You write a blog, you publish it. You write a book, you pay a publisher to produce it. You write an article on wikipedia.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable within proper context: WP:BIASED is pretty clear: "While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." Actually, it's not an "advocacy group" in the sense of, say, the Sierra Club or the Christian Coalition. It's a think tank with a slight (53/100) liberal bias. Definitely NOT self-pub. The Brookings Institution is a respected institution and Cohens is clearly a solid author with good credentials. My view is this one is not different from a University professor published by the press imprint of his own university; still bound to fact-checking and indicia of reliability. I shall leave the question of inclusion or exclusion of the particular tidbit cited to the lead editors to discuss, but for the purpose of describing political challenges to the Caste system, this is a reliable source. That said, it is not a philosophical or theological tome, it's a source reliable for political science and history. So questions of scope and weight and placement of the information are all open to further discussion too. Montanabw^(talk) 23:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Not selfpublished Reliability depends on the specific claim and which other claims it might contradict or corroborate. The particular claim challenged here is obviously and uncontroversially true and can be confirmed by hundreds of other sources. it would be better to choose some academically published tertiary sources to solidly show that this is an uncontroversial consensus view.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Reliable - Is Brookings reliable? Absolutely, it is the most reputable "think tank," i.e., does research and teaching tailored to policy makers. I have no problem treating it in the same way as any other academic publisher. On the other hand, Steve Cohen being the head of the same institution, we cannot be confident of much review happening. So, for any controversial ideas, I would be wary of using such a source. For the use currently made here, I think it is perfectly fine. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

American policy makers.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable When you ask whether a source is reliable you should mention which book or article and the text it is intended to support. In this case, India: Emerging Power, p. 21, is being used to support the statement that the caste system has been challenged by other (non-Hindu) religions.[1] The Brookings Institution Press is a reliable source, the book has 503 cites on Google scholar[2] and the author, Stephen P. Cohen, is a professor emeritus of political science and an expert on India. Also, the statement is non-controversial. TFD (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I added other sources to go along with them. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Gail Omvedt is a non-indologist activist trying to defend Ambedkar's Buddhism.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You really need to look at Wikipedia policy. Bias sources can be just as reliable. In this context (that there are Buddhist movements against the caste), it doesn't matter whether the person promotes that certain movement or not. All that matters, is that there are Buddhist movements against caste.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

And having a viewpoint that is the result of a scholarly investigation is not a bias, it is a requirement for being a scholar. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think what VG means is that Omvedt and Ambedkar are neither historians nor religious studies scholars. Their statements have no validity in assessing what Buddhism does or doesn't do. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. - Kautilya3 (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

She possibly does but that is an fallacious argument. No sane religious scholar would claim that buddhism does anything. Buddhists do things. INcluding challenging caste. Ambedkar was a Buddhist and a person who challenged caste, a perfect example of buddhism being used to challenge caste. Omvedt is a scholar who has studied the different ways in which caste has been challenged - a perfect source for describing the history of how caste has been challenged by people of various ideologies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Gail Omvedt is a recognized scholar of caste. Specifically she is an expert in the anti-caste movement, and as such is the perfect source for the claim in question.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable at least for the current usage. A think tank such as this would be reliable in most cases, unless there are specific reasons why not; for instance, unless we have good reason to believe that this specific book has not received editorial oversight, then it is reliable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable per Maunus and Vanamonde93. Doug Weller (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: The question is impossible to answer in general. Reliability always depends on context. Brookings is a fairly serious and respected thinktank in the US. It is like asking "Is Amnesty International reliable"? (Brookings is much more widely quoted than AI). In case of doubts, use attribution, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable - It appears to be the reliable source. In fact it passes NPOV which is laid out in [WP:BIASED]]. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:50, 10 December 2015 (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.

Generic texts and specialized topics

My comments:

1. Best reliable sources for specialized topics come from review articles published in reputable journals, scholarly and professional books written by experts in that field published by a respected publisher. The Cohen book is a generic text on "India: Emerging Power", is mostly on economics and strategic positioning of India among its neighbors. The latter context is Brookings' speciality, where it is a respected and reliable source, but "caste system" is not Brookings' field of expertise. Caste system in India among its religions, past and present, is a specialized topic. A better summary, for the main article and for the lede, can be prepared from systematic publications on caste system in India and its religions, by established scholars in caste-related studies.

2. Cohen's notes on India, the caste system among its religions, on p. 21 lacks cites. In other parts of the book, as at p.28, he cites often. Any one know any confirming scholarly sources? They are not there in the main article.

Paulmuniz (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Caste system in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070111213049/http://www.unesco.org:80/courier/2001_09/uk/doss22.htm to http://www.unesco.org/courier/2001_09/uk/doss22.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Brahmin vs. Brahmana

We use English words wherever applicable, but in this article "Brahmin" is often juxtaposed with other varnas, for which we don't have English words. The combinations sound odd. Should we use "Brahmana" instead of "Brahmin?" Most reliable sources do it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Caste system in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050828053452/http://www.southasianmedia.net:80/Magazine/Journal/castepolitics_india.htm to http://www.southasianmedia.net/Magazine/Journal/castepolitics_india.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Genetics and the onset of endogamy

Time to add Moorjari (2013), and also Basu (2016), on the onset of the caste-system during the Gupta's. See also Tia Ghose, Genetic Study Reveals Origin of India's Caste System, LiveScience, which quotes Witzel. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

NB: I vaguely remember that the late Roman Empire also intriduced some sort of 'birth-inherited occupational system', at roughly the same time. There were trade-connections between India and the Roman Empire; when the Roman Empire collapsed, India regionalised. This might make for an interesting piece of WP:OR: 'Indian caste-system was inherited from Roman Empire' ;). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that some castes were endogamous even before the time of Buddha according to Moorjani (2013), the Vaishyas of Andhra Pradesh, for example. Buddha's clan, Shakyas. were themselves endogamous according to the Buddhist texts. The onset of endogamy was a long drawn-out process. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The lost ANI-language

If the ANI and ASI lived separately in India for thousands of years, then they had different languages, right? And if the ANI lived in the north, and the Indo-Aryans inter-acted with them, then their language should have left traces, right? In the Rig Veda, there are Dravidian loans; where are the ANI-loans?!? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The answer is obvious, isn't it? The ANI always spoke Sanskrit, and gave birth to all the Indo-European languages! :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

There are no language remnants in the world that go that far back.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

The Bollywood movie, Lagaan, deals some with caste especially interaction with an untouchable. Veedgo (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Northeast India Grossly Ignored

Would anyone care to add the bit about the 7 sister states of Northeast Frontier of India. Atul Kaushal 03:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Introduction

Perhaps the introduction should be re-written, because I just read the first paragraph and I don't know any more about the topic than I did before. This is far too common on wikipedia. The first paragraph should give readers a general idea what the topic is about.Yellowjournalism (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Dubious section 1 ( here in talk page)

I am back to this article after more than a year. What welcomes me here in the talk page, is the first section, which always remained titled RSS. I cannot fathom the reason why several archiving exercises to the talk page could not archive that single section. ANy particular reason for this? No it is not accidental nor I am arguing collision of all Wikipedia editors to keep it alive. But suffice to say that, it at the least smells a rat. Smells a hidden and networked influence, working over time to influence and steer WP India related articles in a certain POV. Of course I know this will not help anything, (and I have to bring in RS to make it a better article..:D) yet, this has to be taken at a more noticeable, perhaps global level?. It is an appeal for the sake of posterity. AB^Talk 14:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

User:ABEditWiki]], it looks to me as though it wasn't archived because it wasn't signed. That happens on my talk page as well. It's the way the bot works. However, the user admitted to be a sockpuppet and we often, indeed perhaps usually just delete sock puppet edits, which I will do now. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic; "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Caste system in India article."

You want me to buy it ? It was bots all the way ain't it? I didn't have or won't have a problem with that lying there! The reason is what curious of! And your explanation perfeclty suits! That's the way bots do it. :) ABTalk 17:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC) ABEditWiki i thought Doug Weller gave a reasonable explanation. There are different bots and it is entirely possible that the particular bot archiving this page is not doing the archiving of posts which are not signed. It does seem silly as to why it would not archive unsigned posts, but it could happen. You can consider it a bug in the bot which needs to be fixed. At the very least you need to give Doug Weller the benefit of doubt.Soham321 (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Thanks. As I said, it happens on my talk page. I have to regularly either remove or sign unsigned edits. You can ask at the WP:Help desk if you don't believe me. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Definitely I'm not doubting the technical reason for that to happen. Just that I'm profoundly amused why none of the active editors here never took note of it! Isn't it deliberate ? ABTalk 18:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC) It may seem nitpicking but I want some serious attention here. Even if some one is willing to work with the article, concerted efforts have been made, all in the name of wiki policies, by some group of editors previously. That's why I am bothered about this apprently small glitch! ABTalk 19:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Why there is a separate criticism section?

Cate system is a social system evolved over centuries, if not millenniums. The separate section of criticism in an encyclopedic article is necessary(IMO) only if it is A theory/system/practice invented and advocated by certain groups AND the WP article also takes a positive view of the same, in other sections. As far as I see the article does not talk about the system in a positive way nor a negative way. It is a neither a system postulated by some group nor it is advocated currently. The criticism should be incorporated into the article wherever applicable is my opinion. It would be great if some one could throw light on this from wiki guidelines. AB^Talk 08:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you already know the guidelines: criticism sections are deprecated and, where possible, the information should be incorporated. You've almost quote the guideline word for word. That said, it isn't always possible to do and especially not when it comes to what might be described as "meta" topics. Feel free to suggest ways to achieve this, bearing in mind that you believe the article to be fairly balanced - As far as I see the article does not talk about the system in a positive way nor a negative way - and thus there seems to be a contradiction in your comment. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not know the guideline, and would love to give it a glance lest some of you experienced lot will cry WP under attack! How to incorporate is a huge question, a discussion only can answer.

I did not say/mean that this article is best or balanced. I meant, as far as I can see the article contains all the information. It contains all sorts, 'positive' views, 'negative' views, apologetic views etc so on so forth. I can possibly take a balanced view, but that's because of some years spent on this topic, otherwise. The problem I have about the article is that of poor draft, avoiding an (encyclopedic) overview of of the caste system in India. AB^Talk 09:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

So stop being pugnacious and assuming bad faith re: "under attack" etc and propose some changes. - Sitush (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:CRIT is an essay that pretty much reflects how things are done, albeit the thing has no formal status as either guideline or policy. I think you'll find something in WP:BLP also but that is irrelevant to this article. Despite appearances, we do not codify every single thing on Wikipedia, hence the very frequently cited WP:BRD is not a policy. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that - WP:CRIT AB^Talk 11:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Section 'caste politics'

IMO 'Caste politics' as a title of section does not fit an encyclopedic article on caste system. The term is value loaded and generally used to decry how democratic parties use castes/caste groups etc for garnering support ( broad meaning). It should be either 'interaction between caste and politics in society' or simply caste and politics. 10:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"Caste politics" and "votebank" etc are very common terms in reliable sources. "Caste and politics" means something very different to votebank politics etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that caste politics is a very common term in reliable sources and perhaps requires a section itself to deal with it. I guess you know the negative connotation to the term as well. My problem is that content under the section need not be loaded with the negative views the term 'caste politics' is assigned with. For example, the topic of affirmative action ( the part of affirmative action based on caste) is written under this sub section, which implies that affirmative action based on caste follows from caste politics. AB^Talk 11:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You are moving the goalposts, I think. Are you now querying what is in the section rather than the title? You previously said that the title "does not fit an encyclopedic article on caste system" but seems to be retracting that. - Sitush (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yea, it does not fit/deserve to be a section, if the content is as it exists. ( Which meant that the content and title are not the same). I retracted, agreeing to that 'caste politics' may need a section,with relevant content ( of whats decried as caste politics, in usual terms as you mentioned). For clarity, yes I retracted the 'unfitness' of the title caste politics, with relevant content it may be dealt as a section. But affirmative action should be taken out, as also some other subsections AB^Talk 12:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

New section of positive discrimination/affirmative action and caste

The term reservation is used to denote state sponsored positive discrimination/ affirmative action. It is not solely based on caste nor caste system. The lead claim needs citation or needs to be rephrased. I would suggest a new section which may be titled ' Caste and reservation in India' or ' caste and affirmative action in India'. AB^Talk 10:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand this at all. Reservation exists because of the socio-economic problems that arose out of the caste issue. If you can find a source that says otherwise then I'd be pleased to see it but it probably would be of more use at the Reservation in India article. Please also note WP:MOSHEAD - there isn't really much need to keep adding the word "caste" to various section headings. - Sitush (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Reservation is there at many levels in India - on the basis of gender, on the basis of tribe, on the basis of caste, on the basis of linguistic minorities, even on the basis of religion ( in institutions which has 'minority status' granted and aided by government). So it will be totally erratic to say 'today caste system is the basis of reservation in India' in the lead about an article on caste systemm . AB^Talk 11:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Still waiting for a source. I am not going to get involved in a discussion without one. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

A random link https://www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/impact-women-policy-makers-public-goods-india on womens reservation to local self governments in India. AB^Talk 11:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to Reservation in India, which is the linked article. Perhaps that needs fixing first if you believe that there are other legislated forms of positive discrimination. I'm pretty sure that "reservation" is usually meant in the context of FC/OBC/SC/ST in India, though. - Sitush (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

That definitely needs to be fixed. 'Usually meant'? Policy please! :) AB^Talk 12:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. We don't have a policy for "usually meant". I mean, there is stuff like WP:COMMONNAME and WP:DUE but "usually meant" as I said it refers to what sources say. I have just noticed that the Reservation article now has quite a bit about gender etc, which is new to me, but I would be surprised if those things were a part of the original reservation system, which actually existed in some form before India became independent. If you want to suggest a change to the sentence in the lead then by all means do so but you have to follow the sources. - Sitush (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh! You don't have a policy for that? Strange! :) PS: I am not able to edit anything here in this article, I could do with other articles, whom should I contact? Thanks AB^Talk 12:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Any chance you can drop the repeated sarcasm? You'll just make enemies if you persist. As for editing this article, well, just propose your changes as I have already told you at least twice today. - Sitush (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue is resolved and I am able to edit now. Sarcasm is good isn't it? How am I to survive here without sarcasm?? Thanks for the tip, never knew WP editors cant take sarcasm with due weight.( Ah, here I go again!):D AB^Talk 12:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sarcasm, like humour, often doesn't work well in writing and it can very easily rub people up the wrong way. As for your edit, well, it was WP:POINT-y, given that we're actually discussing the issue here. It seems that you have been blocked before because of actions on this article, so it might be best not to engage in anything that might possibly be construed as disruptive, uncollegial etc. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed in toto on the skills for humor to effective. I did create a section on affirmative action and merely re organised. I will try to rewrite the section with available sources. Thanks AB^Talk 13:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I see that you reverted the section change. I did not introduce anything new. Yes, a section was named and created from whatever was there already. Proposing a change? I already did.

Any way, here I go again. The section caste politics actually is about affirmative action, in the sub sections. It would be good to have a separate section and relevant article content under it. The sub sections affirmative action, recognition , mandal commission, OBCs, etc all deal with affirmative action. So I propose a new section on affirmative action with the mentioned sub sections may be created in the article. This as well removes the loaded term 'caste politics' from the head of affirmative action. Thanks AB^Talk 13:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

user:Sitush I see that you have self reverted your reverts of mine- reason being your dislike to get involved with me - come on sir, I do not want any edit to exist there, if there is no consensus. That is exactly why I am keying it here in the talk page rather than on the article. Feel free to revert my edit and I am not gonna edit war or anything. Yes, but do please engage in the discussion of the necessity and content of the apparent new section. I will be undoing my edits my self - if you cant agree on the need of a new section. Thanks. AB^Talk 13:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Caste system in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201152859/http://ncrb.gov.in/CD-CII2011/cii-2011/Chapter%207.pdf to http://ncrb.gov.in/CD-CII2011/cii-2011/Chapter%207.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130614132128/http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/38426/WP03_BATES_RaceCaste_and_Tribe.pdf to http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/38426/WP03_BATES_RaceCaste_and_Tribe.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114013721/http://ncst.nic.in:80/index.asp?langid=1 to http://ncst.nic.in/index.asp?langid=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://in.news.yahoo.com/060524/43/64i2a.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211051046/http://www.nird.org.in:80/NIRD_Docs/OctLevel209.pdf to http://www.nird.org.in/NIRD_Docs/OctLevel209.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2016

this page contains a lot of unreliable and biased references i dont want to edit it but i kindly request everybody to revise it and make it better Tompyro (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Comprehensive list

Hi. Was doing some NPP today, and came across this article: Karaiyalar. It was totally uncited, but a quick google book search shows that the caste does exist. Would be nice if someone who knows about this subject added a cite or two. But that's not what I wanted to post about. I try to remove tags (like the one on notability on that article, since it does exist), but it's also tagged with an orphan tag. Which brought me to this page. This particular caste isn't mentioned in the article, but then I realized that there is no comprehensive list of the castes in India. I can't believe that. With all the crap lists we have, how can we not have one about something so significant? I would do it myself, but I admit a woeful ignorance of the subject. If someone could point out excellent on-line sourcing, I'll be more than happy to do it, or perhaps someone with better knowledge of the subject would? It's a glaring omission, imho. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi onel5969, I don't know why you think a list of castes will be "significant". Given such a list, what will you do with it?

In any case, you can see Category:Indian castes and Category:Social groups of India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3 - I knew about the cats, but that isn't a comprehensive list (e.g. if there is no article about a particular caste, then it doesn't appear there). I felt that for something as significant as the caste system in India, it would be nice for a researcher to be able to look up quickly whether such-and-such caste exists, even if there isn't a current article on it. Again, that could simply be my ignorance talking, and folks who know more would see it as an insignificant, or unimportant, listing. Regardless, thanks for responding. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

If you want to produce a comprehensive list so that the existence or non-existence of a caste can be reduced to looking up in the list, I think you are giving yourself too big a task. The very process of producing such a list will lead to intense pressures and tensions, as the British colonial administrators discovered in the 19th century. I think it is far better to rely on the usual Wikipedia criteria of reliable sourcing.

If there is one thing worth knowing about castes, it is this: for the members of the caste, it is a life-and-death issue that their caste be recognised and given the due status that they think it deserves. Anything less will not do. If you don't do it, you will become their life-long enemy. They will never ever stop fighting. Now, tell me, do you really want to do it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

My aim is not to reduce a caste's existence, but simply to document it. If there are reliable sources, I think it would be worthwhile. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't be worthwhile. You'd be trying to hit a target that has moved, and continues to move, in mysterious ways. Sources are contradictory, the maintenance would be a nightmare and, for example, numerous past lists of that type have been deleted. - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Spin off History section?

I have been re-reading the article today and find that the history section is very long and tedious and loses the interest of the reader. I propose that it be split off into a separate article (which it used to be, before it got merged here). Of course, once spun off, it needs to be summarised here in a more manageable form. Any objections? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

That's because the info regarding Varna and Jati are off topic. Varna and Jati info should be moved to those articles.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

So then what is left? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Given the historical confusion regarding the relationship between varna, jati and caste (-a confusion that is still apparent today if numerous drive-by contributors to Wikipedia are anything to go by), I don't see how the three can be called "off-topic". In fact, I'm glad I was sat down when I read that phrase. - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well there isn't really any confusion. North India had varna and jati, and nobody ever confused them. South India had neither varna nor jati, but they had a vague idea of kulam, which they used whenever they needed it. The Europeans landed in South India and translated kulam as caste. The Brahmins, who were both a varna and jati, insisted that everybody belonged to one of those. Then the British institutionalised "caste", and everybody thought they needed a caste and made one up if they didn't have one. So, the South Indians, who resisted the Brahminical order for centuries, succumbed to it when the British forced it. (I guess I was lying when I said there isn't confusion. But it can be straightened out if we stop seeing North and South Indias as one unit.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. The problem with this article, if anything, is too much sociology - a relatively modern discipline that is self-supporting, almost entirely theoretical and largely subjective. If you put a hundred sociologists in a room you'll get a hundred opinions ... and we're trying to show them all. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Caste is a governmental classification. Little to do with Varna and Jati.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you have source that says caste is a governmental classification that is independent of varna and jati? -- Kautilya3 (talk)

I already posted a 2016 Routledge book on your talk page a long time ago. You dismissed it out of hand.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The source you mentioned [3] doesn't have anything remotely like "caste is a governmental classification". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Kulam

The explanation on kulam is clear; why isn't it in the article? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, @VictoriaGrayson:, @Sitush: : I can't speak for Tamil Nadu but majority of South Indians ex: Telengana, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka use the term "Jati" for caste in everyday language. The term "Gorta" is used when visiting a temple for "Archana" and finding match for groom/bride, people do not marry into same gotras either. Ex: Cross-cousin marrages are norm since neither of them belong to same gotra. Kulam/Kula is not used in same context as Jati/Gotra in these regions either, it can simply mean a "family" in everyday context. This is new to me about Tamil Nadu only using Kulam. It's important to note that Tamil Nadu is not representative of entire South India. 07:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@JJ, it is hard to find good sources on kulam. Its meaning is highly variable. The Hindu epics use kulam interchangeably with vamsham, e.g., Raghu-kulam and Raghu-vamsham for Rama's lineage. Uma Chakravarti, covering the high Buddhist period, says that only the high castes had kulam, the low castes didn't. The term kuleen (one with a kulam) is still used to mean high-born. Chakravarti also says that the occupation was the primary identity for the low castes. What happened after the Buddhist period isn't clear. (But it is easy to guess. The low castes ended up using their occupations as their kulam.)

Once the Manusmriti came into being, all the literary sources basically adopted its view of caste. But, fortunately, South India wasn't affected by Manusmriti (until the British imposed it in the 19th century). So, we get a view of the reality by looking at the South. A lot of researchers found that kulam is the operative term in Telugu villages. A lot of inscriptions refer to Reddi, Kamma and Velama as being kulam. I have also seen inscriptions that refer to Shudra as kulam. (Often when the English translation says "the fourth caste", the original text of the inscription is "the fourth kulam". So, the South Indians, who didn't have varna, equated it with kulam which they did have!) We can very well imagine Brahmins telling people their textual views, and people trying to relate them with what they have operative in the society. There is a lot of intriguing stuff happening here, which has not been investigated.

Sindh is also interesting. At least some scholars note that Jat comes from jati, i.e., a Jat was one with a jati. In the first millennium, the So, if the pastoral tribes were the ones with jati, that would imply that the people of the settled society didn't have jati. What did they have instead? Again, this hasn't been investigated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

References