Talk:Herbert Hope Risley

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Herbert Hope Risley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 21:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'll start this review soon. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   I've made some edits, mostly to clarify prose; please check to see that I've not introduced error.[1]

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   "His academic successes at Winchester were not repeated at Oxford," - I don't understand this sentence, nor how it impacted his life.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Just a small quibble about prose, noted above. Once you respond it's a pass. An extremely interesting article and I can see more that needs to be written on the subject. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Nominator responses:

Thanks for reviewing and, yes, if you look around then you will see that I have been working on and off at various related articles, eg: his British Raj ethnographer colleagues, predecessors and successors.

• I have made a few minor tweaks - see this
• I have adjusted the phrasing of the paragraph, a sentence of which you refer to in your review - see here. Somewhere I have seen a comment that the guy did not do as well as expected at New College because he passed the ICS exams & therefore already had a job to go to even before graduating. I lost the source but hope to find it again.
• I am slightly disappointed with a part of your edit here. The quote of Lloyd Rudolph as I presented it showed that Risley was "on a mission", so to speak, with regard to caste classification. Adjusting the quote as you have rather loses the impact, IMO. Does this make sense to you?
• I thought that links within quotations fell foul of WP:MOSQUOTE, which was why I avoided them.

That is pretty much it. I am grateful for your numerous tweaks to the dreaded dashes etc and for polishing the prose. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

reply

• What part of that edit do you object to. Is it taking out the "meant to"? If so, feel free to return your wording. Likewise, "also remembered" is not a big deal. If it's "resuscitation", it just doesn't seem to fit. Was it near death? The word seems novelistic and not encyclopedic.
• As far as introducing a link inside a quote, I agree and didn't intentionally do so. (In fact, I can't find where I did so.) There was an edit by another editor which may have put a link in a quote. The only other explanation I have is that the article uses quotes in a less that optimal way, and it places it is confusing what is a quote and what isn't without intense scrutiny that shouldn't be expected of a reader. Some longish quotes are not blockquotes, and in at least one place you combine quotes in a way that's not clear. An example is this paragraph (this needs to be fixed):

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography notes that during his time in India "... [Risley] cultivated an intimate knowledge of the peoples of India. In 1910 he asserted that a knowledge of facts concerning the religions and habits of the peoples of India equipped a civil servant with a passport to popular regard". Furthermore, that "On the processes by which non-Aryan tribes are admitted into Hinduism he was recognized to be the greatest living authority", and "His work completely revolutionized the native Indian view of ethnological inquiry" by legitimising an inquisitive methodology which had previously been resented by the colonial subjects

• Am I making any sense here? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• p.s. I think when you mention people, you should briefly explain who they are. e.g. historian Thomas Trautmann etc. I spent some time trying to figure some of the names out - one was called a political scientist in an article about him, but seemed to be more of a historian or anthropologist or something as used in this article. Even if the name has a link, readers shouldn't have to follow it to know the framework in which we are to consider this person's opinion. I did link a few people in the article, just to find out who they were. Maybe one of those was in a quote? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that I have addressed all of the points above, & I have reinstated "meant to". I agree about the political scientist guy but that is what is shown on his CV etc even though it is plain from his publications that he writes in related areas also. This seems to be quite a trait wrt India, eg: Christophe Jaffrelot is also a polsci who writes a lot about socio-religious history, caste etc. My suspicion is that the polsci term is capable of being used to cover just about any area within the humanities! - Sitush (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

query

• I can't find the quote in the lede "meant to identify and place several hundred million Indians within it." in the source given. See page 116 at [2]. Could you specify where it's from, or am I missing it? MathewTownsend (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. It is near to the top of p. 117 but the entire sentence in the article covers content on pp. 116-117. I have adjusted the cite to be a page range. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

reply

• Risley believed that varna, however ancient, could be applied to all the modern castes found in India, and "meant to identify and place several hundred million Indians within it." - does this mean that Risley meant to identify and place ... etc.(i.e. Risley intended to use varna to identify and place)? or does it mean that varna was meant to identify and place ...etc (i.e. that was its purpose anyway)? Sorry if I'm been dense. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A bit of both: Risley intended to use it for his own aims, but his obsession caused it to re-appear as a significant social marker. Varna is an ancient Vedic ritual ranking system that comprises four strata - brahmin, kshatriya, vaishya and shudra - and anyone who outside those four ranks is an untouchable (dalit). Many people think that the system, which is essentially a Brahmanic construct because the brahmins were the priests etc, didn't really exist outside Northern India until the Brits came along.

Risley thought that he could use varna as the top-most level of classification, and in doing so he opened a can of worms that encompasses such later developments as sanskritisation which, put crudely, is where a caste defined by the British Raj administration as being of a particular varna attempts to assert an ancient lineage to a higher varna. Most usually, the claim was to have been a kshatriya (warrior and princely) community, from which they were degraded, often allegedly when the Muslim invasions took place centuries earlier. It is a complex topic, well beyond the scope of this article and, alas, not always covered particularly well elsewhere on WP. The point is, Risley thought that he could pigeon-hole people but he started from false premises because his interpretation of the demarcation points between the ritual ranks is only one of several possible such interpretations. You are probably even more confused now - feel free to query further! - Sitush (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I've clarified the quote accordingly: Rudolph definitely intends that "Risley meant". - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

... And it seems that I have made a moderately ok job of explaining the issue at Denzil Ibbetson, an article to which I intend to return at some point. - Sitush (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

reply

• Yes indeed. I appreciate so much some light being shown on this subject that has caused me concern on wikipedia. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Reevaluation after fixes

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

• Article passes GA review. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya content

• On 19th February 2013 I contribute the following content. "Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya , acknowledged his obligations to the works of Risley among other colonial sources for his book Hindu Castes and Sects: An Exposition of the Origin of the Hindu Caste System and the Bearing of the Sects toward Each Other and toward Other Religious Systems." The reference I provide is "
• On 19 February 2013 ,Sitush (Assuming that 2.219.218.79 is Sitush , as confirmed by the admin Bong Said Zebdee here on my talk page) 'Undid this contribution immediately thereafter. In the edit summary he provides his reason - "remove: unsourced, and lots of people acknowleged HHR *then*"

• But in the Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya article itself Sitush has provided a reference on 27th November 2011 which he improves on 27th Nov itself , his edit summary says (+ url) With these two edits ,For the reference to the following content contributed by Sitush alluding to Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya "He called the traditional varna system, comprising a four-tier ritual hierarchy, a "golden chain" that had been willingly worn by the population, and he expounded on his beliefs in an 1896 book - Hindu Castes and Sects The reference he provides for this content is
• Now compare ref [1] provided by me below and and ref [2] provided by Sitush below . Both are identical , but Sitush deletes mine stating "remove:unsourced, ..."This is presumptuous and contradictory again , and this kind of contradictory action on references appears across many South Asia related articles .
  So as not to allow muddle of this issue subsequently I will elucidate on the issue of "lots of people acknowleged HHR *then" , separately , ostensibly the other reason sited for deletion . Intothefire (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I missed your citation, sorry: I only looked at the diff, part of which shows your contribution is bold and part of which does not. It makes no odds because the content should not be there: it is trivial and undue weight, and Risley was still writing at the time. By the way, your cite would need a source, your contribution needs a leading space and a final full-stop/period, and you seem not to have got the hang of some basic WP:MOS stuff: book titles should be italicised (not that this title needs to be mentioned anyway). This is a Good Article; yours was a very poor contribution for someone with your longevity on Wikipedia.

I'm commenting out your reflist below because it is not necessary now and messes up the TOC.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I think that I know where this one is heading given your recent activity at Talk:Nair and User talk:Qwyrxian. Yes, I am fairly sure that I have used Bhattacharya as a source somewhere or another. That does not mean he is reliable for everything or indeed much at all and so I would appreciate it if you didn't start throwing a load of diffs here in an attempt to show contradictory behaviour on my part. If you have a problem with my use of Bhattacharya in any specific situation then take it to WP:RSN. Thanks.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You say ..."I'm commenting out your reflist below because it is not necessary now and messes up the TOC"........No you should not have "commented out" the reflist , the presence of the reflist was fundamental to the point I made about your presumptuous (and repeated elsewhere as well) contradictory actions - self appropriating the privilege to use and deplore the same source( or use of source) .I have had to reinstate the reflist .Look carefully again , why its important to have the two exactly same references showing up together...one by you and the other by me exhibited to demonstrate as another instance the point of your paradoxical action(s) .Intothefire (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've moved your last note for chronological reasons. I can live with your reinstatement of the reflist, which excludes the heading that you originally inserted. And, as I expected, it seems that your point here is merely to harass yet again. Intothefire. I have already apologised for not noticing the citation that you provided and given an explanation as to why that happened. Do you want to make any argument concerning the validity of your contribution of the Bhattacharya point?--2.219.218.79 (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Imperial Gazetteer

The article says:

He also became involved in William Wilson Hunter's Statistical Survey of India, which began in 1869, and was to be printed in the first edition of The Imperial Gazetteer of India, published in 1881. Hunter personally conducted the survey of Bengal, and the anthropological, linguistic and sociological accomplishments of Risley were recognised in February 1875 when he was appointed as one of five Assistant Directors of Statistics for Hunter's Survey.

According to the cover page of Henry Scholberg (1970). The District Gazetteers of British India: A Bibliography. Zug, Switzerland: Inter Documentation Company. Risley along with William Stevenson Meyer, Richard Burn and James Sutherland Cotton compiled the twenty-six volume of The Imperial Gazetteer of India which was started by William Wilson Hunter in 1869. I don't have access to the book so can't know the full story from the preface. Solomon7968 14:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem. It looks as if you are suggesting a contradiction between the article and the Scholberg book but I cannot see it. Is there some subtlety that I am missing? - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right! I was confused by the redlink "Statistical Survey of India". Contrary to the Linguistic Survey of Grierson I believe there is no formal literature regarding the Statistical Survey, so any information regarding it will either go into the biography page of Hunter or in the Imperial Gazetteer page. This article also says Risley "left the ICS in February 1910" but gives no clue about what he did in the post-Hunter editions of Imperial Gazetteer. Solomon7968 15:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible original research

The header of the article makes the following claims:

• Risley was influential in the 20th-century revival of the hierarchical varna system as a structure for social order in India.
• He thought that the ancient varna concept could be applied to all of the modern castes.

The editors should provide citations for both the claims. If the citations are opinions of other scholars then these may be moved to the body of the article. For the second claim, a primary citation is required. Otherwise, these should be considered original research. -Kenfyre (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It is sourced. Read the article properly. - Sitush (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Eg: According to political scientist Lloyd Rudolph, Risley believed that varna, however ancient, could be applied to all the modern castes found in India, and "[he] meant to identify and place several hundred million Indians within it." - Sitush (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

References

@Sitush: The WP:Lead guidelines clearly state that the lead should be in an "accessible style with a neutral point of view" and "the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." The two claims, that I have disputed, make it appear that these were the subject's own beliefs and results of his own actions. However, since these are actually the opinions other scholars, these cannot considered neutral. I would prefer they be removed from the header or at least clarified that these were not the subjects own opinions but someone else's opinion of him. If those were the subject's own opinions, then I welcome the editors to provide relevant citations. I have read the article well-enough and intend to carry out a major review of all the citations and perhaps a revision. -Kenfyre (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Eh? You either don't understand how it works or you have misread the lead section. Regardless, the claims are sourced and so {{cn}} is inappropriate even if you believe the lead to be non-neutral. You should at least remove those tags. If you want to "carry out a major review" then feel free but please don't change anything without discussion because this is a Good Article and has been reviewed by many people. - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: I know this is good article, that is why I raised the dispute and didn't edit it myself. I propose the relevant part of the lead paragraph should be written as:

According to the political scientist Lloyd Rudolph, Risley is notable for the formal application of the caste system to the entire Hindu population of British India in the 1901 census, of which he was in charge, and his argument that the ancient varna concept could be applied to all of the modern castes.

And,

Risley was influential in the 20th-century revival of the hierarchical varna system as a structure for social order in India. has not been cited in the article and is an ambiguous statement, hence {{how}}. So, it should be removed from the header. I had could have used a {{whom}} or {{clarify}} tag instead of {{cn}}, but I thought the editors might have a primary source for the revival claim. I have rectified it. -Kenfyre (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Rudolph doesn't say what you claim but plenty of other people do say much the same as Rudolph, as is evident from the article. Anyway, we deprecate naming names in lead sections. If you can't see that the other bit is there then I'm sorry but I can't really help you. This thing is due to go to WP:FAC, so perhaps someone involved with that process could explain. If you want more sources, I suggest you read people like Dirks.

I still don't see why any of this is a POV issue. Are there any reliable sources out there that disagree with what is said? - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: It is good thing then that I caught this before it went for WP:FAC, the claim that Risley was influential in the 20th-century revival of the hierarchical varna system as a structure for social order in India. has no citation whatsoever. It could have been Risley was influential in aggravating the effects of the caste system on the Indian society. or that Risley intentionally hindered the reformation of the caste system in India.. If you look at the 17 April 2012 revision of the article, just when it was made a WP:Good Article, you will see that this part of the header used to have a citation, the same you have quoted above.

And I am quoting from it, at page 118. The scheme loosed a storm from below, as hundreds of jatis used the occasion to convert their aspirations to high status into a scientific or historical truth. By assuming an immanent reality and then giving it empirical expression, precisely at that moment when social movement and change were accelerating, Risley and others both aggravated rank consciousness and drew new attention to the reality-shaping possibilities of varna labels. Thus, it is an original research to claim a revival and I propose that Risley intentionally hindered the reformation of the caste system in India. be included instead. I have a feeling that we two won't be able to settle this dispute. I would like to start an {{Rfc}} . I would like to close this dispute soon, so that the article goes back to being a WP:Good Article. -Kenfyre (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are talking righteous bollocks so feel free to start an RfC if you do not agree. You could just change "revival" for "hardening" if you are that picky but, regardless, I know what I'm talking about - it's just about the only subject where I can say that. I'm really not in a good mood at the moment, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Rfc: Proposed revisions for the lead section due to OR

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.

There is no consensus. As pointed out, this RFC is not easy to understand the way it is written. Perhaps that is why there is no consensus in the discussion. Some changes may need to be made, but there is no agreement on what those changes should be.AlbinoFerret 18:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Background:

Currently, part of the lead of the article states:

He is notable for the formal application of the caste system to the entire Hindu population of British India in the 1901 census, of which he was in charge. Risley was influential in the 20th-century revival of the hierarchical varna system as a structure for social order in India. He thought that the ancient varna concept could be applied to all of the modern castes.

If you read the article, you will see that, part of it is the opinion of Lloyd Rudolph:

According to political scientist Lloyd Rudolph, Risley believed that varna, however ancient, could be applied to all the modern castes found in India, and "[he] meant to identify and place several hundred million Indians within it.

However, the claim that Risley was influential in the 20th-century revival of the hierarchical varna system as a structure for social order in India. has not been supported anywhere in the article. If you look that the 17 April 2012 revision of the article, just when it was made a WP:Good Article, you will see that this part of the header used to have a citation, the same which is being used to support Rudolph's quote above. Back then the part of the header read:

Risley was influential in the 20th century revival of the hierarchical varna system as a structure for social order in India. According to political scientist Lloyd Rudolph, Risley believed that varna, however ancient, could be applied to all the modern castes found in India, and "[he] meant to identify and place several hundred million Indians within it.

And I am quoting from it, at page 118.

The scheme loosed a storm from below, as hundreds of jatis used the occasion to convert their aspirations to high status into a scientific or historical truth. By assuming an immanent reality and then giving it empirical expression, precisely at that moment when social movement and change were accelerating, Risley and others both aggravated rank consciousness and drew new attention to the reality-shaping possibilities of varna labels.

Thus, it is an WP:Original research to claim a revival of the varna system. He actually aggravated an pre-existing caste system and hindered reforms by providing them with an illusion of scientific backing.

Proposals:

Since, this is a WP:Good Article. I thought I would build a consensus before it is edited. Frankly, I am surprised no one noticed these errors before me in such a good quality article. I propose:

• According to the political scientist Lloyd Rudolph, Risley believed that the ancient varna could be applied to all the modern castes found in India, and he intended to identify and place several hundred million Indians within it. This sentence or this sentence without the According to political scientist Lloyd Rudolph part be used in the current header instead of the current sentence.

• The claim Risley was influential in the 20th-century revival of the hierarchical varna system as a structure for social order in India. be removed from the lead section or it should be changed to Risley was responsible for aggravating the pre-existing caste system in India and hindering caste reforms. or something similar, because of the problems I pointed out.

I was told that this article is to go for WP:FAC. So, I would suggest that the article and its citations be closely examined for any more errors which may have escaped my eye. I hope we can work together and make this article of good quality again. -Kenfyre (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Simplified proposal:

Some people are having trouble understanding the proposal. So, here is the diff of my proposed edits. The edits are backed by the following citation: The scheme loosed a storm from below, as hundreds of jatis used the occasion to convert their aspirations to high status into a scientific or historical truth. By assuming an immanent reality and then giving it empirical expression, precisely at that moment when social movement and change were accelerating, Risley and others both aggravated rank consciousness and drew new attention to the reality-shaping possibilities of varna labels.. -Kenfyre (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hardly a neutrally-worded RfC, Kenfyre, but I wouldn't expect any different. Try this and note what I said above about maybe replacing "revival" with "hardening" or some other word. Regarding Rudolph, I've already explained that others support him, and indeed the article indicates that. And as for your righteousness, the whole point of the FAC process is that the regulars there tend to go through things with a fine-tooth comb. If you want to do it now then feel free but I'd be astonished if you find much: I'm accused of POV every day I edit here and it never sticks, so good luck with that. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I actually took great care to compose this RFC. I am not accusing anyone of POV, don't take it personally. Thank you for the source. It actually says that Risley accepted pre-existing Brahminical claims about castes

...he accepted Brahman claims about the superiority of such customs as the prohibition of widow remarriage or the importance of infant marriage...

And his work led to the rise of caste-based organisations.

...Risley had dramatic influence on the rise of caste organizations and the exploding production of literature about caste system...

I am more in favour of rewriting the lead and the article to better explain what Risley's work did by including the above, instead of changing only one word. -Kenfyre (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I fucking give up. You have been accusing me of pov and you've accused me of not citing stuff, both of which are wrong. Then in the RfC you imply that other stuff may be wrongly cited. Yes, varna, caste, jati etc all existed before Risley - he didn't invent them, so he learned of them. In particular, like most Raj and East India Company people, he took the word of the Brahmins as truth. His actions in official classification then led to a revival/hardening of those structural concepts, hence the caste associations etc. You are not disagreeing with me here, so I am at a loss as to why you think the lead is POV-y. Maybe we should add another source or some greater explanation of the latter point in the body of the article, since the lead is supposed to reflect it, but the lead is correct. I have no objection to adding extra info in the body and indeed have a few notes lying around somewhere relating to a pre-FAC expansion. What I object to is the claim that the article is POV-y which you have not supported. I'm still waiting for you to provide a source that says otherwise about Risley. I think you will struggle, having myself read several hundred of the damn things over the years. You've gone about this all the wrong way, mis-tagging and then mis-reading. - Sitush (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I am accusing no one of nothing. Given that you have worked on this article a lot, I just noticed, it seems you are taking this personally. -Kenfyre (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Hello, I am from India but, still I will talk neutrally : Please do not take any of my comments offensively I will keep my facts as neutral as possible. In the passage below British period mean both "East India Company" and "Queen's Rule" periods combined.Prymshbmg (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Cast system is a big problem in India and it is very old continuing from vedic periods and was also got mentioned in Rig Veda. The casts in Rig Veda are of four major types, and they are still the same. Also the types of works under any cast mentioned in Rig Veda, were the same used to assign the casts during the muslim invasion and during British rule, only the method of assigning the cast was changed. According to Rig Veda the cast should be assigned to a person according to the work he chooses to do after attaining the "Vidya" in gurukuls(boarding schools in Indian culture), so cast does not cling to his family name. But, during British period the divide and rule policy was applied by the British rule to reinforce their influence in India and the modified cast system was an excilent way to divide the people on their family names. This lead to the revival of varna system in India but in worse manner.Prymshbmg (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support, I agree with both of your proposals as I explained the reason above. But Risley didnt intended to identify but to assign the pre-identified casts to people. Sorry for not having any citation for my theory and facts.Prymshbmg (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment There is a grain of a wording issue hidden amidst all this chaff, but it is being blown our of proportion. Sure, "revival" is applied to something that is dead, and the varna system may not have been; but this calls for a wording change to "strengthening" or "hardening" or something along those lines, like what @Sitush: proposed. No need for all this Dramah, and the RfC itself was probably not required. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thank you for the comment. I initially had tagged the lines as {{cn}}, hoping that other editors would provide citations supporting the revival argument. I have now changed the tags to {{how}} and {{According to whom}}. I was told that the citations already existed in the body, but these citations prove completely different arguments. Due to these reasons, I felt highly justified in creating this Rfc. -07:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I know nothing about this issue and find the RfC and proposal difficult to understand. Would it be trouble for the proposer to post all of the proposed changes into this Wikipedia article, collect the WP:DIFF, then self-revert if this is controversial? I would like to see the proposed changes as they would look in Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Blue Rasberry:Here is the diff of my proposed edits. -Kenfyre (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Kenfyre I oppose this change for now, but I am open to reviewing this again if citations are added. The content to be changed is traditional and the way that I learned Indian history. The new content seems like a non-mainstream view to me. The new content could be correct, and the old content is poor for not having citations in this controversial place, but I think that no peace will come by making the changes you propose. To make these changes, first add this content to the body of the article. Provide citations. Get a little stability. Then move some ideas from the body to the lead and carry the citations to the lead. In various places around Wikipedia I am seeing a trend toward putting citations in the lead because when that happens, there are fewer disagreements.

I would love to see this part of history updated with the best contemporary information. Sorry to put a burden on you to do more, but I think by default keeping the status quo keeps the peace when there are no citations provided. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry I would like to point out that my proposed edits reflect the content more accurately and neutrally than the current one. My edits are backed by the existing citation #29 Rudolph, Lloyd I. (1984). The Modernity of Tradition: Political Development in India. Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber. University of Chicago Press. pp. 116–117. ISBN 0-226-73137-5.. However, I would like to include page 118, as much hinges on it.

A quote from page 118: The scheme loosed a storm from below, as hundreds of jatis used the occasion to convert their aspirations to high status into a scientific or historical truth. By assuming an immanent reality and then giving it empirical expression, precisely at that moment when social movement and change were accelerating, Risley and others both aggravated rank consciousness and drew new attention to the reality-shaping possibilities of varna labels. -Kenfyre (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - summoned by bot. Agree with Bluerasberry above, it's difficult to offer an opinion with the RfC in this format. Flat Out (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Flat Out:Here is the diff of my proposed edits. -Kenfyre (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep the same The RfC does not make sense.Markewilliams (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - summoned by bot. If you want opinions from uninvolved you have to construct the RFC in a manner that it is easier to understand. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - summoned by bot. A more concise RfC would be much better. My initial thoughts are in line with Sitush and Vanamonde93 that maybe 'hardening' or some such is better than 'revival' however that is only because 'revival' might be confusing to non-native English speakers. It is not necessary for something to be gone for 'revival' to be used cf. Christian revival but it may be confusing to some. Otherwise I do not see how the proposed edits are of benefit to the article and the RfC, as formed, does not really help. Jbh^Talk 00:21, 6 July 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.

The map of the prevailing "races" of India (now discredited)

The caption below the map reads,” The map of the prevailing "races" of India (now discredited) based on the 1901 Census of British India". Unfortunately, nowhere in the article there is any mention of when the theory on Indian races was discredited, and by whom. Any new content on this subject would be a welcome addition to the article.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Risley ran the 1901 census ops. Those ops were based on his racial theories. The map is based on the census. His racial theories have been discredited. The article says that.

The caption could be changed but we do need somehow to get the message across that the information contained in the map is no longer deemed to be accurate. - Sitush (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The lead has this sentence: In the intervening years he compiled various studies of Indian communities based on ideas that are now considered to constitute scientific racism. Apart from this sentence there is nothing on Risley's discredited theory in the body of the article. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

scientific racism implies that it is not true or scientific. Also, I have added some more references that discredit his other theories although they do not necessarily refer to the races of India(map). Could not find a reference for that particular theory (indicated in the map)-yet.Acharya63 (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Acharya63, Risley died in 1911 well before the age of the Indus valley civilization was determined by John Marshall (archaeologist) in the 1920s.Need I say anymore about the content and the supporting source that you added?Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It is possible that the age determination was done later but the theory of Aryan invasion prevailed before that. Please see https://books.google.com/books?id=f9D4Ob1YcJgC&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q&f=false. From the book " It is tied to the Indologist' theory of the Aryan Invasion, which claims the Aryans enslaved the darker dravidians as dasas, which , as we know , can mean slaves, but it can also mean dark. This hypothesis was primarily promoted in the late 19th century by the ethnologist H.H.Risley, who noted that the lower-caste Dravidian people of south India tended to be darker skinned than the northern population. Risley, however, was very much a man of his time. As such, he saw his theory of racial purity not as an idea tinged with racism, but rather as one that was widely accepted in his lifetime. He further believed in the now largely discredited theory that a massive, quick invasion by the Aryans had led to an immediate destruction of the Indus civilization and its replacement with an Aryan one, due primarily to the innate superiority of the invaders" Thanks -Acharya63 (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi folks, I know about WP:OWN and I admit that I probably will not be around much for the next few days, but would it be possible to confine edits to this talk page for now rather than actually changing the article? Yes, there may be some sort of disagreement that needs to be resolved but this is a featured article and has been stable for ages. Whatever potential problems may exist should really be discussed and resolved here before any changes are made. I mention WP:OWN because I am by far the major contributor to the thing. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

So I have (perhaps temporarily) reverted this. I don't really have time to deal with it but will do soon. And I've just noticed that this is GA rather than FA, so perhaps I shouldn't have revert Acharya63 after all - can you please take it in the spirit intended? As I suggested, I am not averse to change but would rather any change had agreement first. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy: am I right in thinking that your concern is a lack of detail about scientific racism rather than a dispute regarding whether he accepted the idea? - Sitush (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: My concern is indeed about the lack of detail about scientific racism and more specifically about Risley's theory of correlation between social ranking of Indian castes and Nasal index.His own Nasal measurements of the population during the 1901 census showed some correlation in the present day state of Uttar Pradesh only.In all other parts of India that was not the case.For example,all bengalis regardless of caste showed closer physical affinity to each other rather than to a caste of similar rank in other regions.This is what I would like to see when you say discredited.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That's interesting. Is there a book or paper discussing those findings? - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure.Have a look at this.I came across this book way before the word Wikipedia was invented.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Ah, yes, good old Ghurye. I will have a re-read. I'd very much like to see this article as the Featured Article that I mistakenly thought it already was but obviously that is going to mean revisiting the sources and updating for new sources etc. - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The chapter is "race and caste" chapter 5. If you need any missing pages, let me know as I have the book. Jonathansammy, I fixed your link to point to the correct page about race discussion. I hope you don't mind. https://books.google.com/books?id=nWkjsvf6_vsC&pg=PA114-Acharya63 (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)