Talk:Untouchability/Archive 1

The definition of Untouchability is wrong

The definition of untouchability is wrong, particularly in indian context. In india, almost all castes follow untouchability. Even castes within dalit sections, also follow untouchability from one another. Generally, untouchability is mutual, and NOT by one over another. A dalit will not even drink water from other castes including upper caste, in the same way, the upper caste doesnt drink water from them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.17.179 (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hkelkar's reverts, blanking talk pages

Please do not revert against wiki guidelines. Please do not edit without discussion. Please do NOT vandalize talk pages and erase comments from them.

Untouchability in Kerala

Needs to be mentioned in the article since no where else in the world, this extreme form of social segregation was practiced. Actually, everywhere else in India, Dalits were allowed in the vicinity of forward castes. But in Kerala they had to maintain a distance of almost 30 meters from the Malayala Brahmins and Malayala Kshatriyas. The practice "Untouchability" in it's real meaning was practiced only in Kerala. Yusuf.Abdullah (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

extra

Bold textRemoved dubious assertions and inaccuracies. Apartheid involves segregation but NOT yim,hjmhuntouchability or ideas of pollution. Not all segregation is untouchability. Untouchability refers to ideas of pollution by TOUCH.

Yes it does. Blacks were segregated into Bantustans in South Africa simple because the Boers id not want to touch them. Apartheid is an extremely evil form of untouchability.Hkelkar 00:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Untouchability does not mean only Dalits

It also refers to Apartheid, the ostracization of the al-Akhdham in Yemen, and the neechi biradari among Muslims in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Undid redirect.Hkelkar 06:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are wrong. Apartheid is not based on ideas linking spirituality and purity vs pollution. Apartheid is segregation, but not untouchability.

Also - the "Caste in Israel" tage does not link to anything, so it has been removed.

Kerala section has moved to main page

A Wikipedia user by the name Yusuf Abdullah has failed to point out that the definition that he presented was historical attitudes which is obviously mentioned within the reference that he provided. it also shows in the reference that it is a criminal offence to practice untouchability. however he has presented the paragraph as if it was the present. this is misleading wikipedia users.

this was moved to the Dalit section since this area is only for summaries and it is already mentioned in the Dalit section. i am actually Dalit myself and i want to make sure that people don't get the wrong idea of what is going in contemporary India. even after i had given all the reasons and changed the paragraph (using the same references that were provided) rather than keeping it in the correct form Yusuf has decided to revert all my edits and bring it back to the original form which is completely wrong. Thqwk (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't use Wikipedia for spreading your propaganda. The section should not be moved to the Dalit article, since untouchability in Kerala was practiced against the OBC's, MBC,s, SC's and ST's. It was not practiced against the Dalits alone. Since this article is subjected to Edit War, I am asking for Admin intervention. Yusuf.Abdullah (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again after all the reasons that i have provided using your SAME reference, you have still failed to change it back to the paragraph that i had provided. the references clearly mentioned that these were historical yet you are purposefully trying to show this as present. the paragraph will be changed to the edit that i had made. read all the reasons in the history section before reverting. admin intervention is needed to figure out wether the paragraph will be moved but the paragraph will be changed to show real facts not the propaganda that you are trying very hard to prove. Thqwk (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and say that this source is reliable per our WP:RS policy, however, the source for Yus's version was not accessible, and is therefore unverifiable, and therefore should not be used. That said, the article should stay at it's current version.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yusuf.Abdullah (talk) 08:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Daedalus. Thqwk (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Will they stop the Roma stuff already

There is a plethora of anonymous edits that keep pushing the point that the Roma are untouchable. They support the point by providing a blatantly false etymology for the word "tzigane" (which actually comes from Hungarian, not from Greek). Now, it is true that the Roma are not at all popular in Europe, and particuarly in Eastern Europe, but untouchability is another thing, as anybody who could be bothered to actually read the article can see. The status of the Roma in Europe is actually very much akin to that of the criminal tribes: people generally assume they are out to no good. If the Roma were to be considered untouchable just because of deep-rooted prejudice and past massacres, one should consider the Jews untouchable too, and that is blatantly absurd. Furthermore, the edits seem to push a political point more than helping the article. Please refrain from further repetition of the point, or a 3rv discussion will have to be started.Complainer (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Beware of hijacking by Hindu nationalists etc

I've just cleaned out this article, which was subject to the attentions of a banned Hindu nationalist and contained huge amounts of copyright violation etc. Given the manner in which tertiary sources refer to unouchability almost exclusively in the context of India and the Hindu religion, Wikipedia should reflect that weight of coverage. The recent thread at ANI is pretty much required reading as it explains exactly how articles such as this are targeted by Hindu nationalist contributors who are keen to divert the world's attentions from the troubles of their own country and/or religion. - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)