Talk:Caste/Archive 3

Spinning out new articles to reduce clutter
Since both CorrectKnowledge and Mrt3366 have suggested that Caste in Europe article should be created. I am proposing that we: 1) create Caste in Europe as a parent article for the very long Europe section (and then reduce the section drastically), 2) create Caste in East Asia as a parent article for the very long East Asia section, and reduce that too drastically  3) (Since the Africa section is longer than its parent article, Caste system in Africa) drastically reduce the Africa section on the same scale that the India section has been reduced from its parent article, Caste system in India, 4) move India to its own section (it being the most important ethnographic example) and not list it under South Asia, and 5) expand the India section.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Caste in Europe – sure, 2) Caste in East Asia – maybe, Japan and Korea already have spin outs. This needs further consideration. 3) Caste in Africa – agree, the content should better summarize the spin out. There are many more secondary sources on caste in Africa. Some content should be moved to the spin out. And hopefully, caste in Africa can be further expanded and the section here shortened. 4) move India to its own section – disagree, the hierarchy of sections is logical and not related to prominence. It'll look odd to have India outside south asia. India, as it is, has the largest section among all south asian countries. I don't see where the problem is. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  05:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, we have something to work with.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Caste system in Africa needs to be expanded before we change anything here. IMO, this might not be a bad summary of Caste in Africa at all. is a whole book just on Caste in Senegal. There are many other secondary sources like this one on individual African countries.  Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  06:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've found more secondary and tertiary sources on caste system in West Africa:




 * Correct Knowledge «৳alk»  06:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is not about Caste system in Africa. Whether that article needs to be expanded or not should be taken up on its own page.  Here we are discussing the anomaly that the section on Africa here is longer than its parent article.  It needs to be reduced, whether or not its parent article is expanded.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is that the section on Africa has weight issues that need to be addressed. Senegal is just mentioned as an afterthought; South africa, which has a a racial caste system, is not mentioned at all. I can't really say right now that the section will be shorter after these issues have been addressed. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  11:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

CorrectKnowledge - This article can certainly be improved, by addressing some of your cogent suggestions about weight and balance. On my to-do list has been to move some stuff from Africa here to the main article and leave a NPOV summary here. I agree with you that caste in Africa section here is incomplete, work-in-progress; that main article Caste system in Africa is very weak on its own.

Here are couple of points to keep in mind:
 * First revise and improve the main articles such as Caste system in Africa, then revise the related sections in this article on caste per WP:SS and WP:SYNC guidelines.
 * NPOV summaries for each country should be included in this article on caste, wherever caste-related literature for that country, or region, has its own notable aspects. Without this, it would not meet WP:SS guidelines.
 * Highlighting one country and ignoring all others in this main article on caste would be inappropriate because that will create balance and NPOV issues.
 * History and historical literature is an important aspect of a subject and a good encyclopedic article. This should be included in main articles linked to this article, as well as here in NPOV summary form, per wiki MOS.

When I consider these points, and note that many countries in Europe etc. have a small summary like section here, I do not see the merit of spinning off caste in Europe etc. What is the rationale of having a main article and summary for each country sections here which are similar? If other wiki contributors or you have persuasive ideas, time and willingness to do this, within wiki's guidelines above, I welcome and enthusiastically support the effort.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The rationale is that we would not then have a dozen small dribbling subsections, just one or two paragraphs for Europe with succinct assertions and rigorous sources. This is not a litany of every instance of the use of the word "caste" (outside Hindu India, of course) in the literature of the last 150 years. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets add this to our list of disputes for this article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this is not a dispute, it is a discussion for which there seems to be a developing consensus for a certain approach. You can't hijack the process by calling it a dispute.  You have no ownership rights in this article.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, neither you nor I have ownership rights to this or any wiki articles. See WP:OWN.
 * There is no consensus or even a discussion here yet on your '...just one or two paragraphs for Europe...'. You have one suggestion for this, I have another. I have explained my rationale above.
 * Let us wait for CorrectKnowledge, Mrt3366 and others to do their due diligence, reflect and respond to both suggestions, and a consensus to develop. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I give consent to
 * Create Caste in Europe as a parent article for the Europe section (and reduce the section to some extent, but not "drastically")
 * Create Caste in East Asia as a parent article for the East Asia section (same as above)
 * Revise and improve the main articles such as Caste system in Africa, and change the section here accordingly.
 * Very cautiously (seeing the propensity of this section to be laden with bulk of undue info, POV) with due neutrality expand the India section
 * I oppose the proposal to
 * move India to its own section and not list it under South Asia — because India should be treated as any other sections, otherwise it will send a wrong message or it will imply a patent POV. Yes, its contents may be more or less than what other sections presently contain.
 * These are my views and others are obviously entitled to their own views. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I more or less agree with Mrt. There seems to be a consensus around Caste in Europe. Comments by Fifelfoo in the Rfc above shed further light on the problems in the section. There is of course no need to actually create the article right now, but the section here needs to be shortened to 1–2 paras with maybe a subsection for Roma people. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  08:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with above suggestions from Mrt3366 and CorrectKnowledge. I will try my best to constructively comment so that the spin-off articles and summaries here reflect reliable secondary sources in a manner that as best as possible reflects the balance of those sources. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I strongly object to the proposal of creating the articles Caste in East Asia and Caste in Europe. This controversially applies the term caste to social hierarchies (including the Three Estates of Europe and the Four Occupations of East Asia) that are rarely labeled as castes by scholars, and conflates caste with social stratification in general. A more neutral approach, and one that follows general academic usage, would be to create articles on Social stratification in East Asia and Social stratification in Europe.---Ninthabout (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, an article on social stratification (or "caste", as it is worded here) in East Asia has already been written and is located at Four occupations (East Asia).--Ninthabout (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I more or less agree with you. However, if the content here belongs to Social stratification in East Asia and Social stratification in Europe, then why has it been added to Caste (and not to Social Stratification)?  One of my motivations for recommending the creation of the Caste in Europe and Caste in East Asia articles is that in the inevitable AfD discussions that will follow, we are more likely to get a wider community  resolution of this conundrum than in an RfC (or DR) here.  This article, though important, has been languishing by itself for some time now, and that explains why individual editors have been able to slant it in this fashion.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that this does need wider community discussion. This article blurs the line between a caste system and general social stratification (perhaps because the word "caste" is sometimes broadly applied to all forms of social stratification). Editors familiar with European and East Asian history should be brought in from the appropriate WikiProjects.--Ninthabout (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Ninthabout: AFAIK, caste is a form of 'social segregation' and should be treated and talked about in such terms. The very word "caste" has been of a non-Indian origin (meaning "segregation"), yet has been imputed to Indian hindu culture umpteenth number of times in this discussion. If you think this article should only contain the section about India, then be informed that there is an article precisely about that and if your proposal is implemented this article should be deleted as a coatrack. Caste is a form of social hierarchy. I would suggest you provide some reliable source for what you say. Something extremely reliable that says “there was not a single shred of evidence that supports the existence of social hierarchy or segregation or stratification outside of Indian subcontinent”. If you can't then please don't muddy the issue further with your meaningless waffles we have had enough of that already (pardon my acerbity, couldn't help it). Fowler has adduced 30 tertiary sources afterwards ApostleVonColorado, CorrectKnowledge, Ratnakar.kulkarni and I have reviewed them. My observation has been that most of them agree on one thing and that is the system is present elsewhere which may or may not have been influenced by Indian caste system. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that all forms of social segregation should be characterized as castes? We already have an article on social segregation and social stratification. Using the broader definition of caste makes this article completely redundant to articles that already cover the subject of segregation.
 * Your comment on India is a straw man, I have never said that segregation has not occurred outside of South Asia, only that if an article is to be written on segregation in a particular region, then the word "segregation" should be used in the title, and not the nebulous label of "caste". I would not object to articles about Segregation in Europe or Segregation in East Asia, and segregation has certainly occurred in both regions. But forcing "caste" into the title is as absurd as moving Racial segregation in the United States to Caste in the United States.--Ninthabout (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Are you implying that all forms of social segregation should be characterized as castes?" - did I say that??? Did I say that? I said exactly the opposite, that caste is a form of 'social segregation'. I think you're attacking straw man, not me. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then what forms of social segregation aren't castes? Stating that castes are "a form of social segregation" is completely meaningless if you don't describe how it is a distinct form of social segregation. This article currently and inappropriately includes social hierarchies with social mobility (like post-Qin China's), which goes against commonly used definitions of the term caste (rigid social segregation based on birth), unless a very broad definition of the word is applied.--Ninthabout (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

China
There are a lot of problems with the Chinese section. The most blatant are the following: The entire section needs to be rewritten, with more reliable sources. I plan to do so soon.--Ninthabout (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It refers to the late Imperial shi, or "scholar-official"s, as a class of nobles, which is inaccurate. The aristocratic class of China was dismantled during centralization of the Qin Dynasty, and the term shi, as it is used after the Qin Dynasty, refers to a class of civil servants known as "scholar-official"s. These officials were chosen through the imperial examinations, which although often corrupt, were loosely meritocratic and not based on hereditary succession as in an aristocracy.
 * Although Chinese society was very hierarchical, it was also mobile. It certainly wasn't "closed", as class was not exclusively based on birth. The lack of a single mention of the imperial examinations, and its role within Chinese society as the dominant feature of Chinese social stratification is extremely problematic. The content, as of now, gives the misleading impression that the imperial Chinese social hierarchy was rigidly based on birth, which has never been the case and contradicts much of the literature written on the subject.
 * That will be very helpful; however, before you do that, you should make a statement in the RfC (on whether these section at all belong to this page and if they do in what detail).  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That will indeed be even more helpful, if you submit some reliable academic sources. Good luck. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But there is a conundrum, if the sources assert the claim that post-Qin Chinese society was not considered aristocratic, much less a caste, wouldn't that warrant the section's removal?--Ninthabout (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That can at best warrant a new discussion on that issue. It will not warrant a removal without discussion or wider input. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Ninthabout: Yes, eventually it will. That is why you should make a statement in the RfC proper as well.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

@Mrt3366. Very well then. Some sources and excerpts to begin a discussion with: I'd also like to point out that the source cited for labeling imperial Chinese society as a caste, Chinese Outcasts: Discrimination and Emancipation in Late Imperial China, is completely misrepresented. The source never actually uses the term describe Chinese social stratification, and labeling it so on Wikipedia is WP:OR. In fact, the source states that "the complex Indian caste system is sui generis and no equivalent can be found in other cultures." (p. 10) Describing the classes of the Ming and Qing dynasties, the author writes that "upward mobility into the elite was theoretically possible for virtually all male commoners," (p. 30) which is not a characteristic of a caste.--Ninthabout (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "China had ceased to have a truly hereditary aristocracy already by the third century BCE, and the meritocratic line in Confucian thinking would eventually find realization under the empire in the remarkable Chinese civil service examination." A History of East Asia. Cambridge University Press. p. 38.
 * "In the Warring States Era, the Chinese began to experience the practical application and actual effects of this belief in the sphere of statecraft and in patterns of social mobility. But it was not until the establishment of the Five Confucian Classics and the expansion of the civil service in the Han Empire that China witnessed the large- scale institutionalization of a merit-based system of advancement and privilege, at least in theory, for any man educated inthe classics." The Establishment Of The Han Empire And Imperial China. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 75.
 * "Nevertheless, this was not taint in the bone and marrow, but could be expunged once the objective conditions of social inferiority were removed by law. In other words, the juridical context, which was man-made, was what made self-renewal possible. This was certainly distinguishable from any concept of caste hierarchy, in that the social impurity was a secondary characteristic." Class and Social Stratification in Post-Revolution China. Cambridge University Press. p. 23.
 * There might be weight issues, over representation of certain sources etc. in this section like in the section on caste in Africa, but caste in Yi society is reasonably well documented. and  describe in some detail the caste order of Nuosu. Although a lack of caste pollution as in Indian case is noted, endogamy, slavery and other caste practices are described.  is a tertiary reference that includes percentage of various castes. There are other sources as well that describe the same.,, , ,  For the reasons that Four occupations does not mention Yi and refers only to historical social structure (c. 1046–256 BCE) in China, it cannot be a spinout for this section (let's add it as a see also). However, I am not insisting on a separate article for caste in East Asia because Japan and Korea already have their own articles on caste. This section just needs to summarize and weigh various secondary sources on China adequately.  Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  12:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * One problem: the Yi people are a separate ethnic group from the Han Chinese, and are actually closely related to the Tibetans. Implying that Yi society is indicative of Chinese society is misleading. The reason why Four occupations doesn't mention the Yi, is because the Yi are a separate ethnic group, and didn't become a part of "China" until the region was invaded by the Chinese. --Ninthabout (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We can add a descriptor ahead of Yi people so that readers don't confuse them with the Han majority. Something like Yi, one of 55 ethnic minority groups officially recognized by the People's Republic of China, are divided into.. etc. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  14:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ninthabout - This section has existed in this article for a long time, long before I ever read or edited this page. If I recall correctly, the China section has gone through edits, some vandalism/citations removal, changes. On your core point - caste and China. Our goal here is to include content that meets "verifiability not truth" guidelines (see WP:VNT). There is published peer reviewed verifiable literature out there on this. Many refer to jianmin as a caste, there are specific studies and then there is scholarly debate on whether the social stratification was caste vs. class in China. We may agree or disagree with these sources - but wiki articles must summarize all sides of broadly held scholarly views. The cited sources support part of the paragraphs, but you are right - the section needs additional support, proper weighting and some work.


 * For additional sources, see those that CorrectKnowledge has listed. Also see: this at page 296, this from Unger's book, this from journal article, and this as sample examples. The first one, by Potter, has a whole chapter 15 devoted to what he calls caste-like society; but chapter 1 through 11 are more historical sections with repetitive use of term caste and caste-like, rather than class.


 * On Hansson reference in the article, yes he tries to explain the difference between caste in India and social system in China. The whole book is about outcasts/pariah which he explains on page 11. He cites Orlando Patterson's Slavery book as footnote 15 in his book - which you should check, along with follow on publications by Hansson, Patterson, and others. This school of scholars suggest that some societies have had dual systems (see page 11 of the cited Hansson book, for support). There is a big group of scholars who suggest any society that has a significant % of its population as endogamous+hereditary+hierarchical+pollution+excluded+closed pariahs/outcast/shunned people for centuries, cannot be called a class society - regardless of whether that historical society was dual, three level, four level, five level, seven level, etc. See Berreman, for example. Some references from East Asian publications call these are 'two-class caste system' or 'four-class caste system' - whatever that means.


 * FWIW, there are many wiki articles on Chinese and references to caste, created by dozens of wiki contributors, which I have read but never edited. Some lack citations, a few include them. CorrectKnowledge mentions one: Four Occupations. Here are some more, I suggest you check these out as well:
 * Kingdom of Dazhou
 * Semu
 * Yuan dynasty
 * Ethnic issues in China
 * Chinese historical legal code and caste: (indirect because this is an article on the Japanese castes)
 * Hua-Yi
 * Your participation in improving all those articles and this article is very welcome.
 * ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This demonstrates a misunderstanding of Chinese. The Yi of Hua-Yi and the Yi as in Yi people are two separate concepts. This confusion, which arises from the number of homonyms in Chinese vocabulary, is exactly why the section needs to be fundamentally rewritten. The Yi of Hua-Yi is a generic term for foreigners, and does represent the widespread xenophobia of Chinese society. Indians and Westerners are both considered "Yi", which is equivalent to the Western "barbarian". The Yuan dynasty link shows an example of racial segregation, which was imposed by the Mongols, and not as prominent of a characteristic of dynasties before or after the Yuan (like the cosmopolitan Tang dynasty). I plan to rework the section by mentioning the meritocratic elements of Chinese social stratification and social mobility, which has been widely documented by the reliable sources (see above). Also, if Hansson doesn't call it a caste, and warns against doing so, then Wikipedia should not call it a caste when citing him. Doing so is original research--Ninthabout (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ninthabout - On Hansson and others on caste and China, I am waiting for some literature to be returned to me, and will provide you more citations later. By the way, Hansson has been using the term outcaste, not just outcast and pariah after he published that book. There are other scholars in addition to Hansson who we must consider. Let us not rush and steamroll any major changes in the article yet, while the RfC above is open. It would be wonderful if you wish to draft an alternate section on China, based on all the literature you mention, others mentioned above and those cited in the article, and post your recommended version on this talk page in section below. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ninthabout - I am a bit confused about your statements about Yi people. Are you saying that Yi society did not have castes, or that Yi society did have caste but isn't reflective of Chinese society? Here are some scholarly references from a long list on castes and Yi people.
 * A book with Chapter 4 at page 68 by Lu Hui, and other Chapters by other authors, each with extensive discussion of caste, and why Yi society is best described as castes (along with the difference between Han and Yi, caste and class): Perspectives on the Yi of Southwest China, edited by Stevan Harrell (2001), ISBN 978-0520219892
 * A journal article: Ethnicity, Local Interests, and the State: Yi Communities in Southwest China, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Volume 32, Issue 03, July 1990, pages 515-548 (1990)
 * A tertiary source: Arienne Dywer (2005) - The Minorities of China, The Encyclopedia of the World’s Minorities, pages 286–294
 * ApostleVonColorado (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Yi people may have had a caste, but the Yi are about as Chinese as the Tibetans are. Yi and Han Chinese are two separate ethnic groups. Yi wasn't "Chinese" for most of China's history, and even in the present Yi and Han Chinese remain culturally and linguistically separate. Also, don't confuse "Yi" of the Yi people with the "Yi" of Hua-Yi. Editors unfamiliar with Chinese language can easily get confused by the amount of homonyms. -Ninthabout (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

All of the above is irrelevant until the RfC closes. - Sitush (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ninthabout, It is better to post your comments in the RfC. Sorry, it was my mistake to open a new section above (in what I thought was a helpful move), but I agree with Sitush that it makes it harder for the closing admin to gauge the RfC itself, when people are carrying on their exchange mostly outside of it.  I would urge you to summarize your comments above and post them below your statement in the RfC.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Specific suggestions to improve this article
The recent discussion suggests this article, along with linked main articles, needs rework. Some sections additionally need better support, or possibly revised/removed, to address WP:NOR concerns. Sections with links to main independent articles need to be appropriately summarized, and comply with WP:SS and WP:SYNC.

This section seeks to focus the discussion to improving this article. It is separated by sub-sections. This upper section is to help reach consensus on layout and other general matters. The specific sub-sections below aim to help improve the respective section of the Caste article and reach consensus on content/links therein.

Comments are welcome. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All this is premature. The RfC is not over by any means.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Spinning out new articles to reduce clutter is part of specific suggestions to improve this article. Broadly, the article needs to summarize its sections more accurately and the lead needs to be restructured. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  12:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for Lead
Instead of picking one side or other, I suggest we include the following in the lead

Caste is an age-old socio-cultural phenomena that has evolved through centuries and is generally described as any group of people that combine endogamy, hereditary transmission of occupation, and status in a hierarchy.[1][2]3] Caste is considered a closed form of social stratification.[4]

There are two broad schools of thought on caste: (1) that caste system is best defined in terms of its Hindu attributes and rationale and, therefore, is unique to India in particular, and south Asia in general; (2) that caste system is best defined broadly and has existed and is found in a number of other societies as well.[5] Those who hold the second view describe caste or caste-like societies in such widely scattered areas as the South Asia, southeast Asia, east Asia, Polynesia, Arabian Peninsula, north Africa, east Africa, southern Africa, the Americas, and Europe.[6][7][8]

The word caste is sometimes used to refer to any rigid system of social stratification, segregation or distinctions.[9][10]

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is premature as well. We are nowhere near working on the wording of the lead. The RfC is not over yet.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with AVC. @Fowler, there is no minimum or maximum length for RfC. You should know that. Your sources don't support your novel syntheses. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's discuss what is wrong with the current lead section first. The lead as it is now already says: whose frequently identified and frequently contested ethnographic examples are those of the Hindu caste system of India. I don't see how borrowing lead from International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 1968 changes a lot. Maybe slight rewording to current lead is required to push the point that Hindu caste system is the paradigmatic example of caste or to show that caste in a structural sense extends beyond South Asia. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  12:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler is correct, and there is no need to steamroller. To be honest, I am struggling to work my way through recent comments, some of which are ludicrously prolix and have my antennae twitching. I, for one, need more time. - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, neither is there a need to steamroll nor is there an intent. Wiki's RfC guidelines do not suggest a freeze of all discussions to improve related article while an RfC is open. Probably, Fowler&fowler started his proposal for a split article, above, for same reason, after he launched the RfC. I appreciate the comments so far. Discussion is welcome. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice try, AVC. My section on Spinouts was opened as a result of an emerging consensus among the participants (at that time, Ratnakar.kulkarni, Mrt3366, CorrectKnowledge, and I) and with a view not to prevent the RfC from ballooning with it, and putting off new participants.  You, may I remind you, have not formally made a statement at the RfC yet.  You have attempted only to dispute the statement itself and thereby to hog attention at the beginning, and to post obfuscating essay length replies to other statements.  The creation of this section, however, has nothing to do with an emerging consensus, only a doomed attempt to control the article's POV.  Not to worry, the article will be closed formally by an uninvolved admin 30 days after it began.  They will summarize the RfC.  At some point I will take a stab at rewriting portions of the article.  Sitush, with long thankless experience in the snake pit of caste-related pages, I'm sure, will have something to contribute, as will others.  Some time after that, in my view, the page should be nominated for a peer-review.  All in good time.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the idea of two broad schools of thought is itself dated. The mostly Berreman-led American school has long retired (and, in many cases, long of happy memory). Ever heard of a recent structural-functional Ph. D. thesis? For someone who is insistent on the very latest World Bank figures, I'm surprised you are giving star billing to Berreman (1968). Btw, if you want a description of the structural-functional vs. symbolic school debate, you are better off reading Charles Lindholm's article (reference number 26 in my list, from 1998, I believe) than one throwaway line in Madan's essay written for Britannica's major revision of 1979. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with ApostleVonColorado, that there should be an attempt to disambiguate the actual meaning of the word "caste". Not only AVC, but others (with me included) have also found the usage of the word caste both ambiguous and confounding. I don't see any reason why anybody should be against such reasonable proposal, albeit I think it's somewhat quixotic (in the sense that it's noble but could be made unreachable by knee-jerk waffles) at this stage. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Fowler&fowler - The most cited literature, highest h-index and scholarly impact score secondary sources including peer reviewed journal articles on caste, published in last 20 years, is the 'caste should be broadly defined, it has been a worldwide phenomena' school. I have posted examples of this, on this talk page, with specific h-index/citation scores data etc. Per WP:TPG, I do not need to repeat. If you have h-index /cite score / etc of reliable secondary sources on caste, that dispute this - please post it on this talk page.
 * On the relative need for historical literature and latest reports such as World Bank studies, sociology is not economics, sociology is not demographics, sociology is not human development surveys, sociology is not many things. In some wiki articles and sections, latest reports are more important; in other wiki articles and sections, historical and recent publications are equally important; in yet others, historical publications matter most.
 * The 30 day period ends in early October. Before then, I expect to post my comments to the RfC. Meanwhile or thereafter, there is no need to steamroll revisions to this article, by you or me. You must follow the wikipedia guidelines and community agreed consensus process/DRNs/mediation/etc.
 * ApostleVonColorado (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * WTF is "highest h-index and scholarly impact score secondary sources ". My minimal knowledge of h-index (gleaned from discussions ar AfD) is that it is only relevant for "true" science, not sociology etc.. You appear either to be obfuscating again or stating something that you do not fully understand ... orquite a few people who frequent AfD have got it wrong. I have never seen it mentioned outside of science-based discussions. In any event, having vented somewhat, I'll revert to ignoring it until someone neutral explains what is going on here. I am finding this process incredibly frustrating because the sound-to-noise ratio is ridiculous: if people want to debate sourcing or indeed caste at an academic level, go publish a paper. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and academic mind-games are somewhat needless. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sitush asks: WTF is "highest h-index and scholarly impact score secondary sources "? Answer: See Impact factor and h-index. For relevance, search articles on these and sociology (an example is here).
 * For relevance to wiki guidelines, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which reads: One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Who cares?", was really my point. You are diversifying unnecessarily yet again - it is quite classic behaviour. I collapsed this thread as being a sideshow. This was on the basis that there is general agreement that such discussions are premature until the RfC closes - we would be trying to hit a moving target and, as I said above, it is creating more heat than light/noise than sound. In another example of wikilawyering in the face of common sense, you reverted me. Ridiculous. And discussing the lead is particularly so, since the lead is intended to be a summary of the darn article: if the article is not stable then we really cannot fiddle with suggestions for the summary. This "polite ownership" of various articles has gone on long enough. - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects
Per guidelines, WikiProjects should be informed of the RfC. This article makes some rather skewed claims about societies outside of South Asia, so it's only fair that editors familiar with regions outside of South Asia are brought here to provide a wider range of outside opinions. I wouldn't have realized the article was like this, as an editor with no interest in articles on South Asia, had I not accidentally stumbled onto it while browsing.--Ninthabout (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did post on WT:INDIA and the RfC itself informed the History and Social-something-or-other projects. But you are right.  Other projects need to be informed.  Do you have any ideas?  Should the England, China, Korea, Poland, etc projects should be informed?  Part of the reason why this article is warped and stuffed with OR is that it lies neglected.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to post on other projects.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Per guideline, editors from the Irish, German, French, Polish, Italian, British, and Korean WikiProjects have been notified.--Ninthabout (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ninthabout. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's 30 tertiary sources published within the last 25 years on the subject of "caste" and of the centrality of India, especially Hindu India, in it
Wikipedia uses secondary sources for details, but tertiary sources for determining emphasis within an article.


 * 1) Oxford English Dictionary "caste, n. 2a. spec. One of the several hereditary classes into which society in India has from time immemorial been divided; ... This is now the leading sense, which influences all others."
 * 2) Webster's Unabridged Dictionary ."caste n. 1 obsolete : .... 2 : one of the hereditary classes into which the society of India is divided in accordance with a system fundamental in Hinduism, reaching back into distant antiquity, ...."
 * 3) "Caste: Caste has been described as the fundamental social institution of India. Sometimes the term is used metaphorically to refer to rigid social distinctions or extreme social exclusiveness wherever found, and some authorities have used the term 'colour-caste system' to describe the stratification based on race in the United States and elsewhere. But it is among the Hindus in India that we find the system in its most fully developed form, ..."
 * 4) "Caste systems have been defined in the most general terms as systems of hierarchically ordered endogamous units in which membership is hereditary and permanent (e.g. Berreman 1960). On such a definition a whole range of rigidly stratified societies would be characterized by caste—Japan, for example, or certain Polynesian and East African societies, or the racially divided world of the American Deep South. Hindu India is generally taken as the paradigmatic example. Many scholars would argue, however, that the difference between this case and the others are far more significant than the similarities, and that the term caste should properly be applied only to this context. ..."
 * 5) "caste, any of the ranked, hereditary, endogamous social groups, often linked with occupation, that together constitute traditional societies in South Asia, particularly among Hindus in India. Although sometimes used to designate similar groups in other societies, the “caste system” is uniquely developed in Hindu societies."
 * 6) "caste [Port., casta=basket], ranked groups based on heredity within rigid systems of social stratification, especially those that constitute Hindu India. Some scholars, in fact, deny that true caste systems are found outside India. ..."
 * 7) "Caste: Nearly all societies have had some form of social stratification, whether ascriptive or achieved, based on race, class, religion, ethnicity, language, education, or occupation. The Hindu ascriptive caste system in India is perhaps the most complex and rigid. It is based on birth, which determines one’s occupation (especially in contemporary rural India), and is maintained by endogamy, commensality, rituals, dietary practices, and norms of purity and pollution. The English term caste is derived from the Portuguese word casta, which refers to lineage, breed, or race. ... (The remaining sections of the article are: THE HINDU CASTE SYSTEM, CASTE IN MODERN INDIA, SOME VISIBLE CHANGES IN CASTE RELATIONS, OTHER RELIGIONS AND CASTE, CASTE OUTSIDE INDIA) (full text in link)"
 * 8) (a). Quote: "The term caste refers, paradigmatically, to a social institution in India and elsewhere in South Asia in which endogamous descent groups, known as castes or subcastes, are hierarchically ranked. It has also been used to described hereditary forms of social stratification in non—South Asian contexts, such as Japan, the American South, and elsewhere. The validity of usage outside of South Asian contexts, however, ultimately turns on how we are to understand the paradigmatic Indian case—a matter of considerable and ongoing debate. This article therefore confines itself to the study of caste in India, from its emergence in the colonial period to today. ...' (full text in link)"
 * 9) "Caste: Caste is a form of social organization that is unique to India and is based on Hindu religious belief. This essay defines the meaning of the caste system and describes the ways in which it has been used to control sexuality, marital status, and economic and social life among women in India. ...."
 * 10) "Caste: What makes Indian society unique is the phenomenon of caste. Economic, religious, and linguistic differentiations, even race-based discrimination, are known elsewhere, but nowhere else does one see caste but in India (and, by extension, the subcontinent). This entry reviews the history of caste and discusses its impact on individuals and society."
 * 11) "CASTE SYSTEMS Caste is an age-old institution, evoked through several centuries. As a system of stratification, it has existed in many parts of the world and is being practiced today in some countries. But the caste system of closed endogamous descent groups as prevalent and practiced in India is not found elsewhere (Bayly 2010; Kolenda 1984). Caste is a well-entrenched phenomenon in countries like India. ..."
 * 12) "CASTE, group of people having a specific social rank, defined generally by descent, marriage, commensality, and occupation. Although the term caste is applied to hierarchically ranked groups in many different societies around the world, the caste system in its most developed form is found in India. .... (Note: the rest of the article describes the caste system in India.)"
 * 13) "Caste The jati (caste) system, which evolved during the Vedic period (1500–500 BCE), of Hinduism refers to the endogamous social groups comprising contemporary and Vedic Hindu society and the rules of behavior that govern interaction between these groups. ... (Note: after six long paragraphs on India) Finally, while caste is distinctively Indian in origin, social scientists also often use it to describe inflexible social barriers in other contexts."
 * 14) "Caste: The term caste is derived from casta, a word used by the Portuguese to describe the Hindu religious system. The caste system categorizes people into various hierarchical levels, which determine and define their social, religious, and hegemonic standings within the society. ... A classic example of the caste system is the one found in India, which has existed there for hundreds of years."
 * 15) "Caste: Caste is a hierarchical, hegemonic ranking of social groups found predominantly on the Indian subcontinent. A word of Portuguese and Spanish origin ...."
 * 16) "Caste: There is a strenuous argument among social scientists over whether the word 'caste' can be used anywhere other than in referring to India. The major characteristics of India's caste system are that castes are hereditary, ranked hierarchically, religiously based, theoretically rigid, endogamous, tied to occupations, and politically supported. Additionally, there are rules of ritual purity to prevent or cleanse contamination."
 * 17) Note: This 1968 article is now superseded by the 2008 edition of the encyclopedia (see above): "Section 1: Concept of Caste (Berreman): The term “caste” has been widely used to describe ranked groups within rigid systems of social stratification and especially those which constitute the society of Hindu India. Debate over whether castes are found outside of India has intensified with increased knowledge and understanding of the Indian caste system. Among social scientists, and especially among those who have worked in India, there are basically two views: (1) that the caste system is to be defined in terms of its Hindu attributes and rationale and, therefore, is unique to India or at least to south Asia; (2) that the caste system is to be defined in terms of structural features which are found not only in Hindu India but in a number of other societies as well. Those who hold the latter view find caste groups in such widely scattered areas as the Arabian Peninsula, Polynesia, north Africa, east Africa, Guatemala, Japan, aboriginal North America, and the contemporary United States. ...  Section 2: Indian Caste System (Mayer): The term “caste” is used to designate each unit in the hierarchically arranged organic systems of closed groups to be found on the Indian subcontinent. Besides this, it has been applied to the classical division of Hindu society and to systems of ranked and closed populations found outside India. ..."
 * 18) "Caste systems exist in various cultures; in many West African societies blacksmiths, praise-singers, and leather workers function as endogamous castes. In traditional European society peasants and nobility were endogamous castes and in Japan the Burakumin people, who were set apart based on their participation in 'unclean' occupations, represented a caste, although they were defined in racial terms. Indeed, before the 1950s era of expanding civil rights, black/white relations in the American South also incorporated many elements of a caste system. The ascribed status of race prohibited people from intermarrying, eating together, and interacting with each other in ways very similar to those of a caste system (Dollard 1937). Most frequently however, caste is identified with India, where it is deeply and historically embedded in culture and plays a central role in social stratification. Caste system in India The unique elements of the Indian caste system are its complexity ..."
 * 19) "The best-known closed or caste system is that of India, in which caste membership is ascribed at birth. It would not be quite correct to say that membership is ascribed 'by' birth, although usually one belongs to the caste of one's parents. However, you are not in your caste because you are born to certain parents: rather, you are born to certain parents because you are in your caste. Castes, or jatis, represent a combination of economic, kinship, political, and religious elements. You do share your caste with your kin and most immediately inherit it from them. Your occupation or economic contribution is also defined by caste: castes are, in fact, occupational groups. Beals (1980) reports that Gopalpur had fifty different jatis resident in or passing through the village, each with its own role, including priest, farmer, blacksmith, salt-maker, barber, butcher, stoneworker, leatherworker, and so on. While these were clearly economic roles, he notes that there was no direct correlation between the wealth of an individual or group and his or her or its caste: any person in any jati might be rich or poor, and there were as many rich shepherds and farmers as there were rich priests in the village. Rather, the defining feature of a jati was its spiritual condition — its ritual purity and spiritual cleanliness. Humans who were 'purer' as a result of behaviors in their past lives were born into higher jatis, and those who were more 'impure' were born into lower ones. The lowest castes did the dirtiest work, including handling dead (animal and human) bodies and other unclean substances. ..."
 * 20) "The immense potential for social differentiation which economic specialization offers is nowhere more logically or elaborately realized than in the Indian caste system. Unlike the situation in Rwanda and many other stratified societies where power is held by a minority, here, despite considerable regional variations, the high castes and their numerous sub-divisions are generally in the majority. Partly for this reason, and because of its very distinctive cultural (and especially ritual) features, and the way in which hierarchy is assumed to be the natural order of things, many scholars insist that caste is uniquely Indian and Hindu, and does not exist elsewhere.  The same, of course, can be said of any social institution. But whether we accept this parochial view or not (and we shall return to the issue later), the fact is that over three hundred million Hindus see human society as a composite structure of five interlocking but rigidly demarcated divisions."
 * 21) "caste. The hereditary and hierarchical (see HIERARCHY) division Of SOCIETY in (usually) India, associated there with Hinduism. Members of a caste share the same profession and STATUS and traditionally avoid physical contact with members of other castes. Subdivisions of castes ('jatis') are linked to particular obligations and rights (the 'jajmani' system). Anthropologists disagree on whether caste should be read in ways similar to SOCIAL STRUCTURES outside India or as something unique. The nature of jajmani conventions has also been disputed. The word 'caste' derives from Spanish and Portuguese, casta ('race'). (Further reading: Dumont (1980); Beteille (1996).)"
 * 22) "caste An institution of considerable internal complexity, which has been over-simplified by those seeking an ideal type of rigid hierarchical social stratification, based on extreme closure criteria. In Max Weber's writings it was synonymous with ethnic status stratification and constituted one end of the continuum which contrasted status honour stratification with commercial classes and the market. Possibly the clearest definition is that proffered by André Béteille, who describes a caste as 'a small and named group of persons characterized by endogamy, hereditary membership and a specific style of life which sometimes includes the pursuit by tradition of a particular occupation and is usually associated with a more or less distinct ritual status in a hierarchical system, based on concepts of purity and pollution' (Caste, Class and Power, 1965). Caste is especially important in the lives of Indian Hindus, for whom its basis is the traditional idea of the five varna: Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, and Untouchable. Within each vama there are myriad jati, which are small endogamous ...."
 * 23) "caste A caste system is a form of social STRATIFICATION in which castes are hierarchically organized and separated from each other by rules of ritual purity. The lowest strata of the caste system are referred to as 'untouchables', because they are excluded from the performance of rituals which confer religious purity. In this hierarchical system, each caste is ritually purer than the one below it. The caste system is an illustration of SOCIAL CLOSURE in which access to wealth and prestige is closed to social groups which are excluded from the performance of purifying rituals. This ritual segregation is further reinforced by rules of ENDOGAMY. In Max Weber's study of India (1958a), caste represented an important illustration of social ranking by prestige and formed part of a wider interest in pariah groups. ... There is considerable debate as to whether the caste system is specific to Hindu culture, or whether its principal features are more widely found in other societies where hierarchically organized, endogamous strata are present. In the first position, caste cannot be defined independently of 'caste system', which is specific to classical Hindu society. In the second argument, the term caste is extended to embrace the stratification of ethnic groups, for example in the southern states of the USA. While the Hindu caste system is organized in terms of four major castes (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra) there is considerable diversity at the local, village level ...."
 * 24) "caste: a social class within the stratification system of India. The system is based on four traditional groups organized in a hierarchy and originally based on an occupational classification. The system is now hereditary, with caste being determined at birth by parents' caste membership, and cannot be changed during a lifetime. The system is a complicated one with the four main castes being subdivided into thousands of 'jati,' or subcastes. The four main castes from top to bottom are: 1. Brahmin: 2. Kshatriyas: 3. Vaishyas; 4. Sudras. Standing below the castes are the Harijan. who are literally 'out-caste' and who occupy a position in society that makes them the object of much discrimination."
 * 25) "Castes A pure caste system is rooted in the religious order and may be thought of as a hierarchy of hereditary, endogamous, occupational groups with positions fixed and mobility barred by ritual distances between each caste. Empirically, the classical Hindu system of India approximated most closely to pure caste. The system existed for some 3,000 years and continues today despite many attempts to get rid of some of its restrictions. It is essentially connected with Hinduism. In theory all Hindus belong to one of four main groups, denoted by a colour, these were originally in order of precedence the Kshatriyas (a warrior group), the Brahmans (a priestly group), the Vaishyas (trading and manufacturing people) and the Sudras (servants and slaves). These are all mentioned in the Hindu writings of the sixth century B.C. Later the Brahmans replaced the Kshatriyas in the prime position. Outside these four main castes there are over fifty million so-called 'outcastes' but of course these too are part of the caste system, sharing the dominant beliefs about ritual pollution they are among the least privileged and their occupations are among the least esteemed, e.g. those of the tanner or the washerman. ... For its members, a caste system is a coherent and comprehensive system of allocating ritualistic functions on the basis of a ritualistic social order to which all subscribe. It is precisely on this score that to apply the concept of caste to the social stratification of slave-states of North America is both inaccurate and misleading. Here the deep and entrenched social divisions between the white and coloured populations, although, as in contemporary South Africa, given the veneer of religious sanction, arise not from allocation of differential functions in a ritual order but from allocation of menial tasks to men of distinct colour."
 * 26) "CASTE 1. An explicitly hierarchical social system based on hereditary, endogamous groups, in which each is characterized by a specific status, occupation, mode of life, and pattern of customary interactions with other such groups. 2. One of the endogamous units of such a system. Caste is one of a number of terms (cf. order, estate, class) denoting a ranked segment of society. Although caste is used primarily with reference to India, it is a European term, applied (at least originally) by Europeans to the analysis of Hindu life. ... The following analysis will consider caste primarily as an Indian phenomenon, with some attention also given to the relevance of caste as a cross-cultural category. In the Hindu perspective, society is of necessity highly differentiated; there is a PATTERN of behavior appropriate to each caste and stage of life. ... (New Section) Caste in India ... (New Section) Theories of Caste Anthropological debate regarding the caste concept has been dominated by two related questions: (1) What principles determine caste ranking? and (2) Is caste a cross-cultural phenomenon, or is it limited to the South Asian CULTURE AREA? ... whether caste phenomena can be found entirely outside the South Asian culture sphere remains a fundamental point of controversy (see Bartlett et al. 1976; Berreman 1968; see also INEQUALITY)."
 * 27) "caste, caste societies: In a caste society groups of persons engaged in specific occupations or with specific characteristics are ranked hierarchically. These ranks are ostensibly based on the degree of pollution incurred by work at the caste specialty or by other group characteristics, and one's position in the caste scale may be regarded as a reward or punishment for spiritual attainments (see PURITY/POLLUTION). India is the most famous (some say the only) caste society. There caste is broken into four great varnas: the 'twice-born' Brahman priests, Kshatriya warriors, and Vaisiya merchants, and the 'once-born' Sudra peasants. Beneath these and officially excluded from the caste system are the Untouchables (Gandhi's harijans, or 'children of God,' now self-designated as Dalits, or 'oppressed'), who fill the most polluting occupations. Although the Brahmans are universally recognized as the least spiritually polluted caste, there is no absolute consensus as to who is on top or why. For instance, religious renunciants can make claims to special holiness either by showing extraordinary asceticism and purity, or by engaging in cannibalism and self-degradation or indulging in intoxication and excess (J. Parry 1982; Lynch 1990). Furthermore, the Kshatriya, who traditionally served as rulers, established competing axes of valuation for themselves to counterbalance the Brahmans' claims to pre-eminence (Inden 1990; Heesterman 1985). In fact, Dirks (1987) argued that the Brahmanical portrait of caste was simply a wishful fantasy of priests in a colonial atmosphere that favored the disjuncture between kingly power and religious legitimacy. Among ordinary people, however, the main competition between castes remains at a lower level of organization. All the varnas are divided into multitudinous jatis, or local, endogamous occupational groups, that constitute the varied labor force of the society. These jatis can and do contest their relative positions and attempt to rise in the ranks through what Srinivas (1962) famously called 'Sanskritization': emulating the attributes of higher caste groups. Thus, an economically successful lower caste may take up less polluting occupations and habits and claim higher caste status. Whether these claims are accepted varies (F. Bailey 1957), but clearly slow upward (and downward) mobility in the caste rank of jati was far more likely prior to colonial censuses, which fixed caste positions immutably in written records. Academic definitions of caste are also not solidified, and fall into two mutually exclusive positions. The first is structural-functional and views caste as a category or type, comparable in many respects to hierarchical organizations elsewhere. In this vein, Gerald Berreman wrote that 'a caste system resembles a plural society whose discrete sections all ranked vertically.' (1968: 55). Indian caste therefore is analogous to social structures elsewhere in which rank is ascribed, such as American racial grading (Goethals 1961; Bujra 1971). The second school understands Indian caste as a total symbolic world, unique, self-contained, and not comparable to other systems. Most of these theorists would agree with the classic definition by Bougle, who wrote that 'the spirit of caste unites these three tendencies: repulsion, hierarchy and hereditary specialization' (1971: 9); controversies are primarily over which of these aspects is stressed. Dumont, the best known of the symbolic school, based his interpretation of caste on the attributes of hierarchy and repulsion. In his book Homo hierarchicus (1970), he focused on the rigidity of caste positions at each end of the hierarchical spectrum (Brahmans and outcastes) and the radical opposition in Hindu thought between categories of power and categories of status. LEACH, on the other hand, gave first place to hereditary specialization; the diagnostic of the system, for him, was that 'every caste, not merely the upper elite, has its special 'privileges' (1960a: 7). A somewhat different approach was taken by Marriott and Indcn. They postulated an indigenous monism, grounded in the assumption that in a caste society 'all living beings are differentiated into genera, or classes, each of which is thought to possess a defining substance' (1974: 983). These substances, according to the theory, arc formed by various transactions, particularly exchanges of food. Marriott and Inden were then able to develop transactional flow charts that locate all different Indian groups within their paradigm. A difficulty for interpretive theory is the place of non-Hindus within a caste system. For instance, Muslims, who make up approximately 12 percent of India's population, advocate the equality of all believers and deny the validity of notions of pollution (Lindholm 1986). The problem of accommodating such nonbelievers within caste society is not merely academic, as present-day sectarian battles chillingly testify."
 * 28) "caste. A caste is a rigid category into which people arc born with no possibility of change. In some systems Of STRATIFICATION AND INEQUALITY, the distribution of rewards and resources is organized around castes. In India, the caste system historically has consisted of four basic categories - Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya, and Sudra - each with its own specific and rigid location in the stratification system. In addition to these, an 'outcaste' of 'untouchables' is beneath the lowest caste. The crossing of caste boundaries is rigidly prohibited through controls over occupational distribution and residence, and especially through control over the choice of marriage partners. Within the four major castes, there are numerous sub-castes among which a certain amount of mobility is possible. According to the Indian caste system, which is codified in the Hindu religion, people may move from one caste to another across several life-times through the process of reincarnation. Such movements depend upon successful performance in the present caste position, which means that the system provides a powerful incentive for enforcing acceptance of the caste system itself and its inequalities. Although the concept of caste is associated almost exclusively with India, elements of caste can be found in a few other societies, such as Japan during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and more recently in the United States and South Africa. Although the caste system was officially banned in India in 1949, its influence remains in rural areas."
 * 29) (Dated reference) caste. An hierarchical system of social control in India, with each sub-group assigned a ranked status, depending on its origin and religious strictness. In Europe, a minority group with its own culture, such as the Gypsies. In the United States, a hereditary class status, the members of which are limited in residence, job, marriage, and economic possibilities. In India, theoretically there are four castes: Brahmans, warriors, farmers and business men, and workers. When seven years old, members of the three top castes have a spiritual rebirth. In actuality, there are more than four castes. and Brahmans are not all priests. Pollution by leather and contact with the lowest group is a common religious idea, as is the idea that only persons of the same caste can eat together. Some foods are forbidden. Endogamy is the rule. Hereditary occupations for caste members are common.
 * 30) "caste An endogamous social hierarchy of enduring political significance, believed to have emerged some 3500 years ago around highly questionable categories of Aryans and non-Aryans in the Indian subcontinent. The former - comprising brahmart, kshatriya and vaishya - emerged as dominant occupational castes of so-called dvija (twice-born). The shudra caste(s) - regarded as non-Aryan and 'mixed' - were occupationally marginalized and racialized, as was also the case later with the `outcastes' (Dalit), whose touch was deemed polluting (Thapar, 1966). This order was challenged from the sixth century BCE, but all major religions in India came to bear the social imprint of caste. Brahman social dominance was bolstered by a British neo-Brahmanical ruling IDEOLOGY, and provoked a backlash (Bose and Jalal, 1997). Significantly, leaders such as Lohia analytically separated the high castes from women, shudra, Dalit, Muslim and adivasi ('indigenous') and underscored the political necessity of marriages between shudra and dvija, while disrupting the rift between manual and brain work, which contributed to the formation, rigidification and violence of caste."
 * 31) "caste The term that the Portuguese and later the British used to describe the hereditary Hindu system of rank that organizes society in India. In principle, there are four castes—the priests (Brahmin), the warriors (Kshatriya), the merchants (Vaisiya), and the peasants (Sudra). There is also a group below and excluded from the caste system—the untouchables. The exclusivity of the castes was reinforced through rigid norms that governed contact among them and that especially proscribed marriage outside each caste. Traditionally, caste dictated employment possibilities according to a system that ranked occupations by their degree of spiritual pollution. In practice, in an occupationally complex and modernizing society, the castes are divided into many subcastes, which vary across localities. Certain occupations are open or vied for by more than one caste, and a significant minority in Indian society rejects the system altogether—notably the Muslims. India has proved a rich and difficult subject of anthropological and sociological interpretation—one that resists simple accounts of caste practices. The study of the Indian caste system has also had an impact on the accounts of divided societies more generally, contributing the notion of a SUBALTERN as a way of thinking about subordination that cuts across lines of class, race, and gender."
 * 32) "A caste is a closed social class in a stratified society in which membership is determined by birth and fixed for life. The opposite of the principle that all humans are born equal, the caste system is based on the principle that humans neither are nor can be equal. Castes are strongly endogamous, and offspring are automatically members of their parents' caste. (New Section) TRADITIONAL HINDU CASTE SYSTEM The classic ethnographic example of a caste system is the traditional Hindu caste system of India (also found in other parts of Asia, including Nepal and Bali). Perhaps the world's longest surviving social hierarchy, it encompasses a complex ranking of social groups on the basis of 'ritual purity:' Each of some 2,000 different castes considers itself as a distinct community higher or lower than other castes, although their particular ranking varies among geographic regions and over time. (After seven long paragraphs on the Hindu caste system, the textbook has the following one paragraph on other castlike situations.) ... Castelike situations are found in other places in the world. In Bolivia, Ecuador, and several other South and Central American countries, for example, the wealthy upper class is almost exclusively white and rarely intermarries with people of non-European descent. In contrast, the lower class of working poor in those countries is primarily made up of American Indian laborers and peasants. Likewise, most European stratified societies were historically organized in closed social classes known as estates—ranked as clergy, nobility, and citizens and each with distinctive political rights (privileges). These were hierarchically identified by titles and forms of address, and they were publicly identified by distinctive dress and codes of behavior."
 * 33) . Note: This is reference number 1 in ApostlevonColorado's list, to which he has added a note: "This encyclopedia is the most cited/referred to in social and behavioral sciences."  If you click on the link and read the abstract, you might think that the article could be about other societies as well.  However, the entire article (and I mean every last word) is about India.  The author Veena Das does not even bother with considering the option that caste exists in other societies.  All the old comparative theorists of caste, such as Gerald D. Berreman are conspicuous by their absence.  If someone would like the pdf, please send me email.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The first 31 citations were added on 4 September. On 15 September 2012, Fowler&fowler added the above Veena Das note, citing me with 'This encyclopedia is the most cited/referred to in social and behavioral sciences.' I include the following sentence from that Veena Das summary: "This textbook picture of the caste system, though influential, has come under serious scrutiny in recent years as being not only ahistorical but also ignoring the power axis in the production of social science concepts." In other words, not everyone agrees with that textbook picture, and Veena Das is suggesting there is a debate between scholars. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make any difference. The "serious scrutiny," "the debate," is entirely about caste within Hindu India.  The article says not a peep about anything else. Caste in this article is equivalent to Caste in India.  This is the issue we are debating in the RfC.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Not B-class
This article seems closer to C-class than B-class. Quick fail criteria: a number of unreferenced paragraphs, outstanding citation needed/verification tags, ongoing discussion about neutrality. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Castes outside India
I definitely think this article has some major issues, and most certainly a lot of sections about castes outside India are pure UNDUE/FRINGE lunacy. Coming from WikiProject Poland and WikiProject Sociology, and speaking with two hats on (as a Pole and as a professional sociologist), Caste is simply idiotic. That a few people used the word caste does not make it correct (UNDUE/FRINGE). I am not familiar with any serious scholar, or any serious body of work, which supports the idea that Poland has/had a caste. The correct term is social class. That's why we have the article on Aristocracy (class) there and not at Aristocracy (caste). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, Could you please move this (or at least copy it) to a proper Comment in the RfC. It will be easier that way, when the time comes, for the closing administrator to evaluate where the spectrum of opinion lies.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't have time to analyze the intricacies of this RfC at this point, I however grant you or any other editor permission to copy my statement (just post a diff in reply here or at my talk page). Or if you want to be more clear what part of this RfC I should post in, link it and I'll consider it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Piotrus. Please see this, starting page 59. It is a chapter titled Caste. The focus is entirely Poland. The author is Aleksander Hertz, a sociologist.
 * Of course, we should not rely on one scholar for FRINGE reasons. We must strive to check for more support. On caste and Poland, Hertz is not alone. As another example, see Celia Stopnicka Heller, another sociologist whose book On the Edge of Destruction: Jews in Poland Between the Two World Wars has been widely cited. See page 58 onwards of this book. Celia Heller discusses Max Weber's concept of caste, then discusses caste in Poland. Beyond Hertz's publications and Heller's publications, there are many more.
 * Verifiability not truth is our content guideline. If content is verifiable and widely discussed, it belongs here. I agree with your comments on Aristocracy etc.; the section needs to be rewritten for balance and due. But, I am not convinced how works by sociologists such as Hertz, Heller, etc. are fringe or undue? If you have evidence that these independent sociologists are unacceptable, or that they are a minority, please provide relevant evidence that can be verified. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You, AVC, are not in a position to evaluate the weight of opinion in the literature by citing one, two or three sources. That needs to be acknowledged in the tertiary literature.  Do you have some (not just one) recent tertiary sources (published in the last 25 years) that mention the Caste system in Poland in their article on "Caste."  That is the proper benchmark for such evaluation.  Otherwise, why can't we also have sections on the "caste system in baseball?"  There are many more books written on that, or on the "caste system in cricket?," which too has received significant coverage in the literature?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Some good points. I am pretty sure there is no such thing as "caste system in Poland". I see three hits on Google books using this term, all referring to the Polish Jews. As I noted below, this theory is probably notable (perhaps even deserves its own article), but a) majority of scholars of Poland don't see it as a country which had or has castes and 2) even those who argue otherwise (and who are in a very small minority) agree there was only one caste in Poland (Jews). To imply otherwise is quite misleading, and we should avoid this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing to those two works, I looked at them briefly. They make an interesting point (I also found a review of Hertt'z book here, but I cannot make much of it due to snippet view only). Same for, which may be another Polish work discussing Polish Jews as a caste. Aleksander Hertz in particular seems to be big proponent of the "Polish Jews as a caste" theory. In fact, I think his argument is somewhat convincing; however we again run into undue or fringe. Even if we have another reliable scholar using this term (Celia Stopnicka Heller), they are, as far as I know, in minority. I would like to see more reviews of their work and learn what others have wrote in reply to them, but I am pretty sure that his theory is at best just gaining acceptance - and I certainly don't have any sources to back this optimistic statement. With regards to the current section Poland, my recommendations are as follows: 1) remove quote attributed to Francis W. Palmer (I guess?). 19th century controversial claims fails reliability. 2) Remove Lenin claim (for similar reasons), replace it with a sentence saying that Aleksander Hertz and Celia Stopnicka Heller (explain who they are) made arguments that Polish Jews should be seen as a caste. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Piotrus. I have read a number of reviews for these books, one in a peer reviewed journal. Yes, I agree that the section needs to be rewritten. Here is Heller (it is not about baseball or cricket or non-sociological stuff; I skip her citations which she includes in her book):
 * Caste, as defined by Max Weber, is a closed status group. The Jews of Poland were such a group - closed and shared status of compelling inferiority. Their caste status, which emerged in the middle ages and continued....(skipped to save space)
 * Here is Aleksander Hertz (again it is all sociology, I am quoting parts to save space):
 * Throughout their centuries in Poland, until their destruction, the Jews formed a caste.....
 * This was not the only caste in Polish society. However, no other group - except the Gypsies - had such characteristic and conspicuous caste features as the Jews....
 * The caste system is not confined to such social systems as that of the Indians or the ancient Egyptians. In one form or another it emerges in various systems, in various civilizations, countries and epochs.
 * I have seen peer reviewed journal articles on Jewish/Roma people as caste or caste-like and Poland/Eastern Europe (see one example here). I agree, we should revise the section with content that is balanced, due and properly cited. I agree the Palmer quote should be taken out. Do you mind if I move your section as one of the comments in the RfC section above? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the best thing would be to transclude the section there by adding it under a new heading and then noting that the discussion is here through a redirect? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ApostlevonColorado, You need to clearly understand the difference between due weight and original research. Using some academic sources that discuss "caste" in Poland might be used as an argument against OR.  However, Caste is a core topic, featured in English language encyclopedias, references, and university textbooks, for over 150 years.  If the overwhelming majority of modern tertiary sources on "Caste" do not mention Poland, then we cannot have a section on Poland in this encyclopedia's article on Caste.   It simply means, that while there may be some literature on "caste" in Poland, the concept of "Caste in Poland," has not been deemed notable enough to receive coverage in the scholarly tertiary sources' article on "Caste."  You may attempt to add that section to Society of Poland, provided it has due weight there, but not here in any significant fashion.  A note could be added at the end that states something like, "Caste-systems (or systems akin to caste) are found in Poland.  See ....."  I am asking you again, do you have some modern scholarly tertiary sources, published in the last 25 years, that discuss the caste system in Poland.  If so, please cite them here.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this article (caste) should discuss more than just India, but it is probably not necessary to have a section on Poland (and many other countries). With regards to Jews, I would expect that the cited literature could be situated within a larger body of work on Jews in Europe (if not more general) as a caste. Such a section could be encyclopedic. Alternatively, we could try to have sections on castes in Europe and so on, and within it, a paragraph on Poland (I still think that Jewish caste in Poland could be a notable article on its own). In either case, our text should make it clear that that the Jewish caste in Poland is an idea that is not universally recognized (but I do agree it is notable enough to be discussed somewhere in this project in more detail, and likely, deserves a passing mention - but not necessarily a section - here, in the caste article). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

As I say in a comment section upstairs, the article on Caste in (please click on this link), published in 2006, could be used as a model. Accordingly, I propose that this article should devote 25% to definitions and review of literature; 40% to India; 10% to other countries in South Asia; and 25% to countries outside South Asia. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing that this article is also about the concept of Caste, and agreeing with AVS's comments somewhere upstairs) that this article needn't be a clone of other articles, I could go along with: 30% to definitions, historiography, and review of literature (from Marx and Weber to Dumont to the Post-Colonialists.); 30% to Hindu India; 10% to non-Hindu India and rest of South Asia; 30% to cultures and countries outside South Asia.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd cut half of the coverage of outside India and replace it with more on the social (sociological) aspects (would partially fall under expanded literature review). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Piotrus - I like your idea: Jewish caste in Poland could be a notable article on its own. If you want to start it, I will help along. We can link that as the main article to a summary here. Here are two additional reviews of Hertz articles: review 1 and review 2. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Piotrus - On ideas to improve and rewrite this article, I had started a discussion section after RfC was opened, elsewhere on this talk page. See this. But, the discussion was stopped, and held off while the RfC is open based on comments in there. If you disagree with Fowler&fowler or Sitush there on procedure, I will appreciate your comments there. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @AVC, That discussion is closed and collapsed. This discussion is open only because it the same as Piotrus's statement.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus: So (if one interprets "hut" to be a typo, and assumes you mean "half"), are you suggesting that 45% should be devoted to Caste (sociological and anthropological concept) and Review of literature, 30% to Hindu India, 10% to non-Hindu India and non-India South Asia, and 15% to Caste outside South Asia? I am happy to go along with this as well.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * With the disclaimer that I have not read much of the RfC and other's views, which also means I think my opinion is fairly neutral - yes, this is the structure I'd propose for this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A proposal based on Piotrus's proposal
In light of Piotrus's proposal above, I am offering some page statistics and amending his proposal to the one below. (Piotrus, author of 7 FAs and one of Wikipedia's most prolific contributors since 2004, is a professional sociologist.) (Updated: In light of user:Ratnakar.kulkarni's comment below, I have decided to keep Piotrus's original proposal above, in conjunction with Wikipedia article size guidelines. See Second proposal below. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC) ) The current article, Caste, has a readable prose size of 9,443 words. (Readable prose size means actual prose within the paragraphs and does not include prose in tables, bulleted text, infoboxes, photo captions, references etc.) Of the 9,443 words in Caste, the Lead + etymology and two abstract sections at the end constitute 1,160 words; India, 478 words; rest of South Asia, 365 words; caste outside South Asia, 7,444 words: of this, caste in East Asia has 2,260 words, caste in Africa has 1,163 words, caste in Europe has 2,877 words.
 * Analysis:

Contrasting this with other major related articles, we find: the FA India has 8,091 words of readable prose, Sociology has 7,759 words of readable prose, Anthropology has 6,735 words, Social Science has 5,445 words. Among subject topics in Sociology and Anthropology, Social class has 2,039 words, Social mobility has 4,900 words, Social stratification has 1,667 words, Cultural anthropology has 1,785 words, Social anthropology has 1,190 words, Ethnography has 2,730 words, Kinship has 3,733 words, Social group has 2,401 words


 * Proposal:


 * 1) The entire article should have a readable prose size of no more than 5,000 words (ie. approximately half the current size). This is in well in keeping with other Sociology and Anthropology topics, such as Social mobility. Of this,
 * 2) Definitions, concepts, review of literature, should constitute (40%) or 2,000 words.
 * 3) Hindu India should constitute 30% or 1,500 words (note this is 1/6 the prose size of the spinout article Caste system in India which has 8,462 words, but has issues of its own.)
 * 4) non-Hindu India and extra-India South Asia should constitute 10% or 500 words
 * 5) Caste outside South Asia should constitute 20% or 1000 words
 * 6) We end the RfC and move towards rewriting the article:
 * 7) user:ApostleVonColorado should rewrite 3. and 4. (non-Hindu India and rest of South Asia; and Outside South Asia) a total of 1,500 words. AVC, has experience in writing Wikipedia articles on socio-economic indices, poverty, and nutrition.
 * 8) user:Sitush should write 2. (Caste system in Hindu India, a total of 1,500 words) Sitush has vast experience in the myriad India-related caste articles and is principal author of the FA James Tod, the first British author on the Indian Caste system.
 * I, user:Fowler&fowler write 1. (Definitions, historiography, Review of literature, a total of 2,000 words). I have experience in writing FAs (Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760) (which, for example, has a historiography section; India (History, Geography, Biodiversity), and soon to be FAs (Mandell Creighton and Company rule in India.
 * 1) The others taking part in the RfC (in particular those such as user:Ninthabout, user:CorrectKnowledge, user:Ratnakar.kulkarni, who have contributed significantly, help the three editors above by offering critical insights, sources, writing, etc.
 * 2) That these various editors work on their different sections for the next six weeks, and then have user:Piotrus weigh in on 1 November 2012.
 * 3) This I believe is the best and the least disruptive option; otherwise, we risk debating this endlessly and accomplishing nothing.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest we hold off on this. Not because I do not like parts of your proposal Fowler&fowler or your initiative, but because there is a major unresolved issue on spin-off articles and wikipedia guideline on how main article must be summarized. I plan to include this statistical and "due weight" analysis in my reply to the RfC. I will show that, per wikipedia guidelines, the majority of encyclopedic article on caste, which is sum total of 'caste articles that are linked and sub-linked per wiki spin-off guidelines' is already on India. It is already far more than what Piotrus and others have suggested.
 * @Piotrus - We have an independent main article on Caste system in India, which is linked to this article, Caste. The situation is similar to the articles you wrote. For example, consider your article on Max Weber; that article links to the main article The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism and others. A short summary of the linked articles are provided in Max Weber article. I see no persuasive need to copy heavily from The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, or The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism, or The Religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism, or others into the Max Weber article. Shouldn't this family of articles be structured in a way similar to the way you have structured Max Weber and other articles?
 * ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Caste system in India article (also mainly contributed by AVC) has more issues than this article. That too will need to be rewritten.  However, like many flagship articles, such as India, which too had problematic spinouts, the summary section here, "Caste in India," will need to be independently written (based on scholarly secondary sources and guided by scholarly tertiaries) and the problematic spinout, Caste system in India, then rewritten/expanded based on the summary sections.  That happens all the time on Wikipedia.  Otherwise, we risk being here until the end of the world (which I'm told is happening in December 2012).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As for Max Weber, the essay The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism later published as a book, is one of the dozen themes in Weber's life. Tertiary articles on Weber don't devote 75% to 100% of their content on that book.  In terms of numbers; Max Weber has a readable prose size of 7,906 words; of these 521 words are devoted to "Protestant Ethic" section (which is summarized from The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, a page of size 2,288 words; in other words, we have a reduction to 23%.  Caste system in India, on the other hand, has 8,420 words.  In keeping with Weber, 23% of that is: 1,936 words.  However, this article only devotes 478 words to "India." We are only asking for 1,500 words in the proposal!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Compare, for example, how even concise tertiaries treat caste vs. Weber. Here is the Concise Dictionary of Social and Cultural Anthropology (which takes a point of view more sympathetic to the comparative method).   "caste. The hereditary and hierarchical (see HIERARCHY) division of SOCIETY in (usually) India, associated there with HINDUISM. Members of a caste share the same profession and STATUS and traditionally avoid physical con-tact with members of other castes. Subdivisions of castes ('jatis') are linked to particular obligations and rights (the 'jaimani' system). Anthropologists disagree on whether caste should he read in ways similar to SOCIAL structures outside India or as something unique. The nature of jajmani conventions has also been disputed. The word 'caste' derives from Spanish and Portuguese, casta (' race' ). Further reading: Dumont (1980); BeteilIc (1996)."   Now see the same source's entry on Weber: "Weber, Max (1864-1920). German sociologist, born Erfaut, Thuringia. Weber studied law at Heidelberg, Berlin, and (Gottingen, gaining a doctorate in 1889. He became professor of political economy at Freiburg in 1894, soon moving to Heidelberg. He had a breakdown and was unable to teach from 1898. He traveled, wrote, and lectured, and co-founded the German Society for Sociology (1909). From 1919 he taught in Munich. Much of Weber's work was published after his death: key texts include Die protes-tantische Etbik und der 'Geist' des Kapitalismus (1904; The Protestant ethic, 2009), Konfiizianismus told Taoismus (1920; The religion of China, 19.i I), Theory of social and economic organization (tr. Henderson & Parsons, 1947; originally part one of Wirtscbaft und Gesellschaft, 1921), and Gerth and Mills collection Front Max Weber (2009 [19461). Crucial ideas developed by Weber include AUTHORITY. CHARISMA, the PuonsTANT (WORK) ETHIC, the IDEAL TYPE., and RoulmizATIoN. See also CAPITALISM, CLASS, CONFUCIANISM, DAOISM, FEUDALISM, POWER, PROPHECY, STA MS, vt:RsTEIIEN. Further reading: kasler (1988).' (Sorry about the last few sentences; the scanned image is blurry and my character reader is choking.)"  But you get the idea: compare the weight given to India in the first and to "Protestant Ethic" in the second.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. But allow me to reflect on your suggestions.

On one point, we agree; long before you got involved with this, I expressed the same concern: that Caste system in India article is not in good shape. The early 2012 version had major sections without any citation and tags galore plus lots of vandalism, that was before I made my first edit; yet, let us give credit where it is due: the significant majority of that article's structure and content is by a combination of many wiki contributors, not me. Sitush on 21 March 2012 wrote this on its talk page, for the version before I started contributing to, 'I know that the version of some months ago was very poor... [...]' Both Sitush and I agreed, back in July 2012, the Caste system in India article needs lots of work. A good article there will help improve this article.

I do not think it is prudent to set any limits for each part. The best course is to use as many words as necessary and sufficient to summarize the main article in a balanced, NPOV and complete manner. The summary of that linked main article should be summarized here properly, and not copied in large parts here. If main article for some encyclopedic aspect or section is missing, but notable and important, it should be written in as many words as necessary and sufficient to summarize that aspect - if it gets too big, it too should be spun off. The DUE versus UNDUE is best defined by weighing verifiable and reliable published sources out there. Our goal should be to summarize quality notable information and significant encyclopedic aspects of a subject from reliable published sources. Our goal should not be agenda or advocacy articles that focus on: 'highlight the social ills of this or that country; or, hide the social ills of this or that country.'

There is no rush or deadline on wikipedia. Let us wait for what Piotrus and others have to say about summary and linked main articles.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid limits are very important. They indicate weight assigned to a particular section or idea. The article will need to be similar in size to other "Social structures" articles, such as Social class (2,039 words), Social mobility (4,900 words), Social stratification (1,667 words).  Those clearly have no more than 5,000 words.   The "caste outside South Asia" sections in this article will need to be very drastically reduced from the current 7,444 words to no more than 1,000 words.  Otherwise, the content-related bias in this article will continue unabated.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I just checked, until user:ApostleVonColorado edited this article, it had a readable prose size of 5,155 words, more in keeping with what is mentioned in the proposal, (see here the version that existed before AVC made his first edit on 9 February 2012); of this, 3,200 words were devoted to the India section. Furthermore, there was no section on "Caste in Europe."  (Only East Asia, West Asia, Africa, and Latin America were mentioned.)  AVC single-handedly doubled the size of the article by reducing India to 478 words and increasing "Caste outside South Asia" to 7,444 words.  The major issues of bias we are dealing with in this RfC is the work of one single editor.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS Here is a brief history of the article: Version of February 2010 (4,942 words), Version of Feb 2011 (4,744 words), Version of 8 Feb 2012 before AVC's first edit (5,155 words), Current article as a result of 224 edits by AVC (9,443 words). Furthermore, AVC has not only single-handedly doubled the article size, he has, since his first edit repeatedly removed other editors contributions (see article history).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the three social articles you cite are start/C class and in need of much expansion, do you? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And, of those 5,000+ words, how much of the article lacked even one citation for verifiability? Answer: some 60%. How many 'citation needed' tags were there on sentences and whole paragraphs. Answer: Many. Did the summary in this article on India sync with the main article per wikipedia community agreed linked article guidelines? Answer: No. Did wiki contributors discuss, before May 2012, that caste article are too big and we must trim to a smaller, more readable/manageable size. Answer: Yes. Did removing unverifiable content in the India section of this article per wiki guidelines, and leaving link to the main article, help reduce the overall size of this article? Answer: Yes. Can the current article be further improved? Answer: Yes. Should this article disruptively change into a biased advocacy article on 'highlight the social ills' (see Fowler&fowler comments elsewhere on this talk page), or ignore the secondary sources and reliable published literature on caste outside India. Answer: No. This article should focus on summarizing all sides of scholarly published literature on caste respecting wiki's balance, DUE and NPOV guidelines.

I invite Fowler&fowler to assume good faith, welcome others, and remember wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can contribute content to if it meets wikipedia content guidelines. Collaborative sharing of ideas and editing content is what improves wikipedia. This discussion is proof. Piotrus, for example, mentions above the idea of creating an article on Jewish caste in Poland. One of the key disputes here is: how to best summarize and sync main independent articles linked to an article? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * How many watchers did this article have while the edits were being made in past? Answer: over 150. On other relevant policies, see this: Being bold is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. No editor is more welcome to make a positive contribution than you are. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree we need not follow Fowler's arbitrary and — I must say — unhelpful proposal. Fowler, you must assume good faith. Let's not make it any more complicated and time-consuming than it already is. Now as it seems (I may be wrong), it's one of fowler's many fortes (i.e. creating confusion, obfuscation and needless complications). That is what he has done in WP:DRN (which failed by the way), Talk:India (see archive no 37 for more), at least one RfC and whatever article or page he has edited lately. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

One major problem with the proposal is that we just cannot put restriction on the number of words, ofcourse we need to give proper weight to every section but the restriction of number of words is too much. --sarvajna (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine I won't put in my amendment and go back to Piotrus's original proposal. However, there are some Wikipedia guidelines; See Article size recommend an upper limit of 50 kb of readable prose, ie. 10,000 words for the article.  Article's longer than that compromise reader comprehension; I'm happy to write out Piotrus's original proposal in its light.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding length and summarizing. I have already suggested how much of each topic I would like to see mentioned, subject to revisions pending on the literature review. Which means that yes, the section on India should grow, as should the current coverage of sociological/anthropological theories on caste, while the section on other countries should shrink, with many articles split off into subarticles (perhaps only "caste in continent" should be linked here, with "caste in country" being linked from those subarticles). Size wise, the caste article seems probably at the length we want to keep it. More detailed discussion of various concepts should be split off. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Piotrus - Would you be interested and available to help write this article? or at least review proposed drafts of each major part you propose? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Piotrus's original proposal in concrete terms

 * 1) Total article size should be no more than 10,000 words of readable prose. (See WP:Article size)
 * 2) Definitions, concepts, review of literature, should constitute no more than (45%) or 4,500 words.
 * 3) Hindu India should constitute no more than 30% or 3,000 words.
 * 4) non-Hindu India and extra-India South Asia should constitute no more than 10% or 1000 words
 * 5) Caste outside South Asia should constitute no more than 15% or 1,500 words

Piotrus, as I've already said, is the author of 7 FAs, one of Wikipedia most prolific contributors since 2004, and a professional sociologist. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I feel a few suggestions might improve this proposal:
 * 2) Concepts related to caste system in India like sanskritization, jajmani etc. should only be discussed in India's section. The general section on definitions, concepts etc. should not include these.
 * 3) Contemporary context of caste in India should be discussed in some detail regardless of its weight in Caste system in India. For details see article by Veena Das which dedicates 25% of its space to it.
 * 4) Since non-Hindu India is being discussed separately, it might be best to have one section on South Asia with subsections on Hindus, Muslims etc. instead of India, Pakistan...
 * 5) Neutrality and balance issues of sections on caste in other continents should be discussed further. For instance, caste in Europe should probably focus on Roma.
 * 6) Limits should be flexible. We can agree to various percentages, but common sense should finally dictate section lengths. In other words, minor variations should be permissible.
 * 7) Finally, 45% for literature review, concepts etc. is too much; 15 % for castes outside South Asia is too less. Please also keep an eye on what readers want to see in this article.  Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel the % would vary before and after articles are ready for a split off. I agree with Piotrus that India section should grow, so should the current coverage of alternate sociological/anthropological theories on caste. Initially, it may have larger section on rest of the world. As the article splits, and the content stabilizes, we may end up with a balanced and consensus for a complete and quality article. We do not have to decide or debate % now.

I am fine with keeping the article about the current size, splitting out specific sections into independent articles with good, balanced, NPOV consensus summary in this article. FWIW, I just took a rough look: after deleting/revising some parts, splitting off some sections and summarizing it here, setting aside about 5% for lead, I arrive at relative % that is quite different than above proposal. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The proposal to spin out new articles to reduce clutter was a good one and might solve all the weight issues. Maybe we should discuss that first. In any case, why should that proposal be collapsed and this be open for discussion? Btw, what were the relative percentages you arrived at, just a bit curious? Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  17:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "The proposal to spin out new articles to reduce clutter was a good one and might solve all the weight issues." — I agree with and I echo the concerns of CorrectKnowledge as laid out on my talk page, “What troubles me most about the new proposal on Talk:Caste is that older proposals (changes to lead, spinning out new articles etc.) were collapsed on the pretext that they were distracting from the RfC. It seems odd if not hypocritical to discuss a new proposal there, no matter how good it is.”  Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 18:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Piotrus, as I've already said, is the author of 7 FAs, one of Wikipedia most prolific contributors since 2004, and a professional sociologist." — the problem is, you see Fowler, we're not arguing against his proposals nor are we trying to deliberately foist our own incongruous proposals in his name while constantly assuming bad faith and demeaning other editors, but you are. Let him speak for himself, he is better. You, Fowler — no matter how great an expert you think an editor is — need not certify/judge/represent anybody other than yourself. Unfortunately, any editor's credentials are of no use here on Wikipedia (in terms of his credibility); what matters is verifiability (along with other policies). Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 18:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Mrt3366, Your histrionics aside, Wikipedia is not a referendum in which people hold hands, sing Kumbaya around the fire, and try not to step on each others toes. Expertise is valued on Wikipedia.  Jimbo Wales himself has said it very clearly in a New York Times interview: "Greatest misconception about Wikipedia: We aren’t democratic. Our readers edit the entries, but we’re actually quite snobby. The core community appreciates when someone is knowledgeable, and thinks some people are idiots and shouldn’t be writing."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well listen Fowler, since it's clearly decided that you are not going to listen to what others say anywhere unless they support your personal gobbledygook or behave like your entourage, I think it is a total wastage of my time to try to break it to you that wikipedia is not an anarchy either. Don't you think that you've wasted enough time? Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @AVCThe above proposal (in terms of percentages) is exactly what Piotrus has proposed. (45% Definitions etc; Hindu India 30%; non-Hindu India and rest of South Asia 10%; Caste outside Asia 15%. It is true that I didn't factor in the lead.  If you want to literally keep it at the current size, then here goes: The current lead is 320 words.  That means the rest of the article is 9,443 - 320 = 9,143 words.  If we are to follow Piotrus's suggestion of keeping the current article size, then in percentage terms, we have:
 * Definitions, Review of literature etc 45% (no more than 4,114 words)
 * Hindu India, 30% (no more than 2743 words)
 * non-Hindu India and rest of South Asia, 10% (no more than 914 words)
 * Caste outside South Asia, 15% (no more than 1,371 words)
 * To this we can add a 5% lead per AVC's suggestion, ie. no more than 457 words. That means the total article size will be 9,143+457 = no more than 9,600 words.  No one is suggesting that we change to these percentages in a week, but they are our ultimate guidelines.  They don't have to be the exact numbers, but the approximate proportions are important.  I, for example, will not agree to much more than 15% devoted to Caste outside South Asia.  That is what Piotrus has stated and that is what I agree with.
 * @CK It may be that we might not be able to write 4,500 words on Definitions etc, but the 4,500 words are our upper limits. I think we should keep the current subsectons: India (Hindu, non-Hindu), rest of South Asia, Outside South Asia.  Reorganizing the subsections into Hindu (India, Nepal, Bali),  Moslem (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, ...) etc would run counter to the tertiary sources, and would introduce major POV.  30% is Hindu India, which has a separate subsection.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @CK, AVC. You are welcome to carry on the discussion on the spinning out. You can spin out the Caste outside South Asia sections any way you want.  I have little interest in them.  I think most of it is OR and these articles will likely go to AfD.  Also remember, there is a vast literature on Caste in the US, more notable than Caste in Finland, Sweden, Poland, ... that will need to be accommodated. Much of it is written by Gerald Berreman, who has thus far received star billing in this article.  In fact, Berreman has categorically said that if caste existed anywhere outside India it did in the southern United States.  But anyway, that is your concern.  Just remember the summary of it here will need to be less than 15% of the total article lenth, ie. approximately 1,400 words, per Piotrus's statement, which I support.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I oppose this Hindu India POV that fowler is trying to impress upon us. India is a secular Nation and there is no India for only Hindus. It must all be under one heading and that's "India" (Moslem, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, etc). Don't differentiate based on Religion. Religion has got nothing to do with it. That will trigger a whole new dimension of debates. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 18:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Calm down Mrt. Since caste is centrally a Hindu social division that is codified in the religion, it is a religious concept. Madan, for example, says that it hardly exists outside Hinduism except amongst converts to Christianity in South India and amongst some Sikh converts. Amongst Muslims, he says, it is mainly a trade related thing. It makes sense to differentiate between the relatively formal, rigid and institutional existence of caste amongst Hindus and the lighter, informal and conversion specific, version amongst other religions. Perhaps you could propose other terms for the section heading ("Hereditary social divisions amongst Hindus" would be one possibility), but there is nothing extraordinarily wrong with what fowler is saying. (Though I'm not sure I agree with the relative weights. The parallels with other social divisions seem more like a minority viewpoint to me.)--regentspark (comment) 19:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a minority viewpoint, a miniscule minority viewpoint, but I've gone along with it for the sake of moving ahead. My own personal viewpoint is that Caste outside South Asia should get no more than 5%.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Whatever proposal finally gets us down the pike, I think it is important to reiterate that social divisions amongst Hindu's are central to the concept of caste. The word, in the context of Hindu social divisions, was originally used to represent exactly that. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as One of the several hereditary classes into which society in India has from time immemorial been divided and states, unequivocally that This is now the leading sense, which influences all other. Britannica expounds on it in those terms. While 'caste' is used when talking about social divisions in general, the concept is centrally Hindu in nature and the article should reflect that centrality, not hide it.--regentspark (comment) 18:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The 914 words allotted to non-Hindu India and South Asia can start from within the India section and extend to other countries. We don't need to title sections Hindu India, Muslim India etc. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  19:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @CK That's fine as long as RPs concerns are kept in mind.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @CK and as long as sentences of the type, such as this doozy in the current lead, "Castes have been observed in societies that are, for example, predominantly Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist" where Hinduism is snuck way in the back, are removed forever.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler and RP: Caste system is very much found outside Hinduism in India(something that we discussed and never arrived at a consensus on India page). Terms like "Dalit Christians" are very well and cannot be a minority view point. The section about India can also have details about how the caste system is present in other religions in India.--sarvajna (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While there may be Dalit Christians (and Mazhabi Sikhs), the point to bear in mind is that these Dalits and Mazhabis exist because they were Dalit Hindus before they converted to Christianity or Sikhism. Caste, in Christianity and Sikhism is a carryover from Hinduism and is fairly marginal. I'll give you Madan's exact statement on this tomorrow, but that's more or less what he says. --regentspark (comment) 21:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am behoved to tell you this RP, the caste-based discrimination in India is almost dead and the Government of India brought in many legislative changes (Law of reservation for minority groups esp. dalits, proscription against the practice of untouchability, etc) which has helped and is playing a major role in destroying the idea of discrimination based on caste. That has nothing to do with the core tenets of Hinduism. BTW, Hindu culture is not outside of Indian culture. Don't gloss over the social initiatives that the Government and other Hindu activists have taken. Don't just gloss over the preachings and endeavours of Hindu leaders (e.g. Mahatma Gandhi, Swamy Vivekananda, Dayanand Saraswati, etc and, in present day, Subramanian Swamy et al). Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mrt, this article is about caste, not discrimination on the grounds of caste. Even if all discrimination on the grounds of caste had ended, the article would more or less stay the same. That "Caste" essentially describes a hereditary system of social divisions amongst Hindus. That this system is fairly rigid and intra-caste movement is not something that is permitted (the irony of the discussion involving adding caste labels to everyone from India should escape no one!). That there has been, historically discrimination on the basis of caste amongst Hindus. That this discrimination has spilled over into Christianity in South India and Sikhism and Buddhism. I agree that there is far less caste based discrimination today as compared to 1947, and am open to saying that here, there and everywhere, but the essence of the article has to be about social division amongst Hindus. --regentspark (comment) 13:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Come on! The article talks about "endogamy", "social stratification in which membership is determined by birth and remains fixed for life" and "hierarchy" which generally means "system of grades of status or authority ranked one above the other" (per Oxford dictionary definition), now if you say that none of this has anything to do with discrimination then I think you're not being 100% neutral to yourself. Besides, endogamy, social hierarchy - they currently do not exist in any sub-urban, semi-urban or urban parts of India. You cannot just implicitly denigrate a religion (be it Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc) but not let the voice of their prominent modern leaders be heard. Many Hindu activists/leaders have vociferously spoken against this hierarchical caste system. We ought to mention that part too, if we are gong to be neutral about this. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal based on Piotrus's original proposal and RfC experience
Total article size should be no more than 10,000 words of readable prose. (See WP:Article size)
 * 1) Definitions, concepts, review of literature, should constitute no more than 55% or 5,500 words.
 * 2) Hindu India should constitute no more than 15% or 1,500 words.
 * 3) Of the 15%, three-fourths should be in a historical sense, in the past tense. This is roughly 11% or 1100 words.
 * 4) The remaining 4% can be in present tense, roughly 400 words
 * 5) Non-Hindu India and extra-India South Asia should constitute no more than 10% or 1000 words
 * 6) Caste outside South Asia should constitute no more than 20% or 2,000 words

This is based on Piotrus's original proposal as well as what I read in the RfC above. Hoshigaki (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC) I note that some people are finding the term "Hindu India" offensive. I apologize to them for using this term and make the following observations.
 * This proposal gives 25% space to India and the Indian sub-continent. This is the largest proportion of coverage and it should satisfy those who think India deserves more coverage than the rest.
 * We need to determine if caste coverage will be by religion, countries or geographical regions. While the caste system originated in Hinduism, it is now present and very firmly established in the Muslim communities of the Indian sub-continent. It is also present in other religions. Hoshigaki (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hoshigaki - Those are cogent suggestions. How would you accommodate some of wikipedia's linked main article and summary style guidelines? India already has a separate linked article, which then links to other main articles, including to non-Hindu caste articles, Varna, Jati, etc. Per guidelines, these must be summarized, not duplicated. See these featured articles created by Piotrus: Polish culture during World War II, which links to main article Partitions of Poland. The summary is short. As another example, see History of Solidarity with the linked article Martial law in Poland. Again a short summary. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not about Piotrus's contributions. The question has already been answered more globally at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view.  Overwhelming majority of tertiary source general articles on "Caste," devote 75 to 100 per cent of their content to India, consequently, per DUE, a large portion of the content of this article as well will need to be devoted to India.  It's as simple as that.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler - My proposal devotes the largest portion of content on caste to India. Hoshigaki (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ApostleVonColorado - We can consider Fifelfoo's proposal to completely avoid examples in this article. We have a concise summary of all examples linking to the various caste articles. Hoshigaki (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hoshigaki - Fowler&fowler is misrepresenting a 'discussion between wiki users on a talk page' as 'answered more globally' wikipedia policy. Talk pages of wikipedia are neither official wikipedia policies nor a measure of community consensus. For policies and latest consensus content guidelines, see WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:VNT, WP:SUMMARY, WP:RS, etc.
 * We can better understand Piotrus by studying examples of his work and featured wikipedia articles. I just went through many featured articles - the 'briefly summarize the main article' is the predominant practice in articles. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an incorrect characterization of the WT:NPOV talk page, where our own CorrectKnowledge had asked a question. The respondent is a professional neuroscientist who routinely responds there.  His answer is a good approximation of WP policy.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish answer is, "major topics should retain a reasonable amount of detail (see WP:Summary style), whereas minor points could be scaled back to a short link or a see also." I provided the same link. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Criteria for selecting content and reliable sources on caste, based on Piotrus example and RfC comments
Published secondary and tertiary literature on caste is extensive, conflicting and diverse. I like the way Piotrus was willing to consider, read and accept additional sources. I also feel Piotrus is constructive in suggesting: 'Jewish caste in Poland' could be a notable article on its own. Based on the example and comments by Piotrus, how about the following criteria for selecting content and reliable sources to help improve this article: What else? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Summarize all sides of significant and mainstream scholarly literature. It is important that the included summary does not leave a wrong impression about caste in any society.
 * 2) Casual use of word caste by any published source, once or twice, is an unacceptable basis to include that source in this article. Just because someone has casually called something a caste at some point in history, does not mean it should be included in this article.
 * 3) We will consider the following as adequate basis to consider including a mention or summary in this article: multiple secondary sources discuss caste in a country / region / culture, and one or more reliable tertiary source include this mention.
 * 4) Substantive discussion of caste in a society by multiple secondary sources, in sociology/anthropology/cultural and similar scholarly fields, suggest such sources will be considered for inclusion in this article. Review of books, journal review articles, multiple citations in scholarly reliable sources, if identified, suggest the content has entered mainstream scholarly discussion. This will qualify for a possible mention or summary in this article. The following discussion would be considered substantive: the sources include a discussion about caste, and contrast it with class system or include description of hereditary / hierarchical / exclusionary / etc aspects that define the concept of caste in that society.
 * 5) Scholarly published secondary and tertiary literature from around the world, on caste, are acceptable and welcome.
 * Piotrus's proposal is what is being considered. That is the only one I am amenable to.  As Fifelfoo has said, you don't have the competence to write this article.  You have already done inestimable damage to Wikipedia by doubling the size of this article with biased original research.  No point, in addition, damming up this page with more polite trolling.  Piotrus is a professional sociologist.  The talk page you disingenuously refer to above (after having sanctimoniously recited for the hundredth time all the Wiki links for good behavior) as just another talk page hosting just another conversation, is the WT:NPOV talk page.  There our own CorrectKnowledge had asked a question.  The editor who replies is a professional neuroscientist who routinely answers these questions and what he has said is fairly close to Wikipedia policy.  If you are disputing that have an RfC on that.  The content about Caste outside South Asia, according to Piotrus's proposal, will not have more than 15%.  The content that you have thus far added to the Caste article is unencyclopedic.  You have done it singlehandedly.  It can't be laid at someone else's doorstep.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a constructive comment there, Fowler&fowler. Don't misquote Fifelfoo now. Fifelfoo explained what he meant by competence concern in requesting more bibliographic information, 'The publisher and the place of publication is pretty damn essential to evaluate the quality of sources.' Neither you nor I had included place of publications.
 * I urge you to study and follow Piotrus' example. Please welcome all wiki contributors and assume good faith. If you have any constructive comments to make on above specific ideas, please add them in this section. Else, let us wait for comments from other wiki editors. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about citations. Here is Fifelfoo in his own words: "In the scholarly tertiaries, India is mentioned as a critical example repeatedly. This article should, therefore, give prominence to the summary style section dealing with the significance to the sociology of caste of the Indian example. This example should probably be ordered first if examples are used in writing this article. If examples are not used then a summary style section with a main link to caste in India is probably required due to the prominence of this example to the development of the social science concept. While this article has a responsibility to the social science concept of caste across all human societies and cultures, and across all sociologies of stratification, at the same time this article has a responsibility to reflect the development of the concept in relation to the 'paradigmatic example' (Kuper and Kuper 2003). I have now read your article. It is a coatrack of the most disturbing kind. If I wanted a list of examples I would go to category:caste. If I wanted a discussion of the social phenomena and sociological classification of strata known as caste I would come here. The section on Italy is OR, the only theory in use is from 1917 and is a just-so story. This isn't an article on caste, it is a list of OR related to stratification.'" I rest my case.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Common on, now! Before that paragraph, Fifelfoo qualifies his comment with the admission that he read just your tertiary sources, and that he did not consider or read disputing tertiary sources I provided because it lacked full bibliographic details (which later he confirmed as names of publishers and place of publication). Please skip irrelevant attacks in this section. People can read Fifelfoo's comments and associated discussion if they want to, in full, elsewhere on this talk page. There is no need to repeat. In this section, let us focus on suggestions to improve this article per Piotrus/RfC comments please. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In that paragraph, Fifelfoo has criticized the article, but Fifelfoo does not attack any wiki contributor in that paragraph, with claims of 'you don't have the competence to write this article.' Such misrepresentation is uncivil. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You mean after you added the place of publication, he has now accepted Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1911, as a reliable source? And Veena Das's article, your first reference, which bereft of its place of publication, was discussing only India and nothing but India, is now magically waxing eloquent about Caste in Sweden, Finland, Poland, England, Ireland, Netherlands, France, ....?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have scratched that sentence, and my apologies, but please be aware that disruption can also be caused by pretending to follow Wikipedia guidelines, by quoting chapter and verse at every instance, but by persistently and subtly misinterpreting what others say. Both Fifelfoo and Piotrus have made pretty damning comments about the content you have added.  As far as I am aware, they have not changed their opinion of the article (especially your contributions to it) one whit in light of your long essay-length replies.  It is a misinterpretation to highlight what Piotrus said, about Jewish people in Poland, and minimize his proposal here: that the Caste outside South Asia should not constitute more than 15% of the article length.  That, form of persistently polite misinterpretation, especially when practiced at every instance, is disruptive.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * AVC, as it seems now, Mr Fowler has a lot of spare time. He called me "an obsessively tendentious editor" who, if didn't follow fowler's commandments, will soon be gone, whether forcibly or voluntarily. And now you are, at least to him apparently, a disruptive and an incompetent editor. It appears that only those who agree with Mr Fowler are the ones who should edit wikipedia in Fowler's opinion. WOW! And why not, after all he claims to know a great deal more about India (both ancient and modern) than I have any clue. Damn!! Ain't he a class-act? BTW, your proposal looks good and based on common sense rather than arbitrary and incongruous limits. Mr Fowler, like I told you before you should try to judge only yourself. You have been far too judgmental. I, for one, think AVC is as competent an editor as you're on your best day. So let's not get in over our heads. Fowler, for the umpteenth time, stop obfuscating this issue. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It may come as a surprise to some here to know that Fowler&fowler is a well-respected and highly knowledgeable contributor. He is also a human being and as likely to get fed up of frustrating situations as anyone else. And rather less likely to do so than I. This discussion is descending into unnecessary name-calling. Stop it, all of you. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a surprise, Sitush (not from you anyway). He has experience, yes, but respect is earned my friend. He doesn't behave like a respectable human. He doesn't assume even a wee bit of good faith. He is combative, snobbish and demeaning. If somebody wants to get respect he better start showing respect. His experience doesn't give him the license to demean anybody, rather it's his obligation as an experienced editor to behave reverentially and at least with civility (which I have observed in AVC's conduct and other knowledgeable editors). But you're not going to take my word for it. Hence, let's not digress too far. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mr T, your tone in at least a few recent comments is wildly inappropriate. It's deeply ironic to complain of another user's alleged incivility with this tone, and in these terms. Listen to those who urge calm, please. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not see any issues in this proposal at all, infact point no 2 ''Casual use of word caste by any published source, once or twice,..  is something even fowler would agree, I do not understand why he would say Piotrus's proposal is what is being considered. That is the only one I am amenable to. ''. This is a different proposal, this is not a proposal about structure of the article but the selection criteria for the sources.--sarvajna (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No he says clearly: 45% definitions, review of literature; 30% Hindu India; 10% non-Hindu India and extra-India South Asia; 15% Outside South Asia. Here is the exchange: "@Piotrus: So (if one interprets 'hut' to be a typo, and assumes you mean 'half'), are you suggesting that 45% should be devoted to Caste (sociological and anthropological concept) and Review of literature, 30% to Hindu India, 10% to non-Hindu India and non-India South Asia, and 15% to Caste outside South Asia? I am happy to go along with this as well.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)"

"With the disclaimer that I have not read much of the RfC and other's views, which also means I think my opinion is fairly neutral - yes, this is the structure I'd propose for this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)"   The 800 pound gorilla in the room is not Jewish caste in Poland, or adding locations of publishers to references, but that we have an article on "Caste," which spends a staggering 85% of its content-length discussing caste outside India. By creating such lopsidedness singlehandedly, during three weeks in February and March this year, AVC has done Wikipedia a great disservice and compromised its credibility. It has compromised WP's credibility because the overwhelming majority of the scholarly tertiaries spend 75 to 100% of their content on India. AVC's proposal is more of his desperate attempt to hold on to the OR he has stuffed in the article. What the chances that reference in "one" tertiary source and say two secondary sources, (AVC's point 3) will make inserting an edit about Caste in Finland legitimate in the article? The answer is zero. This is because 30 tertiary sources, the best-known, don't mention Finland. (or Sweden, England, Ireland, ...)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't think you have made your objections clear rather than taking names it would be wise to concentrate on the matter. Well if 30 best known tertiary source do not say anything about caste in Finland so what? Why would you reject the other sources which say about the caste in Finland, because you did not find that source?. whatever you are suggesting sounds like My way or Highway. When there are sources (plural) which write about caste in Finland I do not see any reason not to include it. --sarvajna (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is hardly my way or the highway. People who say that don't go around finding 30 of the best tertiary sources.  What it means is that including Finland in Wikipedia's general article on Caste would violate WP due weight.  Read WP:TERTIARY (policy).  And, by the way, most of the abstract discussion of caste (the 45% in the beginning) has taken place historically around the paradigmatic example, Hindu India.  All the great theorists of Caste, Max Weber, Emile Senart (Les Castes dans L'Inde, 1894), Célestin Bouglé (1927), Georges Dumézil,  G. S. Ghurye, Edmund Leach, M. N. Srinivas, F. G. Bailey, Louis Dumont, J. C. Heesterman, Ronald Inden, Stanley Tambiah, McKim Marriott, R. S. Khare, Veena Das, Jonathan Parry, Andre Beteille, T. N. Madan, Richard Burghart, and others have theorized in the context of Hinduism and India. Do you know of any great anthropologist or sociologist who has made "Caste in Finland," "Caste in Ireland," ... his life work?  Even the one anthropologist, Gerald Berreman, who during the 50s, 60s, and early 70s advocated the comparative approach, for which he has been cited a dozen times in the Caste article, has spent most of his lifetime working on India.  Seriously, where are you guys coming from?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone can provide reliable sources about the caste system in some other country(not just a mention of caste in passing) I do not see any reason to ignore those reliable sources. We can give due weight to Caste in India and I am sure you will do a good job there but we just cannot ignore other sources. The other way I interpret your argument is Caste is something that is present only in India. I am sure you don't mean that as you have already mentioned somehwere above --sarvajna (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't it uncharitable to say the least to imply that a user has advocated ignoring relevant sources, or that they have argued Caste is something that is present only in India, when many times in the discussion visible further up this page, that author has argued against directlyl that assertion and has been discussing the proper balance of the different sources. Please address the comments that people are actually making: there's no end to the pointless discussions that could be had if we argue against what someone could hypothetically have said, but didn't, and in fact disagree with. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @RK Like Martin says, I'm already on board for devoting 15% of article space to Caste outside South Asia (Piotrus's proposal). A mention of caste or cast-like stratification in Finland would be fine, but making a section for it would be undue.  My concern above is that the very general statements (as in AVC's) proposal might be  used to drag out the revisions until long after most people have lost interest.  After all the only reason the edits made it into the article is that people (the interested and the knowledgeable) weren't watching.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Concerns regarding duplication and duplication to highlight the perceived social evils of India

 * Going by Fowler&fowler's logic, it seems that if 99% of all literature on royalties be about British royalty, (which is very much possible/likely, given the Brit obsession with their royals, particularly with Lady Diana), 99% of an article on "World Royalty" would be a duplicate of an article on "British Royalty" and about 70-80% of that would be on Lady Diana alone (newspapers too count as secondary sources), even if we have dedicated articles on "British Royalty" and "Lady Diana". This seems senseless to me. I am wholly against duplicating information. IMHO, since we already have an article on "Caste system in India", a section on "Caste in India" should comprise no more than 300-500 words in this article. I understand NPOV and DUE, but the issue of duplication has been brought up in the rfc and it should not be ignored. IMHO, it is non neutral to plaster same info in multiple articles just to highlight India's percieved social evils. Duplicating material to highlight social evils is not the job of this encyclopedia. If someone wants to do it, they should write their own books or blogs.OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We are talking about scholarly tertiary sources here, ie. signed articles in major encyclopedias, specialist scholarly references (such as the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology), review articles in academic journals, or widely used university text books published by internationally recognized academic presses. These do not discuss British royalty 99% (or 50%, or even 30%) of the time in their articles or sections on "World Royalty," which they typically don't have, but let's say, in their articles or sections on "Monarchy."     Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My example/analogy also has some similarities with the topic at hand. All analogies/examples will have some differences and delving on those differences is a classic way of avoiding to address the logic/substance of an argument. Please try to address the argument itself. I have also said that it is not the job of this encyclopedia to highlight the perceived social evils of India. I would certainly like to see your opinion on this. Do you agree/disagree?OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)I have inserted a subheading to avoid distracting the discussion above.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * F&F has addressed your argument by showing the real justification for his position on weight, and why he disagrees with the rationale you've put forward. By accusing him of "avoiding to address the logic..." and "just to highlight India's perceived social evils" you are speculating about intention, and in effect accusing F&F of bad faith, which we are supposed to avoid in Wikipedia discussion. Please take your own advice and address the logic and substance of the argument presented by F&F. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Fowler&fowler has avoided addressing my argument by saying that they are discussing tertiery sources and such like things. Why are they discussing tertiery sources? To gauge the centre of opinion/weight in secondary sources. Right? In my example, I am using secondary sources directly. I don't see much of a difference there and I see Fowler&fowler's response as unnecessary hairsplitting. Moreover, if you read my comment, you will find that I have not speculated on anything and only wanted to know Fowler&fowler's opinion on what is or is not the legitimate job of this encyclopedia. Now that he/she has ignored to respond, I see his/her reluctance to respond as indicating that his/her opinion contains something which he/she cannot divulge. Why?OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Tijfo098
I agree with the comments of Fifelfoo and Piotrus. I've only read the sections on Poland and Italy insofar, and they should be clearly deleted. In both cases sources from 100+ years ago are abused by playing on the terminology confusion from a long bygone age. What those authors called caste modern authors call social classes. I don't care if the mistake was a gross case of incompetence or blatant POV pushing, but whoever was responsible for that needs to stop editing this article for quite some time. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That's what I said in my first post here in early August.  AVC's long essay-length replies, however, were difficult reply to.  So I left the discussion until such time as we had more eyes watching.  That came a month later with the RfC.  AVC has single handedly added the "Castes in Europe" sections, increased the "Caste outside South Asia sections" from 30 to 80% of article space, and reduced the India section to a mere 478 words, and doubled the size of the article.  See my analysis upstairs.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Tijfo098 - That section is indeed poorly supported and not well written. It should be deleted, or revised with better support. Forgetting to add sources does not necessarily mean bad faith, or that citations never existed. There are over 100 reliable secondary sources and books that discuss social stratification in city states of Italy and refer to these as caste. See this, which I briefly quote from page 149, (Venice: Lion City: The Religion of Empire, Garry Wills, 2002, ISBN 978-0671047641):
 * The third caste in Venice made up ninety percent of the populace. Like the other two castes, it was not an exclusive economic category. [...deleted rest...]
 * Examples of peer reviewed journal publications, where modern authors call elements of social structure in city states of Italy as caste that was endogamous/closed/etc are: 1. "Virtuous Riches": The Bricolage of Cittadini Identities in Early-Sixteenth-Century Venice, Monika Schmitter, Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 3 (Autumn, 2004), pp. 908-969, see here 2. Political Adulthood in Fifteenth-Century Venice, Stanley Chojnacki, The American Historical Review, Vol. 91, No. 4 (Oct., 1986), pp. 791-810, see here 3. Ulrike Strasser, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 75, No. 1 (March 2003), pp. 189-191, see here;
 * ApostleVonColorado (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I also note that Piotrus, after his initial, strong criticism of Poland section, reviewed the literature I provided after he noted his concern. He then noted the following: 'I (Piotrus) think this article (caste) should discuss more than just India' and 'that Jewish caste in Poland could be a notable article on its own'. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 90% of the present section on Poland has nothing to do with Jews and is based on the 1903 source. The claim by Lenin is also iffy and one author agreeing is a bit thin. I'll look into it. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, Heller has a bio here. For two years she was president of the Association for the Social Scientific Study of Jewry, so she's probably a recognized academic in that field. The Lenin-Heller bit indeed seems wp:due in light of that. I don't know if there are modern competing views though to be added per wp:npov. Heller does say that "some Jewish intellectuals" contemporary with Lenin didn't agree that Jews were a caste (p. 59) Tijfo098 (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Tijfo098 - On your concern that the current 90% of Poland section needs be thrown out, both Piotrus and I have already agreed on that above (we felt Lenin part needs to be thrown out too). The summary here for Poland, or any other section, should be based on recent publications by respected sociologists such as Heller, Hertz etc. For what it is worth, inclusion of Jewish people and Roma people in articles dedicated to caste is already in tertiary sources - here is one example: Encyclopedia of Developing World, Thomas Leonard (Editor), ISBN 1-57958-388-1, London & New York, Routledge, Volume 1, 2006. The books on Jewish people/Roma people as caste, by modern authors, have been reviewed formally, including journals (for four sample reviews, see above discussion). I agree with your suggestion that we find and include competing views - see this section for more. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Tijfo098 - On Poland, the sociologist Hertz has written that Jewish caste were not the only caste in Polish society. Please see this (see lines 6-7 on page 59 for direct support). There is an entire chapter titled Caste, and it is exclusively focussed on Poland. You can read about Hertz's qualifications here (in Polish, use a translator) or this NY Times review. I just ran Aleksander Hertz's citation index scores. For his Jewish caste literature, excluding irrelevant publications, I get a score of 164 citations. Celia Heller's Jewish caste in Poland publications score 624 citations. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, he says Jews and Gypsies were the most "conspicuous" castes in Poland. He does not name any other castes except "blacks" in the US South. And certainly does not call all Polish social classes castes. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we would be better of using "cast-like" for these situations. I saw Heller's book. Since it is WP:RS by Wikipedia's definitions, I can't say it is wrong, but it defines, by attributing to Weber, caste to be a "closed status group." Weber, however, in Religion of India did not exactly caste is equivalent to a closed status group. He first defined a closed status group and then went on to say, "Caste is doubtless a closed status group. All the obligations and barriers that membership in a status group entails also exist in a caste, in which they are intensified to the utmost degree. The Occident has known legally closed 'estates,' in the sense that intermarriage with nonmembers of the group was lacking. But, as a rule, this bar against connubium held only to the extent that marriages contracted in spite of the rule constituted misalliances, with the consequence that children 'of the 'left-handed' marriage would follow the status of the lower partner. Europe still acknowledges such status barriers for the high nobility. America acknowledges them between whites and Negroes (including all mixed bloods) in the southern states of the union. But in America these barriers imply that marriage is absolutely and legally inadmissible, quite apart from the fact that such intermarriage would result in social boycott. Among the Hindu castes at the present time, not only inter-marriage between castes but even intermarriage between sub-castes is usually absolutely shunned. Already in the books of law mixed bloods from different castes belong to a lower caste than either of the parents, and in no case do they belong to the three higher ('twice-born') castes." He is really saying that caste is more extreme than other "closed status groups;" in other words, caste is a subset of the (larger set) "closed status group."  This sort of fudging of language is what I have found in much of the usage of the word "caste" for non-South Asian societies.  Most tertiary sources, if they at all mention them, use the word "caste-like" instead of "caste" for these other examples.  I'm on board for having 15% article space devoted to these societies, but in my present view, they should be called "caste-like societies."  Anyway, in the coming weeks, I will take a closer look at these sources Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That paragraph is a good find. Sources which contrast various aspects of caste[-like] groups are very useful for developing this overview article. Such sources should help move it away from the current structure which is mostly an amorphous enumeration of what one author or another called a caste for some definition thereof, definition not necessarily spelled out. (The current structure of this article is a bit reminiscent of the article we have on fashion faux pas and of the "Allegations of apartheid" arbitration where "they do it too" articles kept popping up based on mere mentions in the press.) Tijfo098 (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. In fact, Heller attempts to spell it out, but as you can see she herself is using "caste-like" as well, and she seems to have misread Weber. Here she is:  Quote: "The chief elements of the prevalent social definition of the Jews in Poland were their foreignness and inferiority. By demanding equality, let alone the way they did it, Jews defied this definition and were perceived as offending Polish honor. The secularized Jews' behavior vis a vis the Poles often impinged on the old caste-like structure, challenged its assumptions, and violated the hitherto governing caste etiquette. Caste, as defined by Max Weber, is a closed status group. The Jews of Poland were such a group—closed and with the shared status of compelling inferiority. Their caste situation, which emerged in the middle ages and continued throughout the period of Elective kings and during the partitions, persisted after independence was gained.  Here I must digress to discuss the appropriateness of caste ...."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)