Talk:Caste/Archive 4

Burakumin "ostracised"
'The Burakumin are regarded as "ostracised."[71]' I'm not trying to downplay that, but can we get a more recent source? 1961 was half a century ago. (Imagine what happened if we used a 1961 source to describe the status of African Americans today.) And it's probably better to avoid putting a single word in quotes as it may be read as scare quotes too. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's scholarly tertiary sources with their references included
I will give the RfC a little more time, but in the mean time, I'm compiling a more improved bibliography of the tertiary sources. It is improved because the citations are more complete, but also because I have included the list of references at the end of each article. (It is improved also because I am now removing the high-school/college textbooks on the grounds that they usually have case studies, rather than scholarly overviews.) I will be arranging the tertiaries alphabetically in small subsections. The references, which are obviously chosen by the experts who write the tertiary "caste" articles, will help us in deciding what to include and emphasize in the proposed first section, "Definitions, concepts, and review of literature," which will constitute 45% of article space. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology
"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."


 * Reference:

Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th edition
Quote: 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. The caste is a closed group whose members are severely restricted in their choice of occupation and degree of social participation. Marriage outside the caste is prohibited. Social status is determined by the caste of one's birth and may only rarely be transcended. Certain religious minorities may voluntarily constitute a quasi-caste within a society, but they are less apt to be characterized by cultural distinctiveness than by their self-imposed social segregation. A specialized labor group may operate as a caste within a society otherwise free of such distinctions (e.g., the ironsmiths in parts of Africa). In general, caste functions to maintain the status quo in a society. ... The occupational barriers among Indian castes have been breaking down slowly under economic pressures since the 19th cent., but social distinctions have been more persistent. Attitudes toward the untouchables only began to change in the 1930s under the influence of Mohandas Gandhi's teachings, who called the group Harijans. Although untouchability was declared illegal in 1949, resistance to change has remained strong, especially in rural areas. As increased industrialization produced new occupations and new social and political functions evolved, the caste system adapted and thus far has not been destroyed.


 * See:

Concise Dictionary of Social and Cultural Anthropology
"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).)"
 * References:

The Dictionary of Anthropology
"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 Inden. 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."
 * References:



Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology
"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)."


 * References:
 * Bailey, F. G. 1963. "Closed Social Stratification in India." Archives europeenes de sociologie, 4:107-24. An analysis of the multiple referents of caste in India.
 * Barnett, Steve, et al. 1976. "Hierarchy Purified: Notes on Dumont and His Critics." Journal of Asian Studies, 35:627-46. A defense of Louis Dumont's structuralist-inspired approach to the phenomenon of caste in India.
 * An authoritative survey of ancient India.
 * Berreman, Gerald. 1968. "Caste: Concept of Caste." IESS 2:333-39. Caste is presented as a comparative concept describing extreme social stratification.
 * Emphasizes the relations between caste, economy, and politics.
 * An early yet theoretically sophisticated state-ment
 * An ethnographic classic of South Asia.
 * An essential text; the best introduction to caste in India.
 * Fox, Richard G. 1969. "Varna Schemes and Ideological Integration in Indian Society." Comparative Studies in Society and History 11:27-45.
 * Provides an exhaustive survey of Indian social organization, including family, caste, and kinship, with full bibliography.
 * An excellent, detailed ethnographic study of caste organization in a rural community.
 * Provides an exhaustive survey of Indian social organization, including family, caste, and kinship, with full bibliography.
 * An excellent, detailed ethnographic study of caste organization in a rural community.

The Dictionary of Human Geography
"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."


 * Suggested reading:

Encyclopæida Britannica Online
"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."

References:
 * , is the best general book.

Encyclopedia of Community: From the Village to the Virtual World
Quote: "Theories of Caste A number of scholars, Hindu religious leaders, and commentators have speculated about the origins of the caste system. Weber, Hocart, Dumont, Marriott, Milner, Ghurye, and Srinivas are among the widely discussed group of caste theorists. The theories are complex and wide ranging in scope. and they are presented here in a simplified form. The issues of ritual purity and pollution are attributed to the fact that the four different orders of the society (varnas) originated from different parts of the body, namely, the mouth, arms, thighs, and feet. The hierarchical status and functions of the four varnas have been attributed to this origin. This explanation is too biological and religious in nature to serve as a satisfactory social explanation. Another point of view is presented to explain the definition of the term varna, which means color. The original settlers in India were dark. The group of people who reached India from outside and who gradually conquered the original local inhabitants proceeded to subjugate them to a lower status and to stratify the social system. This theory does not address the problem of the multiplicity of jatis and the absence of such a development in all the other conquered parts of the world. Another explanation takes a conflict perspective and suggests that the system was created and sustained by the monarch of the conquering country as supreme authority. The occupational categories solidified and developed into castes. A different type of explanation posits that to maintain ritual purity, the Brahmans could not associate with unclean occupations. Though widely discussed, both these theories also fail to explain adequately why all the other agricultural nations did not develop such an elaborate caste system. It has also been argued that the colonial rule with its divide-and-conquer policy crystallized already existing caste differences. While this criticism is valid to some extent, evidence provided by early observers, travelers, and writers indicates that many caste divisions and practices were quite inflexible prior to the British rule in India. Another theory argues that the status of a caste conferred social power in India though it was not highly correlated with economic or political power. The status conferred on a caste was dependent on adherence to the social, religious, and cultural norms specific to that particular group. This theory does not provide an adequate explanation for this unique type of a status inconsistency, where power is independent of the usual correlates. In addition, some of the tenets about status as a zero-sum game are open to discussion. There is generally no argument with the criticisms of feminists about patriarchal families and domination of females in the traditional caste system. However, the feminist perspectives do not adequately explain the origin, proliferation, hereditary occupations and purification aspects of the caste phenomenon."


 * Further reading:

Encyclopedia of the Developing World
"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. ..."


 * References and Further Reading:


 * Thorner, Alice, "Caste and History," The Hindu, 4 April 2002.
 * Thorner, Alice, "Caste and History," The Hindu, 4 April 2002.
 * Thorner, Alice, "Caste and History," The Hindu, 4 April 2002.
 * Thorner, Alice, "Caste and History," The Hindu, 4 April 2002.
 * Thorner, Alice, "Caste and History," The Hindu, 4 April 2002.
 * Thorner, Alice, "Caste and History," The Hindu, 4 April 2002.
 * Thorner, Alice, "Caste and History," The Hindu, 4 April 2002.
 * Thorner, Alice, "Caste and History," The Hindu, 4 April 2002.
 * Thorner, Alice, "Caste and History," The Hindu, 4 April 2002.
 * Thorner, Alice, "Caste and History," The Hindu, 4 April 2002.
 * Thorner, Alice, "Caste and History," The Hindu, 4 April 2002.
 * Thorner, Alice, "Caste and History," The Hindu, 4 April 2002.
 * Thorner, Alice, "Caste and History," The Hindu, 4 April 2002.
 * Thorner, Alice, "Caste and History," The Hindu, 4 April 2002.

Encyclopedia of Gender and Society
"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. Sociologists have found the caste system a very difficult and complex to describe because the idea of caste has evolved over time and function differently in various parts of India. However, there are some common features to caste that are easily identified. These include the concepts of purify and pollution that govern interpersonal relationships, including occupation, food, kinship, marriage, and religious rituals. Certain castes are considered more pure than others, and Hindus arc obligated to confine their relationships, especially those pertaining to marriage and food, to their particular caste groups. Although the caste system derives from Hinduism, it also informs the social organization of other religious groups in India, including Jains, Christians, and Muslims. ... Although India today is a secular democratic republic that has constitutionally abolished untouchability, the caste system has not been eradicated. Since independence from the British in 1947, the Indian government has pursued affirmative action (referred to as the 'reservation system') to enable members of economically underprivileged castes to have better access to education and government jobs. The reservation system has been attacked by upper castes as propagating reverse discrimination. Although the caste system has evolved over time and continues to change, it still holds enormous power in daily social life, politics (caste-based parties, voting blocs), and economics in contemporary India."


 * Further Readings:

Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society
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. Caste is unique because it ordains a hierarchy that is based on the extent of purity, or lack of it, that supposedly characterizes the bodily substances of every person. Accordingly, the earliest Hindu text, the Rg Veda (c.1500 BC) puts the Brahmans, as the purest, on top, followed by warriors (Kshatriyas), commoners (Vaisyas), and helots (Sudras) at the bottom. This schematization is known as the Varna system. There is also a fifth category, the Untouchables, but this cluster of castes came to be designated as such much later, perhaps around the 1st or 2nd century AD. In addition, as time went on, the fourfold Varna category in the Rg Veda yielded to hundreds of endogamous units, or jatis. Technically speaking, only the latter are called castes. These units prescribe the frontiers of marriage alliances, and each jati has specific rituals peculiar to itself and, in a large number of cases, a traditional occupation attached to its members. All jatis are regional in character; none of them have have an all-India spread. In fact, most jatis are relevant and recognized only within a radius of about 200 to 300 miles. Caste still continues to function in India as discrete ethnic groups rather than as constituents of a continuous hierarchy of purity in which every Hindu acquiesces. Today, it is possible to say that caste as a system is dying but that identities are alive and well, and it is taking many generations for caste to wither away. Race and Caste: There are clear differences between race and caste. Unlike in race, the physical markers are not visible in caste. The bodily substances that are meant to distinguish between castes are intangible and culturally coded, but the belief is that they can be easily transferred through touch and proximity.Further, caste ideology holds that such commingling of substances pollutes both parties, not just members of the so-called superior caste, though the latter are more seriously affected. This is why the caste order includes strict rules of social intercourse and of sexual /marital relations to ensure that bodily substances of different provenances do not commingle. Each caste has its domain, and it is the duty of everybody in that community to strictly maintain norms regarding pollution. Again, unlike with race, in the caste system, a child whose parents belong to different castes is not considered to carry equal amounts of both substances from the parents, but is characterized by a third.

Further Readings:
 * Babb, Lawrence A. 1998. "Rejecting Violence: Sacrifice and the Social Identity of Trading Communities." Contributions to Indian Sociology, 32:387-407.
 * Jha, Vivekanand. 1975. "Stages in the History of Untouchables." Indian Historical Review, 2:14—31.
 * Marriot, McKim. 1959. "Interactional and Attributional Theory of Caste Ranking." Man in India, 39:92-107.
 * Parry, Jonathan P. 1985. "Ghost, Greed, and Sin: The Occupational Identity of the Benares Funeral Priests." Man, 15:88-111.
 * Jha, Vivekanand. 1975. "Stages in the History of Untouchables." Indian Historical Review, 2:14—31.
 * Marriot, McKim. 1959. "Interactional and Attributional Theory of Caste Ranking." Man in India, 39:92-107.
 * Parry, Jonathan P. 1985. "Ghost, Greed, and Sin: The Occupational Identity of the Benares Funeral Priests." Man, 15:88-111.
 * Jha, Vivekanand. 1975. "Stages in the History of Untouchables." Indian Historical Review, 2:14—31.
 * Marriot, McKim. 1959. "Interactional and Attributional Theory of Caste Ranking." Man in India, 39:92-107.
 * Parry, Jonathan P. 1985. "Ghost, Greed, and Sin: The Occupational Identity of the Benares Funeral Priests." Man, 15:88-111.
 * Parry, Jonathan P. 1985. "Ghost, Greed, and Sin: The Occupational Identity of the Benares Funeral Priests." Man, 15:88-111.

Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology
"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 although analogous forms exist among Muslims, Christians. Sikhs and other religious groups in South Asia. It is an ancient institution, having existed for at least 2,000 years among the Hindus who developed not only elaborate caste practices hut also a complex theory to explain and justify those practices (Dumont 1970). The theory has now lost much of its force although many of the practices continue. ..."

Further reading



Encyclopedia of International Development
"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, it ends with:) Finally, while caste is distinctively Indian in origin, social scientists also often use it to describe inflexible social barriers in other contexts."

Further reading

The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery, Volume 1
"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. (New Paragraph) As the slave trade and transatlantic slavery ended, the number of slaves in African societies increased, es-pecially in those areas where plantations flourished. These slaves began forming a common identity and often acted in concert to achieve certain goals. Control over their daily life was limited, however, because of the power of African monarchs to enforce effective ju-risdiction over their activities. Thus, numerous slave revolts marked late-nineteenth-century Africa. Reforms that slaveowners developed had the effect of making slavery more like a caste status. For example, in Zanzibar, slave families were specifically encouraged, and plots of land were given to nuclear families. This marriage within a group that is tied to a particular oc-cupation is the definition of caste. Moreover, effective legislation granted specific rights to slaves, as in Cal-abar where slaves received immunity from execution. In general, codified rights and duties were attached to slave status, and the position was inherited by a married couple's offspring (Manning, 1990). (New Paragraph) In South Africa and the United States, it can be and has been argued that the relationship between the races had caste-like characteristics. Certainly, both apartheid and segregation had hereditary, rank, religious, endogamous, occupational, and hierarchical as-pects. There was, moreover, a stunning lack of social mobility in both systems and clear aspects of ritual purity tied to contamination beliefs."
 * For Further Reading:
 * McSheffrey, Gerald M. 1983. "Slavery, Indentured Servitude, Legitimate Trade, and the Impact of Abolition in the Gold Coast, 1874-1901: A Reappraisal." Journal of African History, 24: 349-368;

International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (2008)
"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)"


 * References:


 * Berreman, Gerald. 1960. "Caste in India and the United States," American Journal of Sociology, 66 (2): 120–127.
 * Berreman, Gerald. 1972. "Race, Caste, and Other Invidious Distinctions in Social Stratification," Race 13 (4): 385–414.
 * Béteille, André. 1996. "Varna and Jati," Sociological Bulletin, 45 (1): 15–28.
 * Deccan Herald. 2006. "An Arranged Love Marriage." June 26.
 * Deshpande, Ashwini. 2002. "Assets versus Autonomy? The Changing Face of the Gender-Caste Overlap in India." Feminist Economist 8 (2): 19–35.
 * Shah, A. M. 2005. "Sanskritization Revisited." Sociological Bulletin, 54 (2): 31–39.
 * Srinivas, M. N. 1962.
 * Shah, A. M. 2005. "Sanskritization Revisited." Sociological Bulletin, 54 (2): 31–39.
 * Srinivas, M. N. 1962.
 * Shah, A. M. 2005. "Sanskritization Revisited." Sociological Bulletin, 54 (2): 31–39.
 * Srinivas, M. N. 1962.
 * Shah, A. M. 2005. "Sanskritization Revisited." Sociological Bulletin, 54 (2): 31–39.
 * Srinivas, M. N. 1962.
 * Srinivas, M. N. 1962.

International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (2008)-related article
Quote: "The Ritual Consensus: Speculative histories and detailed catalogues of caste-based customs dominated colonial anthropology until systematic village-based fieldwork in the 1950s looked at these customs' everyday context to see how caste actually worked. That more sophisticated approach, which the influential Indian anthropologist M. N. Srinivas exemplified, helped undermine stereotypes of caste society as static and passively determined by religious ideology. Srinivas showed that wealth and physical force often trumped mere ritual (1959), and that, although an individual's ritual status was indeed fixed by their jati, whole jatis could sometimes increase their status by adopting the customs of higher-ranked castes (1956). Srinivas's important insights nevertheless remained within the received picture of the caste system as an essentially religious affair by treating the control of land and servile labor, merchant capital, the state, and sheer physical dominance—all of which were termed secular—as extrinsic factors that might interact with caste, but were not an inherent part of it. (New paragraph) The tendency to idealize caste as inherently distinct from these less exotic aspects of social reality was taken to a new extreme by French sociologist Louis Dumont, whose Homo Hierarchicus went so far as to attack empiricism itself as 'Westernistic' and therefore incapable of grasping caste's true, Indian essence (1980 [19661, p. 32). ... Dumont's brilliant synthesis of the existing scholarship made Homo Hierarchicus a standard reference for all future discussions of caste, despite disagreement over its visionary epistemology. At one extreme, American anthropologist McKim Marriott (1976) embraced an all-determining cultural hiatus between India and the West even more absolute than Dumont's, for the secular factors Dumont had merely downgraded to a subordinate level were dissolved entirely in Marriott's ethnosociology&mdash;an account built completely on native categories, thereby consigning non-culturally recognized reality to theoretical oblivion. On the other side, many sober-minded anthropologists continued to regard both secular realities and caste ideology as a matter of empirical inquiry, while nevertheless accepting the culturalist definition of caste as ritual order."


 * Bibliography:
 * Berreman, Gerald D. 1971. "The Brahmannical View of Caste." Contributions to Indian Sociology, n.s., 5: 16–23. (Also in Caste and Other Inequities: Essays on Inequality, ed. Gerald D. Berreman, 155–163. Meerut, India: Folklore Institute, 1971.)
 * Cohn, Bernard. 1984. "The Census, Social Structure, and Objectification in South Asia." Folk, 26: 25–49. (Also in An Anthropologist among the Historians and Other Essays, ed. Bernard Cohn, 224–254. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.)
 * Dumont, Louis. 1958. "A. M. Hocart on Caste: Religion and Power." Contributions to Indian Sociology, 2: 45–63.
 * (Originally published as Homo hierarchicus: Le système des castes et ses implications (Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1964)).
 * Srinivas, M. N. 1956. "A Note on Sanskritization and Westernization." The Far Eastern Quarterly, 15 (4): 481–496.
 * Srinivas, M. N. 1959. "The Dominant Caste in Rampura." American Anthropologist, n.s., 61 (1): 1–16.
 * (Originally published as Homo hierarchicus: Le système des castes et ses implications (Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1964)).
 * Srinivas, M. N. 1956. "A Note on Sanskritization and Westernization." The Far Eastern Quarterly, 15 (4): 481–496.
 * Srinivas, M. N. 1959. "The Dominant Caste in Rampura." American Anthropologist, n.s., 61 (1): 1–16.
 * Srinivas, M. N. 1956. "A Note on Sanskritization and Westernization." The Far Eastern Quarterly, 15 (4): 481–496.
 * Srinivas, M. N. 1959. "The Dominant Caste in Rampura." American Anthropologist, n.s., 61 (1): 1–16.
 * Srinivas, M. N. 1956. "A Note on Sanskritization and Westernization." The Far Eastern Quarterly, 15 (4): 481–496.
 * Srinivas, M. N. 1959. "The Dominant Caste in Rampura." American Anthropologist, n.s., 61 (1): 1–16.

International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences

 * Caste as the Ideology of Indian society: Louis Dumont's (1980) Homo Hierarchicus has long been regarded as an outstanding contribution to the understanding of caste. Dumont argued that principles of hierarchy and holism were central for explaining the caste system. The principle of hierarchy in India. he proposed, was based upon the religious opposition between pure and impure pollution incurred in the biological processes of life and death was removed in India not through processes of reciprocity (I bury your dead—you bury mine) but through principles of hierarchy. The task of removal of pollution was assigned to the lower castes who became permanently imbued with it. Thus the separation between castes as well as their hierarchical ordering could be derived from the opposition between pure and impure. The scheme had the simplicity and elegance to make the bewildering diversity of Indian civilization immediately knowable, especially to Western readers. Dumont's characterization of Indian society has been challenged on the ground that what he saw as a timeless ideology was itself a result of certain practices of classification and enumeration instituted in the context of colonial administration that gave a domi-nant place to Brahmanical texts as representatives of Indian society. An important intervention made by McKim Marriott (1990) needs mention here. Marriott provided a significant alternative to Dumont's formulation. arguing that different transactional strate-gies defined the position of different castes it was not a simple case of hierarchy versus equality hut rather of a universe governed by a complex set of rules and strategies reaarding, matching, mixina, and marking, through which different regional and local configurations of castes were generated. What was at stake for both Dumont and Marriott. despite their differences, was the representation of India as the 'other' of the modern West. They were much less interested in either the concrete historical processes through which insti-tutions were formed or the contemporary changes in the caste system. It is instructive to compare this with the way that caste was rendered in the work of the Indian anthropologist, M. N. Srinivas. Srinivas's stake in the local and his deep concern with the way caste was shaping Indian democratic politics distinguish him from these authors. ....


 * Bibliography:


 * Ambedkar B R 1946 What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables. Thacker. Bombay. India
 * Appadurai A 1996 Number in the colonial imagination. In: Appadurai A Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, pp.114-39
 * MeiIle A 1996 Caste in contemporary India. In: Fuller C J (ed.) Caste Today. Oxford University Press. Delhi. India
 * Charsley S 1996 'Untouchable': What is in the name? Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute 2: 1-23
 * Cohn B S 1984 The census, social structure and objectification in South Asia. Folk 26: 25-49
 * Deliege R 1992 Replication and consensus: Untouchability, caste and ideology in India. Man 27: 155-73
 * Dirks N B 1992 Castes of mind. Representations 37: 56-78
 * Dumont L 1980 Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and its Implications. University of Chicago Press. Chicago
 * Dushkin L 1972 Scheduled caste politics. In: Mahar J M (ed.) The Untouchables in Contemporary India. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. AZ
 * Galanter M 1972 The abolition of disabilities: Untouchability and the law. In: Mahar J M (ed.) The Untouchables in Contemporary India. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ
 * Gandhi M K 1954 The Removal of Untouchability. Navajivan Press, Ahmadabad. India
 * Ghurye G S 1932 Caste and Race in India. Kegan Paul. London
 * Khare R S 1984 The Untouchable as HUnself: Ideology, Identitv and Pragmatism Among the Lucknow Chamars. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. UK
 * Kothari R 1970 Caste in Indian Politics. Orient Longmans. Delhi, India
 * Marriott M (ed.) 1990 India Through Hindu Categories. Sage. Delhi, India
 * Muru2kar L 1991 Dalit Panther Movement in Maharashtra: A Sociological Appraisal. Popular Prakashan. Bombay. India
 * Omvedt G 1995 Dalit Visions: The Anti-Caste Movement and the Construction of an Indian Identity. Orient Longman. New Delhi. India
 * Risley H R [1908] 1969 The People of India.. Oriental Books, New Delhi. India
 * Smith R S 1986 "Rule-by-records and rule-by-reports: Complementary aspects of the British imperial rule of law." Contributions to Indian Sociology, 19(1): 153-76.
 * Srinivas, M. N. 1971 Social Change in Modern India. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA

Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions
"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. The word (from the Portuguese casta, meaning 'race' or 'lineage') was first applied to Indian society by Portuguese travelers in the 16th century. A roughly analogous word used in many Indian languages is JATI ('birth group'). There are about 3,000 castes and more than 25,000 subcastes in India, some with several hundred members and others with millions. .... (Note: the rest of the article describes the caste system in India.)"
 * No references:

A New Dictionary of the Social Sciences
"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."
 * Reference:

OED
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."
 * References: None

Penguin dictionary of sociology
"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 ...."


 * Reference:

Social Science Encyclopedia
"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. ..."


 * References:
 * Berreman. G.D. (1960) 'Caste in India and the United States', American Journal of Sociology, 66.
 * (Original French edn. Essais sur le regime des castes, Paris.)

Webster's Unabridged
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, ...."
 * References: None

Preliminary conclusions
Here are the top five authors:
 * Louis Dumont (13)
 * M. N. Srinivas (12)
 * André Béteille (9)
 * Gerald Berreman (6)
 * McKim Marriott (4)

Others, who are mentioned in the tertiary sources themselves as the influential theorists of caste are: Max Weber, Emile Senart (Les Castes dans L'Inde, 1894), Célestin Bouglé (1927), Georges Dumézil, G. S. Ghurye, Edmund Leach, F. G. Bailey, J. C. Heesterman, Ronald Inden, Stanley Tambiah, R. S. Khare, Veena Das, Jonathan Parry, T. N. Madan, Richard Burghart. The redlinks should have their own pages; there are manifold scholarly references attesting to their notability. Doubtless there are others that will be ferreted out upon more careful reading of the sources. Some books, such as Dumont's Homo Hierarchicus have become classics of the field, and will likely need individual attention and brief description. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  19:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS There is also the literature of allied fields, such as: extreme (caste-like) social stratification. There are a handful of authors there that will also need to be mentioned.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Tertiaries on caste or caste-like structures outside India or Hinduism
Here are some excerpts. Note that they are usually "brief mentions" in articles longer articles that mostly talk about India, so please don't use these to rekindle the old debate about whether or not India is critical to the notion of caste.

-- ---
 * Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology: 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.
 * Columbia encyclopedia: A specialized labor group may operate as a caste within a society otherwise free of such distinctions (e.g., the ironsmiths in parts of Africa).
 * A Dictionary of Anthropology: 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).

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? ... An essentially homologous structure of social relations based on different symbolic principles can be seen in Swat (Pakistan), where ideas of honor and shame replace those of purity and pollution. Barth (1971) among others would argue that this is a form of caste system. Yet Swat remains at the borders of Indian civilization: whether caste phenomena can be found entirely outside the South Asian culture sphere remains a fundamental point of controversy (see Barnett et al. 1976; Berreman 1968; see also INEQUALITY).
 * Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology:


 * Barnett, Steve, et al. 1976. "Hierarchy Purified: Notes on Dumont and His Critics." Journal of Asian Studies, 35:627-46. A defense of Louis Dumont's structuralist-inspired approach to the phenomenon of caste in India.
 * Berreman, Gerald. 1968. "Caste: Concept of Caste." IESS 2:333-39. Caste is presented as a comparative concept describing extreme social stratification.
 * Berreman, Gerald. 1968. "Caste: Concept of Caste." IESS 2:333-39. Caste is presented as a comparative concept describing extreme social stratification.


 * Encyclopedia of Community: It is so entrenched that the features of the caste system can be found among members of other religious castes in India, even though Islam and Christianity are not supposed to have caste features. The caste system also exists in neighboring countries like Nepal and Bangladesh. Hindus have migrated and settled down around the world in a number of countries, including Africa, Latin America, Europe. and Asia. In these places. the caste system has been preserved in a revised form, one that is usually more flexible. Some groups outside India have also been mentioned as having castelike features. The Wolof in Senegal and Gambia have been described as castelike based on their elaborate hierarchical occupational strata. The status of the Burakumin Dowa) in Japan and the Rodiya in Sri Lanka was thought to be similar in some aspects to the lowest castes in India. The race relations between whites and African Americans in the United States in the past has been described as a caste system based on a rigid hereditary demarcation, prohibition of intermarriage between the two groups, and limited social mobility for the minorities.

--- (Note: the description here is very dated. The article itself is not that old, and the author seems to be an expert on the Caste system in India, but it also seems that the author has copied the "Caste system in the World" section (probably not his interest) from 1930s sources.  That explains dated terminology such as "East Horn," "Tussi," swineherds, ...
 * Encyclopedia of the Developing World:

The caste system is a complex one composed of several Hindu ideas, namely, pollution, purity, and social units of jatis, varna, and dharma (religious duties). The system is, however not typical to Hindus alone but is common among Muslims, Christians, and Jews with relative variations. Muslim caste for instance differs from the Hindu caste wherein no ethico-religious ideas of hierarchy or regulation of intercaste relations are found. In addition, no varna categories are spotted among the Muslims (Srinivas 1965). ... Although the caste system is found in various forms in different parts or the world, including Asia and Africa, India is known for both its origin and its rigorous practice.

Caste system in the world: The caste system, albeit not in the way it is practised in India, is observed in several countries but in variant forms. The Spartan division of the society into citi-zens, helots, and slaves shows the signs of a caste system. In the Roman Empire, there were patricians, plebeians, and slaves. These classifications, however, were on the basis of land holding and wealth, not on the criteria of the Indian caste system (Kroeber 1930). Some, like Lloyd Warner, describe the blacks and whites in the United States as caste groups rather than races because they are socially and not biologically defined categories (Beteile 1992). Bourdieu referred to the racial divide between whites and Muslims in colonial Algeria as a caste system.

Caste-like groupings also exist in China and Madagascar ( Bayly 2000). In both South Africa and the southern United States, caste has been used to explain the systems of racial stratification (Ida 1992). In Fiji, there are chieftains associated with their own clans who have a specific function to perform. These castes are graded according to their functions. Burma under the Burmese monarchy had seven distinct classes of outcastes: Pagoda slaves, profes-sional beggars, executioners, lepers, deformed and mutilated persons, and coffinmakers. Each of them had specific functions (occupations) and positions in the society. People from these outcaste classes could not enter a monarchy or become Buddhist monks (Hutton 19461. Japan is often referred to as "a land of caste" though a clear hereditary or occupational distinction is not made out (Kroeber 1930). Japan's bushido code defines a hierarchy consisting of warriors (samurai), commoners, merchants, and untouchables: this hierarchy more or less resembles the Varna system of India. But this hierarchy is not associated with the proliferation of smaller caste groups (Bayly 2000). The Eta in Japan constitutes a community of outcastes, who reside on the fringes of the Japanese society. They are considered subhuman, wear distinctive clothing, and have no social activities with other classes. Though the Japanese government had abolished all such feudal discrimination way back in 1871, the position of Eta in the society has not improved. They are still being discriminated against at school, at places of employment, and in trade and marriage (Hutton 1946). In Africa, among the Masai, there is a tribe of hunters called Wandorobo. Resemblances to a typical caste system are found in the modern Africa, too. Among the Somali of the East Horn, there are certain outcaste classes of Tomal, Yebir, and Misgan. Pollution and taboo are common among them. The ease is no different in East Africa either. In the Rwanda and Burundi regions, there are three racially and econom-ically distinct groups. namely the Tussi, Hutu, and Twa. With the Twa, no Hutu or Tussi will enter into marriage. The Tussi look down on the Hutu for eating mutton and goat-fish. In the lbo society, a group of people called Osu offer similarities to a caste group. The Osu became a class apart and live in segregated areas. Calling anyone an Osu is an insult. Among the Jews and Gypsies, the system is in vogue. In Egypt, the fighting men were divided into two categories. They were for generations, not allowed to learn and practice any other craft or trade. The swineherds in Egypt were not granted permission to enter temples. Being a priest was also a hereditary occupation. Herodotus mentions seven "clans" of priests, as well as fighting men, herdsmen, swineherds, tradesmen, interpreters, and navigators in Egypt. There are also classes of craftsmen, farmers, and artificers in Egypt that were hereditary and compulsory. As it is clear, caste is being practiced in several parts of the world in varying forms. However, the most rigorous form of its practice is observed in southern Asia, specifically in India.

-
 * International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (2008): (This I believe is a more accurate assessment of the literature.)

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries Britain, the colonial ruler of India, encouraged Indians to migrate to its other colonies in the Caribbean and Africa as indentured laborers in its bid to maintain its economic success. Most of the Indians who chose to migrate were members of lower castes who saw migration as an opportunity for upward mobility. Although the first generation of immigrants tended to retain their caste identities, particularly in matters of marriage and religious rites (Schwartz 1967), subsequent generations did not, because of the assimilative nature of economic, political, and juridical forces (Motwani, Gosine, and Barot-Motwani 1993; Gosine and Narine 1999). Caste cannot be easily transplanted to an environment where Hinduism is not the operative religion.
 * CASTE OUTSIDE INDIA:

Systems of stratification comparable to the Indian caste system have been identified in other parts of the world. For example, in Nigeria the relations between the Ibo and Osu groups are similar to those of upper and lower castes. In Somalia a social group called Midgam or Madibhan suffers from all the impediments that Dalits experience: impurity, pollution, and social distance. The Burakumin of Japan have been compared with the Dalits, as they have faced similar restrictions. These restrictions were outlawed in 1871, but, as in the case of Dalits, discrimination continues, especially in matters of employment and marriage (Henshall 1999). These dichotomous divisions, however, do not come close to the intricate caste system. At best, they compare two opposite ends of caste system with another system similar to it, ignoring the middle, wherein lies the heart of caste system.

Even though there have been stout rejections of the claim that caste can be equated with race (see, among others, Gupta 2001) purely on the grounds of universal practices of discrimination based on ascription, scholars such as Gerald Berreman (1960; 1972) have attempted to compare American blacks to untouchable castes in India. However, the black-white dichotomous system in the United States differs from the fourfold caste system in India in that it is ordained not by religious considerations, but by economic and social ones (Cox 1948).

Nearly all societies are stratified in one way or another, and some groups will always be relegated to the margins. However, the Indian caste system is unique because of its complexity, its religious foundation, its hereditary occupational system, and its norms of endogamy. More important, caste has served to energize Indian polity because it has been a primary means of motivating and mobilizing citizens to take part in electoral politics. Perhaps that has been a positive aspect of caste in Indian society, but the time may come to look for other means of motivating the electorate in India.

-- Will add more later. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Last updated:  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Berreman, Gerald. 1960. "Caste in India and the United States," American Journal of Sociology, 66 (2): 120–127.
 * Berreman, Gerald. 1972. "Race, Caste, and Other Invidious Distinctions in Social Stratification," Race 13 (4): 385–414.

RfC: Does the article minimize the centrality of India to the notion of caste?
The tertiary sources are largely agreed that Hindu India is central to a discussion of caste. Yet in this article (see this version) India is casually mentioned as just one example. Does this article minimize that central role (in a social and historical ill) and thereby engage in a kind of defensive universalism, not to mention original research and synthesis? 13:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Per WP:RFC guideline, I note that this RfC is improperly worded. Here is an alternate statement: The tertiary sources on the subject of caste largely admit dispute (see here). Some tertiary sources on caste focus primarily on Latin America or Africa, some focus primarily on India, and many tertiary sources discuss caste as a worldwide phenomenon. Beyond tertiary sources, numerous peer reviewed secondary source publications, highly cited per citation index scores, overwhelmingly note that caste is not unique to India and it is a socio-cultural phenomena widely observed in the world. Wikipedia has a family of interlinked articles on caste, including one exclusively on Caste system in India and numerous articles related to the subject. Does it make sense to ignore thousands of scholarly articles on caste and its history around the world, and reduce this article to something that essentially duplicates the article Caste system in India (Fowler&fowler has linked to an old version of this article above, for this RfC purposes please see the pre-RfC September 3 2012 version of this article here)? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Fowler&fowler removed the above. I re-added this because the official WP:RFC states this: If you feel a RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. FWIW, your time stamp is preserved above. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The RfC guidelines also say at the very outset: "Keep the RfC statement simple and succinct as possible." Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS I referred respondents to the version of the page that existed before I edited the article. The difference is only in the first two sentences.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: I will be inviting some Wikipedia editors who have experience in either Reliable Sources discussions or Caste discussions on Wikipedia. These are User:Fifelfoo, User:Qwyrxian, user:Dbachmann, and User:MatthewVanitas. Whether they will respond is anybody's guess. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  22:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC) ---

I don't quite understand the problem. Nobody is going to dispute that the concept of "caste" (by which we mean not just varna, but primarily jati) is central to Indian society. This doesn't mean that the entire India article needs to focus on the topic, but obviously it is going to be a major topic under the "Society" header, per WP:SS a summary of the subordinate articles. --dab (𒁳) 06:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No Dab, it is not about the India article; it is about this, the Caste, article in which a mere 478 words out of 9,443 are devoted to India. Even that content spends some of its time mentioning caste in non-South Asian cultures. This has been a POV pushed long on Wikipedia by nationalist editors, who attempt to universalize India's perceived social ills (and reel in Pakistan, Bangladesh, ..., Europe, Latin America, East Asia, ....   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No Fowler&fowler, this is not about nationalists, this is about Pakistani anglo Indians trying to project Hindus in bad light by duplicating info in multiple articles and by making it appear that caste does not exist outside India when it does exist in diverse parts of the world.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Ratnakar.kulkarni
I don't think that there is any debate about existence of caste system among Hindus in India but even according to your source (which are tertiary references while we need secondary) caste system very much exists outside India. You just cannot cherry pick your favorite source and change the lead of the article and make it look like the article of "Caste System of India". Please note this is a general article if you say that it is dominant in India mention you can do it in a better way. I should appreciate you audacity. You are trying to fool people by writing Caste a complex social institution characterized by endogamy, hereditary transmission of occupation, and status in a hierarchy, which is especially important in the lives of Hindus in India.--sarvajna (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I wholly concur. The fact of the matter is that the much touted tertiary sources don't seem to contradict our stance, rather many corroborate what we have been saying all along, that yes Caste-system was and is a problem in Hinduism/Indian society but social stratification is present outside of Hinduism or India also. Repeating the same claims again and again, is not really helpful when they are either accepted or replied to or rebutted. That is the problem with Fowler. Mrt  3366   (Talk page?)   15:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well if social stratification exists outside India, then put that content in the page social stratification. If social segregation exists outside India, put that content in social segregation.  If racial segregation exists outside India, put that content in racial segregation.  If racial discrimination exists outside India, put that content in racial discrimination.  If social hierarchy exists outside India, put that content in the page social hierarchy.  Why are you stuffing the garbage in Caste?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler you have made a very good move and have proposed things (below), looks very progressive. Good that you are moving away from the stand that Caste is just a Hindu thing(atleast that is how it looks). May be you are frustrated which can be clearly seen in your comments. Stop calling the opinion of other editors as garbage and do not consider yourself as the sole representative of truth and verifiability. If you are tired and want to blow off steam take some rest.--sarvajna (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the language. It wasn't the opinion of editors, but rather the content that I characterize so.  The content is not about "caste" in most cases, but rather about social stratification, social segregation or hierarchy in which the word "caste" may or may not have been used (and sometimes casually when it is).  In other words, the major portion of the article is an exercise in en mass original research.  I challenge you to find one article anywhere (in the electronic or print scholarship) that has such a universal treatment of caste. I have never said that caste in only seen within Hinduism, but rather that Hindu India is the classic, the main, and the most frequently cited example of it.  As such, it should receive proportionate treatment in Wikipedia's flagship article on caste.  It shouldn't be that the Caste in Korea section is longer than the Caste in India section, that the caste in Europe section is five times as long as the Caste in South Asia section.  I have proposed the spinouts in order that the other sections can be drastically reduced in size.  The problem with the massive original research and synthesis will remain, but will then be the province of the spinout articles.  Here we can include only what is rigorously cited and synthesis-free.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS I should add that the word "caste" has been used much more in the context of Racial segregation in the United States than any society in Europe. Yet that section, "Caste in the United States" is conspicuously absent, as is obviously the article Caste in the United States.  (The topic is only briefly discussed in the context of Gunnar Myrdal's book in an abstract section later.) The reason for this, I suspect, is that it would be an obvious content fork of the racial segregation article and be immediately pounced upon.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of your points mentioned above(something that happens very rarely). caste system in Hinduism is a classic example lets give give weight but that doesn't mean we mention it in very first line Caste a complex social institution characterized by endogamy, hereditary transmission of occupation, and status in a hierarchy, which is especially important in the lives of Hindus in India. As correctknowledge mentioned below we can still keep India under Asia section as it would be more logical also we can expand the India section.--sarvajna (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * :) That's why I didn't revert Mrt3366's reversal of my first sentence. (That doesn't of course mean that I agree with the current first two sentences, which seem to imply that India is the most frequently contested ethnographic example of caste).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by CorrectKnowledge
Before we go off into a tangential direction, let me point out that this is technical issue rather than a NPOV/balance related issue. India like Yemen, Korea etc. has just one section in this article even though it is a predominant example of caste because of the summary style of writing articles. The content on India is just a summary of Caste system in India, History of the Indian caste system, Varna (Hinduism) etc. which in turn branch out into hundreds of other articles on caste. As such the size of the section cannot be longer than a certain limit for this article. I don't see where the problem is, please clarify further if I've missed something. Regards. Correct Knowledge «৳alk»  14:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ratnakar.kulkarni and CorrectKnowledge. Per WP:SS official wiki guidelines, "a fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it."
 * I plan to add a few points and a summary comparison between tertiary sources not previously covered.
 * Meanwhile, anyone who has not followed the discussion on this topic since early August, is urged to get the full history and consequent development of this article by reading this discussion and the last version of this article dated September 3 2012.
 * ApostleVonColorado (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, CorrectKnowledge, it is not even remotely a technical issue. It is one of creating a content fork so that the content of this article can be distorted.  See Content_forking, which states, "the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking."  The caste system in India section is not even remotely a NPOV summary of the Caste system in India article; for it to be so, it will need to be much longer, if not longer than all the other caste systems combined.  Besides many subsections, such as Korea, have their own parent articles, yet the "Caste system in Korea" subsection is longer than the India subsection.  The combined length of the content under "East Asia" is not much smaller than the article Caste system in India; one could easily create an article "Caste system in East Asia" and summarize it here in a proportionate one small paragraph.  Notice also that an article Caste system in East Asia would have a hard time passing any AfD discussion; yet here is is blithely masquerading as "legitimate" content.  If you disagree, try creating such an article.  Same with "Caste in Europe."  Try creating that article.  The Europe section certainly has article length content under it.  If it survives AfD, I'll eat my hat; yet that content is alive and well in this page.  Notice also that many of the sub sections are simply titled "England," "Korea," etc, not "Caste in England," "Caste in Korea," etc. that is because many of the reference cited do not use the word "caste" at all.  They simply talk of some form of social stratification.  That is the major original research part of this article, which I haven't even particularly talked about.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sections shouldn't be named Caste in England etc. per MOS:HEAD (Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article), but I catch your drift. There seem to be two different issues here: a)The summaries of spinouts of India, Korea etc. do not accurately represent them, b)Some sections contain original research and/or misrepresent their sources. I am not sure how this RfC will help, it seems a bit premature. The issues need to be discussed separately and in detail. Some of the sections in this article cannot be spun out into new articles, but that does not make their inclusion here questionable (unless they violate WP:OR of course). You are also implying that India's section should have the longest length in this article. That need not be the case because editors do not predetermine the size of content they are adding to the article. It flows naturally from the number of reliable secondary sources available and the directions on splitting out into a new article. The smaller size of India's section does not necessarily imply that it is unbalanced. However, if it does not accurately represent the spun out articles it requires further discussion. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  15:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I encourage Fowler&fowler to identify sources supporting his assertion:
 * ....'that is because many of the reference cited do not use the word "caste" at all.'

A while ago, I verified the sources cited in this article's section on England, Korea, France, Africa, Yemen, China, etc. and each source I checked did use the word caste. FWIW, the article Caste system in India and numerous linked and sub-linked spin-off articles therein, taken together, is many many times larger than this article. They had grown to be much larger than they are now, and were heavily trimmed per consensus (see talk page of Caste system in India, for example). ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Very simple solution. Why don't you try creating the article, Caste in Europe, the content here is some ten times as long as the India section.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "India like Yemen, Korea etc. has just one section in this article even though it is a predominant example of caste because of the summary style of writing articles." - yup. But the thing is India is predominantly cited as an example . India is not the only example, keep that in mind. Mrt  3366   (Talk page?)   16:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As for your other assertion, ApostlevonColorado, hah, it is hard to figure out where "caste" is mentioned because in many instances (eg citations 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128) you don't provide any page numbers whatsoever in the references. Are you saying the word caste occurs somewhere in the 300 page book.  How were you able to verify that?  By going through every page in the book?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Creating an article on Caste in Europe might not be a bad idea at all. It is the only major section to not have a spin out. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  16:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think sooner or later one ought to create it. Mrt  3366   (Talk page?)   16:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ApostlevonColorado, reference number 114 is a New York Times article about the Cagots from 1888, which uses only the word "outcast," (not the word "outcaste").  "Caste" doesn't seem to make an appearance, in this highly dated (and obviously unreliable) reference.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

See citation 14, for Cagots, by Tom Knox (10 June 2010). "The untouchables of FRANCE: How swarthy Pyrenean race persecuted for centuries are still being abused today". London: Daily Mail. He uses the word caste in paragraphs 25-40. The New York Times meet wiki's reliable source guidelines, is included as a second independent source; the NYTimes article verifies the 'Cagots were considered repulsive, morally impure and shunned' part of the summary. On Roma, see Lemon's book and other publications - you will find she uses the word caste. Your own tertiary sources, listed above on this talk page, mention gypsies/Roma people have been described as castes by various scholars. Yes, please get the book and read the sources. I am certain that you will find the sources cited about castes outside India, in this article, include the word "caste".

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it is reference 116. I am not talking about the article Cagots, but the lead paragraph of the section Caste and its reference 116.  It is unsupported by any other reference and doesn't mention caste.  The very next reference 117,, which is cited again in the England section, seems to make no mention of the word "caste," at least the Google search fails to find the word.  How many examples do you want me to find?  These are just random two.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that the New York Times from 1888, with a 150 year old printer typeface to boot, is a reliable source per Wikipedia guidelines? Would you like to debate that on the Reliable Sources talk page?  Please read it again.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS It is not even the New York Times; it is the Times quoting Popular Science (formerly the Popular Science Montly).  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I was also referring to Caste. The first time citation 116 is mentioned in that section of this article, it is mentioned together with citation 14. Please read both, I do not want to repeat my explanation above. Gotlieb supports the summary; get the book and read it. On England or Cagots or anything else, if the quality of this article would be improved by citing additional sources, we can work towards that goal. There are numerous citations out there that use the word caste in describing historical England, Cagots, etc.

Meanwhile, part of our month long dispute is whether this article should be almost entirely about India (your position as I understand it), or should it be a more balanced article with worldwide perspective as described by all sides of the WP:RS scholarly dispute on the subject of caste (my position). I request that you respect the WP:DR process. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since when did the Daily Mail supported by a 130 year old article from the Popular Science Monthly which uses "cretin" to describe congenital hypothyroidism become a Wikipedia reliable source? Your admonitions for etiquette notwithstanding, I am far from simply suggesting that this article can be improved by finding better sources, I am rather suggesting that you have engaged in en masse original research in much of the article.  "Get the book and read it," is not an adequate response in the face of such a serious allegation, especially when a book (Gottlieb)  which never uses the word "caste" once is used in a citation which does not provide page numbers.  Lastly, let me suggest that you make a separate statement here, a response to the RfC statement, rather than carry on an endless dialog with me in a subsection meant for someone else's statement.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Apostlevoncolorado, it is best not to change the article for the duration of the RfC. It becomes very difficult for the people who are commenting as they have a moving target.  Please self-revert your Cagots edits.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler&fowler - I did not change the content, simply added two citations for WP:V - one book and one peer reviewed journal article citation that address your concern above. If there is an official wiki policy that suggests wiki contributors should not add citations to address verifiability concerns during RfC, please link the relevant page below. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In an article, in which much of the criticism is about original research and, consequently about the sourcing, it is not a good idea to keep changing the sourcing.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Mrt3366
I didn't have time to go through all of the sources and frankly I think its sheer redundancy puts it close to the category of WP:TLDR.

But from a cursory glance I can tell most of the tertiary sources that were deposited agree on one thing nearly all societies have had some form of social stratification, whether ascriptive or achieved, based on race, class, religion, ethnicity, language, education, or occupation. But they also claim, what we already accepted, that the caste system is a complicated problem in India is possibly the most complex and rigid. But we have already accepted that. How many times does the nominator want to make us repeat that? What's wrong with you (Fowler) buddy? Mrt  3366   (Talk page?)   15:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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, why so? Why is fowler so eager to ascribe 'castus' - (latin word meaning segregation) mostly to Hinduism as well as Hindu culture? Mrt 3366   (Talk page?)   16:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The tertiary sources, whose content you distort in summary, consider India, especially Hindu India, to be the classic and most frequently cited (and some say only) ethnographic example of the caste system. As such it should be given major emphasis and space in this article.  Instead, this article after a transparently perfunctory discussion of India under "South Asia," moves on to spend more time on the section Caste, which, it turns out, is longer than the parent article it cites, Caste system in Africa!!! What do you call that other than content-forking?  This article is not about social segregation, which has its own article.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "The tertiary sources, whose content you distort in summary" - I didn't quote anything, that's my personal observation so where does this "distort" come from? Change your habit of assuming bad faith. Yes, I do it too sometimes, I know it's hard but at least try, okay? Mrt  3366   (Talk page?)   06:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by ApostleVonColorado Section created by Fowler&fowler

 * Per WP:RFC guideline, I note that this RfC is improperly worded. Here is an alternate statement: The tertiary sources on the subject of caste largely admit dispute (see here). Some tertiary sources on caste focus primarily on Latin America or Africa, some focus primarily on India, and many tertiary sources discuss caste as a worldwide phenomenon. Beyond tertiary sources, numerous peer reviewed secondary source publications, highly cited per citation index scores, overwhelmingly note that caste is not unique to India and it is a socio-cultural phenomena widely observed in the world. Wikipedia has a family of interlinked articles on caste, including one exclusively on Caste system in India and numerous articles related to the subject. Does it make sense to ignore thousands of scholarly articles on caste and its history around the world, and reduce this article to something that essentially duplicates the article Caste system in India (Fowler&fowler has linked to an old version of this article above, for this RfC purposes please see the pre-RfC September 3 2012 version of this article here)? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you can't change the wording of the RfC. You can make your objections here.  Please don't be disruptive.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I linked it to the version that existed before I made a contribution and before the dispute began, the version we were disputing but in which I was not able to make my contribution as a result of your edit warring, not just once, but twice, especially after you made spurious implications in edit summaries about Andre Beteille's "village focused study," when his definition is quoted in the article on caste in the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler&fowler - Please do not delete, pretend to be me, or edit my sections on my behalf. It is uncivil. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Fowler&fowler
Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  20:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The main problem with this article is that of due weight.
 * 2) Wikipedia policy clearly states, (See WP:TERTIARY): ": Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." In other words, we, as individual editors or as a group, cannot evaluate the weight of scholarly opinion ourselves, we have to rely on scholarly sources to do that.  Typically, tertiary sources&mdash;other encyclopedias, specialist references (e.g. Oxford Dictionary of Sociology), review-of-the-literature articles in journals, and widely used academic textbooks published by academic presses&mdash;do just that. (The h-index or impact factor are relevant when evaluating the reliability of a secondary source, however they do not play a role in due weight.)
 * 3) Reliably published tertiary sources overwhelmingly state that India is the classic, the paradigmatic, and the most frequently cited ethnographic example of Caste. The reliably published tertiary sources spend at least half their content on the Indian caste system.  This article, in its current form, devotes more space to each of the caste systems in Korea, China, and England, than it does on India.
 * 4) No one is suggesting that this article focus exclusively on India, but the coverage of India needs to be significantly expanded, that is, in proportion with its coverage in the tertiary literature. The importance of India needs to be clearly acknowledged, not ambiguously and grudgingly, as in the obviously false statement in the lead, "caste ... whose frequently identified and frequently contested ethnographic examples are those of the Hindu caste system of India." cited to a very dated article from 1960.  Even this acknowledgment was a response to my input in the article.  Before I intervened in August, the lead was blithely traipsing through generalities, mentioning "Hindu" for the first time as an afterthought, as in, "The use of a caste system is not unique to any religion. Castes have been observed in societies that are, for example, predominantly Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist."  (See, here.)
 * 5) It has been stated that there already is an article Caste system in India, and consequently, the coverage of India here needs to be nothing but a short summary. My riposte is simple:  This is Wikipedia's flagship article on the subject of caste.  All other articles, such as Caste system in India, are "children" or spin-out articles.  The spinouts need to be summarized, but not in such a severe way that changes the overall weight of their coverage or importance in this article; otherwise, the article becomes a POV fork: it sweeps the India-related content under the rug of the spinout, so that it can concentrate on other content.
 * 6) I have serious concerns that the sections on Caste in many countries, such as China, Korea, England, France, Poland, Sweden, involve great leaps of OR and Synthesis. The word "caste" is now a common word in the English language, which, especially in transformed and figurative usage, means many things.  It has been used in the context of pretty much every country in the world.  It has even been used in descriptions of penguin societies in Antarctica.  Such usage is loose usage, just another word for discrimination, stratification or social exclusion.  Many of the references cited involve such casual use, where the word "caste" is not defined, but simply used without warning or preparation in the narrative.
 * 7) The country most written about in the context of caste after India is the United States. Yet this article is strangely silent about Caste in the United States.   Creating that section (and a parent article for that) is more important than writing about caste in Finland and Sweden.  I suspect I know the reason why that section or article has not been created.  It is that it will be seen as a content fork of the article Racial segregation in the United States and editors from that article will quickly challenge it.
 * 8) (Blatant and Shameful Bias and OR).  user:ApostleVonColorado has created a blatantly biased section Racial versus non-racial caste systems.  Evidence:
 * 9) AVC mentions the great African-American sociologist of the Chicago school (sociology), Oliver Cox as disagreeing with the idea of race in the US being a kind of "caste system." But he dismisses Cox's argument.  As evidence, he mentions a 2007 paper by a then graduate student, Daniel Immerwahr, and states, "According to Immerwahr, by 1960, Cox claims were demonstrably false and absurd."  Well, since ApostlevonColorado is continuously flaunting the h-indexes of his references, let's examine the h-numbers:  Oliver Cox: 45; Daniel Immerwahr: 6.  So, what do we make of Immerwahr?  By AVC's own benchmark, is he 1/7 as reliable, per WP:RS, as Cox?
 * 10) AVC fails to mention what the great sociologists and anthropologists of caste thought of this, that, in effect, by the late 60s, the comparative school of caste and race was dead in the water. Evidence:
 * 11) In 1966, the great social anthropologist of caste Edmund Leach (h-index 49) wrote,"In contemporary literature we meet the word 'caste' in two quite different contexts. On the one hand it is a word used without any particular geographical limitation to denote a type of class system in which hierarchy is very sharply defined and in which the boundaries between the different layers of the hierarchy are rigidly fixed. A 'ruling class' may be described as a caste when the fact of class endogamy is strikingly obvious and when the inheritance of privilege has become narrowly restricted to members of that 'caste' ... Obvious examples are the colour bar situation in the Southern states of the United States and in South Africa ... The other use of the word 'caste' is to define the system of social organization found in traditional India and surviving to a large extent to the present day. I myself consider that, as sociologists, we shall be advised to restrict the use of the term 'caste' to the Indian phenomenon only'. (h-index: Edmund Leach: 49) (Reference: ,)" Yet, Edmund Leach goes uncited in this article, while Berreman (h-index 26) is cited again and again.
 * 12) The preeminent 20th century theorist of caste, Louis Dumont (h-index 46) also attending the symposium, drew a similar conclusion:"It was only natural that the 'something in common' between the Indian caste system and the American 'colour bar' should have attracted attention. The question is whether putting them under the same class-heading helps research or hinders it. I believe that it tends to hinder, at the least, a fundamental kind of research." Yet, Dumont goes unmentioned in this article, while a graduate student's dismissive sentence (h-index 6) is quoted.
 * 13) Stanley J. Tambiah (h-index 29) said, "Caste embodies ideas of relative purity and impurity; it is an integrated exchange system of occupational skills and ritual services: it distributes power in a particular manner; it is a way of controlling and restricting marriage; at its highest levels it is associated with philosophical ideas which are not represented in race relations." Yet Tambiah too goes unmentioned in this article.
 * 14) Later in the same section, it is stated matter of factly, "In contemporary literature, scholars refer to the anticaste principle and various forms of racial and non-racial caste systems, particularly in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment of the American Constitution," as if this was taken for granted. If fails to mention that there are prominent critics. Jack Balkin (h-index: 52), for example, has stated:"American constitutional theorists' romance with 'caste' as an explanatory category needs serious reappraisal ... social stratification in the United States does not really match the technical definition of caste ... caste is at best an effective hyperbole.' (Balkin, J. (1997) “The Constitution of Status,” ‘’Yale Law Journal’’, 106, 2358." Balkin too is not mentioned in this article.
 * 15) Finally, since this article is blatantly pushing the POV (which in the past was also pushed on this page by the banned Hindu nationalist POV pushers such as user:Hkelkar) that caste is not especially Indian&mdash;that what there is in India is very similar to racism in American or South Africa, that what little there was in India was always opposed throughout India's history by brave Indians, and what looms large today was really thrust upon Indians by the British&mdash;it fails entirely, flagrantly, and shamefully to mention any of the great Indian scholars of caste: M. N. Srinivas (h-index: 57), Andre Beteille (h-index: 29), Veena Das (h-index 40), G. S. Ghurye (h-index: 20) or R. S. Khare (h-index: 45). I suspect I know the reason why: they don't write about any country other than India.
 * 16) I thought at first there were some redeeming features in this article. I now think it is plain OR, Synthesis, and Biased POV-pushing.  It needs to be entirely rewritten by someone (or some people) other than ApostleVonColorado.  To give you an idea of the injustice done, let me cite the first reference in ApostleVonColorado's list of tertiary sources.  He notes there: "This encyclopedia is the most cited/referred to in social and behavioral sciences."
 * 17) I will be delighted to email the pdf to anyone who wants to read the entire 4-page article. Please email me and find out what is says about caste in the rest of the world! This after all is AVC's best reference!

Discussion of Fowler&fowler's statement

 * What was the original date of publication of these articles on caste in the tertiary publications? We should look for tertiary publications that are recent. The general understanding is that caste issues are not the central issue in urban India today, hence you will not find many articles on caste in tertiary publications (like newspapers) in present day. Much of what you are saying can be discussed in Varna (Hinduism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoshigaki (talk • contribs) 12:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that is utter poppycock. Caste is still the defining social concept for the majority of the Indian population. Have you heard of the official reservatuon system? Arranged marriages? The 2011 census? Caste associations and political parties with clout? Riots? Not to forget the activity by subcontinent IPs on caste-related articles here at Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Hoshigaki, As you will see, most articles in the tertiary list were written within the last 25 years, especially the scholarly tertiaries which occur later in the list. Tertiary publications, by their very nature, are a little dated.  Varna, is just one aspect of the Caste system in India (itself is a spinout of this article); jati is another.  I wouldn't say that caste is not important in contemporary Indian society, but that it is undergoing a transformation.  Like Sitush says, it is certainly very important in election politics; also important in affirmative action.  There should be an subsection in this article on caste today.  (See for example, the Encyclopedia of the Developing World cited in Ninthabout's comment.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Sitush, Are there recent sources that say "Caste is the defining social concept in India today? I doubt that publications will have the audacity to say that. Almost every country that is pluralistic has their own reservation system for minorities (in the USA it is called affirmative action). Riots based on social structures have occurred recently in the USA as well as in the UK (London). I am stressing on recent sources because India is undergoing fast-paced changes on a massive scale and what was true a couple of decades ago may no longer hold true. Hoshigaki (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Fowler, We might be in agreement about most points but it is your contention about the centrality of caste in India that I disagree with. Caste continues to be a social problem in India but it is not the social problem in contemporary India. Hoshigaki (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Hoshgaki. Like I said below, you've got it backwards.  It is the centrality of India to Caste; not the other way around.  I'm now gone for the rest of the day.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you cite one tertiary source that says, "India is the classic, the paradigmatic, and the most frequently cited ethnographic example of Caste." - even if you could, that wouldn't justify removal of content from any other sections in the article. If you wanna add something, why don't you propose it here and we can, instead of wasting time, discuss that effectively? India is central to caste, is a subtle violation of WP:SYNTH. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 12:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would, it would violate Wikipedia due weight guidelines. In keeping with other tertiary sources, which have anywhere between 75% to 100% of content devoted to India, if we were to keep the Caste-outside-of-India material, the India section would have to be expanded at least 15- to 20-fold. And, that only addresses weight. The issues of OR and Bias in the non-India sections of the article, as I indicate above for one, is another story. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS And please don't boldface your emphasis. It is enough to italicize it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The h-index numbers reported by Fowler&fowler are incorrectly determined and wrong. A correct determination would exclude different authors with same name, and focus on caste-related literature. Additionally correct h-index and citation scores would search for exact author name match, not diffuse match (such as two or more authors with one with Veena as first name, and another author with Das as last name). For example, there are more than one M.N. Srinivas. For evidence, see this. Similarly there are several authors named Edmund Leach. With correct and more relevant h-index and cite score determination, one gets significantly smaller scores for M. N. Srinivas, Andre Beteille, Veena Das, G.S. Ghurye, R.S. Khare, Edmund Leach, T.N. Madan and others. I will address this in my comment to this RfC, and I skip repeating it here. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @AVC, Please no nickel and diming. None of these software tools are perfect, but no one in their right minds would compare a third year graduate student, Daniel Immerwahr, now a junior faculty (whose specialty is not caste anyway), with the great sociologists of caste such as Edmund Leach, Louis Dumont, Stanley Tambiah, M. N. Srinivas, Andre Beteille, G. S. Ghurye and R. S. Khare.  There is a good reason why they have long-standing Wikipedia pages (and I didn't create them) and Gerald Duane Berreman (or Gerald D. Berreman or Gerald Berreman or G. D. Berreman) or Daniel Immerwahr (or D. Immerwahr) do not.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @AVC Edmund Leach is the subject of his own scholar biography: .  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @AVC. And there is a entire paragraph devoted to M. N. Srinivas in Encyclopaedia Britannica article on "Anthropology."  Here is what it says: "The Indian scholar who in the immediate postwar period played a critical role in linking Western anthropological theory with locally grounded knowledge was M.N. Srinivas. He had studied with Ghurye in Bombay before seeking admission in 1945 for the D.Phil. in social anthropology at Oxford. At Oxford Srinivas first studied with A.R. Radcliffe-Brown and then completed his doctorate under the supervision of Edward Evans-Pritchard. Srinivas adapted the structural-functionalism of his mentors to his own work in India. In his well-known published dissertation, Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India (1952), Srinivas demonstrated how it was possible to discern patterns that had widespread significance in India even among a people like the Coorgs, who considered themselves a distinct ethnic group. After a brief period at Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Srinivas would become in 1959 the first professor of sociology at the University of Delhi. This department—embracing concerns that might, in a British or American university, have occupied sociologists and political scientists as well as social anthropologists—became the preeminent training ground for an Indian school of social science of broad scope, great theoretical originality, and high international visibility."  Please don't tell us about his h-index not being perfect.  There is a limit to which Wikipedia and Wikipedian's can put up with low-level polite disruption that you continue to pursue in this article and elsewhere.  When you search for "Gerald Berreman" on Britannica; it takes you either to "Brahman (caste)" or "John Berryman (poet)"  That says it all.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler - On Immerwahr and rest, your objection seems to be with peer reviewed journal articles and reliable secondary sources. That is what wikipedia community agreed content sourcing guideline is. Strange? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @AVC, In this day and age you can find a source for any assertion, however crazy, such as the one you found in Immerwahr. Our job, however, is to report scholarly consensus, or, in its absence, to report the controversy.  The scholarly consensus is determined, per Wikipedia policy, by scholarly tertiary sources, not by us.  These tertiary sources are unanimous in the view that the leaders, the trend-setters, the major taste-makers in the field of Caste are: Louis Dumont, Edmund Leach, Kim Marriott, Ronald Inden, Stanley Tambiah, M. N. Srinivas, G. S. Ghurye, Andre Beteille, Veena Das, R. S. Khare.  The consensus view is not decided by Wikipedians after Googling h-indexes; otherwise, we end up with a Theater of the Absurd in which one scholar, whose views have now been largely discarded by the scholarly community, Gerald Berreman, has been given star billing and a nobody, Daniel Immerwarh, who wrote a caste-related article as a graduate student, and doesn't even work in the field, gets to make an appearance and trash the major scholars.  That has brought this article to the sorry state it is in today.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what our job is, but I know what it isn't. Our job is certainly not to censor information based on our own POVs and interpretations of what the sources are actually saying, that's an unalterable fact. It is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic. WP:BALANCE says "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance."Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, okay Fowler? You cannot filter out verifiable information based on your predilection and preferences. That's most certainly not our job. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by RegentsPark
From the Encyclopedia Britannica article on caste ("caste." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 06 Sep. 2012): ''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.'' From the Encyclopedia Britannica (the first two sentences in the lede). Later, in the lede Caste is generally believed to be an ancient, abiding, and unique Indian institution upheld by a complex cultural ideology. Note the repeated use of unique. Need I say more? --regentspark (comment) 18:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler&fowler has already used Encyclopædia Britannica in his 30 tertiary sources which have been reviewed by sarvajna and ApostlevonColorado (all in collapsable boxes). Mrt and sarvajna have commented upon the sources further in their RfC comments. Basically, if you have the patience to go through all that data you might find objections and responses to your comment.  Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  18:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it necessary. Britannica clearly says that caste is a uniquely Hindu issue. Can't imagine what sort of objections and responses there can be to that. But, I'll try later - no time now. --regentspark (comment) 19:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That didn't take very long. Apostle's objection seems to be an obsession with India regarding caste by British authors. He/she explicitly excludes Britannica since 1911 (presumably because, since 1911, it has been an American institution) and these quotes are from the current edition. Are there other 'objections' and 'responses' to these specific quotes I've missed? --regentspark (comment) 19:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, if I am recollecting my due diligence and interpreting my notes here correctly, the 12th, 13th and at least one print of 14th edition of Britannica, had a lead similar to the 11th edition (1911). See this list and discussion for more. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And, this provides the context to that list and discussion. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * RP, If you read the long rambling discussion by AVC following his 8 sources in Talk:Caste, you will realize that he seems to think that Britannica is British! Here are his words: "FWIW, American tertiary sources, in my interpretation, have a more global view on the subject of caste; Some British/Indian tertiary sources (by British/Indian authors) have an India-obsessed coverage of caste (except some, such as the various print editions of Encyclopedia Britannica between 1911 to mid 20th century)."  For some reason, he excuses the various "print editions" (as if there were any others) between 1911 and 1950, which he seems to think were less obsessed with India. The current Britannica article, btw, is a signed article, by the  Indian sociologist T. N. Madan.  That explains why he has been quoting form the  1851 edition of Encyclopaedia Americana, little realizing that by the 1918 edition (as you will see in that link), it too had become "India obsessed." As I mention in my response there, three-quarters of the 2006 edition of Enclopedia Americana is devoted to India.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * RP, He (AVC) then suggested that he has clicked on Veena Das's article (the pdf of which I had read a few minutes earlier, and which he had not read), saying, "I disagree. I clicked on Caste, and there too the lead is what I quoted. Generic." When I pointed out ( in this post) that what he had clicked on was the abstract, which is usually generic, but that the entire (and I mean entire) article was about Caste in India, and that he was attempting to wing it by skimming the abstract, he became holier than thou, and sent me sanctimonious links to the various Wikipedia links for polite behavior.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I then made some changes to the lead sentence, employing Andre Beteille's well-known definition (quoted for example in the article on "caste" in the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology). This AVC quickly reverted describing in this edit summary that it was a "Tanjore village-obsessed" version along with more admonitions to me to be civil.  (See here.)  At that point, I realized that he has very little clue about the contemporary literature on Caste and that further discussion will need to wait until I had more eyes watching, and I left the discussion.  Most of his responses as you will see there are long rambling generic essays.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS Britannica by the way, has been American owned since 1901, and since 1946 has been overseen by faculty at the University of Chicago, many of who have written its articles, especially the big Macropedia and Micropedia revisions of the 1970s.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PPS Britannica's signed articles on India written in the late 20 century are superb examples of excellent tertiary scholarship. Chicago  (with Indianists such as Milton Singer, A. K. Ramanujan, J. A. B. van Buitenen, (and later Sheldon Pollock)  Edward Dimock, McKim Marriot, Ronald Inden, Muzaffar Alam, Colin Masica, C. M. Naim etc)  was the leading South Asia department in the US)   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am surprised by Fowler&fowler's response.
 * For one, I have quoted not only 1851 edition of Encyclopaedia Americana, but I have quoted/discussed caste article in Encyclopaedia Americana from early, mid and later part of 20th century. See this list and discussion to verify this on your own. The lead of 1918 version Encyclopaedia Americana linked above, and later decades as I showed earlier, is worldwide in its caste coverage, and is not obsessed with India. Please see the comment in the context it was made - we were discussing the lead and how to improve it back then.
 * This "you will realize that he seems to think that Britannica is British!" is unfounded. I know Encyclopedia Britannica's history. I know its ownership has changed over time.
 * Fowler&fowler mentions above Veena Das's article on Caste in the International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences. Not only had I read the print version of this, I added it to this talk page discussion in my first response, before Fowler&fowler started discussing it. Claiming that I had not read it is strange. See here: International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Smelser and Baltes (Editors), ISBN: 0-08-043076-7, Volume 3, 2001.
 * Instead of me analyzing his response further, I urge that his claims about what I said and what he claims "I seem to think" be taken with caution. I urge the full discussion so far be reviewed in its full context and on its own merit.
 * ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This unfortunately is the blatant and obfuscating disingenuousness I've found in most of AVC's posts. If he knew Britannica was American, why would he be calling it British??  He says, "For one, I have quoted not only 1851 edition of Encyclopaedia Americana, but I have quoted/discussed caste article in Encyclopaedia Americana from early, mid and later part of 20th century." (see his sources added added on 7 August 2012).  He fails to mention that he didn't know about the 1920 edition and that I had supplied him that information in this post of August 5, 2012:
 * Has it occurred to you that in 1851 in America there was little knowledge of India? There are significant changes between the 1851 entry on "caste" in Encyclopedia Americana and the 1920 entry on "caste" in Encyclopedia Americana (also available for full view on Google).  The 1920 edition says: "CASTE, a social class whose burdens and privileges are hereditary. The word is from the Portuguese casta, race, and was applied by the Portuguese, who became familiar with Hindustan, to the classes in India whose occupations, privileges and duties are hereditary. This term is sometimes applied to the hereditary classes in Europe; and we speak of thc spirit or the prerogatives and usurpations of a caste, to express particularly that peculiar constitution of society which makes distinction dependent on the accidents of birth or fortune. ... Recent evidence however has made the existence of a strict caste system in Egypt rather doubtful. The institution of caste is best known to us as it exists in Hindustan, where it is well known to have existed since perhaps 1,500 or 2000 years before the Christian era.  (Note: The remaining three-quarters of the article discusses the caste system in India.)"  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)  If he had read the Veena Das article, all four pages of which are about India, why would he be claiming that upon clicking the journal link there was nothing about India??? This is unfortunately the slippery obfuscation I have had to deal with and why I left the discussion in early August.  I mean with so many people watching, he is attempting to pull the wool over my eyes.  You can imagine what is was like in August.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Fowler&fowler - I invite you to respect the community agreed WP:TPG guidelines again. It says: No personal attacks; Be precise in quoting others.
 * I never wrote or claimed, what Fowler&fowler attributes to me: "why would he be claiming that upon clicking the journal link there was nothing about India???"
 * The discussion back then was focussed on the lead, and this is what I wrote: "I disagree. I clicked on Caste, and there too the lead is what I quoted. Generic."
 * ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the entire conversation. I wrote: "'I have Veena Das's article on Caste in the International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences (your first tertiary reference) sitting right in front of me. The entire article is about caste in India!!  Where does it mention anything about caste in other parts of the world?? All the 17 references in the article (Louis Dumont, Kim Marriot, MN Srinivas, GS Ghurye, Andre Beteille, ...) are to scholars who have worked on caste in India!  She might have her disagreements with previous scholars on the subject of caste, but the article is about caste in India (and nowhere else). Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)"  To this ApostlevonColorado replied: "I disagree. I clicked on Caste, and there too the lead is what I quoted. Generic. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)"  To this I replied: "You disagree? What you have clicked on is not the lead; it is the abstract.  The actual lead is even more generic, but that is because the Indian context in the article is understood.  Like I said, find me a sentence in the article that mentions any society other than India.  It is after all the emphasis of the entire article we are concerned about.  Veena Das's article is, in its entirety, about the Cast system in India.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)" To this AVC made this post: "I am delighted by your admission that the 'actual lead is even more generic'. You may assume whatever implicit context you understand or misunderstand, it is none of my concern. This talk page's purpose is to help reach consensus, not to debate or lecture me or anyone else on socio-cultural phenomena topics such as caste. I do not want to repeat my disagreements with you - just read my discussion on leads in various tertiary sources and various prints of same publication from 100 years ago to recent years. I do not want to debate Veena Das, student of M.N. Srinivas - both of whom are Indians known for voluntarily limiting their publications to caste system in India. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)"
 * If Veena Das is "voluntarily limiting their publications to caste system in India," why are you offering her article as the first example in your list that supposedly shows conflict in the tertiary sources about the primacy of India in the notion of Caste? I will let others be the judge of this interaction.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

RegentsPark - The author of the caste article in Encyclopedia Britannica, T.N. Madan has authored a much longer article on caste in Students' Britannica India (Volume 6, 2000 Edition), ISBN 0-85229-762-9, pages 127-135.

T.N. Madan notes in Students' Britannica India article that his unstated and obvious assumption is that caste is an institution typical of South Asia. He acknowledges that this assumption's validity depends on whether one takes a structural or cultural approach. He then gives one example of structural approach wherein a racial social stratification is caste (outside India). In other words, T.N. Madan has acknowledged that caste, when considered in structural sense, is not unique to India. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * TN Madan's article, written for Britannica's major revision of 1979, has one throwaway line, in an article of six pages, on the structural-functional literature.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A New York Times article states this as it compares the Britannica and Wikipedia:
 * Since it was started 11 years ago, Wikipedia has moved a long way toward replacing the authority of experts with the wisdom of the crowds. The site is now written and edited by tens of thousands of contributors around the world, and it has been gradually accepted as a largely accurate and comprehensive source, even by many scholars and academics.

Britannica sales peaked in 1990 and is going out of print. They seem to be adopting the Wikipedia model now to stay alive and definitely lag behind Wikipedia. Should we give it so much importance then, especially to an article on caste written in 1979? Hoshigaki (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia unfortunately doesn't have signed articles (if slightly dated) by world experts on the topic of caste, such as T. N. Madan. This RfC is not about the viability of Britannica; it is about Caste. Same goes for your off-topic optimistic comments about Wikipedia.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my comment sounded off-topic but the intention was point out that your source number 5 of the 30 tertiary publications may be out dated (being from 1979) since a lot of things have changed in Indian society after the caste system was declared illegal by the Indian constitution. We need recent tertiary sources. I am certainly optimistic about Wikipedia, hence my presence here. Hoshigaki (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * :) OK, last point well taken. See my reply in the section above.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hoshigaki, we've had the "illegal per the constitution" statement made on countless occasions in countless articles and talk pages. It didn't matter then and it does not matter now. For all of the grandiose social ideals displayed around 1948, the fact remains that caste is a social mechanism that is accepted and indeed employed by the various governments within India, including the Union government. The official reservation system is proof of that, as is the recognition of caste-based political parties etc. Please do not kid yourself otherwise. And since the constitution was 1948-ish, I am unsure why 1979 is a particularly significant date for proposing to invalidate sources. Sure, we should use recent sources where possible but in order to be balanced it is may well be that we cannot legitimately ignore "star quality" authors of the recent past. I do think that this RfC is wandering off down various somewhat murky byways. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Sitush, Sources stating and showing the progress with regard to eliminating caste inequalities outnumber sources making the claim that caste is the central social issue in India today. If a Wikipedia article gives that impression (as this RfC implies), we will be misleading our readers. Hoshigaki (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Hoshigaki, The RfC statement does not even remotely imply that Caste is the central social issue of India today, only that India is central to any general and complete discussion of the concept of Caste.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler is correct regarding the scope of the RfC. Let's not drift too far away from it in these discussions. How India may or may not be proceeding with its social engineering schemes, except in so far as that they exist is a rebuttal of your earlier claims. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hoshigaki - T.N. Madan has voluntarily limited himself to caste system in India, and he admits caste is not exclusive to India. If we go by h-index, citation scores and such measures, on reliable source publications about caste in reviews, in books, in peer reviewed journals, numerous authors are far more widely cited and accepted than Triloki Nath Madan. As you note, Encyclopedia Britannica has been phasing out - the caste articles in Encyclopedia Britannica editions prior to 1979 had a much longer article on caste and those old versions included a more extensive worldwide discussion. In the era of possibly high inflation and low sales past 1979, combined with too many topics and costs of paper/printing in 1980s, the paper encyclopedias shrunk articles at the expense of quality. Thus, I believe, wikipedia's content sourcing guideline 'rely on secondary sources' is prudent and wise (see WP:RS). For this article, it would be unwise to ignore the most cited secondary sources. Yes, tertiary sources should be considered, but not with bias or selectively; if you consider encyclopedias written say in 1950s to 1970s and the same encyclopedia in 1980s, and see a major difference or complete absence of worldwide coverage - we must ask what happened? (after all sociocultural phenomenon such as caste are not a new unexpected event that just happened). If you see a dispute between encyclopedias and textbooks, we must ask what happened, and we must ask if we can rely on one but ignore the other in our effort to create a quality article. Creating or improving quality of an article such as this one, with balance, NPOV, no original research, and verifiability in reliable published secondary sources is hard work. Welcome to wikipedia, by the way. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @AVC Can you list all the authors you have used on the subject of caste that have higher h-index than T. N. Madan? Please list authors and h-index you have used.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

@AVC. I took a look at the Students Britannica reference that you cite above and, while Madan does say what you quote above, he is quite explicit that the idea of caste is very Hindu in nature. For example, he clearly states that the term caste came into usage as a means of describing the division of Hindu society, first by the Portuguese and subsequently by in English and other European languages (Dutch and French). Caste, according to Madan, is centrally Hindu in nature and is only peripherally used to describe social divisions in other cultures. --regentspark (comment) 15:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Fifelfoo
My comments were solicited. I have not read your article.

Using the discussion of tertiary sources here, the following tertiary sources are worth attending to, because they are appropriate scholarly tertiary sources, mapping the advice regarding history and tertiary sources in WP:HISTRS onto this social science field (and as I have done anyway, in the past, repeatedly, at RS/N), and keeping in mind the field specificity of caste's scholarly interest we should esteem: the others being either non-scholarly, or to my mind sufficiently removed in topic from the sociology of stratification across time.
 * Barnard, Alan (2002)
 * Kuper, Adam; Kuper, Jessica (2003)
 * International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2008
 * O'Brien, Jodi (2008)
 * Schaefer, Richard T. (2008)

ApostleVonColorado fails to provide adequate citations for more than one of the works they attempt to cite and I am highly resistant to doing extra work because other editors can't find a publisher with two hands and a worldcat. As such I'm not going to comment on these things which may or may not be publications.

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. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "I regret that ISBN and titles is all I can provide, because my due diligence has been based on the hard copy print versions." look at the page with the bibliographic details, it is one of the first ten pages of a work. I am not liable to deal with your serious competence issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fifelfoo - I provided bibliographic details for each. For example: Encyclopedia of Developing World, Thomas Leonard (Editor), ISBN 1-57958-388-1, Volume 1, 2006. Do you need anything else? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The publisher and the place of publication is pretty damn essential to evaluate the quality of sources. If you are citing a separately authored chapter in an edited book, then I also require the author of the chapter, the chapter title, and the book's editor along with the book title, year of publication, place of publication and publisher.  All of this data can be acquired by you if you possess the ISBN.  I am not going to go out and sift through worldcat or british library to find bibliographic details that I have a reasonable expectation of if the issue goes to source reliability for claims, weight or structure.  It is a matter of courtesy.  When citing for your readers you can use any consistent style.  In this kind of situation, where you're specifically asking for the time and attention of editors who want to at first glance draw conclusions from the publisher, title, author list and year alone so they know which part of the citation to interrogate through detailed searching it pays to provide a full citation. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Fiflefoo - The O'Brien, Jodi (2008) work may be a reliable source for gender studies but with entries on topics like castration, breast implants, cervical cancer and none on the varna, jati systems, I would not count it to be reliable for the subject area of this article. It defines caste to be a "form of social organization unique to India..." That would a wild claim, even if you were assume she meant the Indian sub-continent. Hoshigaki (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why it is essential in encyclopaedia or edited collections to actually cite the section of the work that you're using. If I use wikipedia in real life (as a primary source on shared editing say) I would cite this page as "2012 RFC on …; Talk:Caste"(diff link) at 2012-09-20 English Wikipedia—I wouldn't just cite this discussion as English Wikipedia.  Fifelfoo (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Fifelfoo: That was my mistake. I have since corrected the citation.  It is:
 * @Hoshigaki: The statement "form of social organization unique to India" or to Hinduism is not at all a wild claim.  It is the majority opinion in sociology and anthropology, subscribed to by all the great scholars of caste: Edmund Leach, Louis Dumont, McKim Marriott, Stanley Tambiah, G. S. Ghurye, M. N. Srinivas, Andre Beteille, Veena Das, and R. S. Khare.  I have already provided evidence of that in my statement.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Fiflefoo - The Nalini Iyers entry on caste makes it clear that it is about gender studies, particularly from a viewpoint of women:
 * 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.
 * Nalini Iyer's qualifications from her home page at University of Seattle
 * B.A. University of Madras, Stella Maris College, India
 * M.A. Purdue, English
 * Ph.D. Purdue, English
 * She's teaching/taught: 19th and 20th century British literature, Postcolonial lit with a focus on anglophone writing from South Asia, Africa and the Caribbean, Transnational/International Women’s writing. Courses taught: Postcolonial literatures and theory, Literature of India, African Literature, International Women’s Writing, Contemporary South Asian Literature and Culture. My courses are often cross-listed with Women Studies, Asian Studies, and Global African Studies.
 * Her home page does not list any other papers or publications to her name.
 * The Indian caste system sure did originate in Hinduism but to say that it is unique to India is a really wild claim. The strictest of proponents of this "uniqueness/centrality" theory would admit that it exists in Nepal, the only Hindu country on the planet (Nepalese caste system), as it does in the entire South Asia region, formerly known as British India.
 * From another source cited by Fowler :
 * 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. Either of these positions is tenable; which is preferable depends upon one’s interests and purposes.
 * Overall, I am not sure how we can use an encyclopedia on gender studies to determine such a fine point on the Indian caste system. This article is in a bad shape and if we use a source on gender studies to determine the finer points, we will only make it worse. Anyway we are now repeating the same argument so I will refrain from further comment until something new comes up. Hoshigaki (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo - I understand you better now. You are trying to sense the quality of the publication by place of publication and publisher of an encyclopedia, rather than locating the source and reading it. Both Fowler&fowler and I did not include place of publication in all of our citations, while in some cases Fowler&fowler did include publisher name and I did not. Both of us always had the title, edition, year published, name of editor(s) and such information with quoted sections in different encyclopedias with articles on caste in dispute. I have updated my list now with publisher name and place of publication. You can find them here.

Please note that Fowler&fowler and my sources have just one article on caste, no separate article on caste system in India, while wikipedia has multiple linked articles on caste. Part of our confusion, one that remains unanswered is (1) Should we duplicate content by taking 20% to 50% of Caste system in India article and copying it into this Caste article, or (2) Should we summarize the linked, independent main article on India in 500 to 1000 words in this article, per WP:SUMMARY guidelines? This is assuming that quality wikipedia articles should not be too long, and preferably about 10,000 words per comments from wiki editor Piotrus and related discussion elsewhere on this talk page. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Other people chat with themselves

 * Fifelfoo writes: "ApostleVonColorado fails to provide adequate citations for more than one of the works they attempt to cite and I am highly resistant to doing extra work because other editors can't find a publisher with two hands and a worldcat. As such I'm not going to comment on these things which may or may not be publications."


 * I regret that ISBN and titles is all I can provide, because my due diligence has been based on the hard copy print versions. My 'disagreement in tertiary sources' citations are encyclopedias/etc. that your local university is likely to have in possession or access to. Yes, the prints of different editions of Encyclopedia Britannica and Encyclopedia Americana from 1900s to 1970s may or may not be difficult to locate, depending on where you are.


 * At the time of your review, the ISBN citation links were broken; I have now fixed them. If there is anything more I can do to help you access those sources, that you did not consider in your response, let me know. FWIW, I acknowledge and appreciate your response, even without a complete review of all my sources, and find your feedback constructive.


 * I urge that we do consider published, well accepted secondary and tertiary sources such as encyclopedia that include and extensively cover caste topics for Africa, Latin America and elsewhere. Wikipedia's current coverage on the society, cultures, anthropology, etc. is weaker for these regions than some other regions. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong support for Caste in Italy


 * This follow-on note aims to address part of Fifelfoo’s concern about coatracking. He supported his concern with this specific evidence: ‘The section on Italy is OR, the only theory in use is from 1917 and is a just-so story.’


 * First, I acknowledge and agree the current version of the Italy section is weakly supported and gives an impression of OR. This perception isn’t isolated to section on Italy, but applies to a few others. This issue must be resolved to improve this article.


 * Second, I request that Fifelfoo and others read about caste and caste system in Venice in this published source: Venice: Lion City - The Religion of Empire. I urge you read just Chapter 11 if you are rushed for time, other chapters and the numerous peer reviewed citations therein if you have time to spare, from that book by Gary Wills (2002, ISBN 978-0671047641).


 * The source focuses on Venice. There are numerous more English language secondary and tertiary sources on this, that caste system extended beyond Venezia, and were present in Italian city states such as Napoli and Firenze. If you are fluent in Italian and French, I can provide hundreds more citations which I believe will persuade you that this Italian aspect of caste subject is notable, and that while there is scholarly debate, the balance of opinion among the scholars is - caste existed in city-states of Italy, this stratification was not class or race based or other forms of stratification, but were castes, and included the elements of hereditary, hierarchy, endogamy, exclusion, ritual purity, and that the caste system in city-states of Italy lasted for centuries and to the start of modern era of human history.


 * Don’t get me wrong. I am not arguing that the article doesn’t need improvement. It does. But, in my humble opinion, an exclusive focus on India in this global caste article will be the worst form of coatracking, because as WP:COAT states:
 * A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject.
 * Coatrack articles can be created purposefully to promote a particular bias, and they can accidentally evolve through excessive focus on one aspect of the subject.
 * With an exclusive focus on India, the article will focus on one aspect of the subject of caste, and the particular coatrack bias will be giving the impression that ‘caste is unique to India’.
 * ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ps: I am not suggesting change in relative emphasis; I am suggesting the emphasis should remain on India and South Asia, but the article/linked article should include a reasonable summary about castes in city-states of Italy. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @AVC, Since when did Gary Wills, prolific writer of popular history trade paperbacks, whose 1992 book on Lincoln and Gettysburg almost killed the beauty of the Gettysburg address for me, become an expert on the topic of "Caste?" He is using the word informally.  Has he defined it somewhere?  He introduces the word in the book on page 95 in this sentence: "Patricians were all equal in legal terms&mdash;they all (even the doge) had one vote in the Large Council, the basic expression of their caste."  More pertinently, why are you shirking from creating a section "Caste in the United States?"  After all there five times as many books on the Caste system in the United States than there are on the Caste system in Italy.  Could it be that the editors of Racial segregation in the United States will be hurriedly looking to AfD it?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how your personal, subjective experience with Gary Wills is an objective measure? Gary's publications on Italian city states have higher citation index scores than some of the authors you have quoted in this RfC.
 * Your google search links are limited. Re: your google search for caste+system+USA and caste+system+Italy; Include google.it and search a combination of "Caste or Casta or Popolo or Popolani or Cittadini etc" and "italia or venezia or firenze or napoli or ". Or better still, for experts and secondary source publications, visit a quality university library and get your librarian team to help you.
 * Let us wait for Fifelfoo and others, if they have anything more to add to this RfC. I will be happy to provide peer reviewed journal articles on Italy and other sections, when appropriate. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Sitush
I agree with Fifelfoo and would draw attention to the manner in which AVC has perhaps coatracked elsewhere in articles relating to caste also, eg: Caste system in India. Such articles are ballooning in size and becoming overly detailed. The caste construct is clearly an area of interest for AVC, which is fine, but the sometimes dubious methodology has often been obfuscated by academic verbiage, if you will excuse the parody. I regret to say that I have severe doubts about weighting issues and detail both here and in other articles to which AVC has been a major conributor. We are not a replacement for an academic secondary source: if you want to write a something akin to a thesis on caste as a socio-economic/political/religious/whatever stratifying construct, which seems often to be your intention and perhaps also your academic area of expertise, then please feel free to do so, but not in a single Wikipedia article. Wikipedia's role is to reflect succinctly the reliable secondary sources in a manner that as best as possible reflects the balance of those sources. Both those secondary sources, and also tertiary ones, most commonly place emphasis on its Indian basis and do so to a very dominant degree. Although I understand there is some "law" that alleges all links within WP can end up at Philosophy after a surprisingly short routing, that does not mean that we should include 90% of the Philosophy article in this or any other, and the same goes for Caste. Believe me, AVC, I admire scholarship and in-depth coverage but this is not the place to do it. And hyperlinks are a beautiful thing. - Sitush (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sitush. Our goals are same in our effort to contribute to Wikipedia. As you know, we concurred back in about mid July on the talk page of Caste system in India, during WP:OVERCITE in lead discussion, that the Caste system in India article is too big, overly detailed and needs significant rewrite. I haven't worked on it, and back then I encouraged all wiki contributors and you to please rewrite/clean it up. A good main article there, I thought would help provide good summary to this article.


 * In my discussion on this talk page since August, my goal has been, as you put it: Wikipedia's role is to reflect succinctly the reliable secondary sources in a manner that as best as possible reflects the balance of those sources. I wrote something similar on August 4 2012 relating to this.


 * On the very first day of Fowler&fowler's post, I acknowledged the importance and the need for emphasis on India on the subject of caste. Per talk page guidelines, I have felt that I do not need to repeat myself. To ease your review, I quote from my first reply on August 3 2012:
 * If wiki had just one article on caste, the emphasis would shift - and India covered a lot more - just like other tertiary sources you cite that offer just one article on caste. Wiki, instead has many articles on caste, including one just for 'caste system in India'. That article and this 'caste' article cannot be just a copy of each other...


 * So we agree. Overall, taking all wikipedia articles together, the emphasis should be on India.
 * When Fowler&fowler began editing this article, I accepted some of his changes, including more emphasis on India in the lead, while collaboratively providing what you suggest: as best as possible reflects the balance of reliable secondary sources.


 * My struggle since August has been to put a balance between various wikipedia guidelines (in this case WP:SS and WP:SYNC). In that struggle, I even posted a request for your guidance on your talk page back in August with a link to this talk page. I am glad to see you and others finally participate to help guide this discussion so as to improve this article. Since you are active on the numerous caste-related topics on wikipedia, you probably know I have not contributed anything to over 90% of those caste topics/articles on wikipedia, and sometimes refused to participate because I felt unqualified or unprepared. I feel a bit disappointed that you had to wait so long to express your concerns here, finally, on my contributions to Caste system in India. In past, you had praised my contributions there, which encouraged me (see your past praise here):
 * Caste system in India
 * I've been watching you from afar. Good stuff. Keep it going and yell if you need a hand. - Sitush (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not stopped or ever pretended to own that, this or any article; rather enthusiastically watched and sometimes encouraged Ashley, you and others to revise it. No one has worked it for months, though; and that article on India remains in bad shape. I hope you and others will work on it, because it may help improve this article, by providing a better basis for a summary here.


 * No one has denied yet, including Fowler&fowler, to the best of my effort to digest what has been posted so far, that there is abundant secondary and tertiary literature on castes outside India. FWIW, I submit that there are sections in wikipedia articles that discuss caste in parts of Europe, well supported by cited secondary sources, contributed by wiki editors I do not know, and in those articles I have made zero contribution. For example, see Caste in a part of England. Similarly, long before I ever read or edited this article on caste, it already had a description of castes outside India along with various citations. I continue to believe that this article's future versions will be better by including an appropriate summary of the abundant secondary and tertiary literature on castes outside India.


 * Of course, sections that violate WP:NOR / WP:SYNTH / WP:V guidelines should be properly and promptly dealt with. Hyperlinks, I agree, are great. I encourage you and others to revise this and the main Caste system in India article that in balance reflects the secondary and tertiary sources, including changing the combined and individual emphasis, as you suggest.


 * I urge that you and others watch and not let this article evolve into a version that, directly or through absence of linked articles:


 * 1) pursues an agenda such as to selectively highlight or hide "India's evils" or such (for basis of this concern, see discussion link elsewhere on this talk page, and the edit history of this article).
 * 2) only uses selective tertiary sources, while ignoring all highly cited and widely accepted published secondary sources on castes and other tertiary sources
 * 3) ignores secondary and tertiary sources focussed on African, Latin American, Japanese etc. societies that substantially discuss castes in those parts of the world without mentioning India (I have listed links to these elsewhere on this talk page)
 * I also urge that Fowler&fowler assume good faith not just for me, but everyone; and focus on proposing edits that improve the content of this article while constructively welcoming input from everyone.


 * I look forward to your and other people's continued constructive and active collaboration to help improve this and related caste articles on wikipedia.
 * ApostleVonColorado (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ApostlevonColorado, Let me suggest that you read WP:FILIBUSTERS, in particular, "They will write a 10-page essay on the talkpage. A person will respond to them with a few sentences and they will reply, 'But you didn't respond to my points!' You ask what points they want you to respond to and they say, 'All of them!' So, you go through with the tedious task of responding to every single trivial point they make and click save page. Five minutes later, you look at the talkpage to see another 10-page essay. Again, the cycle continues. You respond in a few sentences and perhaps the person themselves even responds in a few sentences, but the conversation goes on and on and on, in such a way that it's clear that it's more of an intellectual game, like a staring contest, to see who will give up first, rather than an actual rational, meaningful discussion."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sitush - I am in the process of composing a comment to this RfC. To do so, I need a clarification on a comment you made. For context, I quote parts of the discussion (full discussion is here). Then I ask my question.


 * Fowler&fowler wrote @ 11:59, 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).  [...skip rest]
 * For brevity, skip Mrt3366's comment @ 10:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ApostleVonColorado replied @ 12:18, 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. [...skip rest]
 * Sitush replied @ 14:34, 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.. [...skip rest]
 * ApostleVonColorado replied @ 14:41, 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. [...skip rest]
 * Sitush replied @ 15:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC): "Who cares?", was really my point. [...skip rest]

My question: Has wikipedia community discussed or granted any special exemption to this article on caste from WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP guidelines. I quote the guidelines for convenience: I am less interested in what your personal feelings and opinions are on that matter. I am interested in a link to the appropriate community discussion and consensus, if any, that this article is exempt from those key content sourcing policies. I would like to read it for myself and incorporate past community discussion in composing my comment to this RfC.
 * 1) Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.
 * 2) 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) 14:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @AVC Please do not distort Wikipedia's guidelines. Secondary sources are used for individual statements, especially analytic or evaluative claims, within an article.  Tertiary sources (not h-index or citation factor) are used for determining due weight issues.  (See WP:TERTIARY).  By the way, what h-index have you computed for Gerald Berreman and Kingsley Davis, authors you have quoted extensively in this article.  Please give us the numbers.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @AVC PS As for "Has Wikipedia community discussed or granted any special exemption to this article on caste from WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP guidelines?" the literally interpreted answer would be, "Obviously it has, otherwise it wouldn't be in the poor state it is in."  Please also read WP:INDCRIT, especially where it says, "Keep in mind that sarcasm cannot easily be conveyed in writing and may be misinterpreted."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Ninthabout
The problem here, as I see it, is that there are two general definitions of the caste. The first refers to the rigid social stratification of India, the latter and broader definition refers to the concept of social stratification in general. If we are to make an article on the latter sense (which is essentially what this article is), then it becomes redundant with Wikipedia's article on social stratification. The problem of loosely applied definitions is not unique to this article, it also plagues articles like Fascism (a word that has been used as an epithet against authoritarian, semi-authoritarian, and even democratic governments).

This dispute also needs to be brought to the attention of the wider community, and not just editors interested in South Asian history. As an editor who mostly focuses on China-related articles, I only stumbled onto this RfC by accident. The input of editors interested in European and East Asian history is absolutely necessary to evaluate the characterizations (some controversial) of European and East Asian societies as castes. I recommend contacting the appropriate WikiProjects.--Ninthabout (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree on the point that this article makes social stratification redundant. A mere look at the latter will convince editors otherwise. Please also note Four occupations isn't directly related to this article (I am assuming that is on your mind when you say East Asian history). More details are in my comment below. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  12:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There are two major scholarly sides each with its own definition indeed. Both have a significant following. Per WP:VNT and WP:NPOV: wiki articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct Knowledge, your argument that the Four occupations article is invalid because it don't mention the Yi people is completely absurd. The Yi people are a separate ethnic group from the Han Chinese, and are culturally distinct, closer to the Tibetans than the Han Chinese. The Four occupations article, on historical Chinese society, does not mention the Yi people, because the Yi people have, for large portions of Chinese history, not been part of China. Misunderstandings like this litter the article.--Ninthabout (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

My main concern here is that sources are being misrepresented to make a point of view. I agree with previous comments stating that this article is a WP:COATRACK. My interests are in Chinese history, and I have little interest in the dispute being fought between editors who frequent South Asian articles. But when blatant errors are being made about Chinese history to prove a point about Hinduism, then I have objections. Mentions of a 17th century Chinese hereditary aristocracy when "imperial China had not been aristocratic since the third century BCE" is one of many examples. And this is just the Chinese section! This is why the article needs attention from more outside editors. WikiProjects need to be informed of the RfC.--Ninthabout (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's guidelines include verifiability in reliable secondary sources, NPOV by including all non-FRINGE scholarly sides, and the summary should include no original research. The term original research is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Below is a list of reliable, published sources which use the word caste, extensively discuss caste and caste-like societies in China. For a complete, balanced view a proper summary of these and similar sources should be included:
 * 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
 * this at page 296 by Potter and Potter, the whole chapter 15 devoted to caste-like society; but chapter 1 through 11 are more historical sections with repetitive use of term caste and caste-like, rather than class.
 * this chapter from Unger's book
 * Chinese hierarchy in comparative perspective, Romeyn Taylor
 * this from journal article, and
 * this from journal article
 * While I agree that the current article, including the section on China can be improved and needs work, a quality wiki article on caste would include a summary of reliable, published sources on caste and China.


 * ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

ps: Also see other citations provided by a different wiki contributor here. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yi people and Han Chinese are two separate ethnic groups, that are culturally distinct. Yi society has no links to the Chinese class system, and vice versa. It's elementary mistakes like this that litter the article. My concern is the misrepresentation of sources, like Chinese Outcasts: Discrimination and Emancipation in Late Imperial China, which never calls the Chinese system a caste, and argues instead that the "the complex Indian caste system is sui generis and no equivalent can be found in other cultures." (p. 10) Just compare statements like "from the 17th century to the early 20th century, Chinese society was divided into closed social classes" in the Wikipedia article with statements from the actual book: "upward mobility into the elite was theoretically possible for virtually all male commoners" (p. 30) It's been completely skewed to fit the argument being made by the article. I don't care about the point of view being made about Hinduism or whatever, but making unbalanced or inaccurate claims on other regions of the world means that the article will attract extra scrutiny. This article is Jagged85 quality work.--Ninthabout (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ninthabout - That comment is difficult to understand in light of what you wrote elsewhere on this talk page on 12 September 2012 - "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." If you agree that reliable literature supports Yi people may have had caste, should this mention of caste and Yi people not be included in this article? If not, why? Of course, if appropriate, we should include a clarification that Yi and Han were separate ethnic groups.
 * On 12 September 2012, you also edited this article to include this - "Classes within Chinese society were not closed, and imperial China had not been aristocratic since the third century BCE because of "the meritocratic line in Confucian thinking would eventually find realization under the empire in the remarkable Chinese civil service examination." Why did you add this? Is it because commoners were a caste by itself, or because wiki readers should know Chinese society was meritocratic 3rd century BCE, or something else? A short clarification from you will help clarify your edit and whether it should be retained in this article.
 * ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with AVC that the Yi should have their own section. The sources provided clearly prove that Yi have a caste system, as shown in the Ethnicity, Local Interests, and the State: Yi Communities in Southwest China article. I'm a bit more hesitant on China. The claim previously made in the Wikipedia article was that "from the 17th century to the early 20th century, Chinese society was divided into closed social classes", which would contradict with the current statement quoting that the "upward mobility into the elite was theoretically possible for virtually all male commoners" during the Ming and Qing dynasties. None of the classes within Chinese society were rigidly hereditary, including the lowest rungs. An excerpt from Class and Social Stratification in Post-Revolution China, quoted from below, could be used in the article. I think the best compromise would be to create WP:BALANCE in the article by using all the sources, both those provided by AVC and Ninthabout. I agree that the caste was not restricted to India, but we should be keen on making sure that Chinese history is accurately represented. (this comment should technically be under the China heading, but seeing that the China discussion has been closed until the RfC is over, it looks like the discussion is now taking place here) --SGCM (talk)  17:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree almost entirely with what you've written. The sources (in section below) document caste among Yi in China, so we can add them under a separate section or as I suggested earlier (in one of the collapsed sections below), 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. I'll wait for further comments from AVC and Ninthabout on how to word the para on classes in China. Ninthabout has already made some changes to the section. I hope that fixes a lot of errors in the section. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  17:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed SGCM. Yi people should have a section in this article. What about Manchu people section, again clarifying if appropriate the difference between Manchu and Han? See this, page 290-291 if you are short of time, other chapters of the book if time permits because it discusses caste and Manchu: Manchus and Han, by Edward Rhoads (2011, University of Washington Press, ISBN 978-0295980409).
 * I feel China section, and others, need to be rewritten to not give skewed impression - as Ninthabout's constructive comments suggest too. Let us wait for Ninthabout to explain his reasoning on including meritocracy in this article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

SGCM, AVC, and Ninthabout: I've said something similar in Piotrus's section below. We need to clearly understand the difference between undue weight and original research. Listing some academic sources that discuss "caste" in China, or among the Yi people, might be used as an argument against accusations of 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 China or the Yi, then we cannot have a significant section on China in this encyclopedia's article on Caste. It simply means, that while there may be some literature on "caste" in China, the concept of "Caste in China," has not been deemed notable enough (by the scholars who review and summarize such literature) to receive coverage in the scholarly tertiary sources' article on "Caste." You may attempt to add that section to a Society of China article, or the Yi people article, provided it has due weight there, but not here in any significant fashion. 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 China. If so, please cite them here. It is not enough to give just one tertiary source example, or an older example. Since Wikipedia's article on "Caste" is longer than most similar articles in scholarly tertiaries, one could argue that it will inevitably have more content. This is true to some extent, but it still doesn't allow us to devote entire individual sections to this new content. One could add a separate sub-section at the end of the Asia section, which states something like, "Caste-systems (or systems akin to caste) are found in China (or among the Yi people of China). See ....." and discusses this briefly, along with examples from other Asian societies that have not been included in the tertiary sources, and provides the references you have been discussing above. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  21:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Similarly for the UK. I am a born and bred UK citizen and despite my interest in the subject matter cannot recall anyone seriously discussing the caste concept in a UK context except when discussing it in relation to - for example - arranged marriages among the Asian diaspora. The UK "class" concept is complex to the point of being almost indefinable but, despite my wide reading etc, I can honestly say that the word "caste" has a neglible context here. In fact, most of us idiot Brits have probably never even thought of the thing. It could well be that we need a fair few short sections or See Also's to new articles discussing international variants on the amorphous, broad-brush theme ... but Fowler is correct that weighting is a real issue here. Unless there are a shed-load of reliable sources referring to X as a caste system in country Y, any mention should be minimal because otherwise it is original research. For the UK, "class" is (alas) a perceived system for which countless throwaway comments and decent sociological attempts to define can be found; "caste" is not. I know little of China, past or present, but rather suspect that the weight of the "caste" word in sources relating to it only slightly less thin. Certainly so when compared to the Indian/Hindu references. - Sitush (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Caste in Yi society is well–documented by tertiary sources like dictionaries (An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of China), encyclopedias (Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania, Encyclopædia Britannica), guide books (Rough Guide to China) and others (The Languages of China, The Culture of China). I had mentioned this in the now collapsed section on China. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  08:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @CK, Well, then put this content in Wikipedia's article on the Ethnohistory of China, or like I say above, Society of China. I mean, your sources are not articles on Caste.  Please provide an example of a scholarly tertiary source's general article on "Caste," which discusses China or the Yi.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @CK Thanks, btw, for making the effort to look for the sources. It was very helpful.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @CK Here is an example that does mention China ("caste like") page 255.  Notice the relative weight.     Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * More importantly, it mentions Susan Bayly. And, here she is on Caste and Plurality: .  Note she mentions the debate about whether caste exists outside India in a footnote.  I should add that we shouldn't highlight this debate too much.  It was mainly a debate of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, when, in part, spurred by the American Civil Rights movement,  some scholars tried to define caste more generally.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC). Updated  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Berkeley anthropologist Gerald Berreman has been extensively cited in this article. He was the leader of the school which espoused a more universal definition of caste.  But this is no longer popular among scholars:  even his defenders acknowledge that "his totalizing enterprise has rightly been discarded by anthropologists".   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Like the Encyclopedia of the Developing World, Sociology of Religion (yes it's old) stands by a broader definition of caste, which includes "caste–like stratification" in China, in its section on Social stratification. Broader definition of caste in modern tertiary sources, in sections specifically dealing with caste, can be found in 1) Sociology in a Changing World (India, US, South Africa, Middle East), 2) Sociology by Giddens and Griffiths (India and South Africa) and 3) Cultural Anthropology: An Applied Perspective (Hindus, Roma). There are other such tertiary sources out there. The discussion on Berreman's relevance is beyond me. I'll wait for more knowledgeable editors to comment. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  10:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The is the only one that has a specific article on caste.  (The others have case studies within larger sections on stratification or race; Sociology of Religion, obviously, is dated.)   This 2006 article, which is about as long as the Wikipedia article, gives you a feel for the weight scholars accord to caste outside India.  Approximately 1/4 is devoted to Caste Systems in the World.  The rest is either definitions in the beginning or mostly (> 50%) about India.  I think we should take a cue from his article for how to emphasize different aspects of Caste.  I propose it should be 25% percent on definitions and review of literature; 40% on India; 10% on other societies within South Asia; and 25% on societies outside South Asia.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:27, 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»  13:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

ApostleVonColorado, mainstream views of imperial Chinese society refer to it as meritocratic, with social mobility, thus rarely use the term caste. Like Piotrus called it, this is "pure UNDUE/FRINGE lunacy." Most academics write that Chinese classes were not based solely on birth, and the mainstream viewpoint needs to be given priority. SGCM, balance is hardly the only problem. The biggest issue is the misrepresentation of sources. If the source cited for China does not call it a caste, and warns against doing so, then the Wikipedia article should not call it a caste either. Like Piotrus view of Poland, I don't think China should be listed at all. Manchu and Yi society should not be confused with the Chinese, because when most readers see the word Chinese, they think of Han Chinese culture.--Ninthabout (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler&Fowler makes a strong argument, I disagree with CorrectKnowledge, SGCM, and ApostleVonColorado. It's not just "balance" that needs fixing here. Most tertiary sources for caste don't talk about China at all! Neither should Wikipedia.--Ninthabout (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Ninthabout - If Yi and Manchu people are not part of China and Chinese history, which nation do they belong to, and under which nation should we list them under in this article?

Fowler&fowler counts numerous dictionaries, in his list of 31, as tertiary sources. Over 10 Chinese-English dictionary entries for jianmin, 賤民, refer to caste / Dalits / untouchable (see this and this, for example). At least 125 secondary sources (book and journal articles, including those by Chinese authors) discuss caste and China, particularly in light of China's Hukou system of social segregation (see this at page 6-11, and this, and this, and this). These and many other scholars use the word caste, they discuss why it is a caste system not class. These scholarly peer reviewed journal articles have been cited and the books have been reviewed and cited as well. Per wikipedia content guidelines, they should be summarized, at least briefly. Why not?

You edited this article to include meritocracy - but that is coatracking because this article is on caste, not meritocracy. Yes, I agree with SGCM that some wording should be included to prevent wrong impression about social mobility in commoners in historical Han society. We should also include some wording on Yi people, Manchu people, Jianmin, Hukou system, etc and caste from reliable published literature. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ninthabout - you mention Piotrus initial criticism/comment, in discussion below on caste and Poland. Please note that as the discussion developed and evolved, Piotrus noted that 'Jewish caste in Poland could be a notable article on its own' and 'this article (caste) should discuss more than just India'.
 * You wonder if tertiary sources mention caste in China at all. See Encyclopedia Britannica here, which reads: 'A caste system formerly divided the Yi into three groups.' I understand you differentiate between Yi and Han, etc. However, Yi people are part of the country we now call China, even if they are a minority, about 7.5 million. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yi should be grouped with the Tibetans, not the Chinese. Meritocracy and caste are contradictory, one implies social mobility, the other does not, and the mention of China's meritocracy must be included for the reason of neutrality, or else it gives the reader a wrong impression that imperial Han Chinese society lacked social mobility, just as you said. The hukou system is a regional form of segregation, but is hardly based on occupation or race and it's FRINGE to call it a caste. It is a form of social segregation, but not all forms of social segregation are castes. One's hukou can be changed and the hukou system only segregates people of one region, of any class, with people from other regions. I'm sure you can find sources that call modern China a caste, along with modern America or Britain or Germany or any modern country, using the broadest definition of caste. But articles on Wikipedia must represent mainstream views, and this article cannot be an indiscriminate list of everything that someone has called a caste at some point in history.--Ninthabout (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Where would you include Manchu people and Jianmin?
 * If dozens of scholars are writing in peer reviewed journals about Hukou system/jianmin/Yi/Manchu/etc and caste, and these are getting cited in scholarly opinions and reliable publications, you may call it FRINGE, but per wikipedia guidelines, it isn't. See this: Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative for identifying the mainstream view. I share your concern that we should not list everything in this article that someone casually used the word caste for something at some point in history. However, if there are chapters/books/journal articles/etc dedicated to caste, discussion of caste with description of hereditary/hierarchical/exclusionary/etc aspects, or repeated discussion of caste in scholarly peer reviewed publication by many independent respected and relevant scholars, it is an encyclopedic aspect of the subject. If you are aware of any specific wikipedia guidelines that suggest otherwise, please provide a link - I will read it, reflect on it and then get back to you if appropriate.
 * On social mobility and China, weren't jianmin people a strata below commoners? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Manchu people were, prior to the assimilation that happened during the Qing dynasty, culturally distinct from the Han Chinese. The jianmin status was a regional phenomenon, and was more of a political punishment. And certain types of mean status, like the mean status of entertainers, could be removed by changing one's occupation.
 * Street Criers: A Cultural History of Chinese Beggars (Stanford University Press, pages 36-37): "Most of the "mean" categories were created as political punishment, and moreover, they were essentially a regional phenomenon."
 * It's less controversial to liken the jianmin to slaves or indentured servants than to use the term caste. Like many countries, slavery was practiced in China.--Ninthabout (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by OrangesRyellow
Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia and the main article on any issue should be displaying a global perspective. In the interests of neutrality and comprehensiveness, it should not be displaying a narrow, sectarian Indian perspective. There is already an article on "Caste system in India". That is the place to discuss that issue. Caste is a global phenomenon and not just a "Hindu India" phenomenon. Even within India, it is not just a Hindu phenomenon. Caste system is also prevalant among some Muslims, Christians and Sikhs and various other communities in India. If someone wants more coverage of caste system in India, they should write more articles on caste system in India, but it is not necessary to make this article take a myopic view of a global phenomenon.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually couldn't agree with you more. You're 100% right. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 12:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Please also contribute to the section Specific suggestions to improve this article below. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  12:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia OragnesRyellow! Delighted to see that in their first week on Wikipedia a new editor has boldly entered an RfC.  I didn't know what an RfC was well into my sixth month.  Your comments are most welcome.  You say, "Caste is a global phenomenon."  Well, after India, the country most written about in the context of caste, is the United States.  (See here, for example.)  Shouldn't we be creating a section, "Caste in the United States," and an article Caste in the United States?  Also, since caste in baseball is the subject of as many secondary sources as caste in Finland, shouldn't we have a subsection devoted to baseball?   Very best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the welcome. I have looked into the link which you provided. I had expected to be led to some scholarly book or article etc. It lead to a google search with the words Caste "United States" typed in the search box. If the results of that google search were meant to evidence the point "after India, the country most written about in the context of caste, is the United States.", I have to say, it hardly succeeds. It seems to have 604 results, all of which seems either to be irrelevant, or have very, very little on "Caste in US", or to be written by non expert sources. On the whole, it gives me a bit of a disinclination towards believing that US could be "after India, the country most written about in the context of caste, ...". Is there something else which could lead me to believe your claim?


 * Secondly, I think it might help if you could please show an encyclopedia from the last 25 years which has an article on "Caste system in India" and also on "Caste", where the "Caste" article duplicates much/most of the material in the "Caste system in India" article?


 * Regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If an encyclopedia from the last 25 years be too difficult, how about one from the last 250 years?OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by So God Created Manchester
I saw the message on WP:CHINA and WP:UK, and I've worked on the Talk:India dispute on the DRN noticeboard which involves the same parties, so I hope to add my two cents to this discussion as well. My opinion is somewhere in the middle. I don't think that the caste article should focus exclusively on India, but I oppose restricting its coverage as well. As long as WP:BALANCE is maintained, there shouldn't be a problem. Each topic should be given its due weight, as determined by the coverage of the reliable sources.--SGCM (talk)  17:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Intothefire
This article could improve bringing reference to a few of the following  groups with caste correspondence dynamics. In the first two instances I have provided indicative links from google books. 1) The institution of Mawali : See for example The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4 2) Hamsaya Clans Indigenous Peoples and Ethnic Minorities of Pakistan: Constitutional and Legal Perspective by By Shaheen Sar Ali and Jaivaid Rehman 3) Old Testament clans such as Canaanites Hittites, Girgishites , Amorites , , Perrizites ,Hivites 4) Religious honor group with family succession : as in Silsilas or  Ovlat in Turkmenistan e or the  hereditary Khadim  at Sufi Shrines 5) Morisco ( discrimination to) 6)The pre eminence of Arab Lineage in Kafa’ah  Nikah .See the article on Ibn Abidin for a brief explanation. Intothefire (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The suggestions section has been collapsed so that editors do not get distracted from the RfC. Ideally, your comment should have gone there. Please comment on the RfC and add your suggestions there. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  18:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I had the same problem as Intothefire. With the suggestions section collapsed, should we just reply to the comments by the RfC editors? The China section was collapsed, so I went straight for one of the RfC statements that dealt with China. This is going to be an issue with the influx of editors from the WikiProjects, of which I am one (WikiProject China in this case).--SGCM (talk)  18:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, those boxes should be open through the course of the RfC so that editors who come here to comment on the RfC can also take part in other discussions, if they choose to. However, editors wiser than me have decided that it's best to keep the section collapsed. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  18:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi CorrectKnowledge, I am ok with your suggestion ,please feel free to shift my above comment, I do not wish to distract  the ongoing RFC .Intothefire (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Piotrus
See here. (added with permission by ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC))

Comment by Hoshigaki
I request some time to add my comment. I will first discuss with the participants above then add my comment here. Hoshigaki (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC) In order to make an effective comment, I am approaching the RfC in two steps. For determining the centrality argument, I have gone through the 44 sources provided by Fowler&fowler (33), CorrectKnowledge (3) and ApostleVonColorado (8). I will add my comment after my analysis in the section below is complete. Hoshigaki (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Step 1: Determine if Hindu India is central to a discussion on caste.
 * Step 2: If step 1 is true, does this article minimize that central position.

Conclusion based on actual content in sources
All 44 sources were classified in to one of five categories - those that:
 * Strengthen the argument that India is central to a discussion on caste - these were 5 in number
 * Weaken the argument - these were 7 in number
 * No consensus about whether India is central to a discussion on caste - these were 5 in number
 * Do not meet the WP:Reliable criteria - these were 5 in number
 * Irrelevant to our discussion since they simply discuss a host of caste systems from more than a dozen countries - these were 22 in number

One comment that stands out in particular (and weakens the centrality argument) reads:
 * "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.
 * Either of these positions is tenable; which is preferable depends upon one’s interests and purposes."

Conclusion based on recency of sources
It is clear that social changes art taking place rapidly in India today. The caste system has nearly collapsed in India and is not relevant in India anymore. It is not a central social issue in India anymore. Even if India were central to caste, it would be more or less in a historical sense.

Analysis based on actual content in presented sources
Step 1: Determining centrality

I have found that the sources fall in four categories: Here are the details of where the sources stand. Note:
 * 1) Those that support the position that Hindu India is central to a discussion on caste
 * 2) Those that simply discuss and/or critique the caste system
 * 3) Those that imply or explicitly state that there is no consensus on the centrality issue
 * 4) Those that actually weaken the argument by stating that India is not central to such a discussion
 * 5) Sources irrelevant to our subject area


 * This analysis includes the 33 sources presented by Fowler&fowler (exceptions: I have partial or no access to these sources: 9, 32), 3 sources from CorrectKnowledge and 8 sources from ApostleVonColorado. Help from anyone providing the full text (with references and further reading sections) will be appreciated.
 * Sources are numbered FF1, FF2, FF3 and so on for Fowler&fowler's sources, CK1, CK2 and CK3 for CorrectKnowledge's sources and AV1, AV2, AV3...for ApostleVonColorado's sources. Hoshigaki (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * How are you interpreting the sentence, "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." to mean anything other than "India is central to Caste, although a few other societies have some elements of caste?   The adjective “central” means "important, leading, dominant, key, paramount, salient, significant, foremost;"  it does not mean: "exclusive, lone, one, single, solitary, solo, unexampled."  In other words, “almost exclusive” is a stronger version of “central.”   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the link in ref 8 (, please click). It defines caste to be a "form of social organization unique to India and based on Hindu religious belief." Unique is strong than central.  So one more for the "centrality" group.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you might be misinterpreting "centrality." For example, references 29 and 30, which are both titled "caste," devote their entire content to India.  They don't have to say in words whether India is central or not.  They are simply not considering any non-Indian examples notable enough to be admitted into their articles.  India is clearly central in these situations.  The same applies to references 7 (to which I've now added 7.1(a), titled "Anthropology of Caste," from the same encyclopedia).  7 devotes 80% of its length to India; 7(a) devotes its entire length.  Whether or not they say India is central, but they nonetheless focus their articles in large measure (80% and 100% respectively) on India.  They are demonstrating by their actions India's centrality.     Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added one more reference to the list: . 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, and I suspect this led him to give it star billing.  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, quite plainly ignored, not a peep even in indirect allusion.  If someone would like the pdf, please send me email.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will look at this in more detail shortly and update the table accordingly. Hoshigaki (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For the sake of completeness, please also analyze the three tertiary sources I've provided above . They are within the 25 year limit, have an exclusive section/article on caste and are easily accessible. Needless to say, you are free to analyze them independently regardless of what I claim about them. If you choose to ignore any of them please state your reasons for doing so. Five of ApostleVonColorado's eight tertiary sources are recent and distinct from Fowler&fowler's sources. While all of them are inaccessible by internet, asking AVC for their scanned copies might be worth a shot. Hopefully, by the end of the RfC, this table will give future editors a good idea of where the tertiary sources stand with respect to caste. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  06:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The table has been updated to include CorrectKnowledge's sources as well as 7a by Fowler&fowler. We would be advancing our own personal opinion if we are to assume India is central to caste because a source discusses only India (this is why CorrectKnowledge's sources and Fowler&fowler's sources FF29, FF30 are in the 2nd row/category). I have gone through Fowler&fowler's 8th source (FF8), but the encyclopedia seems to be off-topic and views the topics through a prism of gender (for example the entries preceding and succeeding caste are castration, care-giving, cervical cancer, etc. It does not have basic entries on Brahmins, Shudras, Dalits, etc, nor on Hinduism or India. Will keep updating table. Hoshigaki (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully this should be helpful: More soon. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Of AVC's eight sources,
 * 2) the first is Veena Das's article, which is also now the last reference in my list. I will be happy to email the pdf to anyone.  Please email me.  As I have already said, the entire article is about India.  It doesn't even mention anything else.
 * 3) the second appears in its entirety in the link: Caste and inherited status. As you will see, 75% is about India (paragraphs 4 through 25).  In other words, although it discusses Japan and Rwanda at the end, India is the predominant, the central, theme.  I am only asking for 40% to be about India!  (See Piotrus's post below.)
 * 4) the third is the same as number 10 in my list. I have already provided the link there.  If you are able to see only pages 255 and 256 (i.e. not 253 and 254), then do a Google books search for: Encyclopedia of the Developing World Caste.  This should also bring up pages 252 and 253.  If you are having problems accessing the link, please send me email and I'm happy to email you the scans.  Of the article's 7.5 columns, 0.5–0.75 are about general definitions; 1.5 about other cultures and the remaining 5.25–5.5 are about India.  5.5/7.5 = 73%.  In his description, AVC says, "After this generic lead, the article mentions India, then goes on in the next 4 paragraphs to describe caste in generic terms. The article thereafter covers India, Algeria, South Africa, Burma, Japan, Kenya, Somalia, Rwanda, Nigeria, Jews and Gypsies of Europe (with a minor note), Egypt." as if to say, India is just one country in a long list of countries.
 * 5) the fourth is an odd reference since that encyclopedia doesn't have an article about caste. What is mentioned is the article about social organization.  It does have an article about "Untouchables"  (see here).  Notice how much weight it accords to untouchability in other cultures.  It mentions it at the end, but devotes only one sentence.
 * 6) the fifth is garbage. It is an article on "Colonial Latin America" in the Encyclopedia of Latin America.  Why would it mention India??
 * 7) the sixth is the same as 2. in my list. But after Fifelfoo's statement above, I guess, we are not paying too much attention to definitions in dictionaries.
 * 8) the seventh is garbage. Article from 1921 (so says AVC).
 * 9) the eighth is also garbage. Article from 1911.
 * Hoshigaki, If an encyclopedia discusses only India in its general article on "Caste," then it considers India to be not only central to caste, but caste also to be uniquely Indian. We are not advancing any personal agenda.   If we were to follow that encyclopedia's model, we would devote the entire article Caste to India and not mention anything else.  India wold certainly be central!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hoshigaki: Why is the prism of gender an issue? The RfC is not about gender, it is about geography (ie. relative weight to different regions of the world).  Gender affects all parts of the world equally.  It is encyclopedias restricted by geography, such as Encyclopedia of Latin America in AVCs list that are problematic.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hoshigaki, If you do not think that my references 7, 11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, and 31 advance the idea that India is central to the notion of "Caste," then we have a basic disagreement of interpretation. Given that you were having problems understanding the meaning of "central" itself, that you misunderstood "India is central to caste," to mean, "caste is central to India," and that you think that gender is somehow restrictive to the issue at hand, I am not entirely confident that you have understood the concerns here.  I don't know you level of comfort with English, but if you are having English comprehension issues, it is better to acknowledge them, and seek help from one of Wikipedia's resources.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The references you list (7, 11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, and 31) simply discuss the Indian caste system. They make no conclusions or even observations on the centrality issue. It is not the case that there aren't any sources which do not discuss centrality. The sources listed in category 4 of my table (your sources 3, 12, 15, 16, 20, 27, 28) do seem to address the centrality issue. In such a situation I am not sure why we should be making our own original conclusions when well known sources have done it for us. I have understood and continue to understand that "caste is central to India" and "India is central to caste" are two different things. I need time to consider the last set of sources from ApostleVonColorado before I make my comment. Hoshigaki (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If per WP:TERTIARY guidelines on due weight, if 13 sources discuss only India in their general article on Caste (not a specific article, such as "Caste system in India,") then we will interpret that to mean that Wikipedia's article on caste should only be about India. But let us not worry about semantics.  Let's say, for example's sake, if none of the references said anything about "centrality," but the content in all was only about India, then what would be your conclusion about what the content of this article should be?  Please answer this question.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler&fowler, I have read multiple Wikipedia policies and my overall/big-picture understanding is that if we attempt to answer the question you are posing above, then we would be indulging in original research. This is especially applicable in our case, since academicians and scholars (many of whom are from the sources you have brought forward) have done this for us. Hoshigaki (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hoshigaki - Thank you for the review. It is thorough, detailed and useful. I disagree with assertions by Fowler&fowler above, examples of just two incorrect assertions are below:

Fowler&fowler alleges that "the seventh (tertiary source ApostleVonColorado cited) is garbage. Article from 1921 (so says AVC)." What I actually wrote on this talk page included the note that 1920s through 1970s edition prints of Encyclopedia Americana have almost the same lead paragraphs, this -
 * CASTE, a social class whose burdens and privileges are hereditary. The word is derived from the Portuguese casta, race and was applied by the Portuguese, who became familiar with Hindustan, to the classes in India whose occupations, privileges and duties are hereditary. This term is sometimes applied to the hereditary classes in Europe; and we speak of the spirit or the prerogatives and usurpations of a caste, to express particularly that unnatural constitution of society, which makes distinction dependent on the accidents of birth or fortune. The division into castes, where it appears in its most typical form, comes to us from a period to which the light of history does not extend; hence its origin cannot be clearly traced: but it is highly probable that, wherever it exists, it was originally grounded on a difference of descent, and in the modes of living, and that the separate castes were originally separate races of people. This institution, is found among many nations.

Fowler&fowler alleges that eighth tertiary source I cited was from 1911. Once again what I actually wrote on this talk page is that later editions are essentially same; in later discussion, I clarified that 1911 (11th edition), 12th, 13th and one print of 14th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica has the first 1000 words with caste as a worldwide socio-cultural phenomena. Just 2.5% of those 1000 words were on India. The most recent edition of Encyclopedia Britannica was rewritten by a new author, T.N. Madan; the article size significantly reduced, and new version covers caste in India. Instead of quoting those entire 1000 words, here is pre-15th edition version of Caste briefly -
 * CASTE (through the Fr. from Span, and Port, casta, lineage, Lat. castus, pure). There are not many forms of social organization on a large scale to which the name "caste" has not been applied in a good or in a bad sense [...delete for brevity (deleted material has two sentences on India, numerous other sentences on history/civilizations/cultures outside India)...]
 * There is no doubt that at some time or other professions were in most countries hereditary. Thus Prescott tells us that in Peru, ...[.delete for brevity..]
 * Again, Zurita says that in Mexico no one could carry on trade except by right of inheritance, or by public permission. The Fiji carpenters form a separate caste, and in the Tonga Islands all the trades, except tattoo-markers, barbers and club-carvers are hereditary,—the separate classes being named matabooles, mooas and tooas. Nothing is more natural than that a father should teach his son his handicraft, especially if there be no organized system of public instruction; [...deleted rest for brevity...]
 * In Madagascar marriage is strictly forbidden between the four classes of Nobles, Hovas, Zarahovas and Andevos,—the lowest of whom, however, are apparently mere slaves. In a sense slavery might be called the lowest of castes, because in most of its forms it does permit some small customary rights to the slave. In a sense, too, the survival in European royalty of the idea of "equality of birth" (Ebenbürtigkeit) is that of a caste conception, and the marriage of one of the members of a European royal family with a person not of royal blood might be described as an infraction of caste rule. [...deleted rest for brevity...]

Fowler&fowler calls a long article in Encyclopedia of Latin America as "garbage" too. Yes, the encyclopedia is about Latin America, but that does not make it irrelevant. That encyclopedia article is about caste in Latin America, describes the emergence of castes under colonial times, and discusses the evolution of caste system in Latin America. Published literature on Latin American people is as important and relevant as any other country, to this article. I have listed Encyclopedia of Africa and others previously, beyond my short list of eight. These too use the word caste, describe castes in various African countries/cultures including elements of hereditary, hierarchical, endogamous, ritual, exclusion and in some cases shunning of outcastes. All these are relevant, due and an encyclopedic aspect of the socio-cultural subject caste, this article. All these show abundant dispute and diversity of opinions across tertiary sources on the subject of caste, this article.

Fowler&fowler claims 'we will interpret that to mean that Wikipedia's article on caste should only be about India.' I disagree, because this violates community agreed wikipedia guidelines. This RfC is a process. Your, Hoshigaki and other wiki contributor's independent findings and views are important and will be considered to help reach consensus and next steps.

A balanced article, per wikipedia's community agreed guideline would include all sides reflected in published reliable sources. Allow me to politely ignore Fowler&fowler, as I do not wish to repeat my other comments per talk page guidelines.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are wasting our time with these verbose disquisitions. Whether 1911, 1920, 1950, 1970, they are all too old for WP:RS.  The latest editions of both Britannica and Americana (of the last 25 years) have spent most of their texts discussing India, and I mean > 75%.  Are you disputing this?  If not, what then is the point of long-winded asides on the 1851 editions and 1911 editions, ad infinitum and ad nauseam or nonsense about T. N. Madan's article being shorter? It is four pages long.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Britannica has only four articles with the word "caste" in their titles. They are "Caste" (the flagship article, entirely about Indian Hindu society), "Caste (biology)" (about bees), "Islamic Caste (Indian Society)" (a short page) and "Christian Caste (Indian Society)" (also a short page).   If they thought social differentiation in Poland constituted a caste and it was notable, they would have had a page on it, at least a short page.  What does that tell you?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hoshigaki - I should have clarified that the older editions of encyclopedias, from early 20th century to later part of 20th century, have different authors and editors. A careful read shows a bit of rephrasing and a few sentences have been rewritten, but most of the article remained same, the broad worldwide emphasis was retained by different authors/editors over this time. There is no wikipedia guideline on 'age of citation for social science topics' and 'reliability of social science references of 1950s or 1970s versus 1990s or 2000s'. Many encyclopedia articles, you analyzed so diligently, use/cite literature that is some 50 years or more old, suggesting these new editions are not based on new discoveries but are summaries of some of the same old sources. If anything, as world becomes more open and regional encyclopedias get published, there are more peer reviewed journal articles, more books, more secondary sources and more regional tertiary sources that suggest caste was not or is not unique to any one country.

For example, see caste in Yazidi people of West Asia article, a people and culture distant from India, they have their own unique religion, but had castes for many centuries, their past population estimated to be between 100s of thousands to millions by scholars, and there are reliable secondary sources and encyclopedic articles on Yazidi people and their caste system - but not covered by this article yet. That article, like this one, needs more sources for WP:V and improvement. For what it is worth, I have never edited Yazidi article, other wiki contributors have written it. There are many more such articles on caste, in tertiary sources outside of wikipedia, that have nothing to do with South Asia or any one country.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the meandering statement about Britannica and the statement that there is no wikipedia guideline on "age of citation for social science topics" is a gross violation of Wikipedia policy.
 * WP:RS clearly says: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent."
 * WP:TERTIARY clearly says: ": Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other."
 * That means that to evaluate present consensus, current tertiary sources should be used, not editions from 1911 (not to mention 1851) supplemented with meandering speculation.  If you, AVC, are serious about it, let's have an RfC on the reliability of using Britannica 1911 and Americana 1851.  You can add all your rationalizations in the RfC statement.  I am openly challenging you.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fowler&fowler. Tremendous social changes have taken place over the last few decades (and continue to take place today) in India. We should consider recent sources; evaluating present consensus is critical. I will create a separate sub-section to evaluate consensus based on recent sources.Hoshigaki (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please update the number of sources column in the table above. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  07:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hoshigaki, You are doing this again. I have serious concerns about your level of competence in the English language.  I feel your comprehension skills are poor at best.  Caste might be less of a central social issue in India today (although the jury is out on that), but that doesn't make India any less central to the topic of caste.  Caste someday might be nonexistent in India, but India would still be central to the (by then) historical topic of caste.  You have also misinterpreted Wikipedia guidelines.  They are about citing present consensus on a 3,000 year old form of social differentiation, not about citing the consensus on the present state of a 3,000 year old form of social differentiation.  There are already concerns that you might be a sock, as there are about OrangesRYellow, though I'm willing to AGF this a little more.  I have been on Wikipedia six years.  New editors, don't jump into an RfC on a controversial topic such as caste in their first week and then hold forth in long-winded unfocused statements.  New editors usually don't know about RfCs.  New editors are diffident.  You can tell their rawness by their tone.  If you don't hunker down and focus on the material we have, if you don't seek help from some Wiki resource on English comprehension (whose poor state I'm not sure is real or feigned), I will consider your statement disruptive to the RfC process.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Fowler&fowler, I think there may have been some misunderstanding on your part about me, my English skills and my participation on Wikipedia. I respect the fact that you are a senior editor and I only wish to work collaboratively with editors like you and the thousands of other editors irrespective of their seniority. My English skills are out here in the open for anyone willing to or interested in evaluating. I have pointed out on earlier occasions too that it is not too difficult to understand the question this RfC asks. I have understood the RfC very well and I have absolutely no comprehension issues. Fowler, I respect your work here as a senior editor and I hope we can work collaboratively now in the future for a long time; I hope we can benefit from our interaction and make the articles better at the same time. Hoshigaki (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler - I invite you to respect wikipedia's community agreed talk page guidelines. Please avoid personal attacks on Hoshigaki with statements such as 'I have serious concerns about your level of competence in the English language. I feel your comprehension skills are poor at best.' His or her comments are relevant and everyone is welcome to wikipedia and to this RfC. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is all ok, ApostleVoonColorado, I have explained to Fowler above that I do not have any comprehension issues whatsoever. I am asking all of us here to put our misunderstandings and differences aside so we can work collaboratively, improve Wikipedia content and benefit from knowledgeable interactions with each other. Hoshigaki (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite Fowler&Fowler's unfortunate tone, which is understandable given the highly patronising treatment they have recieved in this long discussion, there is a very salient logical point which is not being addressed: that arguments about the centrality of caste to Indian culture are logically irrelevant to whether Indian Hindu culture is central to explaining caste. Hence arguing and sourcing that former point is a misguided distraction from the task of improving this article. If his point is being clearly understood, but not addressed, then that means it's being ignored, and that's not a civil way to conduct this discussion. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Analysis based on recency of presented sources
According to Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze in 2002:
 * "No less eminent a sociologist as M. N. Srinivas has even suggested that we are 'living in a revolution'. Even if we do not accept such optimism about the recent changes (there are fields of stationary as well as transformation), the last fifty years have certainly been a time of significant change in India's social structure. There is nothing in the record of India's last half century that would vindicate the thesis of the futility of changing the hold of antecedent economic and social inequalities in India."

This observation seems to fall in the same category with recent reports from 2011 like:
 * A recent analysis of government survey data by economists at the University of British Columbia found that the wage gap between other castes and Dalits has decreased to 21 percent, down from 36 percent in 1983, less than the gap between white male and black male workers in the United States. The education gap has been halved.

Other reports from 2010
 * Another survey conducted by Indian researchers along with professors from the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard showed that the social status of Dalits has risen as well — they are more likely to be invited to non-Dalit weddings, to eat the same foods and wear the same clothes as upper-caste people, and use grooming products like shampoo and bottled hair oil. 

Also from 2010:
 * “Caste has no impact on life today,” Mr. Ganesan said in an interview at one of Chennai’s exclusive social clubs, the kind of place where a generation ago someone of his caste would not have been welcome. “It is no longer a barrier.”
 * A crucial factor is the collapse of the caste system over the last half century, a factor that undergirds many of the other reasons that the south has prospered — more stable governments, better infrastructure and a geographic position that gives it closer connections to the global economy. 

While caste is very much a social issue in India even today, based on the sources above, it is clear that caste is no longer even amongst the central social issues in India. To make as accurate an analysis as possible, I will utilize only recent sources from the 44 presented for this RfC in determining if the reverse is true, i.e. is India central to caste today? Hoshigaki (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hoshigaki, you are being disruptive to the process, by consistently misinterpreting language. These are secondary sources that could be useful in a section "Caste today" in the article, they have nothing to do with the question being discussed in the RfC.  See my post above.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hoshigaki, please include the following references into the table above before the analysis of 44 (now 48) tertiary sources begins: 4) Sociology by Macionis, 5) Sociology: A Global Perspective, 6) Sociology by Shepard, 7) Invitation To Social And Cultural Anthropology. IMO, the last reference weakens the centrality argument even if it considers India to be the paradigmatic example of caste.  Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  19:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Hoshigaki - That is an interesting and relevant interpretation of RfC, caste in current context. I encourage you to read and contribute to other wikipedia articles on caste such as the Caste system in India. Some of the content you include above may improve the article there. This article links to it, and ultimately, a better summary from that article will be included to improve this article (see WP:SPINOFF and WP:FIVE for details and guidance). ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @CorrectKnowledge You are wildly off the mark about the last source.  It has 13 pages devoted to Caste.  Of these only one small paragraph mentions other countries.  The rest is all about the Indian caste system.  How is India not central if 97% of the pages on caste are devoted to India?  CK, none of those references in any case are relevant or reliable.  Find a scholarly tertiary source such as an encyclopedia article on "caste" or a specialist reference in sociology or anthropology which has an article on "caste," not a high-school text in sociology!!  After Fifelfoo's note above, those are the tertiary sources we are looking at.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * CK7 is an Indian reference written by an Indian author which describes caste from a universal perspective before going on into a lengthy subsection on Caste in India. It is pretty clear to me that it weakens the centrality argument. In any case, the reference is available for everyone to see. CK4 is a university textbook with a dedicated article on caste (as a closed class system). CK5 and CK6 are cengage learning material which combine articles on caste and class. Hoshigaki is free to analyze them independently and place them with FF8, 10, 23 if necessary. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  08:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

@Hoshigaki, Be warned that Caste-related article fall under Wikipedia discretionary sanctions. If after my repeated warnings, you continue to deliberately misinterpret language, you will be disruptive and I will ask for sanctions against you. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Fowler, Again I feel you have misunderstood this section in which I am analyzing according to the year of publication and other similar data. The intention in citing the Amartya Sen, Jean Dreze, The New York Times and the BBC sources above (in continuation of your reasoning that we need to consider the present situation) was to establish a baseline year for the inclusion sources. I know you favored sources going back 25 years at most but I feel we should make it even lesser, say 10 years or even the last 5 years - that is the inference we can draw from the M. N. Srinivas/Sen "We are 'living in a revolution'" statement. With that in mind I am working on the tables below and will continue to update them. I am excluding sources FF8, FF10, FF23, AV3, AV5 since they are not reliable per the table in the "Analysis based on actual content in presented sources" section. Hoshigaki (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * CorrectKnowledge, Let me finish with the 44 sources first, then we can add the remaining sources. Hoshigaki (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ApostleVonColorado, While I have an interest in the topic, I came here by chance following links from RfC for a country template (where I was invited by another editor). I have no interest and am unlikely to edit any India caste articles for now. Hoshigaki (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

comment by couriel
1. Is Hindu India central to a discussion of caste? Does this article minimize that central role (in a social and historical ill)?

This is a strange question. What does the term Hindu India refer to? Scholars studying sociology of religion agree Hindu is a diffuse religion. It is a diverse collection of thematic philosophical views, illustrated by its scriptures. It has no rigid common set of beliefs, including about social structure now commonly called caste. Hindu India is one example, an important example, in any discussion of caste. The concept of caste is more than that example. The main article is silent about the role of India to the concept of caste.

2. Does it make sense to ignore thousands of scholarly articles on caste and its history around the world?

No. This article should include caste in India and caste outside India. I reviewed wikipedia article on social class and this article after learning about wikipedia initiative to become a resource in school and university course work. Including summary and citations about castes everywhere will be more resourceful. Over 100 pre-modern societies outside India had castes. It may be impossible to include all in this article. Short summaries of special examples from South Asia, Middle East, Africa, Europe, Latin America, USA, Korea, China and Japan will be good. I posted my general observations on this, two days ago. See issues with this article part at the bottom. (Couriel76 (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC))