Talk:Caste system in India/Archive 15

The myth of the varna system
We have known for quite a while that the South India (India to the south of the Vindhyas) didn't have the varna system. I naively assumed that the North India did have a varna system. But, looking at the data provided by Christophe Jaffrelot, I find that there is no varna system there either.

Reading about the descriptions of the varna system in the texts, I get the impression that the Brahmins and Kshatriyas were the "service classes" (who didn't perform any productive function), but the Vaishyas and Shudras were productive classes. If so, I might expect the Brahmins and Kshatriyas to make up something like 5% of the population each, and the rest to be divided roughly equally between the Vaishyas and Shudras. "Vaishya", derived from the original Sanskrit term Vish, means the full-fledged "members of the tribe", whereas the Shudras were supposedly not members of the tribe. So, if a varna system were operating, we would expect to find a substantial number of Vaishyas. But the data provided by Jaffrelot shows pretty much no Vaishyas. If there are no Vaishyas, it is not a varna system. The whole thing is a fiction! - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Kshatriyas are mythological. Thats why there are Hindu myths about the destruction of the Kshatriyas.  They never existed in the first place.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that people are surprised at this. All social and/or religious classifications are subjective. I'm also not sure what the issue is in relation to this article. - Sitush (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The issues are probably too many.
 * To start with, a brute force assessment: there are 83 occurrences of varna, 64 occurrences of jati, and 6 occurrences of kula in the article. If this is an indication of the importance of the concepts, varna is getting a lot more coverage than its fictitious existence warrants. If I do a global search through the Wikipedia, I think the results will be similar. Varna gets a lot of coverage.
 * All kinds of caste articles have sections called "varna status", which is giving it undue prominence. It is as if we are telling the readers that the varna status of every caste is a key aspect of it. My suggestion would be to get rid of "varna status" except when a caste is known to have made claims regarding it.
 * Coming to the content of this article, the very first paragraph says that caste consists of two different concepts, varna and jāti, which may be regarded as different levels of analysis of this system. This sets the stage for the predominance of varna in the article. But there is no evidence that varna has much to do with caste.
 * Varna is a Brahminical view of the caste system. We need to clearly label it so, and note that it doesn't have much to do with reality.
 * Uma Chakravarti says that it is the economic ranking of castes that matters. I am sure that plenty of historians like Romila Thapar and R. S. Sharma also say this. But the economic aspect is not mentioned in the article at all.
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please address my comment.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Vic, I thought you were just being fictitious. Now that you have repeated youerself, here are a couple of quotes:

and

It is not the Kshatriyas that are mythical, rather it is the Vaishyas and Shudras. There is no evidence of their existence. However, even the Kshatriyas that appear here appear as a jati not as a varna. So it is really the varna concept that is mythical. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Caste system in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304073824/http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Press_files/Fountain%20Ink%20-%20December%202013%20-%20Cover.pdf to https://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Press_files/Fountain%20Ink%20-%20December%202013%20-%20Cover.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070111213049/http://www.unesco.org/courier/2001_09/uk/doss22.htm to http://www.unesco.org/courier/2001_09/uk/doss22.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead
Fowler&Fowler changed
 * "It has pre-modern origins, was transformed by the British Raj,"

into
 * " It has origins in ancient India, and was transformed by various ruling elites in medieval, early-modern, and, modern India, including especially during the Mughal Empire and the British Raj."

Vic undid this edit, with the edit-summary
 * "This has been discussed before"

As far as I remember, this has been discussed before indeed, with the surprsing conclusion that the caste-system as it is today was indeed the result of British Interventions. Yet, the article also mentions developments before the British Raj, including the 'freezing' of gene-flow at ca. 100 CE, and the role of the Mughal Empire on the modern caste system:
 * Gene-flow:
 * ''"According to Moorjani et al. (2013), widespread population mixture took place between 4,200 and 1,900 years ago (2200 BC-AD 100), where-after a shift to endogamy took place and admixture became rare.[note 4] The end of admixture is also documented in Indian texts of that time. While the early parts of the Rigveda reflect social mobility and the assimilation of non-Vedic people, post-Vedic texts as the Manusmriti forbade intermarriage between castes.[128][note 5] Basu et al. (2016) confirm the findings of Moorjani et al. (2013), and further note that


 * ... gene flow ended abruptly with the defining imposition of some social values and norms. The reign of the ardent Hindu Gupta rulers, known as the age of Vedic Brahminism, was marked by strictures laid down in Dharmaa sastra — the ancient compendium of moral laws and principles for religious duty and righteous conduct to be followed by a Hindu—and enforced through the powerful state machinery of a developing political economy. These strictures and enforcements resulted in a shift to endogamy."


 * Mughal Empire:
 * "The origin of caste system of modern form, in the Bengal region of India, may be traceable to this period, states Richard Eaton.[160] The medieval era Islamic Sultanates in India utilised social stratification to rule and collect tax revenue from non-Muslims.[161] Eaton states that, "Looking at Bengal's Hindu society as a whole, it seems likely that the caste system – far from being the ancient and unchanging essence of Indian civilisation as supposed by generations of Orientalists – emerged into something resembling its modern form only in the period 1200–1500"."

Note that the lead also contains the following sentence, which is more exact regarding the British influence, and is not at odds with the sentence written by Fowler&Fowler:
 * "The caste system as it exists today is thought to be the result of developments during the collapse of the Mughal era and the British colonial regime in India."

So, this change seems to be warranted. .  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Before I edited the article a week or so ago, and linked it to Caste, its first paragraph of the lead had read:

Earlier today, I tried to change the lead to:

But my first edit was reverted with informative edit summary ("this has been discussed before) and the second was stuck in an edit conflict and never lived to see the light of day.

As you can see, "social stratification" in the previous lead is cited to Gerald Barreman's classic article. But what does that article in fact say about Caste on pages 389-90? Here is a quote: "'A widely applied and frequently contested model for systems of birth ascribed rank is that of 'caste’, deriving from the example of Hindu India where the jati (almost literally ’common ancestry’) is the type-case. Jati in India refers to interdependent, hierarchically ranked, birth-ascribed groups. The ranking is manifest in public esteem accorded the members of the various groups, in the rewards available to them, in the power they wield, and in the nature and mode of their interaction with others. ... If one concedes that caste can be defined cross-culturally (i.e., beyond Hindu India), then the systems under discussion here are describable as caste systems. That is, if one agrees that a caste system is one in which a society is made up of birth-ascribed groups which are hierarchically ordered, interdependent, and culturally distinct, and wherein the hierarchy entails differential evaluation, rewards, and association, then whether one uses the term ’caste’, or prefers ’ethnic stratification’, or some other term is simply a matter of lexical preference.'"

Quoting Barreman, in fact, has long been a favorite conceit among people who attempt to minimize the ills of the caste system, whether they are Hindu, Indian, or Indologist, for he can be misused to show that Hindu India didn't uniquely invent the world's oldest system of apartheid, which has dehumanized millions over millennia, but only one form of stratification which exists everywhere.

What does pre-modern mean? The modern age in Indian history begins somewhere between 1848 and 1885. (That means—if I were to be facetious—there is room for the entire caste system to have been foisted upon an hitherto egalitarian Hindu society by the early British Orientalists who founded the Benares Sanskrit College in 1791.) We usually don't use pre-modern for "ancient."

As for the British Raj, can someone find one tertiary source from among the twenty four I had compiled with extensive quotes a few years ago, that give such prominent billing to the British Raj, indeed even mention it in the lead sentence? Contrast, for example, this definition of Andre Beteille, India's National Research Professor of Sociology: "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. ..."

As someone who wrote the history sections of the Kurmi and Jat people pages, I know the references, especially Susan Bayly. The British intervention, to the extent it was one, didn't really happen until the British Indian censuses began in 1871. Much of the caste crystallization of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries cannot directly be attributed to the British. In cases such as the Kurmis and Jats, for example, British revenue officials, upon noticing their acumen as tillers par excellence, handed out especial favors to them, in contrast to Brahmins and the Rajputs whose shabby fields—a result of the caste restriction on handling the plough—could be spotted from a mile away. The resulting irritation among the high-caste elite in the Gangetic plain was one of the factors in the Indian rebellion of 1857. In other words, the British intervention was not one of uniformly favoring Brahmin-Kshatriya orthodoxy, at least in terms of policy, even if some cockamamie early ethnologists were waxing eloquent on the Aryan male's broad forehead, fair complexion, prominent nose, and bushy black beards.

I'm afraid this is a really shabby lead. It is certainly not a summary of the article. I can't say my proposed replacement is either, but it is more accurate and NPOV. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  07:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Last updated:  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think a revision is very much needed and your text is on the right track. But I think some of the details are problematic.
 * I don't know of any evidence that the "ruling elites" had anything to do with developing caste, except that they had to frequently mediate in status-contestations.
 * I don't know of anything that changed in the "medieval" period, except that Rajput clans developed, claiming Kshatriya status.
 * I don't know of any contribution that the Mughal Empire made to caste. It was the decline of the Mughal Empire that provided an impetus to caste because there was intense competition for status and privilege. (This is sort of how Susan Bayly describes it.)
 * In a bit more detail, castes (jatis) existed during the Buddha's time. They were more pronounced at the top (Brahmins and Kshatriyas) and the bottom (Chandalas etc, whom we now call "Dalits"), but the middle was amorphous. Around 100 AD (which we notice in the genetic trail), the ideas of purity-pollution developed, reinforced by the Gupta rule (not by them directly, but by the Brahminical ascendancy that they promoted). Then things remained more or less unchanged till the declining Mughal period. The contribution made by the British rule is that it tried to codify caste, seeing the entire society as being divided into castes. So even people who didn't have any pronounced caste ended up getting one of those. So, the only ruling elites who directly interfered with or imposed caste were the British. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ruling elites included chieftains of newly empowered groups (whether emerging in the hinterland or arriving as immigrants) as well as the elites of the kingdoms which claimed sovereignty over the hinterland. New caste identities, and not just of Kshatriya status, have emerged from the earliest times as a compromise reached between these elites, each new uplifted local elite in turn granting caste favors to their dependent groups. Not just the Rajput, which are very important, for they defined ideals of Kshatriyahood in much of the Gangetic plain for many centuries, but also Kayastha, emerged in medieval times.  As for the early-modern and modern period, you will find much of what you say in the Kurmi, which I wrote, with valuable feedback and collaboration from  some five or six years ago.  Susan Bayly concentrates on the eighteenth and nineteenth century, a part of the subtitle of her book.  But the British were not the first rulers or visitors who attempted to document caste practice and thereby to link jati to varna.  South Indian elites of the early medieval era left behind inscriptions describing changing numbers of castes; Arab visitors described the same.  The British, of course, did attempt to document caste most thoroughly.  But it is not as if they necessarily invented these categories.  When a British census said, "An Ahir or Gwala is a clean Shudra" (ie a Brahmin can accept water from them), they may have straightjacketed observed behavior, but the British did not make up the behavior.  The British after all brought much to India, among which were ideas of modern democracy, individual rights, modern secular law, modern education (in turn propagating ideas from European enlightenment), not to mention industrialization, and so forth.  Most British, especially after the Anglicists (such as Macaulay and James Mill) gained the upper hand in Company policy on education (and the Orientalists receded), despised the Caste System.  Hindu Indians, of lower castes, had they wanted, could have entirely rejected Hinduism (as some Southern Indian castes did).  Goodness knows, there were plenty European evangelists around to deliver them "from error's chain" (of the hymn) and British administrators to grant them economic and educational favors. But most Hindus chose to reassert their caste status or assert even higher caste status.  The Ahir and Gwala, milkmen and cowherds, of clean Shudra status, became the Yadav Kshatriyas, claiming descent from the Lord Krishna and the Moon, in the first (and even second) half of the 20th century.  Ideas of modern egalitarianism, learned by Hindus in British-established schools and universities, did not lead to a more egalitarian educated Indian class, but often rather to creating a bureaucracy dominated by high-caste Hindus.  The British did affect the caste system, but the usual blame that is assigned to them, is misplaced.  The tenacity with which Hindus have clung to caste had been the invariant feature through which all external interventions have been refracted and distorted. As for genetic studies, let me just say this.  As someone who knows a thing or two about computational genomics, none are stable. Even the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) estimates for the domesticated chicken, whose genome is much better understood, have kept changing during the last 15 years.  So, I would not bother to introduce human genetic investigations (all of which couch their conclusions in cautious probabalistic language) in Caste articles, other than as a footnote in a review of the scholarly work.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * F&F, endogamy is reinforced by the reservation system. If you marry outside your caste, you may lose benefits.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * :) The Hindu caste system does not recognize the concepts of mixed-blood, half-breed, mulatto, quadroon, octoroon or mestizo. If a Brahmin marries a Kshatriya (warrior) or Vaishya (trader), the Brahmin, the Kshatriya spouse, and all offspring go straight to outcast hell.  So, if benefits of reservation was indeed uppermost in anyone's mind Hindus would be marrying outside their caste all the time.


 * Historically, caste upliftment has never happened in Hinduism by marrying up, it has happened more often by bribing a Brahmin priest---as Shivaji of Kunbi descent did during late Mughal rule, or as various Rajputs of mixed caste identity did in early medieval times---to claim Kshatriya status.  Subsequently all kinds of fabulous histories were made up.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * F&F, Kshatriya never existed in the first place. They are as mythological as Hanuman. Thats why there are Hindu myths about the destruction of Kshatriyas.<b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 18:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You keep saying this but I am still at a loss regarding your point. What matters is what people believe. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) VG: More seriously though, the continuing endogamy even among educated, widely traveled, cosmopolitan Hindus, has little to do with reservations. The upper-castes, the so called Forward Castes, don't receive affirmative action benefits, but they don't marry outside their caste either. The reasons are complex. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  18:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Related to Caste, or rather to the pressure of Jati, is female infanticide, and now female fetuside,  found typically in North and Central India among the Kshatriya groups, especially the Rajputs of Rajasthan, and other groups such as Jat people in the Punjab and Haryana, but unheard of among Dalits.  The practice—which was noticed by the early Company administrators in India, confirmed informally in early regional censuses which showed lop-sided sex-ratios, and led eventually to the only social intervention made by the British in post-mutiny India, the Female Infanticide Prevention Act, 1870—is very much alive and well, and now even causing concern to public health officials in the US, Canada, UK, Spain, and some Scandinavian countries, and documented in recent medical journal articles.  For educated Hindu immigrant couples, especially involving a wife born in India, have been found much more likely to abort their third and fourth birth order female fetuses than the average.  This practice is not found among Pakistani immigrants to these countries.  Such is the pressure of the caste group.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In north India, Muslim mobs would routinely destroy villages to abduct / rape the women. See this clip from a BBC documentary. Female infanticide was a solution to a tough problem.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've heard of the Hindu dowry system, birth defects, maternal depression, mentioned as causes, but never the violence toward women in the Partition of India (1947), which is the subject of the documentary. Sikhs killed and raped plenty Muslim women and there are equally heart-rending accounts of Muslim women being abducted and raped by Sikh mobs, especially in Amritsar.  Besides female infanticide in India has become much worse in the last 50 years, the child sex ratios falling to their lowest levels since records began to be kept in 1871.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2017
But now-a-days due to Right to Equality, Fundamental Rights in Constitution of India, the system of untouchability is not in existence. 117.201.151.164 (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Izno (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Published genetics data on castes cannot be ignored
Some editors here who appear to be of not of the scientific background are reverting edits that cite published scientific research in highly reputed journals, such as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.

Who gives them the authority to judge on the scientific merit of published and accepted science research?

In all scientific journals a letter is a shorter research article (Nature, for example) and / or reanalysis of published data in the same journal (PNAS, for example). It is not an "opinion" and unqualified editors should refrain from making such defamatory statements here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkv22 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Caste system in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ncst.nic.in/index.asp?langid=1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nird.org.in/NIRD_Docs/OctLevel209.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060420014042/http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/georgesept62001.html to http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/georgesept62001.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Caste system in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161201020242/https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2015/11/4083530/ to https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2015/11/4083530/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220153727/http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0104/ejvs0104article.pdf to ftp://ftp.uic.edu/pub/library/scua/Vedic%20Studies/1995.01.04.EJVS.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Doublure
you removed this subsection, because it is "almost same as Caste_system_in_India". You've got a point there; yet, the subsection which you removed, "Imperial rule and the end of population mixture (ca. 100 CE)", is part of a narrative on the braod history of the Caste system in India, while the subsection "Onset of endogamy" is part of a more specific section. Removing this subsection braks the broader narrative, which makes no sense. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   11:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is still same as what has been already repeated on other sections. We don't use genetic researches for making a point about castes and it has been discussed many times and consensus is that we should not consider them. can also confirm this, that's why I would also question if we need the Caste system in India section. Saying "end of mixture" on the disputed section (Imperial rule and the end of population mixture (ca. 100 CE)) would lead other viewers to think that most of the 25,000 of castes and subcastes didn't had any population mixture, despite nearly all of them were created after the mixture during the entire and medieval as well as early modern times. Earlier version of the article didn't contained these 2 sections, they were newly added. Endogamy has been already detailed on other sections like "Modern perspective on definition", "Ghurye's 1932 opinion", with facts not just speculations. Capitals00 (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Captials00, you're giving five arguments and one unclear qualification in reply (maybe you can make a bullit-list of them?):
 * Repetition: see my argument on the coherence of the two sections.
 * Genetic research & castes: we don't use sources on genetical research to make statements about specific castes. This is about the onset of endogamy, and is definitely relevant in this context. I think that you're well aware why this is relevant: it shows that the caste-system is not an invention of the British, but existed long before. Note also that these subsections refer to multiple sources and follow-up research, spanning almost a decade, published in reliable journals. Reich et al. (2009) has 747 cites.So, why would you want all of this to be removed?...
 * (Non)mixture of 25,000 castes: if it's clear to you that those castes were created after the onset of endogamy, then why would you suppose that other readers think that those castes already existed before the onset of endogamy? This is speculation on how readers may read this section; if this section is unclear in this respect, then it should be improved, not removed.
 * Earlier versions didn't contain these two sections: that's a non-argument, isn't it? Should we stick to the first version of every article? See also Talk:Caste system in India, in which WP:CONCENSUS was reached for the present lead, including the sentence


 * which refers to these pre-British origins, as explained in these two subsections.
 * Already detailed: see point 1, again.
 * "facts not just speculations": I suppose you refer to the explanations given by Moorjani and Basu? Is it your personal opinion that these are "speculations," or have you got reliable sources which say so?
 * NB: there is a difference between the two subsections; "Onset of endogamy" is mostly about genetical research (except for a comment on Basu, which can be moved downward), while "Imperial rule and the end of population mixture (ca. 100 CE)" gives socio-cultural explanations for these findings. So, not just mere repetition, but a variation in the subject.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is true that we do not usually use genetic studies as sources in caste-related articles, for a variety of reasons. There was a recent discussion about this but I'm blowed if I can remember where it was. When I find it, I will add it to my User:Sitush/Common page. However, as said above, that applies to mentioning specific castes and I'm not sure consensus exists for completely ignoring them. Obviously, the disparity means that POV warriors can game the system. - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I can find consensus for changing the lead but can't find any consensus or discussion to include genetics studies. On one Indus Valley Civilisation extended discussion had been made and conclusion was that these genetics studies are not stable enough to write about Indian history. If there is no consensus to add them on caste articles we should be rid of them, or reduce the sections to single sentence along with the rebuttal. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you, D4iNa4. Bear in mind that scientists can't even agree on the genetics of a hen's egg at present. Studies of caste genetics tend to be small, to involve self-identification, to be driven by caste associations etc, and to be couched in very equivocal terms. Add to those issues such things as the sheer pace at which the science of genetics is changing and I think these studies cause more heat than light in caste-related articles of all types. - Sitush (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sitush I think you are were recalling this recent discussion. I am seeing that these discussions involved, he can share his opinion here as well. Capitals00 (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, these studies are flawed. Too many variables. To few hard facts to test against. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply by JJ:
 * @D4iNa4: those genetic studies are from WP:RS, and relevant for this article. The findings have been confirmed repeatedly, that is, they are stable, and they are cited hundreds of times.
 * @Sitush: this a series of follow-up studies, which agree with other, and are cited hundreds of times. They are not about specific castes, but about the broad origins of the Indian population, the caste system, and the onset of endogamy. The onset of endogamy at ca. 200 CE definitely share light on the origims of the caste-system in India.
 * @Capitals00: citing RegentsPark from that recent discussion linked to above: "Ideally, we should only include results of genetic studies that have been published in peer reviewed journals and then cited in other peer reviewer articles." Reich +700 cites; Moorjani +100 cites, including thirteen cites in recent books. Basu (2016) is a follow-up study on those studies.
 * @F&f's: please provide reliable sources for your comment, "these studies are flawed.  Too many variables.  To few hard facts to test against." If there are studies which show that the studies by Reich, Moorjani and Basu are flawed, they may be relevant, and could be added, that is, if they are from reliable sources. Those findings have been confirmed by several follow-up studies, that is, have been tested repeatedly.   Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Argument about these sources had been already made on Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation, before here. These studies are cited by other sources not just because they agree with them but also because they are countering them, why they have to counter if studies are so reliable? Also why they are not recognised by historians? Like others said, these studies are flawed. We can wait untilthey have gained enough grounds among historians, but for now I have removed both recent genetics sections according to consensus(4 in agreement against 1) here. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I stated my position here almost two years ago. Since then the situation has improved a bit, with more results being published and at least some newspaper commentaries becoming available. But ideally we need scholarly secondary sources by historians and anthropologists. The genetics papers themselves are too technical, and open to false interpretations by editors (and sometimes the authors of the papers themselves!). We don't have an easy way to settle the debates that crop up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Reich is from 2009, Moorjani from 2014, Basu from 2016. That's not a short time-span, nor fluid. The book-cites for Moorjani include books by historians and other diciplines as well:
 * Mukhtar Ahmed, Ancient Pakistan - An Archaeological History: Volume I: The Stone Age
 * Gwen Robbins Schug,Subhash R., A Companion to South Asia in the Past]
 * Local concencus already was to only include genetic research from WP:RS, which is cited by other WP:RS; these sources confirm to this local concencus. And local concencus cannot override wiki-policy, which is: articles are based on WP:RS. Moorjani confirms to both this local concencus and to Wiki-policy. And if you think that those sources counter Moorjani, you'll have to provide exact sources and page-numbers, not just make an assumption which cannot be verified. Even then: you do not simply remove it, but improve it, by adding info from those other sources as well. See WP:BRD. The same for the comment that they are flawed: sources and page-numbers, not persoanl opinions. And Reich nor Moorjani are mentioned on the talkpage of Indus Valley Civilisation, nowhere. Arguments please, not fabrications. So, D4iNa4, please stop your pov-pushing. Gaining concencus is not a vote-count, but based on arguments and Wiki-policies. See my comment above on local concencus and Wiki-policy, both setting standards to which Reich and Moorjani confirm. You don't override this with a vote-count.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   17:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Mukhtar Ahmed's book is a self-published source. Per WP:BRD you have to wait for your edits to reach consensus before readding them. Since you had originally added them without any consensus and now they are removed after consensus, so kindly don't revert back to your version. Instead wait for the consensus which is totally against you. And it has been already said that there is no possibility to include genetic researches either. Capitals00 (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You are reversing WP:BRD here: D4iNa4 boldly removed info from WP:RS, instead of trying to improve it. He turned a series of comments into a vote-count; we don't establish consensus by vote-counts, but by arguments and Wiki-policies. There is no consensus for removal; there is a local consensus for stricter rules to use genetic research in specific caste-related articles. As RegentsPark wrote: "Ideally, we should only include results of genetic studies that have been published in peer reviewed journals and then cited in other peer reviewer articles." See the difference with "no possibility"? This local consensus is about the use of genetic research in articles on specific castes, and not on the caste-system in general. And even if we follow this local consensus, instead of established Wiki-policy on WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, then Reich and Moorjani are accepted: they are published in peer-reviewed journals, and cited (hundreds of times) in other peer-reviewed journals. Please use the arguments you refer to for removal in a proper way: they argue against removal. And don't forget: local consensus does not overrule Wiki-policy, which is WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Regarding "flawed": still waiting for cites which say so; see WP:VERIFY again. So far, it's a typical blog-"argument" from people who reject anything that questions a certain narrative on Indian history.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * NB: Moorjani has been mentioned before in discussions: Talk:Caste system in India/Archive 12 (june 2015) and Talk:Caste system in India/Archive 14 (march 2016). I added Moorjani after this second talkpage-notice, after Basu (2016) was published, which confirmed Moorjnai (2013).  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * NB2: these reverts  by Capitals00 and D4iNa4; they keep switching arguments, and breach WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, WP:IMPROVE, and ignore their own refernce to a local concencus, which says, in RegentPark's words: "Ideally, we should only include results of genetic studies that have been published in peer reviewed journals and then cited in other peer reviewed articles."   Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I had removed it for correct reasons, because it was same as other section. If I was aware that we don't accept genetic studies I would be talking about removing both sections from start. But I think we have resolved it now. Current issue is that you have made 3 reverts and 4th revert can result in block. It is not my tendency to repeat the argument, only option you have got now is to open an RfC. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, this is not resolved. Your initial reason for removal was not correct; the second subsection elaborated on the first. You could have tried to improve it, if you think it wasn't good enough. Instead you opted for removal, against Wiki-policy. And we do accept genetic studies; see WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, and the local consensus referred to above.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which "local consensus" you are referring to but consensus can change and thus far there doesn't seem to be anyone else supporting your position in this discussion - Sitush (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Your stance not to include any genetic research in caste-related articles (if I understand correctly); and RegentsPark's stance as quoted above. Anyway, I'm still waiting for the reliable sources which say that Reich (2009), Moorjani (2013), and Basu (2016) are flawed and/or unreliable, and override the 700+/100+ citations. The "consensus" above seems to be based on older genetical research, the pov-pushing at specific Wikipedia caste-articles, and the Out of India-bias found in some older scientific articles, based on older methods of research. I tend to agree with those criticisms and concerns, but newer research is, as far as I know, based on larger population samples, and much larger sequences, and therefore producing much more reliable (and spectacular) insights. So, merely stating, regarding Reich and Moorjani, "they're flawed," without any further refence, does not convince me. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   16:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * JJ, the content that got removed also cited Basu et al saying that endogamy set in during the "foreign invasions", whatever they were. That is contradicting Moorjani. We really need material written by historians/anthropologists. The geneticists need to explain their results to them. So far, they are not doing a good job of it. This was mentioned by David Reich himself. As far as we are concerned the genetic stuff is all WP:PRIMARY. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * you probably refer to this piece of text:


 * That article was not written by Basu, but by Murali K. Vadivelu. Vadivelu writes:

Basu (2006) does not use the term "foreign," nor invasion." What they do write is (emphasis mine):
 * So, a statement from Vadivelu was attributed to Basu, while both articles very clearly state what Basu's position is. This misinformation was added by D4iNa4 at 19 august 2017. Sloppy, to state it very mildly...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is a contradiction nevertheless. Vadivelu did have a valid point (as far as I could tell) that the length of generations used by most of the geneticists isn't supported by historical evidence. So, the dates they could be entirely wrong. This demonstrates the fragility of the conclusions being drawn. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But not the basic findings: two broad ancestor groups; admixture all over the place in the past, in contrast to the present situation; onset of endogamy, also in a distant past, not recently. In cases like this, with reliable sources and a high impact, that is, high relevance, but also alternative interpretations available: attribution, and additional information, in line with Wiki-policy. Not deletion. And, I asked for "the reliable sources which say that Reich (2009), Moorjani (2013), and Basu (2016) are flawed and/or unreliable, and override the 700+/100+ citations." Vadivelu:
 * "An excellent article."  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * NB: recent genetic research, including Moorjani (2013), is based on genome-wide data, where-as older genetic research is based on "variation in the single-locus, uniparentally inherited mtDNA and non-recombining Y chromosome (NRY)" (Pugach and Stoneking (2015)). It is this older research which some object against. According to Pugach and Stoneking (2015), "Genome-wide data are particularly useful for inferring migrations, admixture, and fine structure, as well as for estimating population divergence and admixture times and fluctuations in effective population sizes." One of the researches they refer to is Moorjani (2013).
 * Pugach and Stoneking (2015), Genome-wide insights into the genetic history of human populations
 * Pickrell and Reich (2014), Toward a new history and geography of human genes informed by ancient DNA
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Pickrell and Reich (2014), Toward a new history and geography of human genes informed by ancient DNA
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Cherry-picking Outdated
My comment about using genetic research to make statements on specific castes, which seems to be confirmed by Sitush above, is probably also what was meant by these lines from the "Onset of endogamy" section:

Typically, the reference does not give the chapter-title, nor the specific author, nor the editors, nor the first publication year. It is from a chapter, "Anthropological, historical, archaeological and genetic perspectives on the origins of caste in South Asia," from the book "The evolution and history of human populations in South Asia. Inter-disciplinary studies in archaeology, biological anthropology, linguistics and genetics," which wa sfirst published in 2007. That is, before the oublications by Reich, Moorjani, et cetera. Obviously, the introducing sentence "The reliability of genome studies in discerning endogamy and caste practices in South Asia have recently been challenged." does not refer back to Reich, Moorjani etc. This is cherry-picking, and tendentious editing.

A better phrasing would have been ad follows:



Yet, where to place this? At the beginning of the section? Why? What is Boivin exactly referring to? I'll try to find out, and my guess is that it is about using genetic resarch to make statements about specific castes. If it turns out that she's referring about to genetics & the general history of caste, then she's still writing ante Reich, Moorjani etc, and onviously outdated. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

NB: her article has got 16 citations...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

PS2: there is a link at Academia.edu. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

PS3: it was added at 14 july 2015, by a highly appreciated editor. Hmmm...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

PS4: quotes from Boivin:

So, this quote was not primarily on caste, but on pre-2007 genetic studies on "The substantial number of genetic studies confirming the migration into South Asia in late prehistory of Indo-Aryans". The further analysis at pages 351-355 also refers to pre-2007 research...

One of the problems she tackles in 2007 is:

That's exactly the kind of problem which has been adressed since then, yielding spectacular results and insights, and confirmation of the IAmt.

NB: she also notes that some researchers attribute the introduction of the caste-system to the Indo-Aryans. And that's a point which has been disproven by Moorjani etc.: the Indo-Aryans may have contributed to the system (though the Dravidians also already had a social stratification), but some system seems to have been consolidated in the beginning of the common era, with the onset of endogamy. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Imperial rule and the end of population mixture (ca. 100 CE)
Is that a proper title for this sub-section? The text only once mentions indirectly the Gupta rule.I would recommend amending the title to make it explicitly clear what dynasty was ruling during the "Imperial rule" era Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

picture captioned "Dr.Ambedkar- Periyar, Social Reformers against the Caste System"
There are several people in the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.207.205 (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

style
The style is pretty disastrous. The page needs one of those headings which require a rework to make it clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.207.205 (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Caste system in India
Which "WP:PRIMARY" source do you object to? A.j.roberts (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * All of them. Anything published before 1950 is not permissible. And, the caste system issues are such a dynamic research topic that the only the most recent research might fit the bill, unless it is a highly regarded and authentic piece of work. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * you are still yet to reply about the concerns before continuing the edit war. Capitals00 (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1950 isn't mentioned anywhere in the Policy, and given both the Caste system, and British Raj were created centuries before 1950, you'll find no post 1950 PRIMARY sources, and discount numerous reliable secondary source, before you consider the article details the history of the caste system. To quote the WP:PRIMARY policy:
 * Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any
 * interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward,
 * descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about
 * a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source
 * yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add
 * unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living
 * people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy.
 * anyway the NCBI published paper is a 2001 PRIMARY source, while the The Hindu is a 2016, the CDC a 2014 the Life Science a 2013, the Time another 2013 secondary sources, and they similarly cite the Manusmriti and Dharmasastra, validating their use in my:
 * First observed in Megasthenes's 4th century BCE work, Indica, where he noted the population was divided into 7 endogamous, and hereditary castes[7], and mandated in the 3rd century BCE :::: Manusmriti code, described in detail by Al-Biruni, in the 10th century CE[8][9], and in a manner recent DNA studies appear to support[10], the system today is practised across South
 * Asia, with variations prevelant in Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan[11] and Pakistan.
 * A.j.roberts (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The scholarly debates and conclusions on this subject changes and reforms every few years, that's why you were asked to provide new sources. Genetic studies are not also not recommended for caste articles, there have been a number of discussions about not keeping them. Capitals00 (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The origins of the Caste system, and the first known observations of it, do not change every few years, nor do the Hindu scriptures that mandate the practice. While the cited secondary summaries of the latest DNA studies are current, reputable secondary sources. A.j.roberts (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , as cited by, would you please like to clarify why you feel any mention of DNA studies supporting the antiquity of the caste system, are either not relevant to this article, and / or in violation of a Wikipedia policy?
 * Are there any objections to: the system today is practised across South Asia, with variations prevalent in Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan[11] and Pakistan.
 * A.j.roberts (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not forgetting the Anglo-Indians, as the reverted edits restore the two invalid "the British segregated Indians by caste, granting administrative jobs and senior appointments only to the upper castes", which is not supported by the literature, as say "the majority of the [Customs & Surveys] posts now held by Natives were held by Anglo-Indians & Eurasians, & many of those posts carried good salaries, ranging from Rs.150 to Rs.500 per month.; …the Rupee was then worth 2/2d, whilst living in the upper provinces cost less than half what it does now.[62]" or "In 1840 90.56 per cent of clerks in Calcutta‘s government offices had been Eurasians and only 0.44 per cent were Indian." both contradicts the use of only. A.j.roberts (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

A.j.roberts, Honestly I can't make head or tail of what you are trying to argue here. But as far as my revert was concerned, I noticed that you were trying to analyse and interpret WP:PRIMARY sources, in this case historical texts, such as Megasthenes, Al Beruni, and Hindu scriptures of various kinds. You are not allowed to do that as per Wikipedia policy. You are only allowed to report on scholars' interpretation of those texts. Secondly, you were also putting all this content in the WP:LEAD, which is only allowed to summarise the content described in the body. So, you cannot add new content there. Your best bet is to read the content in the body of the article, and discuss here whatever objections you might have. If and when WP:CONSENSUS is reached on your objections, we can figure out what needs to go into the lead. Finally, this article has been extensively debated in the past. Please see the archives of this page, use the search box to find the content that is relevant to your issues, and examine what the old conclusions were. Please don't expect us to debate all those old issues all over again. Regards, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

to: "... appointments largely to the Anglo-Indians, and the upper castes, while the British Indian Army recruited from the "Martial races". The Indian Councils Act 1909 introduced separate electorates, across the region." corrects an obvious error, that both the cited text, linked article, and the Censuses of British India highlight (though I left off citing the Census, as that is they are a primary source). As per the linked pages, and cition, the system IS found is found in Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Pakistan. A.j.roberts (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll keep this simple, the insertion of "First observed in Megasthenes's 4th century BCE work, Indica, where he noted the population was divided into 7 endogamous, and hereditary castes[7], and mandated in the 3rd century BCE Manusmriti code, described in detail by Al-Biruni, in the 10th century CE[8][9], and in a manner recent DNA studies appear to support[10], the system today is practised across South Asia, with variations prevalent in Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan[11] and Pakistan.", is the orthodoxy, and copied in from the cited reputable secondary sources, not my own analyse / invention. Similarly changing: "... appointments to only the upper castes"

Genetic research

 * The "policy" on not using genetics seems to be based on previous pov-pushing in articles on specific castes ('my caste is actually from this or that higher descent') based on outdated genetic research applying flawed methodologies. In a previous discussion I noted the following, regarding the onset of endogamy at the beginning of the Common Era:
 * Discussions on the use of genetics in caste-related articles have to take these recent developments into account. My request for "the reliable sources which say that Reich (2009), Moorjani (2013), and Basu (2016) are flawed and/or unreliable, and override the 700+/100+ citations" has still not been answered.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussions on the use of genetics in caste-related articles have to take these recent developments into account. My request for "the reliable sources which say that Reich (2009), Moorjani (2013), and Basu (2016) are flawed and/or unreliable, and override the 700+/100+ citations" has still not been answered.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussions on the use of genetics in caste-related articles have to take these recent developments into account. My request for "the reliable sources which say that Reich (2009), Moorjani (2013), and Basu (2016) are flawed and/or unreliable, and override the 700+/100+ citations" has still not been answered.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussions on the use of genetics in caste-related articles have to take these recent developments into account. My request for "the reliable sources which say that Reich (2009), Moorjani (2013), and Basu (2016) are flawed and/or unreliable, and override the 700+/100+ citations" has still not been answered.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussions on the use of genetics in caste-related articles have to take these recent developments into account. My request for "the reliable sources which say that Reich (2009), Moorjani (2013), and Basu (2016) are flawed and/or unreliable, and override the 700+/100+ citations" has still not been answered.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussions on the use of genetics in caste-related articles have to take these recent developments into account. My request for "the reliable sources which say that Reich (2009), Moorjani (2013), and Basu (2016) are flawed and/or unreliable, and override the 700+/100+ citations" has still not been answered.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no "policy" on genetic research, only CONSENSUS (a weak one, admittedly) among involved editors. The policy that exists is WP:PRIMARY, which says somewhere that in science, the research article that describes an original invention/discovery is regarded as a PRIMARY source.
 * The problem with the genetic research at the moment is that it has not been validated by sociologists/historians who know about caste. There have also been criticisms that the geneticists have used their own understanding of what castes are, which may or may not be historically valid. These are not very strong objections though. What I would really like to see is an articl written by geneticists and sociologists jointly or a sociologist's review of the genetic research, which explains the results to us in terms that we can understand. I think your own proposed content is fine. But if somebody else comes and adds dubious content along the same lines, claiming that they have better knowledge of population genetics, we have no real way to decide the issues. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Given the majority of the article in conjecture, and in parts factually incorrect, discounting two decades of reputable published genetic and sociological research, on the possibility it may/could be flawed, or biased, makes absolutely no sense, and given all the citations are to reputable publications, summarising study findings, the WP:PRIMARY objection to any reference to the studies, just doesn't apply. Even citing a reputable published paper, such as Unity in diversity: an overview of the genomic anthropology of India, Sarabjit S. Mastana, 2014 would be compatiable with the WP:PRIMARY policy, in this particular case it's also cited in other peer reviewed works, journals, and by reputable News papers, say: NYTimes: In South Asian Social Castes, a Living Lab for Genetic Disease A.j.roberts (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's a link to another work-in-progess on The ancient genomics revolution (Skoglund & Mathieson 2017 preprint).  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I completely reject the allegation that the article is "conjecture". You should not be casting WP:aspersions without providing evidence. We have in fact done a major rewrite a couple of years ago, when we toned down postcolonial scholars like Dirks etc. And there are tons of historians that have now been covered. And, for writing about history, WP:HISTRS are the ideal sources. You haven't yet said whether you have studied the old talk page discussions. I am afraid you must do so, if you are to continue raising objections.
 * Coming to the genetics research, I think you need to give up. There is nothing definitive known from those results, except that endogamy set in sometime between 100 AD and 1000 AD. The precise time at which it happened is also contested. The Mastana article that you cited is of no help. What in it is relevant to this article? And, what are the credentials of the author for writing about history?
 * JJ, Soglund & Mathieson also seems to be of no help for the issues of this article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Xuanzhang
, The text added here regarding Xuangzhang's testimony is being challenged. Can you discuss it? Are you around? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I am deleting the concerned text for now:

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Miscited source
This source is used in the lead but it miscited. It shows the book title and editors' names but should also reference the chapter and author. I can't see the relevant pages to fix it.

As an aside, if anyone can sort it out then please could they also check the statement because it doesn't seem right to me. We're saying that the elites were favoured by the Brits until the 1920s but I thought the Brits were already seeing the error of their ways at the turn of the century, if not even earlier. I can't verify my thought at the moment - it is something dragged out of memory but that doesn't stop the current source being checked to ensure accurate paraphrasing etc. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Islam doing upliftment of depressed castes ?
I did the hangable crime of removing "Islam" (discussion about it is a taboo as per laws enacted by so-called "secularists", I know that ). I also know that some secularists-Indian ishtyle will replace it again there as soon as they are aware of the this "crime" ! Jon Ascton    (talk)  01:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is the edit you are talking about, I have reverted it. It was sourced and non-controversial. If you have sources that contradict it, please provide them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

jati
mujhe ek baat puchni hai ki kya wife ka jati praman patra bnane ke samay uske pita ke adhar pe bnegi ya unke pati ke adhar par — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:A02D:4D8A:79A8:22A6:4FF4:29E1 (talk) 06:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Esoteric sfnp
Hi, I am the one who puts "esoteric sfnp" citations. And WP:CITEVAR tells you not to change the citation styles without discussion.

I put these "esoteric" citations because they are better for the reader. Trying to find out what an sfn citation refers to requires two clicks, and interrupts the flow of reading. On the other hand, if the title of the work is included in the citation, one click gives enough information. An average reader of this page wouldn't know who "Dirks" is or what he wrote, in order to interpret a citation like "Dirks (2001)". And, even an expert reader wouldn't know, which "Sharma" and which book of Sharma constitute the meaning of "Sharma (1958)". So I am not sure why you are removing all this information that has been provided to provide the reader crazy stuff in understanding the citations better. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you will find that the non-esoteric version was in use way before you changed it, and the change was only implemented in part. This is a hyperlinked encyclopaedia - click on the link and it tells you what it is, hit the back button and you're where you came from. I can honestly say that I have never seen the template used in this way before. Probably it is somewhere but if you bear in mind how many articles I've edited, that's a pretty rare occurrence. - Sitush (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't seen them on Wikipedia because the editors take short cuts. But in reliable sources, they are found all the time, e.g., here, "Holwell, Genuine narrative, p.398.". This is the academic best practice.
 * In order to know what is being cited, we need to know the author and the title of the work. The rest of the information is necessary only if we are going to go and look up the source. So, ideally, the short citation should ideally include the author and the title, and the rest of the information can be in the full citation.
 * I admit that I have added the titles without asking anybody. But I was only adding information rather than subtracting, and nobody complained, till today that is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Or I haven't seen them on Wikipedia because they are not necessary on Wikipedia. Precisely because it is hyperlinked, which books are not. Click the cite and it takes you to the precise work; click that work and it may well take you to the online version of the source; rinse, repeat. It isn't even possible in print. - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I have translated this article in marathi and i want to convert sfnp to full citations as I fear short forms are accessible to laymen.
 * Another reason is on mrwiki the sfnp short notes are shown properly but not the bibliography part. So if you could let me know how to bring that.
 * Thanks in advance for your help. Sureshkhole (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean that you have translated this article to Marathi Wikipedia? Thanks very much for doing that!
 * The way I use sfnp citations, I include an sfnref parameter in the, where I include the author, short title and year. If you don't provide an sfnref parameter, you get an automatic sfn form, which has only author and year. Sitush prefers the automatic ones.
 * If you don't want any sfnp citations at all, you can copy the full citations inside a footnote. That would increase the size of the page, and make it harder to edit the wikisource. So, I would discourage doing so. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion.
 * Yes, almost half of this and completing soon.
 * True full citation makes it heavy. fine let me finish it and then we can see what other mrwiki users suggest on this.Sureshkhole (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2018
Please add the folloing to the end of lede of "Varna" section, better still put is in the lede of article (use uyour descrition):

Caste were initially organised as the economic division of labour based in the "guna" (ability) and "karma" (effort), which later evolved into birth-based rigid classification with own unique caste-based customs, rituals and practices. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌. This is not a reliable source. For historical information, we use reliable sources for history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Caste certificate
Appearantly, caste certificates are often issued at birth in India. After looking online, I seem to understand that there are differences between the various Indian regions/cities ? Some (like Mumbai) aim to have the caste mentioned at the birth certificate (see https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Caste-on-your-birth-certificate/articleshow/52203141.cms ), whereas in other regions, caste and birth certificates are two separate documents (see https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Now-birth-caste-certificates-to-be-given-in-schools/articleshow/52191794.cms ).

Can it be mentioned at this page that caste certificates are issued at birth ? Seems important to note. KVDP (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * birth certificate is different and caste certificate is different across india.
 * birth certificates may or may not have caste mentioned on them.
 * caste certificates are called caste validity certificates, that is different certificate issued by government offices after scrutinizing caste of ones parents to which one is born. And recently this certificate has been huge issue as that certificate is made compulsory to fetch benefits of ones lower caste in terms of reservations in political representation, education, gov jobs, welfare schems everywhere. so this can be mentioned for sure but how and where, I am not sure. and there is huge data to support these arguments too. if anyone is interested i will provide all the citations needed for this section/subsection. Sureshkhole (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * @ KVDP (talk) - this is a complicated topic and best left out of the wiki. In India, birth certificates that are issued by the local government only mention the mothers name, date time and place of birth, and if the child's name has been decided, the name of the person. Neither the caste, nor the religion is ever mentioned. There is a separate "caste certificate" that one applies for and receives from the local government if one belongs to a SC, ST or OBC. Even this has different requirements across India, often depending on the caste. For example, there are BCs in Odisha which require one to show a parcel of land in that tribal region. P.Sainath discusses this in some measure in Everybody loves a good drought. Notthebestusername (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits needed.
Some grammar needs to corrected.Shashank1301 (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Shashank1301

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2019
The article should probably have the following hatnote: 24.72.14.64 (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Tons of literature and research has been done on this topic, and it is not the task of hatnotes to promote a single one. If you think the paper in question is notable enough, please provide reliable sources that supports your claim. Gaioa  (T C L) 08:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually it would be better to redirect "Castes in India" to the Ambedkar book, and put a pointer to this page from there. I will do so unless there are any objections. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2020
Remove saying the caste system is used to determine jobs in India. It doesn't. People are not born into success, it should be earned. 45.49.126.54 (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - can you provide a citation for this? JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have changed it to "affirmative action programmes", which most readers probably won't understand, but at least it doesn't give a wrong sense of what it means. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Some sources to add much more nuance to the topic - "Caste system in India"
There are new books & related material which i don't see linked to the article -

Related material - Purushsukta Verse {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purusha_Sukta} & most commonly cited Veda verse as proof of caste division sanction but nobody mentions Vedas have almost no mention of social divisions except tribal kingdoms till later texts.

Manusmriti {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manusmriti} - Most famous Hindu Law book supporting caste division.

Vajrasuchi Upanishad {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrasuchi_Upanishad} - Never mentioned Hindu text in most articles discussing 'Hindu Caste system' which systematically destroy all forms of social divisions

Assalayana Sutta {https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN93.html}

Article talking about 'Caste system in India' without religious text critiquing it is a great oversight & must be included as a subsection mentioning Indic religious literature denouncing caste system. Theories section too must be curated with years/period they were proposed & changed {since discussions about 'Caste' needs to be systemized to make sense of how & when discussion shifted it's focus & to what the focus was shifted to}

---

I don't see any info being cited from books like - {Suggestion is books for Wikipedia authors who are maintaining the page "Caste system in India"}

Land and Society in Early South Asia: Eastern India 400–1250 AD {This book traces the history of Bengal from Pre-caste to emergence of caste like social groups}

The Great Agrarian Conquest: The Colonial Reshaping of a Rural World {Traces the role of colonizers in transformation of relations among natives of the region i.e. Punjab & negative impact of colonizer's reshaping}

Beyond Caste - Sumit Guha {Books shows how same social problems exists in all societies even without caste structure}

Mapping the Pāśupata Landscape - ELIZABETH A. CECIL {Book shows how communities formed along profession & region axis and engaged with religion as 'community'}

The article needs to counter essentialist critique of Hinduism by linking to to caste to bring better balance to the discussions about History of Caste as society's evolution in terms of political, social, institutional & financial contexts rather than religious contexts. There is also a need to add the role of Christian encounter & how their perceptions have affected the ideas about Indian society & caste globally but that should be a separate topic altogether.Deep007 bond007 (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Difference between British India and Princely States
I do not know how far the British practices and statutes referred to applied also in the princely states. If there were any significant differences, and if indeed the Raj really had any effect on the caste system, then they should have shown up in differences of effect as between British India and the princely states. Does any one have information to cover this in the article? Seadowns (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * There may be something in, which is a paper I keep meaning to add somewhere because it is a great example of how the system changes over time and even mentions a new Rajput caste community forming post-independence. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

With regards to diff between British India & Princely states there is a paper which compares British governed regions with native rulers based upon 'Public goods provision' -

Colonialism, Landlords, and Public Goods Provision in India: A Controlled Comparative Analysis by Ajay Verghese https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3015265

Does it show the difference you were looking for ? Deep007 bond007 (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deep007 bond007 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2020
Could the following hatnote please be added?

Thanks, 207.161.86.162 (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Favouring of upper-caste scholarship
This page has a major issue of upper-caste gaze. The article seems to have a view signficantly based on what upper caste community people have written. It takes a lot from upper-caste scholars like Arvind Sharma and not enough from lower-caste scholars of caste like Phule, Periyar, Kancha Ilaiah or even Ambedkar himself. The origins section does a decent job of representing this, but the other sections, especially the examples of caste in later periods, fail to mention that social disabilities were still the norm for most people and that the ideas of purity and pollution most certainly did not develop only from this period. Especially in contemporary India, the article echoes a major anti-reservation claim that reservations are the real perpetrator of caste not those doing honor killings, caste discrimination, etc. C1MM (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

More sources needed for Vedic and Later Vedic period under history
I was reading the article and found that both these sub-sections are sourced entirely from one book. Please help find more sources to improve it. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * R. S. Sharma is a solid historian and the stuff he writes is very hard to improve upon. If you have other sources that disagree, please bring them up. Otherwise, you are just barking up the wrong tree. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't it rather irrelevant that the source is good? The two sub-sections cover a fair portion of Indian history but they have just one source - the same book written by the same author. It's irrelevant if other sources agree or disagree, adding them here would only improve the section. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to improve it. You just can't declare that there is a problem with the content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I shall try and find more sources to improve it then. If I can't then I'll add the One source template as per the suggestions given here as the section does meet the criteria (again as given in this section for the template) Template:One_source Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the page says "A single source is not automatically a problem. Good judgment and common sense should be used." Expected it to get reverted if you pull such stunts again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * pull such stunts again - I don't understand the unnecessary aggression. I have improved this article before as well - including adding citations where other editors had marked them as being required. The edit was in good faith. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Apartheid and discrimination - Segregation in prisons
I thought the recent report + case would make sense for the section as they are directly talking about systemic segregation within prison populations. And the section itself is one on apartheid and discrimination. Looking at WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:EFFECT it seems that inclusion would be useful. As far as proper context goes what else could be included? Or would a reduced version of the edit fix those concerns? Something along the following lines -

Prison manuals in various states of India have not been updated since the British Raj and are used to enforce a caste based segregation of labour with prisoners being assigned tasks according to their caste.

Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Caste Politics subsections
Should the subsections of Caste system in India and Caste system in India be moved out into separate sections by themselves? Looking at the main article for Caste politics that is linked within the section itself it is clear that these two do not belong. I propose we move them to either Caste system in India or make them full sections in the article. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have moved out Economic inequality and Apartheid and discrimination into separate sections for now. It may also make sense to move them into some other part of the article like Contemporary India. It can be seen in even older versions of the page that these sections were earlier slotted under Criticisms and that Caste Politics was a separate section in itself (which also makes sense given the main article of that topic). Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

All opinions and no science - Genetic evidence possibly out there but not included
This article is simply unbalanced. There has been much genetic and genomic research on the people of India, in particular since the publication of David Reich's seminal work on the population history of India which shows that endogamy in India has a very long history. Intermarriage for many stopped a long time before the British came along, and there are caste associations in Indo-European and Dravidian speaking populations. I know of no other articles outside of those on India where scientific opinions are actually ignored. Science is based on hard facts, and ignoring it would make this article at best out-dated or misleading, at worst wrong. Hzh (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What part of the article are you commenting on? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The absence of scientific opinion would make that the entire article. I think at the least it should include a section on science. The focus on the British in the lead is also excessive, with the early history ignored. Reich gave the example of Vyasyas who appeared to have stopped intermarrige for over 2 thousand years, which makes the idea that it was the fault of the British weird. 15:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Make a better use of -> Reich, David; Thangaraj, Kumarasamy; Patterson, Nick; Price, Alkes L.; Singh, Lalji (2009), "Reconstructing Indian Population History", Nature, 461 (7263): 489–494, doi:10.1038/nature08365, PMC 2842210, PMID 19779445
 * and also-> Priya Moorjani et al: Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India. In: The American Journal of Human Genetics, American Society of Human Genetics, 8. August 2013 doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.07.006 PMID 23932107. The far reaching implication of both works is that the caste system in India is only about 1900 yrs old and all indian groups did regularly mix before.--Carolus.Abraxas (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is pretty much the conclusions historians had reached before any genetic studies. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If so, even more reason to include genetic evidence, because it provides corroboration. Scientific evidence is hard evidence, while historians often do textwork, citing sources open for interpretation.--Carolus.Abraxas (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Genetic studies are not included on caste-related pages as per the Wikipedia India Noticeboard. The reason being is that the field of genetics is fluid and rapidly expanding, the research so far is mainly primary sources, and interpretation of data and verification of results is very difficult. All genetic research should be confined to Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia or a page that has been created for focusing on the genetic research of particular ethnic groups. Chariotrider555 (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you think genetic data is very difficult to interpret and verify. You can argue that a set of genetic data may give only an incomplete picture, or does not reveal the complexities involved, or that the data does not support the interpretation, or that more corroborating evidence may be needed to support a particular thesis. Science however should be verifiable, there is nothing about genetic data that would be very difficult to verify unless you are talking about something that is very rare. Hzh (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that caste is not a "scientific" phenomenon. It is a social phenomenon. So, unless the scientists interface with the sociologists and figure out the hypotheses they need to verified or debunked, their results are of little value. Our opinion right now is that we won't use the genetic results until they are validated by social scientists. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This argument is just weird, and the article is weird. The article is littered with opinions and claims that are not supported any science or hard facts, and you are happy to accept those. Science is hard fact, opinions are just opinions, that people in Indian-related articles are happy to accept opinions over hard facts speaks volume. Hzh (talk)
 * Scientific fundamentalism is just another fundamentalism. It is not scientific at all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is no argument at all, especially when I'm only arguing for inclusion of some scientific data, not as replacement for other points of view. Unless you are arguing that genetic study cannot be applied to the study of caste in India, which is a bizarre argument. The fact is that so many claims in the article are highly dubious, for example, one from Bayly that states that "caste is not and never has been a fixed fact of Indian life", given that genetic study has clearly shown that endogamy persisted for nearly two thousand years, long before the Mughal and British Raj came along, at least one aspect of it has clearly been practiced in some form for a very long time (and to all intent and purposes a fixed fact of life for some groups of people for nearly 2 thousand years).  Ignoring scientific evidence allow this and many other dubious statements to stay unchallenged.  There is clearly an element of pushing a POV in the article (particularly when the lead focused so much on it), blaming it on late-comers to the Indian subcontinent, when it is something that has been established for a long time. Hzh (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to propose new content, please start a new thread, and state precisely what content you want to add along with the sources that support it. If you want to critique scholarly work, please submit it to a journal. If you want to argue that the content here does not accurately summarise the sources, then read the sources and explain how it falls short. Those are the acceptable ways of a Wikipedian. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This thread is about proposing new content, i.e. a section on genetics with results from such genetic research (sources have been suggested). I'm not sure why you want a new thread. Hzh (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please use one of the templates, template:quote, template:talkquote or template:quotebox to precisely state the proposed content. And avoid mixing it up with random criticisms and argumentation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I can do it, but I certainly hope it won't get dismissed with "genetics not allowed here" kind of argument, otherwise it will be just a waste of time and effort. I will wait for some time first before proposing the content - I will need to see what other responses there might be and also read a few more sources, but anyone else interested is welcome to propose new content as well. Hzh (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I beg to disagree. It is impossible to separate social phenomena from scientific facts and methods. If we look at archaeology we see archaeology does make constant use of Radiocarbon Dating and - of course - chemical analysis. Archeology without scientific methodology would have been impossible. That is not a new view, it is the standard of research since the first archaeologists started field explorations. Historians of our days naturally don´t deny that but do integrate Genetics into known History ->https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/december-2014/genetics-as-a-historicist-discipline. A perception shared by social scientists ->https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19569399/. So I fail to get your points.--Carolus.Abraxas (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with the policy you will have to take it up with the India Noticeboard. Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are heartily invited to explain what exactly you are referring to. Give me a specific - not a general - link.--Carolus.Abraxas (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

For the record: Social scientists do refer to aforementioned genetic research when writing about indian history -> Dyson, Tim A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Check page 29 for instance. No primary source. Your perception that historians and social scientists ignore recent genetic research is simply wrong.--Carolus.Abraxas (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not a policy, but a 'local agreement' not to use genetic research in articles on specific castes. Which means, indeed, that relevant scientific research is being ignored. Reich alsocollaborates with archaeologists, and the methodological implications of genetics arebeing discussed in archaeology. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , so what does this book say that is of any relevance to this page? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

There are indeed studies that are significant for the study of the evolution of the jatis. There have been a number of genetics based studies. Basu, Sarkar-Roy, and Majumder (https://www.pnas.org/content/113/6/1594) conclude that endogamy became common about 70 generations ago. The archaeological data, based mainly on inscriptions about several Brahmin, Merchant and Kayastha communities is consistent with that finding. A study https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6385/171 finds that people tend to intermarry within a small geographical region, also accounts for the emergence of many jatis.Malaiya (talk) 07:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Caste v Jati v Varna in Loosening of caste system section
I understand that jati translates to caste for the purposes of this article but then perhaps we should clarify it for that particular set of statements? Maybe we should replace the terms inter-caste and intra-caste with inter-jati and intra-jati? Leonard and Weller have surveyed marriage and genealogical records to study patterns of exogamous inter-caste and endogamous intra-caste marriages in a regional population of India in 1900–1975. They report a striking presence of exogamous marriages across caste lines over time, particularly since the 1970s. A majority of marriages beyond caste boundaries were found to have remained within the same varna.

The reason I am saying this is due to the text of the cited paper which talks specifically about the Kayasth caste and its subcastes only. In particular the finding that Kayasths in Hyderabad were marrying outside their particular subcastes (different subcastes of Kayasths that is) but were still marrying within the Kayasth jati. So even stating that majority of caste boundaries were within the same varna would be technically correct but still too broad. There are other castes apart from Kayasth that are considered to be in their varna(varies by region) for instance. Look at the following statement in the intro of the cited paper: The conceptual categories of caste and varna (Sanskrit for "category" or "order") have been utilized to classify and rank the numerous subcastes of the Indian subcontinent (Cohn 1968,1971; Srinivas 1962). For example, there are said to be 12 subcastes in the Kayasth caste, and the Kayasth caste has been placed variously in the Brahman (priest), Kshatriya (ruler] or Sudra (worker) varna, depending upon different regional caste systems and interpretations of Anglo-Indian law.

So when the cited paper says that there was an increase in exogamous marriages they are still talking about marriages between Kayasths for the most part. It's just that people are no longer marrying just between their own subcastes. This is also clarified by this statement from the introduction. Such marriages, outside the subcaste but within the caste, are termed "exogamous" for purposes of this analysis.

Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * HI Ujwal, if they are not talking about inter-caste marriages, then the whole thing is undue and should be deleted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. I'll remove it given the cited source is talking of marriages within Kayasths only. I'll replace it with a more appropriate statement about increase in inter-caste marriages with a better source. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Added a new sub-section under Caste_system_in_India for inter-caste marriages. The statement on the article from The Telegraph is still there in the previous section titled "Loosening of the caste-system". I'm not sure if I should merge that into the current one, or even just delete it given that we now have a stronger statement based on a large (~50k people) nationwide survey. I'm thinking that the previous statement might be unnecessary given that the conclusions from the large survey has something of a similar conclusion that I have already summarised in the following manner - with inter-caste and inter-religious marriages found mostly among those who are "economically, educationally, culturally advanced and urban oriented" Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have merged the two sections. Note that 6.1% is not an "absolute number". It is comparative. Moreover, one's goal in getting married is to choose a partner, not fighting the caste system. So, if 6.1% is the proportion of inter-caste marriages, it doesn't mean that that is the only proportion of people willing to marry out of caste. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course. I was paraphrasing the study in that statement on absolute numbers. The abstract of the study states that - "With the exception of interclass marriages, the absolute level of mixed marriages is still exceedingly small". Under results they state that "in both cases the absolute size is very low" - referring to inter-caste and inter-religious marriages. I'm adding the JSTOR to the citation as well for easier access to the paper. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Perspectives
I have hardly seen any academic scholar of repute adopting the first perspective, of late and it has been long relegated to the fringes. We need to state that, rather than maintain a (non-existing balance). Otherwise we need to also deem perspectives of colonial anthropologists (Risley et al) and other debunked arguments on an equal footing. For an example, see noting:-  TrangaBellam (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No opposition. Will incorporate this perspective. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Talbot : Andhra Inscriptions
I had added an observation regarding the caste system from the book already cited for the following claim - "The mention of jati is even rarer, through the 13th century. Two rare temple donor records from warrior families of the 14th century claim to be Shudras. One states that Shudras are the bravest, the other states that Shudras are the purest".

The other statement I had added is based on the same segment of the book as cited for the previous claim. Both the statements talk about Varna specifically in terms of its mention in the Andhra inscriptions. The entirety of Talbot's conclusion regarding the unimportance of Varna in Andhra is based on those inscriptions (at least as per the section of the book cited). It would be in my opinion quite misleading to mention just the exceptional instances of mention of Shudra varna here in the section without noting that a majority of the mentions of Varna in the inscriptions being studied were those of Brahmins. All this info (the previously present and the one I had introduced) is available on pages 50-51 of the text which are readable on this Google Books link also present in the citation. The author starts the mention of varnas in these inscriptions with this statement in the last paragraph on page 50 - "In the relatively rare instances when varna status is indicated in inscriptions, the individual involved is usually a brahman". Most mentions of varna in the Andhra inscriptions come from Brahmins, with these claims often expressed indirectly by mention of their gotra along with the sakha and sutra in which the individual had trained Note that I am not claiming that the previous statement should be removed because it's based on just 2 historical records but rather the statement on mentioning the majority of the varna claims in the historical record is needed to put things in context. -- Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Another point is that the current claim in the article is based on the chapter titled "The Society of Kakatiya Andhra". The section that contains all the relevant info is titled "Varna, Jati and Clan in Andhra Inscriptions". This is why I mentioned that the evidence being talked about is from inscriptions. That bit of the statement can be removed but the edit is still needed for proper context and balance. -- Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * That whole paragraph has a "for example" status. So we can't go into too much detail. The Sudra inscriptions you added are also probably UNDUE, but they at least say something interesting. The Brahman inscriptions aren't doing so. Why should we care how they are communicating their varnas?
 * On the other hand, I take Cynthia Talbot's stuff with a large grain of salt. She has certaily done a lot of work in reading all those inscriptions. But I am not sure she knows enough of the context to interpret them. For instance, she interprets Kulam as clan or lineage, whereas it really means caste in Andhra. In Tamil and Malayalam, it seems that jati is used more for caste, and in Kannada, both the terms are used. In none of these languages does Kulam mean clan. I am not sure it meant clan in Sanskrit and Prakrit either. For instance, Uma Chakravarti wrote:
 * She theorises that there was a "theoretical" classification used by Brahmins and a "practical" one that was actually existing in the society, and the two did not coincide even though there are some points of agreement.
 * So, who knows how many mentions of caste Talbot missed simply because she didn't know that it was called kulam?
 * As for varna, she is certainly right that it doesn't exist much in the South Indian society. It doesn't exist even now as many anthropologists have testified. So how could it have existed in the medieval society? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As for varna, she is certainly right that it doesn't exist much in the South Indian society. It doesn't exist even now as many anthropologists have testified. So how could it have existed in the medieval society? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * To be honest we should remove that paragraph in that case - especially if the expertise/understanding of the author (especially language) is in doubt. And just to be clear I did not introduce the paragraph, I was just cross-checking the reference because of a recent edit to the lead which added a summary from this paragraph and the one by Leslie Orr on Tamil Nadu. Found the current state of the paragraph to be very "for example" like you said and thought that restricting the mention of varna from that book to just shudras to be bordering on cherry-picking. Especially given that the primary statement of the paragraph seems to be that "Varna is rarely mentioned in the extensive medieval era records of Andhra Pradesh, for example". If you agree then we should remove the paragraph and look for better scholarly work to represent the era being talked about. Even if conclusions don't change we'll still have better sources. -- Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No, we just give each source as much space as it deserves and include things that are in general agreement with other sources. "Varna is rarely mentioned" is true. When did I disagree with that?
 * Thanks for highlighting the "recent edit". I reverted it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the revert. Should we still include a partial statement from the previous edit, something along the following lines? This would follow the first statement about Varna is rarely mentioned and provides some info on what the frequency of occurence is in the record.
 * This is directly from the source and I think quite interesting info to have as it may provide the reader with some clue as to where varna was important at that time (I would assume mostly for ritual/religious purposes). -- Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I reinstated that sentence. For balance, I removed the issue of jati (which was interceding betweeen Brahmin and Sudra). The later quote from Eaton covers it anyway.
 * It is possible that jati was also a brahmanical idea, i.e., initially fictional, but later came to be used in the society. But, in South India, the Brahmins didn't gain enough influence to dictate the terminology. So generally kulam (which is a more flexible idea) got used. Only in some parts of south India did the brahmanical ideas gather influence.
 * This also suggests that the "castes" came into being first, and only later did people theorise about them and try to find words to describe the phenomenon. Both jati and kulam are borrowed terms: jati means species and kulam means clan or lineage. In fact, in the Vedic period literature, people are just called kammara, rathakara etc. without any additional label such as jati or kulam. Only by Buddhist period did these labels come into being.
 * But the intersting thing is that even by then, varna did not come into being. Uma Chakravarti points out that even Brahmins referred to themselves as belonging to brahmana jati or brahmana kula, but never a brahmana varna (p.358). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But the intersting thing is that even by then, varna did not come into being. Uma Chakravarti points out that even Brahmins referred to themselves as belonging to brahmana jati or brahmana kula, but never a brahmana varna (p.358). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere else
In Caste system in India, it says, Duncan Forrester observes that "Nowhere else in India is there a large and ancient Christian community which has in time immemorial been accorded a high status in the caste hierarchy. ... Syrian Christian community operates very much as a caste and is properly regarded as a caste or at least a very caste-like group."

By saying "nowhere else", it implies that there is one location in India where there is a large, ancient Christian community which is considered to be of high caste (presumably a group of Syrian Christians). However, that doesn't tell us where in India that community is. Someone should look up the Forrester citation and find out what location he is referring to. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see Saint Thomas Christians. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have readded the introductory sentence which somebody seems to have removed for silly reasons. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2021
In the intro, please remove this sentence

It has been challenged by many reformist Hindu movements,[12] Islam, Sikhism, Christianity,[11] and also by present-day Indian Buddhism.[13]

and add

It has been challenged by many reformist Hindu movements,[12] Islam, Sikhism, Christianity,[11] and present-day Indian Buddhism.[13]

"also by" simply isn't needed. 108.39.223.134 (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2021
Can the following be added to the top of the article:

For socio-religious Muslim stratification in South Asia, see Caste system among South Asian Muslims. Shakespeare143 (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2021
Please wikilink "Uttaradhyayana Sutra" to Uttaradhyayana. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

✅ -Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Onset of endogamy
There was a discussion in august 2017 about the dating of the onset of endogamy in Indian sociey at ca. 100 CE, as suggested by genetic research: Talk:Caste system in India/Archive 15, diff, edit-summary these studies are not recognised among historians. Interstingly, Romila Thapar, Early India: from the Origins to 1300 AD, p. 303, makes reference of the caste-system having become rigid around 400 CE. As an aside, Thapar is supportive of genetic research, as are other historians. And Moorjani et al. (2003), "Genetic evidence for recent population mixture in India", The American Journal of Human Genetics, is referenced in multiple books. Time to reconsider this text:


 * Notes


 * References

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem with their analysis was that, while the science told them how many generations had passed (the "genetic time"), they used a dubious conversion to calendar time by allocating too many years to each generation. A solution would be to state the number of generations, and give the various estimates in terms of calendar time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2021
Add the following to the see also: * 36 royal races * List of Rigvedic tribes 58.182.176.169 (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I'm not sure those articles are that pertinent and relevant to the caste system in India, they seem a bit specific and besides the point. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Sharma
Ram Sharan Sharma is one of the foremost historians of India but his views have been challenged and revised. The subsections on "Early Vedic period (1500–1000 BCE)" and "Later Vedic period (1000–600 BCE)" have no source apart from his Śūdras in Ancient India. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

KK Sarachandra Bose
Lawyer and activist who was added in this revision doesn't seem to be notable at all (no wikipedia page, not much on him online wrt caste apart from that book release and march). In terms of modern activists we have many who would be more appropriate for the section. I think that the entry should be removed. Open to reconsideration. -Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's unsure if Bose as a person would qualify for his own article (there is more coverage, but whether it would be enough I can't say for sure) but there are many news reports about his Bharat Yatra. If there is another article that would be a better fit I'd be open to moving the section. I would have really expected an article like Criticism of the caste system in India (red link) to exist but couldn't find any. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am coming at this mostly from a point of view of keeping this article clean and referencing only prominent people. Bose by himself is not an issue - the issue becomes that if Bose then why not X (Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan, Mayawati, Kanshi Ram, etc). Note that some of them should perhaps get included in the article anyhow given their notability (esp. Kanshi Ram). If you are up for it we should perhaps have a "list of" kind of article for critics of the Caste System. There are far too many to have in any one article so we would perhaps be better off having separate articles for each and then linked via a single list or category. -Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think we should create a "opposition to the caste system in India" article. Would you be willing to help with that? It could include events, notable people, arguments and the history of opposition to the caste system. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * that sounds like a great idea! I think we can start with copying over the criticism section from this article and then add more as we go. We'll keep it in drafts till we reach a point where it's at least adding something of significance over and above the criticism section in this article. -Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Social class is not caste
Social classes exist everywhere. There's no such thing as a "caste" in Thailand. It cites a few sentences from the Foreign Policy article which is not a research paper. It uses hyperboles and a typical American take on others.

Varnas in Angkor and the Indian Caste System About the system in ancient Angkor. That doesn't justify the caste system "exists" in Cambodia.

The Formation of a Social Class Structure: Urbanization, Bureaucratization, and Social Mobility in Thailand It's about class. It's not about caste. In addition, the article is specifically about the "Caste system in India". There has never been a system in Tai-speaking peoples that enforces endogamy.

In addition, the title is "caste system in India." There's no one in Thailand who is labeled as "Untouchables" or anything similar. Of course, class exists, just like anywhere in the world. The sentences are a typical Western take on others. I don't know about Bali. So, I just leave it at that. JordanKSM (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Mahavira content
The following text has been added to the Second urbanisation section during the last 100 or so edits. It needs to be vetted and ensured for historical accuracy and WP:RNPOV:

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

What about exogamy?
The word endogamy occurs 12 times in this article, and exogamy only once. Is there a reason why the exogamous nature of gotra and prohibition of sapinda marriages is omitted? By tradition Hindus marry within their caste but strictly outside their gotra. Excluding this practice is misleading. Sooku (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

'Caste' in Constitution of India.
The word caste has been mentioned eighty two (82) times in the Constitution of India Riteshmmec (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Genetics section removed
Near the bottom it says that 3.1% own 15% of the land. This totals to only 30% of India’s land. I suppose it could be right, but I’m guessing it’s a typo—85%? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.147.212 (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Someone removed the whole genetics paragraph yesterday. What is the point to hide it here. Devakeep (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have restored it. The undo comment by Extorc says "see archives and general consensus over genetics on castes", but the only discussion I can find (by searching the Archives for "genetics") was back in 2015 and there was no "general consensus" AFAICT (see Talk:Caste_system_in_India/Archive_12. If there was a proper RFC with an accepted consensus please point me do it... although in any case I think it's probably worth a rehash as genetics and our understanding of South Asian genetic ancestry in particular has improved dramatically in the last 10 years. Tobus (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Who told you that RfC is the only way to get consensus? When I searched for "genetics" I found these 2 discussions from last archive page: Talk:Caste system in India/Archive 15, Talk:Caste system in India/Archive 15, and they show consensus against the edits like yours. You need to read WP:PRIMARY, because nothing has exactly changed in these few years. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for engaging and prioviding the links.. I still don't see any consensus there, indeed there's a lot of differing opinions with no clear resolution and the final comment in the Archive 15 discussion is actually in favour of including genetics. So unless there's something more concrete I dispute the claim there is a clear consensus on this issue.
 * In the deleted test there is only one primary source, and 4 secondary ones... I don't think WP:PRIMARY is really an issue here.
 * Whatever your or my personal opinion on the origin of the caste system is, there is no doubt that many labs have discovered a correlation between genetics and caste, and many newspapers and journals have reported on it (including ones as popular as Time magazine). Ignoring or deliberately suppressing this aspect will not improve Wikipedia, indeed, it makes it worse.
 * If the wording or placement of the contested paragraph is an issue for you then let's discuss how to make it better, or perhaps move it out of the "origins" section, but refusing to have it mentioned at all is not encyclopedic. Tobus (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Just because you don't recognize discussions like here as consensus, doesn't mean one does not exist. It is as clear as it needs to be. I had said "general consensus over genetics on castes", which means that there is general consensus across Wikipedia against using genetics studies for any caste-related articles. >>> Extorc . talk  18:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC) (edited)


 * Thanks for providing the link. As per my previous comment I've already read this discussion and it doesn't show a consensus (the editors didn't come to an agreement). In any case  consensus can change so let's move on :)
 * I have added a section that summarises the current research into the genetics of caste in accordance with both WP:RS and WP:IMPROVE.
 * Are you able to provide reasons to justify the complete removal of this content? I'm sure we can discuss any concerns you have and arrive at something we are both happy to live with.
 * Tobus (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been over 48 hours and no reply - has this discussion stalled? Tobus (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Another 48 hours has passed and still no reply. I'm not really sure what's going on here - have the editors read WP:CANTFIX and stopped arguing as they agree there is no justification for complete removal of the section? Or are they just ignoring me? I expect this will end up having to go to a formal WP:Dispute resolution process but before doing that I will restore the section one last time, pending further discussion here on the final text/positioning. Tobus (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Who told you that it is necessary to keep entertaining your WP:WIKILAWYERING in order to retain the very strong consensus against genetics studies and your bad use of primary sources? You must stop readding content unless you have gained consensus. You have no rebuttal for that aside from wikilawyering and misrepresentation of already existing consensus. >>> Extorc . talk  15:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Here are many of those discussions from more than last 11 years where consensus is clear that we don't use genetics research on caste pages: Talk:Kallar (caste), Talk:Ezhava/Archive_8, Talk:Iyengar/Archive 3, Talk:Boro_people/Archive_1, Talk:Ror, Talk:Deshastha_Brahmin/Archive_3, Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_68, Talk:Kurmi/Archive 3, Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_71, Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_61, Talk:Indus_Valley_civilisation/Archive_5, Talk:Tamils, and many others. I can confidently suggest you that you are only going to waste time by using dispute resolution. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that list, it has been very helpful. After reading through these discussions I think I have a much better understanding of the issues pages like this have had with genetics, however I still don't think a blanket ban is justified. I will start an RfC and see if others agree with me. Tobus (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Request For Comment on including a "Genetics" section
Genetics section: ban or allow? Tobus (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to add a Genetics section this page summarising the current scientific consensus among geneticists on the origins on caste endogamy. I believe that genetics has the ability to provide an independent source of hard evidence to supplement the evidence from ancient texts and archaeology, and as such it is a disservice to our readers not to at least mention the long-accepted position among geneticists.

I have attempted a WP:BRD cycle with | this edit and the addition is being blocked (see discussion) due to a long-standing consensus against including genetics in caste-related articles. I've read through pages of previous discussions on the issue and there are very valid points on both sides - I think a decent summary of the pros and cons can be found here.

The de-facto ban on including genetics in the page is intended to stop individuals cherry-picking evidence to support their fringe/unfounded theories/opinions, and makes policing of such edits much easier. However a blanket ban is also potentially stopping useful information from being added, in a throwing out the baby with the bathwater situation.

On the condition it is otherwise well sourced,  neutral and  accurately represents the general consensus among geneticists, is it OK to include a Genetics section in this page? Tobus (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not enough to claim that a consensus about something, sometime and bank on that forever. Those who are opposed should still be able to point to some kind of timely and relevant policy basis for their position. Sennalen (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yikes I'm not well enough aware of the complexities of this discussion, but at first impression this seems like a Really Bad Idea. We should not be a mouthpiece for eugenics. While there may well be a genetic component to the caste system, I'm not sure what this article could gain from mentioning that. Further, it invites considerable edit warring and misinformation. Though I do note that the genetics section as proposed in Tobus's linked diff is misapplied anyway. That evidence doesn't need to be labelled "genetic", it could simply be used to shore up some timelines in other places. Further, having "genetics" under origins implies that the castes began because they were genetically different, not that the caste system created those genetic differences. TLDR: big can of worms, don't think we should open it, but the text that has been suggested isn't really about genetics anyway. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The text as proposed doesn't appear objectionable but as CaptainEek points out it can open a can of worms. Would it be possible to reword the section to focus on the results (such as the reduction in inter-caste relations, and the effects of the arrival of Indo-Europeans), rather than the method (genetic analysis) that results were obtained by, possibly with relocation to a different section of the article? BilledMammal (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. To well sourced, neutral and accurately represents the general consensus among geneticists I would add isn't given more prominence than strictly warranted. I would want evidence that this combo is feasible in practice (considering how much time and effort editors can invest in this) before joining an acrimonious discussion on including it. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose section/Support data - A section on Genetics, especially under Origins, would give the wrong idea. It would be best to keep mentions of genetics research limited to the History section only where appropriate. Even there the only kind of genetic research that should find mention is estimates on when endogamy began/became widespread and only where it lines up with evidence/estimates from non-genetic research. -Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I dont see why genetics should be involved here. Given that there have not been any new arguments raised in favour of inclusion, it is perfectly good to carry on with the strong existing consensus of keeping this out. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk)


 * Oppose Those researching genetics have no idea about caste, nor do they have any expertise in the subject of caste. They are not even historians, let alone being sociologists (see WP:HISTRS and WP:IRS). They can't prove anything by taking very few samples. This is why the consensus sensibly exists not to include any genetics studies in caste-related articles. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose as written. Mentioning the use of genetic evidence to study the history of the caste system makes some sense, but it belongs in the appropriate part of the history section and not in the origins section, since none of the sources provided support the idea that genetics are a cause of the caste system. --Aquillion (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose It does not belong anywhere per D4iNa4. RfC rationale is misleading because nobody is "stopping useful information from being added" but ensuring that quality content remain on pages and the subject of caste is complicated one thus extra care is needed than resorting to poor quality content. >>> Extorc . talk  16:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose as written. It's fine to have a section on genetics, but it's got to be backed by reliable sources. It definitely can't be pseudo-scientific, semi-racist original research. NickCT (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Bad RFC see question, self-evident. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 21:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, at least as presented. It is too obvious that the proponent is either grinding an axe or displaying the axe.  I don't know what varna he is showing the axe to, but it doesn't matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose First of all there is minimal difference between mitochondrial DNA of most Indian communities regardless of caste, tribe, or religion.The paternal Y-chromosome does show more variation with some weird results.For example, haplogroup G is found in significant numbers amongst men from Tamil Brahmin groups, the Dalit community of Paswan from Bihar, and the Afridi afghan tribe of Uttar Pradesh.Even the British census takers who tried hard to associate caste with race failed. All they found was, for example, most bengalis resembled each other than those with the same caste from other regions such as Maharashtra.So basically caste is a human construct rather than racial.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yesish - some scientific evidence would be nice, but Jonathansammy seems not sure it is the genetic consensus, so calling it consensus would need a statement of some scientific body. This material might also be suited to a section at Endogamy and I noticed there is Endogamy in Judaism.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose as written. We really ought to revisit the consensus about genetic information in caste articles, as there's genuinely informative science out there that it's beyond time we include. However, individual genetic studies are primary sources that we lack the expertise to interpret, and whose discussion sections habitually overreach. Also, the track record of the popular press, and the Indian press in particular, with respect to summarizing genetic studies is abysmal. Any material we add should ideally be drawn entirely from scientific review articles; and needs to be written keeping in mind the distinction between history (which the genetic studies can be informative for) and origin (which is an entirely sociological phenomenon). Vanamonde (Talk) 09:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose as written, per Aquillon and CaptainEek above. Given the volatile nature of this topic area, any inclusion would need to be extremely well-sourced, neutral, and appear in the History section, not Origin(!). I also find PauAmma's comment about WP:UNDUE compelling. BeReasonabl (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The introduction should mention the hereditary nature of castes
For someone just learning about castes, they have to read a long way down this page before they learn that a person's caste is determined at birth. Even that first reference doesn't explicitly say that one's caste will be whatever their parents were. That seems really fundamental, and should be explained in the opening paragraph. 128.177.72.178 (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree the lead needs a ton of work; the first paragraph is woefully inadequate: "The caste system in India is the paradigmatic ethnographic example of classification of castes." ??? Unintelligible. Ovinus (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2022
In 1948, negative discrimination on the basis of caste was banned by law and further enshrined in the Indian constitution; however, the system continues to be practiced in parts of India.[10]

The year should be 1950 according to the citation used. "Independent India's constitution banned discrimination on the basis of caste, and, in an attempt to correct historical injustices and provide a level playing field to the traditionally disadvantaged, the authorities announced quotas in government jobs and educational institutions for scheduled castes and tribes, the lowest in the caste hierarchy, in 1950."

The quote above is taken from paragraph 14 directly under the heading "Is the system legal?" Corvid 133 (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * clarification: is 1950 only for the government job and education quota, or also for the Indian constitution itself? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
This article, for various reasons, seems to lean heavily towards the "colonial construct" paradigm for understanding caste dynamics in India. This model is far from being universally accepted among historians, and furthermore is contradicted by much of the anthropological and genetic information currently available. I will not introduce material which is against the consensus on Wikipedia, but I do believe that an NPOV tag is warranted, thanks. Aronanki (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you have a specific change in mind? If not (you say you will not introduce material), the NPOV tag is not appropriate. It is not some kind of badge of shame to be carried indefinitely because someone disapproves of an article. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Apparently information on genetics is banned, so that is what I was referring to when I was talking about not introducing material against consensus. Given this constraint, however, perhaps adding some more anthropological material which could show the longstanding precedent for caste as a ground-level social and cultural institution in various parts of India would be helpful. Aronanki (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We have discussed that and also provided contrary views. See this section for a name: Caste system in India and sections below. The subject is complicated that's why we focus on quality the most. Capitals00 (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Given that there is no active disputed content, I have removed the NPOV tag since it is being misused. I have also reverted some POV pushing wording ('according to some people', 'suggested') - please do not restore stuff like that - that really is a NPOV violation. MrOllie (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, citing the opinion of one scholar as fact (about reservation supposedly incentivizing the maintenance of caste distinctions) also seems pretty weak, no? And "loosening of the caste system" is very much an opinion. Aronanki (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who you are, but I'm telling you straight as an Indian, this article on the whole reads like a Hindutva propaganda page, whatever your personal intent is. Aronanki (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Every reliable source is written by someone (or a small group of someones). That does not undermine credibility at all. MrOllie (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I think may have a point. But it is not fleshed out. The best thing to do would be to add "pov inline" or "undue weight inline" tags to problematic content so that we can look at it. He can't say the "whole" reads like Hindutva propaganda. It is simply not true. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: India in Global Studies
— Assignment last updated by Adirrao (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Genetics of caste
Can any editor add a portion to the article describing what this study: https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1010243 found about the caste system? Ionian9876 (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Casta Portuguese word for lineage!
Mistranslation, due to various factors, have made ivses(Gods name from the 1611 King James Bible) become Jesus, and Lah(African Moon God from Ancient Egypt) become "The Moon God" in certain languages. The Latin word for God is also Deus. De to Ge to Je can happen in certain accents? ( If the historians and Degree, PhDs etc have missed this, then what else 🤔 could have been missed?

In the Indian system, the word Varna is correct. It means skills gotten by Space Geometry aka Astro-logy and Astro-nomy, with the merits from past life births. For example, Hercules was born with gifts from Heaven(Space)￼ Kajan Lakhan (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Burma or Myanmar?
There was a sentence that read in part "in what was then British India (now India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma)". Burma has been Myanmar for over three decades, so this confused me. When I went to edit it, I realized someone had done it quite deliberately, which confused me more.

Is there a reason to use "now Burma" when it's not called that now? Kalany (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Since it is talking about "now", "Myanmar" is correct. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Recent Revert: Dec '23
Hey, as mentioned in my last edit summary, please provide the relevant quotes from the source along with page no(s)! Ekdalian (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, I appreciate your willingness to talk. My only requirement is the removal of the awkward link made to the Saint Thomas Anglicans article. As I mentioned in my edit summary, Saint Thomas Anglicans/Anglican Syrian Christians/CSI Syrian Christians are a subsect of the high-caste Saint Thomas Christians, who opted to join the Anglican church in the 19th century, and became part of the Church of South India (CSI) after Indian independence. They are not New Christians of low caste background as this article say. Saint Thomas Anglicans trace their Christian ancestry to the first-century mission of Thomas the Apostle in India. The Saint Thomas Christians, though originally a single united community is now divided into several Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox sects due to foreign missionary influences and internal strife. Saint Thomas Anglicans constitute one of those sects. All these can be verified from the Saint Thomas Anglicans and Saint Thomas Christians articles. I have checked and found that the references made in those articles contain page numbers, and you being an experienced editor must be able to verify those. I leave it to you.


 * With respect to this article, the source used for the sentence that I edited is the first chapter (pages 13 to 25) of the book Hindu-Christian Dialogue: Perspectives and Encounters, written by Anand Amaladass. If you cross-check this source with other sources available on the Internet, you'll find some inaccuracies and contradictions, but on the whole, it substantiates everything I said. For example, in page 18 you can see that Saint Thomas Christians occupy a high place in the caste hierarchy. In page 15, you'll find the various sects that emerged from the Jacobite Syrians, the second being the Syrian Anglican Church and the seventh being the Syrians in the Church of South India. In reality, Anglican Syrians and CSI Syrians are one and the same Saint Thomas Anglicans. It is very obvious from other available sources that distinction made between them in this source is a mistake. I hope you now understand that the link made to the Saint Thomas Anglicans page is in the wrong place and context, and must be removed.--Sunshine343 (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)