Talk:Caste system in India/Archive 4

70% of Indians are urban-wtf? This must be a misquote
"Caste barriers have mostly broken down in large cities,[2], where 71% of India's population resides." I think they meant to say caste barriers have broken down in large cities, (but not/but also) in Rural India where 71% of India's population resides.

India's population is overwhelmingly rural, so this quote can't be right. But the bbc article cited didnt work and i dont care to look for a new source right now, so i didnt want to edit it. But this is a pretty big mistake. In other words i dont know what im talking about —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.210.29 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Recognition
Also how do you decide whether a particular community is a caste and not a tribe and vice-versa

u figure that out with the surmame in most cases brahmin surmanes are(there are many more):Sharma,chatterjee,Iyengar etc trading caste surnames are:Gupta,Aggarwal etc,Kshatriya surnames are chauhan,khanna etc this is just a small percentage much like you in the west try to place people among whites with their surnames i.e schneider is german heritage,di caprio means italian,smith means british heritage,sirkosky means east european etc its very similar.There are some generic names where it is impossible to tell the caste such as kumar(which means son of..) and chaudhry etc which are titles conferred upon by kings which have morphed into surnames

How can one tell which caste a person belongs to?. Is it language, appearance or name etc?Muntuwandi 02:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC) upper castes are usually fairer and taller but there are any number of dark upper castes and light brown lower castes.A low caste hindu in a cold himalayan climate will be fairer than an upper caste hindu in the south(on average).So there is no way of being sure but usually someone who is taller,fairer and more caucassian looking than most of his community is upper caste but the fingerprint proof is always the surname provided it isn't masked by something generic like kumar,chaudhry,bahadur etc.
 * Unlike "caste", when we say "tribe", we are not talking about social stratification -- we are talking about socio-political groups of people. Eg., in a conservative backward rural area, people belonging to two different tribes won't mind eating together, but a person belonging to "higher" caste will not dine with a person belonging to "lower" caste.


 * A tribe will usually consist of people who share common ancestry, organization and culture. Tribes generally inhabit a particular area or territory.


 * On the other hand, "castes" in modern India refer to social stratifications, often associated with social standing, and at times, classified under varnas. Castes are often indicative of ancestors' occupations rather than culture or territory. In Indian context, the difference between a "caste" and a "tribe" is a complex one, since a few groups are classified as both, and the caste system is undergoing changes in modern times.


 * In few words: "caste" refers to units of social stratification, unlike "tribe".


 * As about belonging to a caste, neither the language nor the appearance denotes a caste. Castes are determined by birth -- the caste of a person born in a CasteXYZ family belongs to CasteXYZ caste (although a few people "change" their caste to gain higher social standing). Surnames are often indicative of caste, but this is not always true. The conventions for last names are different in different parts of India. Also, some people change/drop their surnames because they don't believe in the caste system (eg. Lal Bahadur Shastri was born "Lal Bahadur Srivastava", but dropped his surname).


 * A person belongs to a caste, only as long as s/he believes to herself or himself to be the part of that caste. If a person doesn't believe in the caste system, s/he doesn't belong to any caste. utcursch | talk 15:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Utcursch. But looking deeply at the system, I believe all the 2000+ castes in India really are tribes, including the brahmins. Look at the number of subcastes within the brahmin group. Even appearance wise they can look different. The social stratification can take place within "traditional" tribal societies too. Ask that to anyone who knows bout Rwanda in Africa and that will clearly tell you what I mean. Recently there was a news item about why Sunni tribes are fighting Al Queda in Iraq. That was because Al Queda fighters wanted to marry Sunni tribal women from particular communities and that was a big no no with tribal elders. In essence, social stratification revolves around  "NO Roti (Bread) or Beti (Daughter)" with people belonging to different castes or tribes. I guess the restrictions about roti went away long time ago but the beti part may stay in one way or other because people want marriages to take part between "Social Equals"and we also have to reduce this system. Shakher59 12:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I largely agree with you (though I won't say that all the castes are tribes), but unfortunately the term "caste" is used by most, including the Government of India. The term "tribe" is generally not used for social stratification. utcursch | talk 14:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Indian caste system (Main Defination)
The Indian caste system is the traditional system of social stratification on the Indian Subcontinent, in which social classes are defined by a number of endogamous, hereditary groups often termed as jātis or castes. The jātis are often classified among one of the four varnas or classes. Within a jāti there exist exogamous groups known as gotras, the lineage or clan of a person.

The following scored topic is not neutral. Can someone help me to understand the policy regarding neutrality? This sentence is probably hurting sentiments of many citizens from India and Indian Origin. This is a very contradictory statement. Below are objections/discussions raised by many important personalities with regards to Varna and Caste. These will help you understand what the topic is all about.

Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi's Different views about caste and varna WHO WERE THE SHUDRAS Mahatma Gandhi

Please see the meaning of Varna, Caste. Varna and Caste are entirely different. People's minds where physiologically made Bonsai with that very sentence. Sections of society where made stay away from education for decades on the name of caste. So, please help me to understand the policy of neutrality to keep this very sentence away from wikipedia at least.

Sections of society in India say

The jātis are often classified among one of the four varnas or classes.

and Sections of society will object the same.

Since the sentence is a not neutral can someone kindly revert back with Ideas in this direction? BalanceRestored 08:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you please site a WP:RS for a specific point that you wish to make? The various opinion pieces that you are citing on web sites are not reliable sources.  Also, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources.  I would like to suggest that you pick one specific point at a time and try to focus on that rather than bringing up a whole range of points at the same time, otherwise we will be back to the same problem with disruption that we had before. Buddhipriya 08:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It says "The jātis are often classified among one of the four varnas or classes." Can I get to know the source for the same. It says "OFTEN CLASSIFIED" BalanceRestored 08:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, there will not be any problem this time. I now understand what you were talking all the while to me. I am pretty new to these policies, but I am trying to go by them as much as I can.BalanceRestored 09:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Indian caste system (Main Defination). Source of original narration looks unknown.
The Indian caste system is the traditional system of social stratification on the Indian Subcontinent, in which social classes are defined by a number of endogamous, hereditary groups often termed as jātis or castes. The jātis are often classified among one of the four varnas or classes. Within a jāti there exist exogamous groups known as gotras, the lineage or clan of a person.

Can I know if the scored out sentence is from a reliable resource? If yes, kindly mention the about the same. I have this query because it says "often classified", it looks more like a personal view. BalanceRestored 09:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have placed a fact tag on the sentence which you are trying to draw attention to. A fact tag is a call for a citation.  It is less drastic than cutting the material completely, and alerts other editors that material may be under dispute.  I am still not understanding exactly what point you are concerned with regarding the language.  Are you saying that the jatis are not based on birth (i.e., hereditary)?  Or are you making some other point.  The word jati is based on the root meaning of birth, and sourcing can be added to demonstrate that the jatis are based upon birth.  Or are you saying that including jati within the concept of varna is incorrect?  If so, I think you are probably correct and that point can be sourced as well.  Please clarify which issue you are trying to deal with. Buddhipriya 09:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The term Jati is not related to Varna. I am trying to draw attention at this very point. Jati is hereditary from my understanding too, as you have wisely mentioned. Varna (Shudra, Vaishya, Kshatriya, Brahman) is related to the present Karma (action, work, and deed) of the person. The Jati of a person is fixed and Karma is unfixed and can change. How can two opposite terms be related? BalanceRestored 10:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that the article contains a subsection for "Varna and jati" and the point which you are trying to clarify may involve edits that need to be made to that subsection. The following quotation from a WP:RS seems to me to pertain to the point you are trying to make, if I am understanding you correctly.  It establishes the difference between the terms jati and varna as those terms were understood in early India, which may differ from how the terms are understood today in common usage:


 * "Jati comes from the root meaning 'birth', and is a status acquired through birth. Jati had a different origin and function from varna and was not just a subdivision of the latter. The creation of varnas appears to be associated with ritual status, a status denied to the shudra who was debarred from participating in all rituals. Whereas the three higher varnas were said to be strict about marrying within regulated circles, the shudra varna described in the normative texts was characterized as originating in an indiscriminate marriage between castes, creating mixed castes - a category abhorrent to those insisting on the theoretical purity of descent. This sets them apart and they were often labelled as jatis." (reference: Thapar, Romilar. Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. 2002. ISBN 0-520-24225-4. pp. 123-124.)


 * Buddhipriya 10:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the author you cited a valid source to comment on our religion? I presume you are a hindu.
 * In the Bhagavad Gita, Ch.4, Verse 13
 * The Lord says:
 * "The fourfold Varna (In Sanskrit it is written Chatur Varayana) has been created by Me []

(At many online websites instead of varna, caste is written. [])
 * according to the differentiation of Guna and Karma;"
 * You want to say what's written in Gita is wrong then? BalanceRestored 10:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not become argumentative. Quoting scripture is not an effective method for resolving Wikipedia content disputes.  I am familiar with the scriptural passage that you cite. If you re-read my comments, you may see that I am agreeing with your main point, not disagreeing with you.  If the difference between jati and varna is in fact the point you are trying to make, I agree that these ideas are distinct and that there is often confusion between them.  If you agree that this is the issue, I would be willing to look for additional citations that will nail that down.  Please note that fixing content issues of this type often takes time because it involves some work to research an issue in academic sources that meet the test of WP:RS.  I hope you will be patient and set a goal of improving this language within the next week or so, which will allow some time for research to take place now that the question is clearly defined. Other editors may see things differently, and we need to hear their views as well. Buddhipriya 10:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I will change my method a bit then. I did not mean to be argumentative. Just wanted to make sure that the right message is written. What is the general policy if there are two different meanings and one is correct. Which one should be taken? We will either need to consider Thapar, Romilar or Lord Krishna. I would consider the later by all means. I agree that it will take time to change things. Jai Hind BalanceRestored 10:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed this sentence, It is probably doing more wrong. Thousands could be reading wrong. If it is necessary to be brought back. Please comment.BalanceRestored 12:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The removed of such unsourced material is permitted by Verifiability which states: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." Particularly if a fact tag has been applied to the sentence, giving other editors a warning that the material may be challenged, removing it is fair game.  I personally do not think that removing the sentence from that portion of the article is a bad thing, as it is not central to the issue of the article.  I think the statement is true that the terms varna and caste are often confused with one another in modern discussions, and I have found a citation which supports that fact.  The issue of language used for these ideas is covered in John Keay, India: A History.  Grove Press. New York, New York. 2000. ISBN 0-802103797-0.  He discussed caste issue in several places, and on p. 54 says: "The term used for caste in the Vedas is varna, 'colour', which in the context of the arya's disparaging comments about the 'black' dasa, is often taken to mean that the higher castes also considered themselves the fairer-skinned. This is now disputed.... In Buddhist texts, and in common parlance even today, the more usual word for caste is not varna but jati. Jati derives from a verb meaning 'to be born'...."  I think the significance of this passage with regard to the point you are bringing up is that it shows that in at least some sources, the concepts of caste and varna are conflated.  So the sentence which you removed is probably true, but since it was uncited, removing it is permissible.  Personally I am strongly in favor of having good citations for all content that is debated. Buddhipriya 03:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "The term used for caste in the Vedas is varna, 'colour', which in the context of the arya's disparaging comments about the 'black' dasa, is often taken to mean that the higher castes also considered themselves the fairer-skinned." I am dark color, Krishna was dark color. I love my skin color. Surely during my childhood days I used to feel a bit bad when I was being teased by my friends. But, now when grown up man, surely things are far different. There are others who feel dark color very attractive, specially my wife. Again, I am sure these are things those are more or less personal views. Everyone has their own way of interpreting things. As far I feel the Varna is the GODs way of classifying people on the basis of merit and not what they received from their ansistors. If I was a professor I will surely give less grade to the pupil who did not do well in the exam. Just because he is white does not give him an extra mark. If I build a university I will surely not take professors whom surely will compare VARNA to COLOR, other wise the university will surely have a big problem. How can GUNA of a person be equal to color of a person??? Can you again show me a single line from any of the important texts that's known to be from the GOD contains such a narration. That one was really so ................ ha ha ha. If GOD appoints you to do things for him for a day, Put your self in his situation. Would you do that? BalanceRestored 05:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't know how to respond to the above material. The editor seems to have taken the citation from a Western academic WP:RS as a personal attack.  Buddhipriya 06:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, It was not taken as a personal attack, Just gave few examples to clarify that the citation was incorrect. Any one can interpret any thing. Should we have to consider everything that was written? It is good if western academic sees it that way. I expressed what I felt. I generally do not read a lot. I only put myself into a situation or the person who debates otherwise in to the situation and generally ask if narration is appropriate. It is my way of understanding things. If you feel that's not the right way and against the policies here. Please let me know. I will narrate things in a different way. But, personally I feel it is easier to understanding things putting oneself in to the situation and analyzing if it could be correct. If my way is against any policies. I will correct myself.BalanceRestored 06:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * From my understanding I feel most of the western academic have been weak in Sanskrit and have authored important books and epics on the basis of translators who had interpreted things for them. I've read the translations of important authors and then read the exact Sanskrit verses, I really felt like laughing at some. For my understanding it is very clear that the western authors did not know Sanskrit, It is very prominent looking at the translations. Anyone researched in this direction as how the initial western authors translated the Indian epics? Did the author mastered Sanskrit and then translated the epics or they used the above method I just wrote? Still I will always respect these authors and they atleast did try the best to pass the important knowledge to the mass. Otherwise India would have been in a even worser position.BalanceRestored 07:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

British Divide and Rule
Finally found the citation that was requested. British where behind this caste system. http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/apr/24guest.htmBalanceRestored 09:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added this article, editors kindly make the required adjustments. I've placed the reference in the main document. But, do not know if that was correct. BalanceRestored 10:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Want to add Divide and rule to See Also SectionBalanceRestored 12:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for locating the reference. However there are three issues with your recent edits:
 * The link is an online opinion column written by  a Guest Columnist, whose only stated qualification is "The author is a Chennai-based Chartered Accountant." As such the article can neither be taken as an authoratative source for facts on the subject, nor as the opinion of a notable academic, scholar, or even public figure.
 * Cutting-and pasting half the column goes well beyond fair use, and is a copyright violation.
 * The language of the addition violates wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view and wikipedia is not a soapbox
 * I therefore have reverted your recent edits and recommend that you read up wikipedia's core policies WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:NOT. Abecedare 14:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the deletion and providing the details about reverting the article, But, then what the editor wrote is that incorrect? Is there any research done in this direction. Again from the article it appears very clearly that the author should have valid reasons stating the same. Why not add a small addition to the main article and let see what other researchers have to say about the same. Rediff is not a small place again.BalanceRestored 07:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Found another citation I think that's a well published book. It says "Although we do not subscribe to the view that the British invented caste or religious community identities in India, it is clear that British policies of enumeration, and divide and rule, did much to harden these identities in the seventy or eighty years before Independence" It is available here "Reinventing India: Liberalization, Hindu Nationalism and Popular Democracy" authored by Stuart Corbridge, John Harriss. Can that book be used at least as a valid reference now?BalanceRestored 07:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that does seem to be an acceptable reference for wikipedia. What do you propose we should add in this regard to the article ? Perhaps it will be useful to discuss and decide the language here on the talk page before changing the article itself, so that we avoid unnecessary edit/reverts. You may also want to take a look at the History_of_the_Indian_caste_system where the issue is discussed in greater depth. Abecedare 07:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Divide and Rule, is an army strategy, British used the same strategy with India. They Identified warring communities and used the same to get around and rule India. This fact is well known. So, the hardening of the unnecessary caste structure today we are in, is due to the army's ploy. I think mentioning it after 1.3 Reforms, under history would be an appropriate place. May be we can have a short article summary at the Indian Caste System article and point an anchor text to the healthy discussion you just discussed. Role of British in India is an very important topic. We all knew the caste problem in India, but we never knew who made that a law and for what. BalanceRestored 07:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added a sentence to the "Reforms" section as per the above reference. Abecedare 08:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, for your time Abecedare I've seen all your recent edits to the page. They are exactly what I was mentioning. BalanceRestored 09:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added your edits under History section as it talked more about the history. BalanceRestored 09:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It could be argued that Britain in fact united and ruled. Prior to Britain's conquest of India is was divided and there was no Indian nation, nor Indian national identity. India was already divided, and after Britain left the split in to multiple states still left a more unified nation than that in the Pre-colonial era. This division is credited with helping Britain conquer rule India with Indian troops. Britain used the caste system and recruited from certain castes they thought martial. 12.156.208.3 (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

--False, the concept of Indian national identity stretches back far beyond the British. The concept of 'Bharat' existed long before some white guy thought of drawing together a bunch of states under one name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.192.78 (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is as meaningless as claiming that there has been a "European Nation" for millenia due to the fact that the term Europe has been used for Millenia. A geographical term does not make a social unity. I think, actually, that some "white guys" indeed did think of drawing the Indian subcontinent (or the greater part of it) into a political unity- albeit one ruled from London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.18.65.192 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Castes of Wikipedia users
Please add a section giving statistics on just how many computer users or Wikipedia users or readers are in what castes: one wonders if all those reading and writing here are only in the upper castes after all. Jidanni 21:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Caste no bar. Baka man  23:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I want to know more about Deepa Sankar :) Almithra (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Barkhuni's changes

 * Used BBC to note that the constitution outlawed caste
 * Noted the results of the caste=racism bs the conference of victims tried to pass in South Africa
 * Adds a published book discussing the caste = apartheid allegations.
 * Notes Andre Beteille's opinion (beteille is an eminent sociologist)
 * Gives Ayesha Jalal's opinion (for what reason I don't understand)

I have seen that there have been 6 undiscussed reverts. The content on the page right now with the noting of the BBC, Beteille, results of durban provides a more balanced view of the situation. Baka man  23:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My revert was based on an incorrect reading of the massive changes which made it appear to me that cited material was being removed. Since the new material consists of additions of cited material, probably they should stay, and their merits can be discussed indivisually.  User:Barkhuni's edit history of making massive changes to this article as his or her first contributions, with no discussion whatsoever on the talk page, and very aggressive reverting when challenged by multiple other editors, suggests that a sock may be at work.  Buddhipriya 01:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What Mahabharata Says
sthito brahmana-dharmena

brahman yam upajiva ti

ksatriyo vatha vaisyo va

brahma-bhuyah sa gacchati

ebhis tu karmabhir devi

subhair acaritais tatha

sudro brahmanatam yati

vaisyah ksatriyatam vrajet

na yonir napi samskaro

na srutam na ca santatih

karanani dvijatvasya

vrttam eva tu karanam

"If one is factually situated in the occupation of a brahmana, he must be considered a brahmana, even if born of a ksatriya or vaisya family. "O Devi, if even a sudra is actually engaged in the occupation and pure behavior of a brahmana, he becomes a brahmana. Moreover, a vaisya can become a ksatriya. "Therefore, neither the source of one's birth, nor his reformation, nor his education is the criterion of a brahmana. The vrtta, or occupation, is the real standard by which one is known as a brahmana." (Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva, ch. 163)

Source: []BalanceRestored 09:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So, originally there was discrimination on the basis of good or bad deeds, but discrimination based on the basis of birth was introduced later on. BalanceRestored 10:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * E.g. to this was Vyasa muni was from a fisherman community. Vishwamitra a well known sage was a Ksatriya.

Caste as culture distinction
My relatives told me that individuals of separate castes are of separate cultures. Somewhere I had read that different castes are actually different cultures within the same society. That would explain why they do not intermarry. It would be nice if someone could find a source to expound on that, if true. I do not live in India and the Indians here focus more on which state they came from than which caste. 4.239.234.150 21:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is quite true, for example the lower castes have their own epic literature, by the name of Dhola. Look it up online. I will write a wikipedia article on it soon. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone reverted changes as mere opinon
That part about indian poverty being a consequence if British suppression is well known. Many including Nobel Laureate Sen have documented this. I have also cited Mr. Andre Frank.

That a Hindu doesn't need to beleieve in God is well known. I now cite Dicovery of India. If do have newspaper clippings where even a Hindu Priest has written this same opinion.

Pl. do NOT remove these changes wityhout a discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.62.74 (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Few changes
Added an OR tag for this line: "Though inter-caste marriages are now relatively common in India." No citation given. Deleting second paragraph of the article. It has nothing to do with this article, and it doesn't offer any citation either. "It should be noted that the word for Religion is "matam" in many Indian Languages including Sanskrit and Tamil. "Matam" means opinion. And Hinduism gives the right to opinion to everyone. As a result of "right to opinion/matam", there is great diversity in the versions of God, in the religious books, customs and other rituals that the Hindus follow. If a Hindu, out of his or her own intellectual pursuit, decides there is no God, he or she does NOT cease to be a Hindu. In Discovery of India, Nehru notes that some Upanishads have questioned the existence of God." John.Knott 20:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It has everything to do with this article because many blame Hinduism for the caste system.
 * If Upanishads question the existence of God and it is part of the religious texts, then clearly
 * this religion allows poeple to follow their right to opinion.


 * Most religious texts in Hinduism are written in a style that parallels modern day research articles
 * with both others' opinon and the authors opinion outlined clearly.


 * Ok I put "discovery of India" in a citation format. —Preceding unsigned comment :added by 67.124.38.234 (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That is your POV. Who blames what is not wikipedia's concern. Please do not insert your POV here. If you want, you can create a section on "defense of caste system" and put it there. Several other authors have already created sections on castes in other religions. Read the first line of second paragraph.John.Knott 18:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The "matam" stuff is clearly irrelevant to this article. Nothing to do with the caste system, or varna. utcursch | talk 12:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First you seem to have misunderstood the main point. The third paragraph simply does NOT defend castes. Second, I take NPOV seriously.  I will go through wiki's guidelines on NPOV by Sunday evening and get back to you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.84.22 (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In that third paragraph, a few facts were stated (like matam means opinon and

upanishads question the existence of God) - these are NOT POV. facts like "Plato is a philosopher" can be stated as per NPOV guidelines. AT the end of the paragraph there was a "logical deduction" ( "If a Hindu doen't need to believe in God, he or she doesn't need to believe in caste as well" ) was made. I didn't come across any NPOV guidelines on deductions i.e. whether deductions are allowed or not. I will take the more experienced users assertion that deductions are POV. Thank you John. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.134.201 (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The citation given for this paragraph "With most Dalits and non-Dalits[38] changing their names to caste-indistinguishable names, the effect of this study on real life discrimination based on caste is debatable. For eg. current Chief Justice of India Hon'ble Mr. Balakrishnan is a Dalit as is former President of India Hon'ble K.R.Narayanan. Their names cannot reveal their caste identity. Nor are their castes visible on their appearance" is meaningless. This is POV and OR. This material will be removed unless proper references are provided.John.Knott 19:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This objection is well-taken. Please confirm if the modification meets NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.86.106 (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 75.19.86.106, your reconstruction of previous statement is not true. "This study did not provide details on the percentage of Dalits having a name that can identify them as a Dalit." If you read the study, you'll know that equal number of applications with identical qualifications were sent out. For each job there were 4 sets of applications sent out. If the requirement was low, they sent one application from uppercaste sounding name, one from Muslim sounding name, one from dalit sounding name, and one from dalit sounding name with higher qualifications than uppercaste sounding name. If the requirements were high, they sent one application from uppercaste sounding name, one from Muslim sounding name, one from dalit sounding name, and one from uppercaste sounding name with lower qualifications than dalit sounding name. In short, the percentage of applications sent were equal. If you have not already, then I encourage you to read the study itself. http://www.epw.org.in/epw/uploads/articles/11136.pdf
 * In addition, your statement "As a result, the statistics provided in this study cannot be extrapolated to infer the amount of discrimination faced by Dalits in real life" is again your POV and OR. Let the readers decide if the study can be extrapolated or not. It is not encyclopedia's job to aid in passing judgments, or to create certain views. For now, I will add an or tag.John.Knott 15:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, the second line can be POV. Removed. But you have misunderstood the previous line.

That study did NOT provide the percentage of Dalits in India who have a caste-distinguishable name. This sentence does NOT talk about the names used in the study. It talks about the names of real Dalits in Indian Society.

anyway this Shudra (worker who can be fired at will by his or her boss) doesn't have much time to debate. Thank you Jim for all the discussions. And I mean it. Others do NOT even discuss. They just edit away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.35.202 (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are quite welcome. I would never remove any relevant material without talking out first. The percent of Dalits in India are irrelevant in the study. It does not matter how many Dalits are in India, as long as they are sending out equal number of applications for each category.131.123.28.202 16:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Utcursh, why do you think that this is NOT POV or OR? "In rural areas and small towns, the caste system is still very rigid. The total elimination of caste system seems distant, if ever possible, due to caste politics." We might speculate that it is rigid or annihilation of caste may be distant, but we cannot be sure without any evidence. John.Knott 15:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * When did I said it is not POV or OR? utcursch | talk 09:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You did not say it, but you reverted a TAG that I added. Anyway, I will add the tag again.131.123.28.202 16:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, 131.123.28.202 is me John Knott. I thought I was logged in.John.Knott 16:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I must have removed the tag while reverting other edits by the "matam" guy. utcursch | talk 12:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User Goldenhawk 0
You are calling me a vandal?? You removed the material, without discussing, on that study on discrimination in private industry, which was cited. I did not remove anything.John.Knott 16:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am reverting your changes.John.Knott 16:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Move
I suggest moving this to Caste system in India. Relata refero (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that's a better title. utcursch | talk 04:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Good catch! Abecedare (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Identify the territorial entity. ChemTerm (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Varna and jati - remove 'weasel words'?
I just read the article and found this section to be neutral with what appeared to be a reasonable set of citations. If there's still something objectionable, seems it should be tagged specifically. JWBito (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

hi i am abhinav,i want to ask a question from the net users. this is my question. how can cast system remove from india? please email the answer at ranu100@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.59.157 (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Brahman and Brahmin
I believe the name of the highes is spelt Brahman, not Brahmins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.248.17 (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The name of the varna is spelt as both Brahmin and Brahman. The Wikipedia article Brahman is about the concept of "unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality" in Hinduism. The article on the varna is located at Brahmin. utcursch | talk 04:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary Criticism Bias
does anyone else think there is a bias against the "anti-Hindu" critics listed in the first part. They are simply described as anti Hindu and attacking Hindus. It would be better to quote some criticisms of the caste system by these people and groups, instead of painting them as radicals who seem to hate Hindus for no reason. 12.156.208.3 (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Yes, I agree. also, the main body of the article is very defensive which reduces the credibility of the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.53.130.13 (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sri Vaishnava not spelled right nor linked
The mention of the Sri Vaishnava sect in South India was not properly spelled nor was it linked the corresponding wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Vaishnava the current incorrect spelling in this article I believe is Srivaishava. Nityanandaram (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Nityananda Chandra Das

Section: Caste system among non-Hindus
This section appears the work of apologists; cherry picking simpler things from other religions and amplifying them by calling "caste" based to justify social evils like untouchability in Hindu society in India. At the same time practice of caste which is in worse from in Hindu society has been toned-down to make it look legitimate and acceptable. This article needs to be watched very carefully as its under constant propaganda attack. Through this section I would also like to discuss with Tripping Nambiar why s/he has problems with my edits which s/he is calling "twisted words" in the edit summary. Regards, --Road Ahead  Discuss 15:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Goingoveredge is back to edit-warring. Why don't you come to talkpage and discuss rather? You either don't take part in discussion or just come there to barrage personal attacks on other editors and to create confusion by taking tangents on the topic. --Road Ahead  Discuss 17:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop Attacking editors, Disrupting wikipedia to make a point, Trolling and actively engouraging prejudice, bigotry and discrimination against certain ethnic groups. Actions like that are severely frowned upon here.Goingoveredge (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Extremely baseless name calling and allegations. You are making no sense at all. Care to substantiate your baseless allegations that you use to evade discussions? Be on topic here and create different section to substantiate your allegations if you can. --Road Ahead  Discuss 18:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Try to contribute constructively by Citing sources, instead of removing citations, and non-trolls will take you more seriously.Goingoveredge (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Another baseless allegation. That citation is wrongly used, try proving the point by using appropriate citations. Such use of citations is dishonest. --Road Ahead  Discuss 18:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop saying "baseless allegation" as though it is some mehl chant.Removal of citations without specification is blatant vandalism (in this case, khalistani hatemongering vandalism, a double-whammy).Goingoveredge (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO this section should emphasize the fact taht Sikhism does not have a varna system like the Hinduism. And that Sikhism openly rejects any kind of castes. It is true that many Sikhs consider castes while marrying etc., but this is only because of the past Hindu influence. Please see all the results on the google books for sikh castes. This clearly shows that Sikhism has rejected the castes.

Please go through the resources mentioned in this comprehsnive bibliography on the Sikh castes. All these sources state that Sikhism officialy rejcts castes. The only problem is many adherenets violate this rule. This happens in all the religins. No Christian follows everything mentioned in Bible, no Hinud does all the things that the Gita says. Sikhs are no exception.

Caste is basically a colonial construction - Scheduled Castes in Sikh Community. Also, many of the caste issues in the Sikh society are politically motivated. Please read and the caste question. People claming to right for the rights of "Dalit Sikhs" and "Mazhabi Sikhs" are just politicians.

The ENcyclopedia Brtiannica artlce is titled "Sikh practice » The rejection of caste" This emphaizes that Sikhs reject th caste system. It just says "In two areas of Sikh society, however, caste is still observed. Sikhs are normally expected to marry within their caste: Jat marries Jat, Khatri marries Khatri, and Dalit marries Dalit. In addition, Sikhs of some castes tend to establish gurdwaras intended for their caste only. Members of the Ramgarhia caste, for example, identify their gurdwaras in this way (particularly those established in the United Kingdom), as do members of the Dalit caste." Please note that in Punjab and other areas of India, castes, tribes and ethnic groups are not always mutually exclusive. So, actually Sikhs marry within their ehtnicity, which also happens to be their 'caste' in the traditional Hinduism.

Also, the caste rivalries in Sikhism are usually a result of politics or fight for the control of shrines, and not of discrimination like HInduism:
 * Caste and Sikh Temple Politics May Be Behind Fatal Shooting
 * Talibanisation of Sikhism by Madanjeet Singh ji.

"The institution of langar — the common community kitchen, which Guru Nanak established to break the discrimination of the caste system — has been undermined as separate gurudwaras have mushroomed in Punjab for lower-caste Sikhs, while higher status elitists frequent exclusive langars where they are not obliged to sit and eat as equals with Dalit Sikhs. Many Sikhs have started flaunting their higher status by adding caste suffixes after their name Singh, a practice strictly prohibited by the Sikh Gurus."

Now please note that true Indian Sikhs do not follow these practicies. The promie minister of India Manmohan Singh ji does not add any suffix to his name. The great Indian spinner Harbhajan Singh does not do this eithr. The Jatt Sikhs who support caste system are mostly Khailstani extremists who want to separate from India saying that they are racially superior "scythians". Only Khalistani extremists like Gurmit Singh Aulakh add their caste to their names. These are minority and should not be used to describe all of Sikhism. You do not base the article Hinduism on bad things doen by Vishwa Hindua Parishand. Then why base this article on bad things done by extremist sikhs who don't follow Sikhism truly?

Please add this line prominently to the article "Sikhism rejects the caste system completeldly". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.179.5 (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits/war
Both Tripping and Khatri need to see some guidelines. Both of you are engaged in an edit war, which, may I remind you, carries a ban if continued. Khatri, I have undone your citation. It is not needed and it is POV in some areas. Just keep it out of the article. It's just a rewording of what is previously stated, but from a different person. If you can find a better way to include the source and the information, please put it here first or, if it's significantly different, put it on the page. Tripping, you need to seriously rethink your edit summaries. They are starting to become hateful and that is not tolerated. If you revert something, post a real reason why. Don't just say "Crap doesn't belong". I've requested a full protection of this page until this little conflict dies down. Undead Warrior (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Undead Warrior, where in my addition to the article do I provide a POV statement? Also, it is not reworded or previously stated as you indicated. TrippingNambiar has provided a cited addition that states "Khatris" to be of something else then what I am saying they are. So all I am doing is providing support for another claim or alternate view that is also accepted

Please read the exact addition below of what I wanted to add. Thanks

START However, according to H.A. Rose in his book "Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and N.W. Frontier Province", he says "Khatri appears to be unquestionably a Prakritised form of the Sanskrit Kshatriya". END

referennce - "Glossary of the tribes and Castes of the Punjab and N.W. Frontier Province.",vol. 2, p. 501, by H.A. Rose,First ed. 1911

Now tell me, where is the POV that I am personally providing? I am merely giving a reference to another article written by an outide author who was considered a leading expert on this subject. --KhatriNYC (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * But who is H.A. Rose and why is his book so important? If his own notability to the subject is unclear, then it's his point of view that is being stated only and that should be avoided. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Then you can say that about any topic really, can't you? I mean, let me give you a hypothetical example:

Some scientists claim the universe is expanding, while others claim it is not. Both are leading figures in their line of work, but both have their own views/theories as to what is going on in the universe. So how can you claim one is correct over the other? You cannot, because both just provide theories based on evidence and observations they make.

H.A. Rose was a leading anthropologist and ethnologist in the late 1800s and early 1900s that did a survey of the tribes and castes of the Punjab region of India. He concluded that the Khatris of the Punjab region were the original Kshatriya caste of India, and not of the Vaishya caste as some others (TrippingNambiar) have claimed them to be.

By the way, where do you think the Encylcopedia Britannica gets its information from? It gets it from historians/scientists/anthropologist/ethnologist etc. providing THEIR POINT OF VIEW on whatever topic they are "experts" on. Depending on the topic, they will use conventional methods that have been used for years if no other modern research has been done, or use more modern conventions that the general scientific community holds true depending on the research that has been done up to that point.

Now, why are you asking me to provide this information when no other people who have contributed to this article by citing references from various authors have had to do so? I can give you explains of POVs stated in this article by other referenced authors of books if you so wish as to go that route....

--KhatriNYC (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Then just do me a favor. You can add the information, but do not put "In the book by ...." or "Mr.... says this in his book." Just get to the point and put a reference at the end. Use the ref tags and it will create a legit reference at the bottom. If it's taken away again, I'll deal with it. If you don't do the ref correctly, I'll fix it too. Undead Warrior (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to put in a request to have TrippingNambiar banned from making edits to this page. He has started back up with removing referenced data he does not agree with, without first discussing it on the discussion board. ADMIN, PLEASE BLOCK HIS ID FROM THIS PAGE. --KhatriNYC (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Users cannot be blocked from one site only, but rather from the entire website as a whole. If he starts up again, reverting information without reason, I will do something, but not until I see it. Undead Warrior (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok thats fine. A couple of things I want to address here:

1. When you say "not until after I see it". what do you mean? Look at the history, and you can see where TrippingNambiar removed my cited info to the article. I then however added it back.

2. Why was I blocked for a day by some admin named Yellow something?

--KhatriNYC (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you were banned, but if the edit war continues, report him at WP:AIV. It's a pretty easy process. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

History Section
This is an encyclopedia, not a book of religion or of legends. Only verifiable historical fact may be added to the "history" section. At least one editor is determined to introduce a large section of mythology into this section and present it as fact. The book "The History of Earth: The Indian Version" is not acceptable as a reliable source to introduce this material, firstly because it is clearly a book of mythology, and secondly because it is a self-published source (it is published by "AuthorHouse" which is a "vanity press" company that allows anyone to publish any book). This means that it is not acceptable per the wikipedia policy WP:SELFPUBLISH. Thparkth (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Caste in the Indus Valley Civilization
On page 164 of his book The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture, Edwin Bryant argues that the caste system had its origin in the Harappan/Indus Valley Culture: "'Before moving on to other issues, it seems relevant to note a provocative new hypothesis suggested by Lamberg-Karlovsky (forthcoming), who draws attention to the astounding degree of cultural homogeneity in the vast area of the Indus Valley Civilization, juxtaposed with the lack of any evidence for a centralized political structure. Not only is there a uniformity of culture, but the physical layout of the community is replicated irrespective of whether it is the 5-acre site of Allahdino or the 150-acre site of Mohenjo-Daro. Lamberg-Karlovsky believes this 'enigma' can be adequately explained by supposing that only an exceptional social organization such as the caste system can account for this.'" Hokie Tech (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As is evident from the quote, Bryant does not "argue" anything, he refers to a hypothesis by one Lamberg-Karlovsky that the IVC may have had a caste system. There is also no shade of implication of any continuity with the Maurya era caste system 2500 years later. --dab (𒁳) 19:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

For more recent information on the mixing of Indo-European and Southeast Asian genetic lines See Reich, D. et al. Nature 461, 489-494 (2009). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.201.188 (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

System endorsed by Scripture but not Discrimination
This must be changed: "While the Hindu scriptures do endorse the caste system,[2][3] none of them endorse caste-based discrimination.[4][5][6][7]" Firstly, whoever wrote this may have meant something more sensible and be quite attached to what they've written, but it needs rephrasing BADLY, and this rather stupid phrasing emanates from politically correct wishful thinking (i.e., please think before you revert this immediately). It has four references, but to rather iffy sources (a popular article in the Guardian, a broken link, a 'hinduwisdom' website, and a quite respectable book that doesn't quite say that...) What may be meant is that the scriptures do not advocate caste 'hatred', which is quite different. When I edit this, there will probably be too many people out there who will automatically change it back, so I must press this here: please look up the word 'discrimination' - the castes are indeed distinguished across Hindu scripture, which is all 'discrimination' technically means. Furthermore, many of the numerous Hindu scriptures do advocate oppression of the lower castes (from a Western point of view at any rate, politically correct disclaimers, blah blah etc...): lower castes can receive much harsher penalties in the Dharmashastras for all sorts of things, it is made quite clear the job of the Shudras is to serve the higher castes, the lower castes are compared to animals more than a few times, their order w.r.t. reincarnation is emphasised... Making a false distinction via a vague, politically correct term with no meaning does not magic the various Hindu scriptures into submission to the modern laws of the Republic of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.48 (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What absurd are you talking about? from where do you get "............it is made quite clear the job of the Shudras is to serve the higher castes......"? what are the basis for you allegations?? Do you even understand what cast system is and how it originated. --Saisharvanan Talk 2 Me 15:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Diagram
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Does is represents correctly that lowest caste makes the majority? Audriusa (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been researching this topic for a while. It is a complicated subject. But, overwhelming data and India's history suggests it would be incorrect to use this image. The lowest caste has been between 14 to 18%, for last 50 years, by various sources. It is currently claimed by some sources to be 16%. Similarly the second level from the bottom of the pyramid is estimated variously to be between 11 to 19%, some estimate it higher or lower than that range. So an inverted pyramid, or inverted egg, looks more like it if you were to accept a majority of the sources. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

reply on the neutriality
in these topics, how in the world can you be neutral?!?! use your brain if you have one — Preceding unsigned comment added by YeowZhengHerng (talk • contribs) 12:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Muslims and Christians supporting the caste system - 1883 year reference not too old?
The reference about Muslims and Christians supporting the caste system seems coming from 1883 year. To my opinion, the reference so old may not be sufficient to support the claim about the current situation and at most could support the claim that something was observed quite deeply in the past. I think that a newer reference is necessary to support the claim as it stands now Audriusa (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Buried edit
Sorry. Just realized I buried one. . Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Stratification comfort
The link "Oriental Philosophy" does not indicate a claim of people being "comfortable in stratified endogamous groups, as they have always been, since ancient times". (It does, however, note the correlation between the Hindu belief in Karma and the caste system, albeit not quite as directly as is desirable; this information does need to be in the article.) Allens (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the cited lander.edu site as well as the cited Sankaran reference. I can not find any support for the sweeping claims in this paragraph. I concur with Allens that there is no support for the summary people being "comfortable in stratified endogamous groups, as they have always been, since ancient times." Similarly, there is no support for caste system providing global monopoly to Indian worker/merchants/industry, or providing protection of intellectual property, or that separate sub-caste were involved in different variety of cloth, providing economic benefits implied by this sub-section, etc; Neither the 7th edition (1996 version) of the cited source nor any other secondary/primary reliable source supports these claims - to the best of my research. Furthermore, reliable secondary sources suggest that none of this speculation is historically true or verifiable to satisfy WP:VNT guideline (see, for example, the pre-colonial economy and trade routes between South Asia, South Arabia, Central Asia and Europe in pre-colonial times in the publications by George Forster or JJ Modi or Williams Jackson; or in colonial times by Risley). I am tagging the sub-section. I am assuming good faith, perhaps someone mistyped the citation details, and will wait for someone to provide better source. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Caste categories
The lead section gives examples of each caste category: Brahmins (teachers & scholars, fire priests), Kshatriyas (warriors, law enforcers, administrators), Vaishyas (agriculturists, cattle-herders and traders), and Shudras (laborers, craftsmen, service providers). It cites the following four: [4] Patrick Olivelle (2004). The law code of Manu. Oxford University Press. pp. 185–. ISBN 978-0-19-280271-2. Retrieved 6 January 2012. [5] Braja Dulal Mookherjee (2002). The Essence of Bhagavad Gita. Academic Publishers. pp. 472–. ISBN 978-81-87504-40-5. Retrieved 6 January 2012. [6] Kingship and community in early India - Page 85, Charles Drekmeier - 1962, ISBN 0804701148 [7] Cultural Studies - Page 208, Lawrence Goodrich, ISBN 1449637280

I checked each of these, and can not find support. Neither are all these examples listed on the page number specified, nor anywhere else. Some examples are listed in Drekmeier and Goodrich citation, but there is a conflict. Drekmeier includes agriculturists as Vaishyas on page 85, while Goodrich includes farmers as Shudras on page 208. None of these state anywhere that 'Brahmins' were teachers or scholars. Nor do any of these references mention that all teachers and all scholars in ancient India were 'Brahmins'. Similarly, none of these state anywhere that 'Kshatriyas' were law enforcers or administrators. Nor do any of these references mention that all law enforcers and all administrators in ancient India were 'Kshatriyas'. Not only isn't reliable source provided for these category examples, the text ignores some important details. For example, on page 83, 3rd paragraph, Drekmeier writes that ancient India's Magadha had liberalized official appointments to include Shudras. This suggests that putting law enforcers or administrators under Kshatriyas is inconsistent with the cited support. Olivelle and Mookherjee, on page 185 and 472 respectively, or anywhere else do not provide support either.

Therefore, after a due pause for a discussion on this talk page, I will clean this lead section sentence. I intend to trim and chisel the sentence to eliminate original research per WP:NOR guidelines, leaving what is actually supported by the cited references. I encourage other wiki contributors to find new references that (a) clearly support examples under each caste category; and (b) asserts a consensus of majority of sociologists on the example occupations that belonged in each caste category. Alternatively, wiki contributors may identify the page number on any of the four references that actually support each example under each caste category. Please note that wiki guidelines require that primary sources are to be avoided and only used when necessary and only with abundant caution and careful interpretation; where possible secondary sources are to be preferred as the basis for an encyclopedic article. For more help on acceptable citations and sources, and relevant guidelines, please see WP:RS, WP:VNT and WP:VERIFY.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just do it. If you wander through the history then you will see that the details for those four groups change frequently. Perhaps at one point there was some basis for the sources but what oftens happens is that people change the statement without checking the source etc. If William Pinch, Susan Bayly or Christophe Jaffrelot hadve anything to say on the matter (& I rather think that they do) then those would be more than adequate: those of us who work a lot in the caste sphere of WP and are generally considered to be worthy contributors often do cite all of those sources. I'll try to take a look through them some time in the next few hours.
 * There is also a vague term currently in vogue among some anthropologists/sociologists/socio-historians: "non-elite". It would be useful to include that somewhere in the article but I'd really need to find a source that defines it. Again, Pinch is probably the best bet. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the current back-and-forth about the varna of cattle herders etc, most modern sources that I have used in umpteen caste articles classify such people as shudra or sometimes "upper shudra". If there really are modern sources that say differently then we should hash out some sort of compromise here on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One way to address this, in a WP:NPOV way, is to include each version of the conflicting classifications in the main article, each with citations. After this is done, the lead can simply list the four varnas, existence of jatis, and a note on a lack of consensus on which occupations belong to which varna. This would be more in line with WP:LEAD guidelines, which suggests that the most important aspects be summarized in lead. Such a 'summary in lead section, examples and details about the confusion in the article' approach may also provide a balanced view of confusion and disagreements on occupations and caste categories in secondary cited sources. Any other creative suggestions to address this and improve the quality of this article, while being fair and balanced on caste categories? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion is spot on and is pretty much what I would have said a couple of hours ago if I had the time to do so. This is a really awkward article because there is a consensus that varna should not be mentioned in the lead section of articles, period, due to the differing interpretations and claims. But, of course, the entire subject matter of this article is inextricably linked to the varna concept. Keeping the definitions out of the lead would be A Good Thing. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For Mkrestin, in case you missed this from the above discussion: Some examples are listed in Drekmeier and Goodrich citation, but there is a conflict. Drekmeier includes agriculturists as Vaishyas on page 85, while Goodrich includes farmers as Shudras on page 208. Please explain why you believe these two sources are saying same thing (farmers are agriculturists), or why one secondary source should be preferred over another? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was referring to first two sources which have online links- and .According to vedic tradition agriculture, animal husbandry and trade have been occupation of Vaisyas.regardsMkrestin (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The following note is for wiki contributors who read these talk pages/archives, days or years from now, before modifying this wiki article's caste categories content or the terminology sections.


 * Not only is there abundant dispute between which occupations or sub-castes belong to which varna/caste grouping, there are primary and secondary sources who argue that varnas are not castes. One of these is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who led the non-violent movement to demand India's independence from colonial British. Gandhi writes varna is an Indian institution which has nothing to do with caste categories. Varna, claims Gandhi, urges "each one of us to earn our bread, and that we do so by following what each finds his or her calling is." He further claims that ancient Indian texts do not assign superior or inferior status, that is any hierarchy to varnas. Nor do Indian scriptures claim that a person born in any family never aspire to a different occupation (e.g. see Vol. 71 of Gandhi's works, where he claims someone born in wood chopper family can and should aspire to become president or whatver he or she wants). According to Gandhi, Indian scriptures were open books, anyone could add content, anyone could modify content (like wikipedia?); Over the centuries, texts and claims in these ancient scriptures - such as those by Manu - were added or modified, making them of doubtful authenticity and value. Gandhi is not alone, in this view. Secondary sources, such as Richard Lariviere, assert that translations of Naradasmriti are very different than Manusmriti, in matters of varnas and social relationships (both are ancient Indian documents on social laws, by the way). For more: see volumes 68-71 and volume 87 of Collected Works of Mahatama Gandhi (http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/cwmg.html; for quick check, see volume 69, pages 226-227: http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL069.PDF).


 * I have left the broad definition of caste as varna, nevertheless, as is, in this wiki article. I have also not mentioned this 'varna is not caste' argument by Gandhi from early 20th century, because in contemporary literature of early 21st century, caste in India usually refers to traditional varnas in India. This controversy and disagreement on what varna is and what caste is, suggests that the article may be better and more balanced, if attempts are not made to make it more certain than the confusion, such as by listing occupations. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)