Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 September 22

= September 22 =

What is the reason & purpose for attaching "Indian Caste Identity" over Wikipedia articles?
I have noticed, Wikipedia pages providing info on Indians belonging to the Hindu faith be it Filmstars, Authors, Politicians, Social workers & even Sportsmen all have been attached to a particular Caste according to their Hindu surnames. Even Converts from Hinduism such as Neo-Buddhists, Sikhs, Christians & Muslims are not spared from the poison of Hindu Caste & Varna-hierarchy. Their castes are still attached to them in India & even articles on Wikipedia which are dedicated to them. What is this? Are we living in the stone age? Such things may be prevalent among Rural Indian villages. Why Wikipedia? & Why there is a Casteist practice over Wikipedia?

A platform like Wikipedia which is known to be a knowledge-seeking platform is found to allow Indian users to write articles mentioning Castes & Communities regarding an Indian in the name of providing info in their said articles. These are promoting & fueling their Dogmatic Hindu casteist practices in the said articles. Is Wikipedia unaware of Hindu racism & Casteism? Even wiki moderators are often found to neglect this.

I have noticed in the articles written on Indians (by Indians) particularly the sections of Early life & Personal life, the Indian Hindus are affixed to a particular caste or community be it Brahmin caste, Kshatriya caste, Bania, shudra, Dalit, obc & Adivasi (caste & communities) etc.

Casteism & Racism should not be propagated in a platform like Wikipedia or anywhere? Say "No" to Indian Caste & Community things over Wikipedia. I urge you to Remove this Hindu caste & community identity attached to Indian Hindus from all the said Wikipedia articles. ChongPong|Talk 2:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some specific examples? <-Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots-> 20:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You are not alone in noticing this, ChongPong. This problem has been under discussion for years (see this 2011 discussion and |this 2013 discussion). If you have specific examples, as Baseball Bugs mentions, I believe you can simply remove such information where it is not sourced (that means, backed up by a reference shown by a small raised number), or request help at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard - but since you are new to the discussion I'd suggest you start at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics and ask them what the policy is first. Then you can ask them how you can help improve the situation. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Personally, I agree that the concept of caste is very negative and regressive, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that describes things as they are, not an advocacy platform for describing how things ought to me. Editing related to caste can be extremely disruptive. If there is a reliable source saying that a notable person identifies as a member of a caste, that can be mentioned if referenced. But inferring that someone is a member of a caste based on their name, place of birth and so on is completely wrong. Unreferenced or poorly referenced caste claims should be removed. Problems related to caste have been so severe that General sanctions/South Asian social groups was created to give administrators extra powers to stop caste related disruption. Many editors have been blocked or topic banned for this type of disruption, and you can find the details in that link. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This sounds like the issues of listing people as a particular religion, such as Jewish or Catholic. The key is, as you suggest, whether they identify as being in a particular group. If they don't, it's usually considered irrelevant to the article. <-Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots-> 01:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * What was the word "caste" supposed to mean in this context? Brahmin, kshatriya etc. are names of "varna" groups, an overall classificatory scheme, while traditionally for most Indians "jati" groups (specific local endogamous lineages etc) were a lot more relevant to their day-to-day lives.  Jati membership could be simple and objective in many cases, but then how to classify those jatis in the varna hierarchy could be the subject of a cloud of conflicting claims. AnonMoos (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * If it is useful to think of these groupings as a type of subdivision of ethnicity then maybe we can look at WP:EGRS for guidance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

AnonMoos I'm going to explain in details regarding Indian "Caste" or Jatis or Whatsoever Indian Hindus like to call it. The problem with Indian Casteism & the atrocities among Indian Hindus in the name of Varna-Racism is nothing new. Indian Caste Supremacy (formerly Ancient Indian Varna-Hierarchy) does not exist anymore. Still it is followed by a majority of Rural Indian villagers. This Modern-day Varna system is a production of Superstitions among Hindus.

Note: Do not intermix the Ancient Indian Varna Hierarchy (a.k.a Indian Class system) which was according to that person's occupation whereas with the Modern-day "Rigid Hindu-Caste system" is according to his birth inaugurated by illiterate & Superstitous villagers followed by Indians & Hindus particularly.

Even Ancient Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Europeans, Chinese & Japanese had a Class system (according to that person's occupation). But all were abolished. Only the Indian Caste System exists as a by-product of Delusion among Hindu Minds. The Hindu caste system is the Last Fort of Caste-hierarchy on Earth. Hindu Caste System is so Rigid & malicious even Converts from Hinduism such as Neo-Buddhists (Ambedkarites) & Sikhs. Even Converted-Christians & Muslims belonging to Abrahamic faiths are not spared from the "Caste Tags" of his past Hindu Identity.

I agree with what you said about Varna or Jati. But this is the bookish definition of Hindu Scriptures. In reality, Indian Hindus believe that a person is "born Superior" if he is born into a family of so-called "Upper caste or Forward Caste" he or she is somehow different from the rest (nothing to do with occupation unlike the former Indian Class system). If someone belongs to the Hindu faith then automatically he will be attached to a particular caste according to his surname which I found not only to be dogmatic but also draconian & absurd. Even in this 21st century Indian Hindus still believes they are attached to a particular caste or clan, unlike their ancestors.

Now, let us examine how Caste-hierarchy in Hindu societies works even today. Did you notice? Any article written on Indians over Wikipedia has been tagged with a Caste either in his/her Personal life or Early life sections. Attached Castes are either Brahmin (Priest), Kshatriya (Warrior), Bania (Traders), Shudras (Lower/Backward Castes), Adivasi & Dalits (Untouchables). Even if that person's occupation is somehow different from that said "caste"?

o Brahmin Caste: Mishra, Patra, Shukla, Purohit, Tiwari, Mukherjee, Banerjee, Chatterjee, Chakraborty, Iyer, Ayenger etc. etc. (are venerated as Priests, even if their modern-day occupation is different).

o Kshatriya Caste: Rajput, Jat, Gujjar, Maratha etc. etc. (are venerated as Warriors, even if their modern-day occupation is different).

o Vaishya caste: Agarwal, Oswal, Banias etc. etc. (are venerated as Traders even if their modern-day occupation is different).

o Lower Castes: Shudras (comprising the peasants... the list will be endless, )

and Finally the Outcastes (excluded castes from the Hindu Varna Hierarchy): Dalit (Schedule Caste) & Adivasi (Scheduled Tribe) are excluded from the Hindu-Varna Hierarchy.

The Adivasi (forest Dwellers) and Dalits (toilet-cleaners, Morticians, Cobblers) are the worst sufferers. The Dalits though Hindus are not accepted by Hindus in their Societies. Dalits are killed for being born in that Caste by self-proclaimed Upper Caste Hindus. The Internet has a detailed description. Check it out for facts.

How this Caste-thing works in India?If a person is born into a family of Brahmin caste (as explained earlier) that person will be automatically labelled Brahmin (Priest of High Birth) even if his modern-day occupation is something else (not priestly) say he is designated as a Clerk, Peon, at Armed Forces or an Administrative officer or indulge in Business of a flower boutique or a Shopkeeper, he/she will still be venerated as Priestly! Kindly note, a person belonging to the "Brahmin caste" even if he never touched a single Hindu scripture, nor read Hindu scriptures in his entire life, nor is he a priest from a Hindu Temple. How can he be labelled a Brahmin?

Similarly, among these modern-day Kshatriya castes & communities we can see if a person never holds a sword nor indulged in any kind of battle or warfare in his entire life, he will still be labelled a Warrior Caste of High Birth. Suppose that guy belonging to Kshatriya Caste is now indulged in Teaching or Business. How is he a King or a Kings-men?

Indian Hindus out of their sheer ignorance boast in the identity of their ancestor's. All these Nonsense happening just because of rumours & Superstitions prevalent among Ignorant Hindus. Hindus being unaware of their scriptures, openly discuss their false ancestral castes in public. Even if their views are wrong at its core.

Frankly, speaking this 15th-century insanity may be promoted & defended by a bunch of illiterate rural Indian villagers who are known to be the chief followers of Hindu casteism & racism and The Indian politicians who are known to fuel this age-old insanity to satisfy the ego of their vote-banks. Killing Humanity.

Indian Monarchy, Brahminical Supremacy & Varna-hierarchy were abolished centuries ago by the Hammer of Law & after the advent of the Indian constitution by B.R Ambedkar such Racism & Casteism prevalent among Rural Indians has been controlled to some extent still a majority of Indians promote Casteism in open. Boasting in the occupations of their forefather's believe themselves to be something "Born twice-Dvija or Born thrice", of High Birth as high as the Sky, indifferent from the rest, prefer to call themselves "Upper castes" only to justify their delusions.

Such absurd views may be prevalent among Superstitious "High birth" Hindu villagers living in their delusions. These Rural Casteist beliefs should not be propagated. Ignorant Indian villagers may believe the majority of the Indian residents are somehow inferior to the Upper Castes but these Rural Indian Casteist beliefs & practices should not be propagated, not over Wikipedia.

All this Indian Racism & Hindu Casteism reminds me of the Nazi's Racial Supremacy. This is where it strikes me. So, therefore, I urge to remove all castes attached to Indians over Wikipedia.

Wikipedia allowing Superstitions & Delusions of Indians to spread through their articles is a matter of concern. Wikipedia is a Knowledge seeking platform, not any platform for Caste-Identification. ChongPong (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * ChongPong -- please leave me out of your generalized ranting tirade. Or if you're going to invoke my name, please answer my basic question: Is "caste" in the context of these Wikipedia articles supposed to mean varna or jati?  When most Westerners encounter the word "caste", they think of varna, but varna is merely an overall broad classificatory scheme, and the entities which it classifies are not cohesive social groups.  As I said, traditionally in Indian civilizations lower-level jati groups were far more important in most people's day-to-day lives than abstract theoretical varna classifications (though of course on some occasions, varna can be imposed into politics, when certain people find it in their interest to do so). AnonMoos (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

This is essentially a duplicate post from WT:INB. Possibly the OP didn't like the answer they got there. ChongPong, you are still new here, so I just wanted to let you know that when you pose a question like this, please post it to only one forum, noticeboard, or other venue. Posting to duplicate forums is considered to be wasting the time of editors, as well as fragmenting a discussion into pieces, and possibly WP:FORUMSHOPPING. If you wish, after postin your question or comment in one forum, you can then post a brief, neutral statement at another forum with a link to your original question, inviting people to join the discussion there. For example, instead of posting your duplicate comment above, you could have just said something like this:

Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you think bombing can be a 'controversy'?
It's incredible how this can happen, in society, but here too. And, you know, there are 'memes' referring to the common perception of terrorism, but when even an encyclopedia does it it's not just a meme still, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2021‎ 92.0.5.48 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 22 September (UTC) -- 92.0.5.48


 * It is obviously not the bombing that is being referred to as a controversy but the events leading up to it. If you wish to propose renaming the article you are welcome to do so on the article talk page, which is the appropriate place to discuss article content.--Shantavira|feed me 11:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

John Lort-Williams and women's suffrage
Do we know the position taken on women's suffrage by John Lort-Williams in 1908? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This paper quotes Mr. Lort-Williams as saying "choice is restricted, generally, to candidates with means, such as professional, business or professional men in middle-age or older, profiteers, pensioners, what is left of the landed gentry and scions of the nobility with sufficient means and those who have succeeded in marrying wives with money." It appears he is speaking on the general issue of ballot access than on suffrage, however.  I can't find any information on Mr. Lort-Williams opinion of women's suffrage in particular, however.  There seems to be a dearth of information about him on the interwebz, and my Google Fu fails me.  -- Jayron 32 16:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The British Newspaper Archive is hard to use without a registration. But of the 300+ results for lort-williams in July 1908 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results/1908-07-01/1908-07-31?basicsearch="lort-williams", here are two that might be promising enough to request at WP:RX. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. 6 STRENUOUS FIGHT IN PEMBROKE. CAMPAIGNERS ARRIVING IN THE COUNTY. MR. LORT WILLIAMS SPEAKS AT NARBERTH. .Published: Saturday 04 July 1908 Newspaper: Western Mail
 * 2. PEMBROKESHIRE. UNIONIST CANDIDATE'S HOPEFUL FORECAST. SPECIAL INTERVIEW TO-DAY. c au dia ate, Mr. J. Lort ..Published: Thursday 16 July 1908 Newspaper: Globe