Misplaced Pages

Talk:Caste: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:55, 28 November 2012 editIntothefire (talk | contribs)5,160 edits Sources for Pictures and rational for 1916 "ethnographic" pictures ,← Previous edit Revision as of 01:10, 29 November 2012 edit undoMiszaBot I (talk | contribs)234,552 editsm Robot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 20d) to Talk:Caste/Archive 5.Next edit →
Line 26: Line 26:
{{Pbneutral}} {{Pbneutral}}
{{Image requested||political topics|business & economic topics|1=society}} {{Image requested||political topics|business & economic topics|1=society}}

== Lede ==

Since we now have a plethora of sources asserting that caste is essentially a form of social division amongst Hindus, perhaps it is time for the lede to be rewritten to say just that. The current first sentence is meaningless. Perhaps we could start with: "Caste refers primarily to the division of Hindu society into rigid social groups that are hierarchical, hereditary, and endogamous. This social stratification has its roots in ancient India and persists till today, though, because of urbanization and government programs, the rigidity and importance of the system within India has been declining. The hindu caste system is sometimes used as an analogical basis for the study of social divisions outside Hinduism and India." Something along those lines should be the first paragraph of this article. --] <small>(])</small> 20:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
:In the excerpts from the sources above, I will soon separate the lede section from the rest of the text. My general impression is that the specialist references (e.g. ''Oxford Dictionary of Sociology'') tend to define the concept, in the first sentence or two, independently of India. Also, Piotrus, the professional sociologist, whose proposal we were considering suggested that (in light of the spinout ], this article should be 45% about definitions, concepts, paradigms, and review of literature, 30% about India, 10% about caste or caste-like stratification among Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Buddhists in India, and in other countries of South Asia; and 15% to extreme (cast-like) stratification in other parts of the world. In other words, this article should be more sociology and anthropology oriented. I checked the early history of this page it seems to bear Piotrus out. So, a slightly modified version of your text could go after a lead sentence or two which define it abstractly. Something along the lines of: <blockquote> Caste is a form of ] based on ], hereditary transmission of occupation, ritual status in a hierarchy, and social exclusion marked by purity and pollution. Its paradigmatic <span style="color:red"><s><span style="color:black">(and some say only)</span></s></span> ethnographic example is the division of ] society into rigid social groups, with roots in India's ancient history and persisting until today. However, the economic significance of the ] has been declining as a result of urbanization and affirmative action programs. A subject of much scholarship by sociologists and anthropologists, the Hindu caste system is sometimes used as an analogical basis for the study of caste-like social divisions existing outside Hinduism and India. </blockquote> What do you think? I mean something along these lines could be a place holder until the various sections are revised or added. ]] 00:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
:Sure. We need to fix the lead quickly. The current version makes no sense at all. --] <small>(])</small> 11:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
::I am still trawling through this page, trying to catch up. And I keep getting drawn away, sorry. However, the proposed change to the lead makes perfect sense to me, based mostly on my own understanding from past readings of sources etc. I'd probably drop the "(and some say only)" because it sounds a bit weasely, even in a lead, but that is a minor quibble. - ] (]) 12:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I put the "some say only" in later to acknowledge the (few? many?) scholars who consider caste to be unique to India, but yes, it seems lede-inappropriate. Scratched. ]] 13:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
::::OK, I'll change the lede to the version above. ]] 19:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::I've also added a so-called "ethnographic" map of India based on the 1901 Census. Since a major thrust of this article is a discussion of the theories and scholarly literature on caste, such a map, based on then current but now outdated theories is an apt illustration. But, mainly, it, like the rest of the lead, is a place holder. The illustrations will be reevaluated once the text is more complete. ]] 10:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}I thought I had mentioned it here earlier, but apparently I did it somewhere else, but the previous 72 prints of Indian castes illustration doubly inaccurate as it was not even accurate at the time it was created. It clearly furthers the previous POV of the article, that caste in India was really not the preserve of one religious group. It starts with "Muslim man," and includes "Arab soldier," "Sikh chief," "Tribal chief," and "fencer" among the 8 chosen. What the caption forgets to tell you is that they were pictures of "castes" observed in the Madurai area during 25 years, that there are , most of which are Hindus. What it also forgets to tell you (and this is my own reading) is that it was a collection presented to an American Methodist leader, Revd. Manning, by an American missionary in India, Daniel Poor. With the 1813 Charter Act, the British government had allowed Christian missionaries to proselytize in India. Since 1813+25 = 1838, the approximate year of the presentation, it was the initiative of a "first generation" American missionary in India. In other words, this is a naive view of caste and ethnic differences in India. I mean naive for the level of general understanding about caste that existed in 1837. The British has already established the Calcutta and Benares Sanskrit colleges in the 1780s and 90s; Calcutta's ] had been founded in 1817. ] had already founded the ] and proposed the ] hypothesis in the 1780s. These pictures were hardly state of the art knowledge in 1837. ]] 18:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

=== Suggestions by Tijfo098 ===
* The fact that there's a debate among scholars as to whether the "caste" terminology applies elsewhere should be mentioned, cf. ''Social Science Encyclopedia'', ''Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology'', and ''The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery, Volume 1''
* I think Japan (burakumin) could me mentioned in the lead as a historic example (in the wider sense) cf. ''The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology'', ''Encyclopedia of Community'', and the ''Social Science Encyclopedia''.
* The introductory sentences from ''The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery, Volume 1'' are a very good explanation why India is the paramount example. It should be paraphrased in the lead. (A similar argument is made in the ''International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences''.)
* The "caste-like" treatment of African Americans and the SA apartheid might be worth mentioning cf. ''The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery, Volume 1'' and ''A New Dictionary of the Social Sciences'', but with the differences emphasized in the ''International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences''
-- ] (]) 18:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


== European section == == European section ==
Line 94: Line 76:
Chapter one of {{cite book|author=Anders Hansson|title=Chinese Outcasts: Discrimination and Emancipation in Late Imperial China|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=4Ibp1RTW0AoC&pg=PA11|year=1996|publisher=BRILL|isbn=978-90-04-10596-6}} has a good overview (pp. 9-18) of caste and caste-like (which he just calls outcast/pariah) groups, and makes an important distinction (p. 11): "Some societies have dual systems: the majority of the population is not subdivided into a caste hierarchy one or more minority groups are segregated from the majority who hold the inferior status groups in contempt. Although such discriminated groups differ from the Indian untouchables in not being part of a real caste system, they are often loosely termed outcasts and pariahs." ] (]) 18:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Chapter one of {{cite book|author=Anders Hansson|title=Chinese Outcasts: Discrimination and Emancipation in Late Imperial China|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=4Ibp1RTW0AoC&pg=PA11|year=1996|publisher=BRILL|isbn=978-90-04-10596-6}} has a good overview (pp. 9-18) of caste and caste-like (which he just calls outcast/pariah) groups, and makes an important distinction (p. 11): "Some societies have dual systems: the majority of the population is not subdivided into a caste hierarchy one or more minority groups are segregated from the majority who hold the inferior status groups in contempt. Although such discriminated groups differ from the Indian untouchables in not being part of a real caste system, they are often loosely termed outcasts and pariahs." ] (]) 18:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


==Sources for Pictures ?== == Sources for Pictures ? ==

There seem to be three schools of use , employed for content from books from British Raj or older on various India related articles . (1) Such books are valid sources (2) Such books are not valid sources (3)Such Books are valid sources on some articles and not valid sources on others .(4)Such books are valid and not valid for the same article as citations . The rationale of consistancy is undermined when different articles on wikipedia apply one of the 4 different index above on articles for British colonial era(or earlier) books . Which also raises the question if photographs are valid sources from these books then so should content and also Vice versa . So are the following "period" pictures valid or invalid for usage from books published in 1916 on this article and contributed by Fowler and Fowler and MathewVanitas . Lets take a look at the pictures added here . There seem to be three schools of use , employed for content from books from British Raj or older on various India related articles . (1) Such books are valid sources (2) Such books are not valid sources (3)Such Books are valid sources on some articles and not valid sources on others .(4)Such books are valid and not valid for the same article as citations . The rationale of consistancy is undermined when different articles on wikipedia apply one of the 4 different index above on articles for British colonial era(or earlier) books . Which also raises the question if photographs are valid sources from these books then so should content and also Vice versa . So are the following "period" pictures valid or invalid for usage from books published in 1916 on this article and contributed by Fowler and Fowler and MathewVanitas . Lets take a look at the pictures added here .


Revision as of 01:10, 29 November 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Caste article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 20 days 

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Caste article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 20 days 

Template:Castewarningtalk

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIndia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHinduism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSociology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEconomics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPsychology Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHuman rights High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAfrica Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Template:Pbneutral

It is requested that an image or photograph of Caste be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.		Upload

European section

I know that much has been discussed above but much has also got lost in the noise. I have just removed the England and Sweden/Finland sections completely as being clear coatracking. Those and other sections are referred to above and my gut feeling is that the entire Europe section should be binned pending a rewrite that summarises the use of "caste" as an analogy for other social stratification systems. I see no benefit in retaining these leaps into OR and synthesis that of very few sources. Regarding the deletions, I acted as an Englishman who has read the cited sources for those sections + Weber and similar. The long paragraph concerning the role of the House of Lords in recent times as an example of the caste system in England was simply ludicrous and I would challenge anyone to do a survey in Britain that achieves even 1% recognition of this. That something has or had a hereditary principle does not necessarily make it an example of caste, and passing mentions are flimsy support for the notion.

Someone had fun creating those sections but they are tangential to an extreme even though the RfC has not completed. The RfC is going to go this way in any event, given the recent handing-out of topic bans etc that effectively negate much of the opposition to it: we do not usually rely on the comments of socks and nor do I think we rely on the comments of people who have been deemed disruptive of the process to such an extreme that they are banned. While the article (and this talk page) are as lengthy and meandering as they are, it is extremely time-consuming to edit. Slash and burn has its place, I guess, safe in the knowledge that the forest can be cultivated and managed thereafter. - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I have demoted the Europe and other sections to subsections in light of the article structure proposed by Piotrus. So, the Europe bit is not looming as large. For now, I'd say leave it in. What I would like to propose is that we go through the tertiary sources, some of which do have something to say about caste outside South Asia. Figure out which ones they consider notable. Then rewrite the section in light of the tertiary source evidence. We could then remove the European subsections that are not notable and summarize the ones that are. It shouldn't take us long. I'd be happy to email you the fuller tertiary texts. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'd appreciate any info that you could send over. This is going to be a tedious, messy process because of the extent to which the article has been spun out. I'm off out again now but feel free to revert me or I will do so on my return. - Sitush (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I'll list what the tertiaries have to say about Caste outside South Asia in a section below. That way the info will be more organized and also available for anyone to inspect. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Sitush, I've now listed the general tertiary sources that mention caste-like divisions in other societies. In addition, there is the more specific Historical Encyclopedia of Slavery, which is featured in the longer list above, and which Tijfo98 refers to. I think you may for now remove the sub-sections of the Europe, Asia, Africa sections that don't gain mention in the tertiary sources below. If evidence mounts later that their contents are notable, we can always put them back in, but for now, this likely OR and Synthesis should not be allowed to stand. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'll try to work my way through what you have offered and also see what I can dig up. A good dose of common sense probably will not go amiss. It might take me a while, so feel free to ping me. - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Issues with this article

I came to this article from the social class article. This article is incomplete. I disclose I am a sociologist with publications on caste over the last 30 years.

1. The section on various definitions of caste, caste as a concept and its history is incomplete. Consider summaries from Weber, Dumont, Merton, Berreman and Srinivas.

2. The article is missing a section that compares caste, social class and ethnic groups. A discussion of differences and similarities between the three concepts should be considered.

3. India section is incomplete. It should be expanded.

4. Parts of Europe section are repetitive. These parts should be merged and reduced.

5. Sections on South Asia, Africa, Middle East, Latin America, USA, Japan, Korea, China and Polynesia need some revision.

6. The article is missing a section on modern status and controversies about caste.

7. The lede is in bad shape. It should be a summary structured similar to the social class article.

I would limit item 1 to 3000 words, item 2 to 1000 words, item 3 to 2000 words, item 4 and item 5 to 200-500 words each for each region, item 6 to 500 words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Couriel76 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Pretty much everything you've said has been said by others above. The article is in a stage of very early reconstruction. Please drop by again in a few months. Thanks again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Coat-racking by Indians on this page

It is tiresome, that Hindu activists are distorting this article. Caste is a huge embarrassment to them. So, they are playing around with immature censorship and obfuscation on this page. As if somehow the world doesn't already know about the Indian caste situation, and that they can magically reverse people's awareness. Honestly, why bother? ThievingBeagles (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Allegations of allegations of apartheid apartheid. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Coatracking by Indians? Hindu activists? Looking at the article history I see that no Indian/Hindu activist have edited this page in recent past, except one revert of mine. It is amazing to see your conclusions. You have no proof of whatever you are saying so I politely ask you to just SHUT UP !! --sarvajna (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

  1. Do we really need the pic of Kurmi cultivators? If not mentioned it could be anyone a Holiya or even a poor Brahmin tilling their land. I don't think it serves any purpose.
  2. The whole section of Europe was completly removed, it was discussed on this talk page about the caste system among jews in Poland, how about Romani people? --sarvajna (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Basically, this article had taken on the appearance of being hijacked by Hindutva sympathisers etc and it will take some time to figure things out in a neutral manner. You are well aware that the Europe section was hopeless in its then form. Far better that the article says nothing for a while than that it says something contrary to our policies etc. If you want to draft something then feel free to do so, but it will likely not get a tremendous amount of space for the reasons that have been discussed here previously and were also discussed in the ANI thread that you were a part of. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure, your response makes a lot of sense. I am not saying that we need to have a big section dedicated to Europe but because we have good sources we can have a section.Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Ratnakar.kulkarni, You are talking through your hat here. What are the chances that Brahmin women would be working on the field with their menfolk? Zero. The kurmi had become famed as cultivators from Mughal times. They were not only used by Mughal grandees throughout the middle Ganges plain to cultivate recently cleared land, but also charged higher rent because of their productivity. The British revenue specialists could tell merely by looking at a field whether it belonged to a kurmi or a Brahmin. The latter's fields were shabby. Please read the Kurmi article and Susan Bayly's book on Caste. There is good reason that both the Mughals and the British were so impressed by the kurmi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Fowler, you really did not get my point at all. Also I said it could be people belonging to Holiya (caste) or anyone. This article is about caste not how good were Kurmi's at cultivation. My point is, that pic of Kurmi's cultivating the land is not adding any value to the article at all. If you disagree can you please tell how it adds any value. Also coming to your point What are the chances that Brahmin women would be working on the field with their menfolk? well let me tell you the chances are pretty high. I don't see any reason why the chance should be zero --sarvajna (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a good source

Chapter one of Anders Hansson (1996). Chinese Outcasts: Discrimination and Emancipation in Late Imperial China. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-10596-6. has a good overview (pp. 9-18) of caste and caste-like (which he just calls outcast/pariah) groups, and makes an important distinction (p. 11): "Some societies have dual systems: the majority of the population is not subdivided into a caste hierarchy one or more minority groups are segregated from the majority who hold the inferior status groups in contempt. Although such discriminated groups differ from the Indian untouchables in not being part of a real caste system, they are often loosely termed outcasts and pariahs." Tijfo098 (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources for Pictures ?

There seem to be three schools of use , employed for content from books from British Raj or older on various India related articles . (1) Such books are valid sources (2) Such books are not valid sources (3)Such Books are valid sources on some articles and not valid sources on others .(4)Such books are valid and not valid for the same article as citations . The rationale of consistancy is undermined when different articles on wikipedia apply one of the 4 different index above on articles for British colonial era(or earlier) books . Which also raises the question if photographs are valid sources from these books then so should content and also Vice versa . So are the following "period" pictures valid or invalid for usage from books published in 1916 on this article and contributed by Fowler and Fowler and MathewVanitas . Lets take a look at the pictures added here .

Description Source Book Published Date Contributed by Picture appears also on article
Basors making baskets of bamboo added by Tobby72 The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India Volume II Author: R. V. Russell 1916 MatthewVanitas Basor
Kurmi sowing added by Fowler and Fowler The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India: volume IV. Descriptive articles on the principal castes and tribes of the Central Provinces 1916 Fowler and Fowler Kurmi

The Kurmi article has common engaged editors as this article Fowler and Fowler , Mathewavanits and a third editor .Some Citations used on that article raise the same question of consistency , are those sources valid or invalid across different articles .The other important question is the rational for selection for usage of these 2 "ethnographic" pictures of 2 purported clans from a 1916 book on mother article for caste .Intothefire (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Categories: