Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:57, 6 August 2015

Template:Vital article

India B‑class Top‑importance

This 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Castewarningtalk

A thought?

"Caste In Sikhism" can be a new article on wiki. Although theoretically they don't acknowledge it, the practice clearly exists. Thoughts any one? I have drastically improved the talhan conflict with references. If we were to explore caste in Sikhism here the sikh sub section would be too long. Hence a new wiki page dedicated for "Caste in sikhism" would be needed in my opinion. (Smith012 (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC))

This is a great idea. In fact in looking at manifestations of the caste system abroad, the Sikh caste conflicts are often the ones that have made it to the press in foreign newspapers. You can then also make links to the Ravi Dassi movement, and current Punjabi Sikh Dalit cultural movements like the Chamar music scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalitdiva (talk • contribs) 16:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Pashtuns, Mughals, putative arabs, persians, Turkic peoples, European-Indian mixed race?=

Technically, untouchable means anyone who is not grouped in the 4 castes. Since Pashtun people are not Indian or indo-aryan, but rather an eastern iranian speaking people, then does that make the pathan new comers into india untouchables because Pathans aren't kashyatra, shudre, brahmin and w/e (when talking about those who didn't mix with indians) but they do have tribes like Yusfzai but these are just groups upon groups not castes? Does this apply to other indians of mixed heritage. Eh, the caste system was like a division of labour, but look at pashto speaking pashtuns whom live like shurdes, heck 45% of Afghanistan's population is Pathan and many of them live like sudras unless they become educated and attempt to put Hazaras Punjabis down their caste, well they did with Hazaras and it didn't turn out good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.173.174.134 (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Aborigine Kings

As per anthropological survey of India, Mahadigas aka Dalits aka Harijans aka Girijans aka SC/ST are the Indian Aborigine Kings, and they were the first Rulers of Indian land. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Mahadiga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahadiga (talk • contribs) 12:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mahadiga (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Few Points to note before discussion

please read the topics before starting a new discussion on the discussion page or making changes to the main article.

this can stop people from repeating things over and over again.

thanks Thqwk (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination based on physical appearance is possible with Dalits!

dalits can be distiguished very easily from south indian brahmins. south indian brahmins are pure dravidian whereas dalits have considerable amount of australoid admixture.

dravidians migrated to central, eastern and western regions during aryan invasion. south indians brahmins are pure dravidian/swarthy caucasoid and carry the highest frequency of L and R2.

north indian brahmins are part aryan and carry R1a. They are pale skinned, have mediterranean features and are taller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.226 (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Using color and complexion for ethnic classifications is outdated, racist and unacademic. You cannot determine the ethnicity of any caste group in India based on how people look in a series of photos. -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 05:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Complete hokum noone can tell just by looking at me that I am a dalit. only by my last name and family history can this be ascertained.59.160.210.68 (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

While this is technically the case, I would also argue that Indian obsessions with skintone, hair texture, and "aryan" facial features come from the myth of what upper caste looks like and what tribal and Dalit looks like. There is a reason why most villans have full lips, dark skin, and wild hair. Perhaps discussing the origns of skinism in India and its relationship to caste is sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalitdiva (talk • contribs) 16:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

New image

I wish to replace the Ambedkar image used with a collage of prominent Dalit personalities. But however, as the article is protected, I cannot make the changes. Hence, I am providing the modified infobox template here with my suggestions here. Thanks.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 06:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 06:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Dalits

Looks good except Birsa Munda is not a Dalit but an Adivasi and and the Indian consitituition recognizes the Munda people as ST not as SC.Taprobanus (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

How about File:Tbio.jpg and then we ask permission from the admin to add the pic ?Taprobanus (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tbio.jpg

Are you sure that this one is a fair-use image? I feel it is more likely that the uploader would have found the image at some website. And, by the way, I feel it is better that we avoiding adding present-day politicians to the infobox. As far as Mayawati is concerned, she is a national-level leader and a possible PM candidate. But as far as Thiruma is concerned, I find it difficult to even regard him as the undisputable leader of Tamil Dalits. There are other leaders like Krishnasamy who are in competition with him for the position. I personally feel that it would be better to have someone else. There are too many politicians and legendary figures in the infobox. Maybe, we shold have some sportspersons, scientists or non-political individuals.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 07:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree Taprobanus (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing suggestion-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 14:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

other literal outcastes?

Here's something I've always wondered, where do non-Hindu, non-Indians fit in with the caste system? Under strict Hindu law, technically isn't every non-Hindu an outcaste too? Would they be referred to as Dalits? Or is there some technical/theological term that can be used? --86.135.177.132 (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

they would be called pariah or videshi. its not an offensive term, its just a term that means foreigner in hindi. Thqwk (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

According to strict tradition, Non-Hindus occupy an ambiguous space: not untouchable to the same degree as a tanner or "sweeper", yet not fully touchable either. Their touch or even mere presence may be considered to pollute water and cooked food. Orthodox Hindus may decline to eat with a non-Hindu, or not eat the most pollution-susceptible foods (foods cooked with water). LADave (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of a line from Dale Carnegie's famous book. It went something like this: they wont touch the food your shadow has fallen upon. Of course this was at the early 1900s and today things are much different. In the past Hindus would also associate with other members of the same caste status belonging to different religions but never accord them the same status. FOr example: One account of a Goud Saraswat Brahmin mentioned how his orthodox father would only meet GSB-origin christians at the gate, never inviting them in ; and then taking a bath to cleanse himself after the meeting (inspit of the fact that there was no physical contact). Regardles of this, the treatment meeted to lower castes, Hindu or not, was always the same. -Deepak D'Souza (talk)

template

at the present time there is no need for a template since the article has neatly summarised all the relevant information. Thqwk (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

Being a social construct and there being discrimination are not mutually exclusive; being a social construct does not stop there from being discrimination. And putting information in about the discrimination without mentioning the positive steps that have been taken to change things is very misleading. It's inappropriate to write African American as if it were Racism in the United States so why do this for India? Anyway, it's well cited. If you want to take up issue with the citations, take it to the Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard. Munci (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

its not well cited that is the problem. i was the person who initially put the statements along with the references but if you check the references you can see that it does not talk about the statements that i put in. we already have a section that deals with genetics. the caste system is widely practised in india. the current intro is fine. it mentions that there is still widespread discrimination against dalits and also mentions the steps being taken. there is no need to make the intro any longer. Thqwk (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the version you want does state enough about steps having been taken because it doesn't state the fact that the Indian constitution bans the treatment of people as untouchables. On the genetics, there doesn't seem to be anything in the document so that errs on the side of removal. I found another document which says different though:. tl;dr:It says that the forward castes have more often haplogroups the same as those in Europe and the Middle East than backward castes do. Munci (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Caste System

I would like to respectfully point out an error I noticed right of the bat when I looked at this article. In the first sentence of the second paragraph under the heading 'Dahlit' the statement "While the caste system has been abolished under the Indian constitution" is erroneous. According to the source cited, Excerpts from The Constitution of India, the Indian constitution set in place "Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth" and "Abolition of Untouchability". However it does not abolish the caste system as whole, which I would argue is still very much alive in India and has a large impact on peoples lives to this day.

    I hope you will consider making a revision to the afore mentioned statement concerning the caste system in India.
        Many thanks.
           -Ishmael77 (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not Lowest Caste but the Bending Ones

Originally the Dalits were the Humble Ones, set apart and consecrated - and that is why they could not be touched. As usual, the original ones have been supressed and things turned around. These were the ones who Crushed to Pieces the Enemy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.225.70.121 (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Lede

I dont like the way the lede jumps right in with "traditionally regarded as untouchable". that's out of context and sounds disparaging. i want to change this to "Dalit is the self designating term for a number of castes of peoples within India, who are traditionally identified by the caste system of India as "untouchable". If no one objects, i will do so.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It will be better not to use the word "untouchable" as it is considered derogatory. And for the information of all, Dalits were not the only untouchable ones. The definition of an untouchable varies from place to place. For example, in Kerala Malayali Brahmins considered Tamil Brahmins as untouchables. Axxn (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

regarding the point that other groups besides dalits were untouchable, the phrase "among others" could be added to what i proposed. I know that untouchable is highly derogatory, thats why dalit and harijan were proposed/chosen. but its also a word that nearly every english speaking person in the world learned as an indian caste word for certain people, at least those educated before the last 20 years or so, i might guess. We could remove it from the lede, but we cannot expunge its use, as a historical reality, from the article as a whole. Where should it be mentioned in the article, if not the lede?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well... it seems that there is no other choice. If no one else objects we can go ahead with the lede which you proposed. Axxn (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to consider this change. to be absolutely honest, i would prefer to hear from more users, particularly from people directly familiar with Indian culture (as you are, and as i am not), before i make this change, out of respect for the subject. you may speak for more people than you realize, and i want to respect that. i have only linked the word untouchable to its article, which seems like a neutral addition for now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I find no fault with the present wording but Mercurywoodrose's proposal is very reasonable and I will support it. I am not sure if "among others" is valid. The term Dalit is more commonly used today as opposed to "achut"(literally: untouchable) which was used till a century back, for people who did occupations that were considered as "polluting", such as cleaning faecal matter. It is not the same as the example given by Axxn which is very common social behaviour in India. Traditionaly Indians have been averse to any form of physical contact, even within the same caste, but this rule was enforced with members of other castes. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the term "untouchable" is widely understood and used outside South Asia, I believe it was a mistake to get rid of it in the introductory section. Just saying dalits were not allowed to form personal relationships gives a very fuzzy idea of what they had to endure. Also the body of the article doesn't describe restrictions pertaining to mundane matters like food, water, access to education, marriage prospects and so forth. LADave (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Social Status Today

This article is on a sensitive and debated topic; the status of Dalits today is a complex issue with many sides. While some Dalits have undoubtedly become integrated into modern society, others continue to struggle due to lingering caste feelings. As such, we must present both sides with relatively equal standing. I think the article currently does a good job of doing this (both sides arguments are presented, with facts and sources, while neither is argued for). However, some editors have tried to change the wording to throw off this balance. Please maintain NPOV and do not attempt to undermine neutrality with biased word choice. JakeH07 (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, no. The article uses weasel words like "acknowledged" instead of the neutral "claim", and cites a partisan source not known for it's exhaustive fact checking (see Criticism of Human Rights Watch) to justify some bizarre claims, like 89% of crimes against Dalit folk go unpunished. Is that so? How does HRW know? Did they do a sample study? Where is their data for such a study? Reliable sources are required to publish this. Why is it that there are no other sources making this remarkable claim? What about the Indian judiciary? They don't log cases on their docket on the basis of the caste of their victims (which is against the law in India)? What about the Indian government? They collect census data on various castes, so surely they must have some stats to back this up? The HRW thing is Bollox and does not stand the test of reliability.117.194.201.202 (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, I have tried to remove every so-called weasel word (despite my own misgivings) and have backed up every one of my facts with four citations from well reputed sources. Please stop deleting the information I have included based on your personal beliefs. As I said, it is fine for an article to display both sides of an issue, especially an article on a complex and dynamic issues such as this one. However, by belittling one side you are not presenting a fair representation of the issue. JakeH07 (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Bogus pseudo-activism! The ohcr link you cited pertains to Nepal, not India, so does not apply to the section on Dalit folk in India. Secondly, the wsj link does not exist and is a dud. If you are from some propaganda/activism group sent here to twist wikipedia into furthering a political agenda, then please see WP:COI.59.160.210.68 (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My purpose of editing this article is to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of this topic. I can, and have, provided many citations from a wide variety of very well-respected sources. Now you are simply denying the facts based on your own opinions. You can find your own sources and provide support for your side of this dynamic issue (keep in mind, we are talking about a group of over 170 million people, they are obviously not all in the same boat). But please stop deleting well-cited information for no reason. JakeH07 (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SOAP, and WP:COAT. Please stop adding text that is impertiment to the relevant section. Please stop disrupting mainstream editing of this article with sources that violate WP:FRINGE.117.194.194.3 (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You seriously must be kidding me. I have absolutely zero personal interest in the Dalits. I do, however, as a human being, feel for their cause. I can show you dozens of well-reviewed studies on the subject which validate my edits. You can refuse to believe them, that is your prerogative, but you must allow both sides of this story to be told. I have no doubt some Dalits have integrated into modern life; however, there are also millions who have not. Please do not dispute well-sourced facts. JakeH07 (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:SOAP. Misplaced Pages is not an attack site for advocacy or propaganda.59.160.210.68 (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

117.194.194.3, please stop making silly allegations. COI is specifically related to "personal interests" such as a musician puffing up his article on Misplaced Pages. This certainly is not COI. Discrimination exists even if it may not be very overt as in the past. While it is more visible in the rural areas; even in cities it manifests itself in forms such as honour killings and forced marraiges. Even the "integrated Dalits" often face discrimination in subtle forms. For example: A Dalit entrpreneur's housemaid left his service abruptly when she discovered that he was from "that caste". --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

and how is that relevant to this article? This is not supposed to be an attack site.59.160.210.68 (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right. This certainly is not an attack site and this certainly is not an WP:ATTACK. Do read the rules in detail before throwing them at others. All you are doing is finding irrelevant rules from wikipedia in the hope of dodging solid references. If you dont have any references to back your claims please stop. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

References now include Harvard, UNESCO, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and BBC, all added on to the original Human Rights Watch citation. Please read (not skim) the page Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources. You will notice that scholarly sources (Harvard and UNESCO), and mainstream news sources (The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and BBC) are considered amoung the best sources. Now, while HRW is more activist, they have a generally good (not perfect) reputation. However, the added support of all these sources is more than enough to verify the information I have presented and prove this information is a mainstream issue. Your continual deletions of this information is vandalism; please stop or I will will be forced to go to administrators with this issue. JakeH07 (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Enough is enough. I have requested semi-protection as a first resort to anons repeated reverting of constructive edits. If you insist on continuing with your disruptive behaviour, you will be blocked altogether. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please some one knowledgeable add some factual research data on how present backwardness in social status (in spite of reduction in stigma) as result of centuries of segregation and lack access to resources and education. 173.3.39.109 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Factual error

I think there is a factual error in the sentence "Ezhava in Kerala are dalit, because of education because they were Buddhists", laid out in the section, Historical attitudes. According to my knowledge, Ezhavas are not dalits, since they belong to the backward castes and are classified as OBCs by the state and central governments.Also, the sentence does not make much sense either.Kindly, correct.

(Mksuraj (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC))

good job. take care of. --CarTick 21:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 189.189.255.82, 4 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Change: Although Sikhism clearly admonishes the idea of a caste system, going to the lengths of providing common surnames to abolish caste identities, many families, especially the ones with immediate cultural ties to India, generally do not marry among different castes.Irwin Baiya is the most prominent Dalit of the 20th century. Dalits form a class among the ] who stratify their society according to traditional casteism. ] himself was of Sikh background although converted because he found that Sikh society did not respect Dalits and so became a neo-Buddhist. The most recent controversy was at the Talhan village ] near Jalandhar where there was a dispute between ] Sikhs and ] Sikhs. The Different Sikh Dalits are ] Sikh and ] Sikh. Recently, there were news that in some village in Punjab, some Dalit Sikhs were not allowed to enter the village Gurudwara. There are sects such as the Adi-Dharmis who have now abandoned Sikh Temples and the 5 Ks. They are like the Ravidasis and regard Ravidas as their guru. They are also clean shaven as opposed to the mainstream Sikhs. Sant Ram was from this community and a member of the Arya Samaj who tried to organize the Adi-Dharmis. Other Sikh groups include Jhiwars, Bazigars, Rai Sikh (many of whom are Ravidasias.) Just as with Hindu Dalits, there has been violence against Sikh Dalits.

To:

Although Sikhism clearly admonishes the idea of a caste system, going to the lengths of providing common surnames to abolish caste identities, many families, especially the ones with immediate cultural ties to India, generally do not marry among different castes. Irwin Baiya is the most prominent Dalit of the 20th century. Dalits form a class among the ] who stratify their society according to traditional casteism. ] himself was of Sikh background although converted because he found that Sikh society did not respect Dalits and so became a neo-Buddhist. The most recent controversy was at the Talhan village ] near Jalandhar where there was a dispute between ] and ] Sikhs and ] Sikhs. Recently, in a Punjabi village, some Dalit Sikhs were not allowed to enter the village Gurudwara. There are sects such as the Adi-Dharmis who have now abandoned Sikh Temples and the 5 Ks. They are like the Ravidasis and regard Ravidas as their guru. They are also clean shaven as opposed to the mainstream Sikhs. Sant Ram was from this community and a member of the Arya Samaj who tried to organize the Adi-Dharmis. Other Sikh groups include Jhiwars, Bazigars, Rai Sikh (many of whom are Ravidasias.) Just as with Hindu Dalits, there has been violence against Sikh Dalits.

Also, I note that there are no references cited in this section. This is especially grave considering the allegations being made here.

189.189.255.82 (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Goodvac (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Judaism

I wonder what the Jews of India (Bene Israel and the like) think of Dalits. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Indian-Americans

What do Indians in America think of Dalits? What attitudes or opinions are out there? Curious about that, too. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 202.164.143.111, 11 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} A Dalit is not an outcast

Ejebil (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —GƒoleyFour— 03:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor but glaring error

"There are many different name proposed..." should be "There are many different names proposed". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.48 (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see a clearer introduction. It states (1st sentence) "Dalit is a designation for a group of people traditionally regarded as Untouchable." This statement is very ambiguous. It led me to believe the dalit were more akin to nobility instead of serfs. Being untouchable invokes a picture of being above the law. I believe, it was used to illustrate that the `upper caste' does not want to touch them (because they are lowly and dirty). I have no problem with the use of the term `untouchable' (because it is accurate and used for this caste) but would like to see this context elucidated a little more to avoid confusion. Newtonsghost (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{edit semi-protected}} Change :In India's most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, Dalits have revolutionized politics{{Citation needed|date=September 2010}} to

In India's most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, Dalits have revolutionized politicsPai, Sudha (1994). "Caste and Communal Mobilisation in the Electoral Politics of Uttar Pradesh". Indian Journal of Political Science. LV, No3 (July September 1994). Indian Political Science Association: 307–320.

Thank you. Dalit Llama (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Baseball Watcher 22:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Many details not correct

The article says that most dalits are oppressed which may not be true. consider the following points:

• It is said that dalits were/are alwalys involved in doing dirty work like cleaning toilets.

This point is not totally correct because even today 70% of indian houses dont have toilet facility. Anyone can know what may have been the condition 100 years ago. So all dalits cleaning toilets of upper castes dont arise. Its only in some large cities where they are appointed by none other than government to do these works.

• Dalits are/were alwalys regarded as untouchables

This is also not totally correct because in most indian villages this so called untouchability is mutual. This means while the so called upper castes dont touch dalits, so does the dalits dont touch upper castes. This is mutually agreed and not enforced by anyone.

• Dalits are not allowed into temples.

This is also not correct because most temples in every village is small and only some temples are large. Therefore only one or two can enter into the temple and the rest have to stand out. So only priests enter the temple and all others including uppers caste people stand outside.

• Dalits are not allowed into villages.

This is again not correct. Only those who have not seen villages in india can say this. Because in villages there will be only few streets and each is occupied by members of particular caste. So dalits will have their own street and saying that they are not allowed into village is not correct.

• Dalits are not given water.

How can someone live without water. This again is based on prejudice and wrong reasoning without any idea of how life goes on in india.

So the arguments made to show that dalits are being oppressed is not correct. But sometimes we see such incidences being reported and it is only applicable in those particular cases and not everywhere in india. Wherever these happen it is the responsiblility of local administration and police to see that such incidences dont happen. The media often blow it out of proportion and depict a wrong picture of the country and its people. 223.177.31.141 (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Major re-org at Category:Dalit

Category:Dalit had gotten quite large, with several sub-cats and probably 150+ articles sitting in the main cat. Given the size, I figured it best to treat it as a "top level category", meaning that essentially all articles but 3-5 should be placed in further subcategories. I created new cats for Dalit culture, religion, history, and politics, and sub-cat'ed some there, and the vast majority of the rest were of specific communities of people, so went into Category:Dalit communities. I hope everyone finds this a helpful way to make the category more navigable and less cluttered. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve this article / Report to the United Nations by New York group

Misplaced Pages requires that wiki articles maintain neutrality, balance and be complete (see WP:NPOV and WP:FIVE). To respect these guidelines,

• We must include not only claims of discrimination and prejudice, but also a balanced summary from verifiable secondary sources of action and results of actions taken in favor of Dalits. I have made an attempt to do so. I welcome revisions and constructive additions.
• We must describe all sides, but not take sides. Summarizing opinion reports written by an advocacy group, while ignoring replies to such reports and scholarly studies providing an alternate view point, makes this wiki article incomplete for an international wiki reader.
• The lead mentions Dalits as a mixed population from all over South Asia. The main article, as of June 1 2012 however, does not provide a complete and balanced discussion of Dalits outside India. The Further Reading section has many links on Dalits outside of India. It would be useful to include a section on Dalits outside of India, with summaries from these sources, assuming these are verifiable, secondary sources meeting wikipedia guidelines.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Contrasting religion with nationality

This sentence in the lead makes a peculiar counterpoint: Although identified with Hinduism in the past (1883 year data), Dalits and similar groups are also found in Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Hinduism is a religion: it is the dominant religion of Nepal, and a significant religion in Pakistan and Bangladesh, so the use of 'although' here seems ill-advised. I'll try to improve it.Ordinary Person (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The colonial British era census counted people, and census reports enumerated castes of Hindoos, Muslims, Sikhs and other religions. The colonial era census included Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, etc. in this enumeration and counting. These census reports did not identify caste with Hinduism, or even limit it to Hinduism. Perhaps, I missed something. Do you know the page or schedule where 1883 census, or any pre-WWII census of British India where such a claim was made? Please post the page or schedule number on this talk page. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Dalits in the UK

These edits] regarding the situation with Dalits in the UK by USer:Smith012 do not conform to WP:UNDUE,WP:NOR,WP:SYN and WP:RS. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable source.

The sources cited in the diff above are highly partisan, with only one of them (the guardian) constituting a Reliable source. The others are political partisan websites with a documented history of hostility against British Asians, and, it can be argued, seek to engineer cleaves in the British Asian community in order to undermine their structure from within. Smith012 seems to be an activist editor who is trying to slant the article in one direction without giving due weight to all relevant viewpoints. As for the political kerfluffle in the British parliament, it is certainly notable enough, but seems to be a largely unsuccessful attempt by British politicians to legislate reverse discrimination against Indian minorities. Allegations of "hate mails" etc by partisan websites are inappropriate for this encyclopedia and should not be included here.

I will remind User:Smith012 that articles on caste are subjected to discretionary sanctions. The Misplaced Pages community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If edit-warring by this user persists, then there will be consequences.Handyunits (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality?

That's fine, the anti legislation view point has already been added however more references will be needed for it. The guradian is not reflecting a view point for or against it is simply a news paper reporting on findings by both reports conducted in 2009/10, one by an independent source and one through government NIESR. I have managed to find the actual report online which i am adding into the references. Can you provide proof that the websites i referenced are "Anti indian"? unless you can provide this proof your argument is invalid

For the anti legislation group no such report exists that can be referenced hence only the opinion of these groups can be referenced which they are. You will need to find evidence from credible sources that reflect the view point of anti legislation, which i have looked for but does not exist. As far as i am concerned the neutrality of the article is fine. and reflects both legislation and non legislation. You cannot delete referenced information. I am happy for this to be reviewed by a third party.

The use of "leftist" is not politically correct and violates Misplaced Pages policy on neutrality. You are an activist editor as your edits deleted referenced information and did not seek to replace with more references. In fact your edits attacking "Christians" for "conversions" is potentially inflammatory and a dead link was used to reference that edit. Potentially slanderous statements that attack religious groups is not acceptable to the Misplaced Pages community. Please farmiliarise your self with the rules of Misplaced Pages.

Personally i have no personal interest in the topic. I am simple an editor that has been editing and writing articles for four years. You should also refrain from personal attacks as this is not acceptable to the Misplaced Pages community. Smith012 (talk)

Restructure

I have taken the liberty to restructure this particular section so that the neutrality is reflected more clearly. However i am not happy about a previous edit stating the view point of christian groups seeking to convert people. A dead link was provided for this. I have also included a reference from the Equality and Human Rights Commission Regards Smith012 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Reference quality violation of Misplaced Pages sources policy

The reference provided for anti caste legislation, attacking christian groups to convert people is the Hindu council UK website.

This is a direct violation of Misplaced Pages policy on neutral reference sources. Having written and edited articles for four and almost five years now, the Misplaced Pages policy on sources is very clear.

Any source directly related to any issue or view point is NOT a neutral source and cannot be used as a reference. The Hindu council UK are anti legislation and insist that christian groups are "attacking" their way of life.

This cannot be used as a source as it reflects their opinion and thus is NOT neutral.

Sources must be neutral as Misplaced Pages policy dictate.

Books, articles, news paper reports and government reports are fine to use as they have no interest for or against and are neutral.

I have provided references from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, The government report itself The Guardian and The Telegraph (left and right wing) news paper reports as well as other sources. Using the Hindu Council UK website is a direct violation of Misplaced Pages's neutral sources policy. I would like a review of the sources used by the editor.

regards Smith012 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that the Hindu Council has been referenced by the Guardian themselves, your assertions are disingenous and point to activist editing. There is no reason to assume good faith on your part anymnore and thus you need to be reported.Handyunits (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

@Smith012

you write: 'Any source directly related to any issue or view point is NOT a neutral source and cannot be used as a reference. The Hindu council UK are anti legislation and insist that christian groups are "attacking" their way of life. This cannot be used as a source as it reflects their opinion and thus is NOT neutral.' Well, I think wiki policies area little different from that. In fact, I read:

Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say. , my bold.

I actually think you are talking about primary sources,which are allowed on wikipedia, with the caveat to use them with intelligence and moderation: Misplaced Pages:PRIMARY

Regards LNCSRG (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Ruling

Very well, if this is the view point of the third party i am happy to accept the ruling. However i do believe that the statement is potentially slanderous to Christians as only one reference has been provided for it. Especially when an alternate view hasn't been presented about christian groups "seeking conversions" But thank you for your ruling.

Thank you Smith012 (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible dispute

You should never assume. I have placed this topic on the open disputes board. The Guardian news paper is allowed to reference the Hindu council UK website as a need to verify a claim that the news paper has made is needed. However it is not appropriate to use the Hindu Council UK website directly as a source. It Violates the neutral sources policy.

I am already seeking a Third opinion on the matter. By deleting referenced sources that support Dalits in the UK with out valid justification you haven't proved to the Misplaced Pages community how the websites referenced are "Anti Indian" as you previously claimed. This burden of proof lies on you im afraid.

I believe that you seem to be an activist editor yourself writing a hindu agenda. This is clear from your edits as you have kept all my pro and against legislation arguments with references and not really added anything of your own. If what i write is wrong why did you do that? The best thing to do will be a Third opinion.

I have had no choice and i have already reported you to an administrator for deleting referenced sources, not seeking a Third opinion and for violating the neutral sources policy.

regardsSmith012 (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

LAWS OF MANU CONCERNING DALITS/UNTOUCHABLES

Excerpts from -->> Islam, Shamsul. "An open letter to RSS Sarsanghchalak, Shri Mohan Bhagwat" :

(1) For the sake of the prosperity of the worlds (the divine one) caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arm, his thighs and his feet.

(2) One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Sudras, to serve meekly even these (other) three castes.

(3) Once-born man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin.

(4) If he mentions the names and castes (gati) of the (twice-born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth.

(5) If he arrogantly teaches Brahmanas their duty, the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and into his ears.

(6) With whatever limb a man of a low caste does hurt to (a man of the three) highest (castes), even that limb shall be cut off; that is the teaching of Manu.

(7) He who raises his hand or a stick, shall have his hand cut off; he who in anger kicks with his foot, shall have his foot cut off.

(8) A low-caste man who tries to place himself on the same seat with a man of a high caste, shall be branded on his hip and be banished, or (the king) shall cause his buttock to be gashed.

(9) Let him never slay a Brahmana, though he have committed all (possible) crimes; let him banish such an (offender), leaving all his property (to him) and (his body) unhurt.

Is there a scope for a specific section regarding the "LAWS OF MANU CONCERNING DALITS/UNTOUCHABLES" on this very article ?! -- Abstruce 06:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked the above-mentioned question because I was looking forward to be aware that whether it is allowed to go that far to expose the racial-bias against the "so-called" Dalits (or I should say the "so-labelled" Dalits) and/or untouchables online at Misplaced Pages !! Have a look : Why a Hindutva-vadi should not be the Prime Minister of India -- Abstruce 15:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

A Ridiculously POV source from an Islamist website. Misplaced Pages is not a forum for al-Qaeda propaganda.14.139.193.45 (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Disputed/NPOV Section: The Hindu origins of caste described in the Modern Section

This section is problematic for the following reasons.

First, it seems erroneously tacked on to a section about the modern experiences of Dalits in India.

Second, It is not very well sourced and uses a circular form of argument to reify its findings. It is in fact a very disputed point of view within the conversations about the origins of the caste system. For example for every not explict discussion of caste in the hindu texts cited, there are many examples of implicit examples of Dalit/Adivasi characters in the Bhagavad Gita, Ramayanam, and other texts who are neutered, made docile, or written to create Dalit/Adivasi archetypes that perpetuate or continue caste heirarchy. As a result many Dalits rework and deconstruct these myths to find their own archetypes.<ref>Prasad, Amar Nath. "Dalit Literature: A Critical Exploration". Sarup and Sons. p. 82. Retrieved February 2, 2008.</ref>

My recommendation is to remove this section or to edit it so that it reflects the controversial assertion it makes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalitdiva (talk • contribs) 19:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sikh diaspora

Given the already long discussion of "Dalits in the United Kingdom" it seems that an even longer "The Sikh diaspora in the United Kingdom" disrupts the balance of the article which is about "Dalits" not about intercaste marriages in the UK. The text here show be drastically shortened and part of the previous section "Dalits in the United Kingdom". --Bejnar (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of information regarding Dalits and Jainism

Merge Etymology section with Harijan

As far as I can see, the other article is little more than a stub. It should be merged here. Will add template shortly. Kingsindian (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible contradiction: employment rate

In the lead paragraphs, there are these two sentences:

In 2011, the proportion of Dalit population was 24.4 percent of India's total population. (source: http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/scs-sts-form-25--of-population-says-census-2011-data/1109988/)

By 1995, of all jobs in India, 17.2 percent of the jobs were held by Dalits, greater than their proportion in Indian population. (source: http://www.ambedkar.org/News/reservationinindia.pdf)

Unless things changed a lot between 1995 and 2011, I think one of these sentences must be incorrect. I suspect it's the second sentence that is incorrect... I couldn't find any mention of 17.2 in the source cited. However, I did see, on page 34, "27.2" as Class IV's % of workforce in Table 2. Profile of Central Government Employment. Is that it? If so, is this "Class IV" the same as Dalits? I didn't see anything like that in the article. -kotra (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Copy-edit

I don't have time to do this now (maybe I'll come back to it at home later on) but certain sections of the article need copy-editing. I've tagged it to that effect. 62.252.63.179 (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Dalit is not a sanskrit or even seen in any sanskrit text, same goes for the word Caste which is a latin word & aryan which is a 19th century false translation of the actual sanskrit word ARYA

The word dalit,ARYAN, CASTE SYSTEAM, have no historical links to sanskrit or any sanskrit text, all three words are modern invented words used during the british rule of india, no "Maybes" or "perhaps", or "we think".

what you should of wrote was:

"The word dalit is a 19th century word created by Jyotirao Phule during the bitish rule of india, According to Victor Premasagar, the 19th century word Dalit expresses "weakness, poverty and humiliation at the hands of a currupted upper SECTION of the Indian society."92.236.96.38 (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Caplock

Official synonym

Is it really the case that dalit and scheduled caste are synonymous, ie: The government of India designates Dalits as Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). The term "Dalit" is used interchangeably with these terms, as the article says? If they are then arguably the articles should be merged. - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Dalit is a social/sociological concept of socially disadvantaged groups/castes which naturally has fuzzy boundaries, while scheduled caste is a GoI attempt at tabulating these groups for administrative purposes (scheduled tribes are similarly supposed to be a tabulation of adivasis). By design there is a lot of overlap in the people covered but the concepts have distinct boundaries and applications. For example, we talk of "Dalit history", "Dalit literature" etc while it makes more sense to talk of SC & ST when discussing specific government programs. And it makes no sense to talk of SC&ST pre-1950 or outside India (except for context); dalit people are not so geographically or temporally restricted. The topic is large enough that separate articles can easily be sustained with this article providing an overview, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes article focusing on the administrative aspects (how those lists are compiled and updated; relevant laws, economic programs, etc). Abecedare (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Image Remove

2011 Census Dalit caste distribution map India by state and union territory Image show dalit data but Scheduled Castes are not Dalit. Original Data Publish By Government of India Census of India 2011 Primary Census Abstract Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes show Scheduled Castes data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongan (talk • contribs) 10:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Can we clarify this, please? The article seems to have a source that says some Dalits are classified as Scheduled Tribes rather than Scheduled Castes. In addition, are there not some non-Hindu groups in the mix? I asked this in April (see the section immediately above this one) and got no response. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Traditionally scheduled castes are classified as Dalits and scheduled tribes as Adivasis. But since the Adivasis are also socially oppressed they are also classed as Dalits. The Indian constitution recognizes scheduled castes in Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist religions. -Mohanbhan (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What about Christians and Muslims? And where can we find a source for the tradition? - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

So you have been editing the caste-related articles all these years without knowing who Dalits and SCs are? And what about Christians and Muslims--why don't you tell me? And yes, where can we find a source for the tradition? -Mohanbhan (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• B-Class India articles
• Top-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject India articles