Talk:Caste/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Caste. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Peremptory removal of tags apparently not under active discussion for named causes for several years, pretty short article imagine a lot of content removed since then (3-4 years). Lycurgus (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is about caste, not Caste system in India. An undue weight to one nation is distracting, putting more weight to one aspect, presenting content in a manner that is not validly encyclopedic.

The content on India is also poorly supported. Citations such as [26] or [27] or [28] make no sense, and do not support the content. Some paragraphs, although interesting and added in good faith, lack any citation. The sections that do have support, would be better if summarized and balanced out for WP:NPOV.

Images, such as the elephant and soldiers, have nothing to do with caste, or even caste system in India - I tried to go to the source and library archives to verify, but I find no support. Perhaps someone could guide me to literature that can confirm how and why that image belongs to this article on caste.

I like the brief summaries on other nations, each with citations, and link to the main article (e.g. Caste system in Africa). A similar brief summary for India with citations and link would make this article more balanced.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• 24 February edits by 117.205.138.125 The wiki contributor is welcomed to add good faith contributions within WP:LGL guidelines. Adding text without citations, bringing back text for which citation request was pending for months, without providing the citation request is not consistent with wiki WP:VNT guidelines. This article is about 'caste' and not about 'history of caste system, and the role of one historical element.' The added material presents only 'colonial theory', and too much of it, which is not a balanced view for an encyclopedic version. For WP:NPOV version, a summary from all sides must be included. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• 25 February 2012 edits by 117.205.131.223 The wiki contributor is welcomed to add good faith contributions with citations per WP:RS and WP:VNT guidelines. Please provide WP:RS support for claims such as scholar, teacher, etc. into varnas, as inserted by 117.205.131.223. Similarly, please provide WP:RS support for the claim: historically, Indian society has consisted of thousands of endogamous communities called Jatis - without a clarification, it reads inconsistent with your added content on Risley: does historically mean pre-Risley census, or post-Risley census, or something else? Also, I welcome citation for terms such as Antyajas you added. Finally, please note that the article must remain WP:NPOV, and so please explain in talk section why statements such as "the politically active segment of the Scheduled Castes describes itself as Dalit, or downtrodden" belongs in this encyclopedic article on caste? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Herbert Hope Risley - I reread the Rudolph citation, in particular sections on Risley. For example, see page 117 and elsewhere. The authors discuss British ethnographers confession that they had great difficulty in ranking people and castes; most Indian people, particularly in the villages, couldn't identify their varna, etc. or hierarchically rank themselves or their peers; that the caste census during the British Raj continued nevertheless; that Risley premises were wrong. But, the big question is: so what? Remember this article is about caste, it is not about Risley or the book on Risley or census during British rule of India. Whether Risley was completely wrong or completely right or partially right or partially wrong, the India-related section on caste must not forget the context of the article, what wikipedia is and what wikipedia isn't. The only relevant summary I can extract from Risley reference, within the context of this article, is what the article summary on India includes: "Contemporary scholars thus argue that the social system was made rigid and the four-fold Varna caste made ubiquitous by the British colonial regime..." Therefore, I am moving the cited reference to this part, and deleting the rest on Risley. If another wiki contributor believes that Risley reference provides another aspect to this encyclopedic article, I welcome your explanation, consistent with WP:WWIN, on this talk page. Please explain why Risley discussion belongs here and what encyclopedic WP:NPOV meaning does it add for the general reader that the article doesn't already contain. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be by alphabetical... nor have a certain logic to it. Why is South Asia first? I would propose using alphabetical order by continent first and then sub continent and then country.

Ranking India first seems uhh... ethnocentric, but doing it alphabetical seems more NPOV.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I support your proposal, Hitsuji. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User on 117.205.134.14 (aka 117.205.130.57) has reverted to bring back his or her Joe Elder material. First of, you are most welcome to make edits that meet wiki quality and content guidelines. The newly added good faith material claims "It is, however, a common fallacy to cite ancient Indian texts like the..." - such blog print outs do not meet wiki's WP:SCHOLARSHIP thresholds; you are encouraged to locate a refereed journal / publication / or a WP:RS source that meets wiki guidelines, or alternatively convince why this source qualifies as a reliable source. Furthermore, the content and WP:POV statement "it is common fallacy that has been added is not directly supported by Joe Elder. The cut and paste from Encyclopedia Britannica violates its copyright, and the language is vague (who regulates castes, where, how). It should either be clarified/re-written or omitted. Your clarification and comments are welcomes so that we can improve this article together. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The nobility of medieval and modern Europe hadn't moral or religious foundament but only juridical foundament. Examples in Italy: Sforza, Visconti, Scaligeri, Gonzaga, Medici ecc, were of bourgeois origin. The families immigrant into the city could change social status in few generations and with money they could buy titles or to marry member of feudal families. I remember that the butchers' guild families ruled on Florence sometime in Renaissance. The Christian faith made ​​problematic the "social difference", indeed all Christians should be equal for God. The caste society instead is completely close ... generally and morally, passively accepted while in Europe in little villages, the serfs hated the feudal society that was imposed that no accepted passively. Sorry for English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.73.44 (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to wiki talk page, user 84.222.73.44. Wiki articles summarize all sides of scholarly work, include different theories and controversies from reliable secondary sources. Some sources emphasize the possible differences between caste and class; some sources explain the key differences between class/caste societies of our modern world and societies a 100 or 300 or 1000 years ago; yet, other sources urge that we do not close our assumptions and live with favorite prejudices in this matter. For example, Cagots of France and unehrliche Leute of Germany amongst others were castes. These people were shunned by a closed system not just by the society they lived in, but also by church - and these were morally and religiously justified in medieval and modern Europe. Yes, 'caste is a closed system' is emphasized by many scholars, and this article adequately includes that emphasis. This article is about caste, as described by a wide range of peer reviewed scholarly work, a range that includes much disagreement. Wiki can only strive to present all sides with a neutral point of view, not join the controversies on one side. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is self-contradictory about definitions. It begins by stating "Haviland defines caste as a closed form of social stratification in which membership is determined by birth and remains fixed for life; castes are also endogamous and offsprings are automatically members of their parent's caste" -- there is no alternative, broader definition provided, but this does not apply to Europe. A medieval priest, for example, was not born into a "priest caste" and it was possible for serfs/slaves to rise into the ranks of free men or free men to become serfs. Hierarchy and social class existed, of course, but it wasn't rigid. If the stricter definition of caste is to be employed, then Europe should be removed. If a broader definition is to be used, one that encorporates social class as equivalent to caste, then the beginning of this article needs to be re-written.

DeciusAemilius (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

DeciusAemilius - your comments are welcome and appreciated. Do you have a reliable secondary source for those views? per wiki's WP:VNT and WP:RS guidelines.

The claim priest/clergy were not born into a priest caste, or that these were not hereditary, is inconsistent with scholarly works on papal/clergy history. See the following as a sample of hundreds of articles that European clergy at various times were a hereditary privilege/reality

• Saeculum obscurum and pornocracy in the history of Papacy - one of the several periods of hereditary/nepotism in clergy
• Three Popes - Pope Callixtus III, Pope Alexander VI, Innocent X - and other clergy from the same family
• Hereditary aspects of Russian clergy - the peer reviewed article calls it a caste
• Second source on hereditary caste of Russia clergy (you can find many more articles)
• Various scholars on Church History have published peer reviewed articles on clergy and aristocracy caste in France. (see Norman Ravitch's book on Episcopate as well). For example, check the article on pages 459-460 of the journal: Church History, Volume 37, Issue 04, December 1968 (doi=10.2307/3162267)

Further, this mobility aspect is not without its share of scholarly dispute. After all, there is abundant literature from South Asia, Southeast Asia, Japan, Africa etc that, across history, some people in all cultures could move across class/caste hierarchy, many worked in occupations that their parents didn't, example cases where people moved up or down the hierarchy, etc.

If you provide some reliable secondary sources that strongly support your views, please cite them. I will read them, and we can try to develop a consensus to improve this article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I add something I missed - check up published books and peer reviewed secondary sources on 'clergy and laity caste in Europe'. Not just medieval times, there is a lot of literature on this through the 20th century. Clergy/monks and laity in Europe, these sources claim, were caste or caste-like, each came from certain families generation after generations, had certain occupations within the Church reserved for them (laity did cleaning/physical work/etc), in many cases even segregated to prevent interaction, mobility was possible but infrequent to rare. See this journal article for example: The Independence of the Laity, Lancelot Sheppard, The Furrow, Volume 4, Issue 10 (Oct., 1953), pages 569-575; jstor=27656324.

Finally, please note it isn't the case the sources and the peer reviewed scholarly articles cited in this article, discuss and exclusively use the term class, and some wiki contributor did some WP:OR and carelessly with a WP:POV substituted the term class with caste. These published and cited sources use or describe the term caste, when they could have used any other social stratification term. The summary in this article, to the best of my verification efforts, and as required by wiki guidelines, directly reflect what the sources have published.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The good faith contributions from user Indian.advocate to this wiki article are welcome. On June 15 2012, the user has reverted changes without any explanation; the user is requested to explain his or her actions on this talk page. The added material has several issues.

• Style inconsistent to wiki MOS for encyclopedic article: The user has combined a mix of excessive emphasis with boldface, use of abbreviations such as sc/st (unknown to a worldwide audience), references in square brackets such as [Para 34]. Please see WP:STYLE for these and other wiki style and format guidelines.
• The added content reads as a repository of paragraphs of Indian law. However as WP:NOTREPOSITORY explains, wiki articles are not such a collection.
• The article is about caste. Undue emphasis on individual legal cases, for one or all countries, places undue emphasis on legal contemporary aspect of the topic, thus raising WP:UNDUE issues.

Explanation is requested. A summary of current law would improve this article and Indian.advocate is welcomed to help evolve a constructive summary of newly added legal content. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The contributions made by the user - indian.advocate were made to explain the latest and crucial development in law relating to caste discrimination in India - The kind in which some parts have been displayed in bold are done with the sole purpose to enable the users to understand the nature and content of the contribution and also so as to give clear cut citation reference to the original judgment of an Indian Court [if any person wants to read the whole judgment than through this contribution it will be extremely easy to trace that judgment]. The kind of contribution made is clearly verifiable and authentic. The meaning of SC is Scheduled Castes and the meaning of ST is Scheduled Tribes - both of these words indicate socially backward parts of Indian Society which need some social benefits by the Government. If any further explanation regarding the contribution is required the user -indian.advocate will be obliged to clear them. The judgment given in this contribution also explains the Indian Legal Point of view regarding the real discrimination which ordinary SC and ST people experience in their daily Indian life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian.advocate (talk • contribs) 10:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Excessive bolds and italics violate wiki style guidelines. Please see WP:WWIN and WP:STYLE. On format, please also see WP:CITE/ES.

You write you added this content because '[...] of Indian Society which need some social benefits by the Government'. Why is this not advocacy? (please see WP:NOTADVOCATE)

Why include the case law details in this global article on caste? Why not add case law on caste system for India to caste system in India or caste discrimination in India?

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There may have been castes in the USA, especially in the American South, where the distinction lay largely along racial lines. First of all, the South practiced slavery, which is arguably a caste system in its own right. When that was abolished, it became a sharecropping system, where racial/class distinctions continued to hold, and then segregation reared its ugly head, another sign of a caste system that somehow refused to die. In this case, segregation suggests untouchability, a desire not to be "contaminated" by members of the other group. South Africa took this to the extreme with apartheid, but it existed in the American South, too. And even after the civil-rights movement, there were redlining and the underclass, as well as dynasties of wealthy families such as the Kennedy family and the Rockefellers. So why not put the USA in? 68.37.254.48 (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added a section to address your comment. Please feel welcome to contribute content that complies with wiki guidelines. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid this article has serious neutrality and balance issues. Caste is almost universally associated with India. Sure, the word, in transformed and figurative usage, has been applied to forms of stratification or exclusion in other societies, even those of insects, but I've yet to see a significant tertiary source treatment of the subject that does not mention India in the lead sentence or soon thereafter. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has to be beholden to the longstanding standard in other tertiary sources. We cannot at our will turn the article into a personal essay. The citations for the lead sentence not only are highly selective, but are also selectively chosen from within the cited references. Berreman (1972), cited first for the lead sentence, for example, begins his section on caste with, "A widely applied and frequently contested model for systems of birth ascribed rank is that of ’caste’, deriving from the example of Hindu India where the jati (almost literally ’common ancestry’) is the type-case." and after spending a paragraph discussing the Indian case, says, very cautiously, "If one concedes that caste can be defined cross-culturally (i.e., beyond Hindu India), then the systems under discussion here are describable as caste systems." That sort of academic circumspection hardly lends itself to the abstract, ahistorical, "definition" of the lead sentence. Similarly, the second reference for the lead sentence is Merton's Sociology of Science, which uses the word "caste" obliquely (see the book's index on Google books).

If I don't find a cogent explanation for this somewhat bizarre introduction, in which "India" is mentioned as an afterthought—ensconced in a transparently distancing subordinate clause, to boot—at the end of the lead, I will be tagging the article with neutrality tags. I am also posting on WT:INDIA, where editors, many of whom work on caste-related articles, I believe are unaware of this page and its evolution. I will also look for the better-known tertiary source references and quote a few below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some tertiary sources:

• Barnard, Alan (2002), Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Taylor & Francis, pp. 136–137, ISBN 978-0-415-28558-2

  Caste: Caste has been described as the fundamental social institution of India. Sometimes the term is used metaphorically to refer to rigid social distinctions or extreme social exclusiveness wherever found, and some authorities have used the term 'colour-caste system' to describe the stratification based on race in the United States and elsewhere. But it is among the Hindus in India that we find the system in its most fully developed form, ...

• Kuper, Adam; Kuper, Jessica (2003), Social Science Encyclopedia, Taylor & Francis, p. 131, ISBN 978-0-415-28560-5

  Caste systems have been defined in the most general terms as systems of hierarchically ordered endogamous units in which membership is hereditary and permanent (e.g. Berreman 1960). On such a definition a whole range of rigidly stratified societies would be characterized by caste—Japan, for example, or certain Polynesian and East African societies, or the racially divided world of the American Deep South. Hindu India is generally taken as the paradigmatic example. Many scholars would argue, however, that the difference between this case and the others are far more significant than the similarities, and that the term caste should properly be applied only to this context. The morphology of the Hindu caste system can be described in terms of three key characteristics, all of which are religiously underpinned by the religious values of purity....

• Madan, T. N.; Editors (2012), caste, Encyclopæida Britannica Online {{citation}}: |last2= has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |fist2= (help)

  caste, any of the ranked, hereditary, endogamous social groups, often linked with occupation, that together constitute traditional societies in South Asia, particularly among Hindus in India. Although sometimes used to designate similar groups in other societies, the “caste system” is uniquely developed in Hindu societies.

  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I am delighted with your participation, and with your posting of your concerns first on this talk page. Your efforts to improve this article are very welcome.

I disagree with you on many points. Wiki is a tertiary source, not a copy of tertiary sources (see WP:PSTS). Wiki articles rely on secondary sources, and this article does.

If wiki had just one article on caste, the emphasis would shift - and India covered a lot more - just like other tertiary sources you cite that offer just one article on caste. Wiki, instead has many articles on caste, including one just for 'caste system in India'. That article and this 'caste' article cannot be just a copy of each other - as that would violate several wiki guidelines such as WP:CFORK. Wikipedia has the capability to be far broader, more updated and current, more comprehensive and complete encyclopedia with multiple, non-overlapping articles. This article does so by focussing on the topic of caste, globally, using reliable secondary sources from history, from recent decades and hopefully in future, as they get published.

Yes, in various tertiary sources, such as a few your cite, the topic of caste emphasizes India and is presented with India as context. This wiki article acknowledges that and includes that view in the article's section on India, citing the scholarly work of Dirks. However, for WP:DUE reasons, we must be careful to not imply that this is the only or the dominant view in the world of secondary sources. Per hundreds of secondary sources meeting WP:RS guidelines, many peer reviewed and widely cited, and some published in the last 20-40 years, caste is not 'almost universally associated with India.' The whole article provides ample support.

The introductory sentence is part of the lead. Per WP:LEAD, it is supposed to be a summary of the article's most important aspects. It is not supposed to stereotype India or Latin America or China or wherever. It would be a poor lead summary, if it purely focussed on one section of the article. For what it is worth, the lead includes 'Indian society is often associated with the word caste' in the summary, as it should per WP:DUE.

If your suggestion is that wikipedia should have just one article on caste, like some tertiary sources, please explain why? (I urge you to read the older/archived discussions of this talk page - you will note that other wiki contributors have requested broader, non-ethnocentric focus in this article; please address their concerns too in your reply).

Once again, your input to help improve this article is welcome. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

On Berreman (1972), I quote you: "A widely applied and frequently contested model for systems...". While in this and the other part you quote, you read academic circumspection, I read another evidence of growing dispute between scholars, one Berreman claims is frequent. Per wikipedia's WP:NPOV guidelines, wiki articles must describe the disputes, not engage in them; article must describe all sides/aspects, we must not judge the secondary sources, then pick what we like and summarize that side.

To support that it is more than academic circumspection for Berreman, consider his 1966 paper published in peer reviewed volume 66 of The American Journal of Sociology: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/marilynm/Theorizing_Black_America_Syllabus_files/Caste_in_India_and_the_US.pdf

On page 120, column 2, para 1: Caste can be defined so that it is applicable only to India, just as it is possible to define narrowly almost any socio-cultural phenomenon....[...]

On page 120, column 2, para 2: However, caste can be accurately defined in broader terms....[...] (my emphasis)

On the three tertiary sources cited above, I checked again. All of them do have just one article. Two of them cover the subject of caste in 4 para each, the third is longer but with a 1962 Srinivas book as the only bibliography. If you have any secondary sources that meet WP:RS guidelines, that are not covered by this article, please do provide. I will read them as we discuss this article, so we can together help improve this article.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Tertiary sources Obviously I'm not suggesting that we abandon Wikipedia's longstanding policy of relying on secondary sources. However, tertiary sources are a guide to broad overviews. Wikipedia policy on tertiary sources states: "Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other." When the emphasis (and summary) in a Wikipedia article runs counter to those in pretty much all other tertiary sources on that topic (and I can cite dozens more), then we can judge the article to be biased; we can judge the article not to be providing a balanced overview. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Content forks This is the flagship article for all caste-related articles, a WP:Summary style article. The Caste system in India is not an independent topic, but a sub-topic; its article Caste system in India is not an independent article, but a spinoff of this article, just as History of India is a spinoff of India (the flagship page for India-related articles). WP:SPINOFF clearly states, "Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary, conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter." In other words, although this article needs to be written in a summary style, its overall emphasis remains the same as that of a single very-long article on "Caste," such as the ones found in other encyclopedias. Again WP:SPINOFF states clearly, "However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." This I suggest is exactly what you have done. By treating the Caste system in India as an independent article, and by emphasizing its topic less in this article, it is you (and others who have contributed to this page) who have created a POV-fork. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

These are the main issues. I don't want to diffuse the focus by going into other issues at this time. I will note that the Caste system in India has had major input from you. Its emphasis too is problematic, citing, as it does, Berreman's single article half a dozen times and early on, and giving weight to Dirks's highly polemical account, whereas Susan Bayly's Caste, Society, and Politics in India, the most widely-used textbook on caste worldwide, goes unreferenced. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:TPG, I invite you to keep our focus on improving this article. Speculating on other wiki contributor's motives and other articles is inappropriate, as you are doing above and you did more explicitly here when you wrote, 'In the past, this sort of distancing of India from its evils, was engaged in by editors who ...' Such assumptions of yours are not constructive. Our goal in this article shouldn't be to distance India or hold India responsible with a stereotyping summary on caste. Our goal must be to create a good article per wiki guidelines. Please do not assume that caste doesn't exist in Nigeria, or Yemen, or Japan, or elsewhere; that journalists from New York Times to Asahi Shimbun; as well as thousands of scholars from around the world are trying to distance India from its evils, when they write in peer reviewed medium that caste has been and is a worldwide phenomenon. Some of these articles are amongst the most cited of all topics and articles in socio-cultural studies - a summary of these secondary sources on the topic of caste belongs here. Wikipedia is not about creating article that prevent 'distancing X from evil Y'. I request you assume good faith.

On Susan Bayly, I am the one who added her as a reference to this article. Can she be cited more often on this topic?, sure; but the question is: do we need to? Not really, if you consider WP:OVERCITE guidelines. Bayly's work is tertiary, as many textbooks are. Bayly relies on secondary sources, as does this article. Bayly content is already summarized directly and indirectly in this article. (You are mistaken by the way; Bayly has been referenced in other article too by some wiki contributor - check again.)

On to your other points: Tertiary sources such as Wikipedia are indeed guide to broad overviews. Wikipedia strives to provide broad summaries, in neutral and balanced way, covering all significant sides, of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources that may contradict each other. To interpret wiki's sourcing policy, you must consider the whole policy, and its full context. On policy, WP:PSTS suggests this:

Policy: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.

Note that the guidelines do not suggest 'wiki articles usually rely on tertiary sources', rather again and again, it is urging us to use published reliable secondary sources. That is what this article currently does with well over 150 citations, many added not by me, but numerous other wiki contributors. You have, as yet, neither suggested nor shown that this article is not based on reliable, published secondary sources. I ask that you do so.

You allege, "When Wikipedia article runs counter to those in pretty much all other tertiary sources on that topic, then we can judge the article to be biased." This is your point of view. Show us where in WP:PSTS or any other policy guideline page does it state that this is wiki's content policy?

Futher, WP:PSTS guidelines remind us: Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. We must evaluate a tertiary source or an article in tertiary source. On the topic of caste, there are no reasons to assume that thousands of published, peer reviewed, secondary sources are less reliable, and only the three short articles you cite are reliable or complete. Are there?

Furthermore, your allegation is difficult to understand. You have not shown that this article actually runs counter to any reliable secondary or tertiary source. No tertiary source you have cited so far claims that caste did not exist or is not found in the rest of the world; nor do the three tertiary and Berreman secondary source you cited write that this socio-cultural phenomenon is not a broad phenomenon. Actually, two of your four citations suggest, and one strongly, that caste is a broad phenomena found in non-Indian context. Are you asking that we ignore this part from this article and keep the focus purely on India? why?

On content spin-off and forks: I do not understand your claim that caste system in India is not an independent article. It is both a section in this article and an independent article, see here. This article has a link to the independent, very long article (which, by the way, I encourage you to participate in improving, see its talk page too). One section in this article summarizes the caste system on India. Wiki guidelines suggest that different spin off pages, on related topics, generally offer different levels of detail of a subject, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter. To appreciate this guideline, I urge you to read other complex and broad socio-cultural phenomenon topics, for example, see the related and linked but independent articles: Racism, Racism in the United States and Racial segregation in the United States. The summary sections about United States within the independent article on Racism are short, not an emphasized copy of it. The caste article is and best structured the same way. It would be difficult to maintain two pages with lots of overlapping content. This article on caste does something similar.

Caste is a broad topic, and wikipedia at its best strives to include all significant viewpoints in a balanced and neutral way. Thousands of articles by reliable sources have been published about caste system in India, and thousands of articles by reliable sources have been published about caste system outside India (just like thousands on the broad global topic of racism, and thousands on the specific topic of racism in United States). Exclusively limiting the coverage to one nation on this broad article about caste, avoiding coverage on other nations, or avoiding coverage of this socio-cultural phenomenon in history, of the type you appear to suggest would create serious imbalance and neutrality issues. To persuade, you must explain why Nigerian caste system as discussed in reliable secondary sources by scholars and media in Africa is any less important or any less significant than those about India; or for that matter, in Korea, Japan, Tibet, Yemen, or from history such as Cagots, New Spain, and others? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional notes: Susan Bayly (1999), whom you refer to, felt compelled to include this as footnote on page 28 in her book: 'For debate on the existence of caste systems outside India, see... [...]; ... detailed consideration of caste system in Sri Lanka and Nepal is outside the scope of this volume; ...[...].. have pointed to caste like groupings in China and Madagascar;.... colonial Algeria as a caste system.' Let us note that Bayly book is titled Caste, Society, and Politics in India. For this global article on caste, we must broaden our focus past the scope of Bayly's book. We must read, include and summarize other reliable published secondary sources from around the world, over the centuries.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have only a minute, so let me suggest that you'll waste a lot less time (and space) if you actually read what I've written. Susan Bayly's book, Caste, Society and Politics in India, was mentioned only in the context of the Caste system in India article at the end of my last post, not that of this article. As I had also stated, the book is not cited in that article, only her earlier book, Saint, goddesses and kings is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I see Bayly's Caste, Society and Politics in India included, though not cited, in both articles. My focus on this talk page is on this article. You may have mentioned Bayly in the other context, but on this talk page, Bayly's notes on caste system outside India are relevant. Let us focus on this article here. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Reasons why this article should include Gerald Berreman and Nicholas Dirks. Citations and h-index are a means to measure impact, significance, extent of acceptance of major authors and their scholarly contribution. On the topic of caste, here is the data as of August 4 2012:

• Citations for Susan Bayly = 876, h-index = 9
• Citations for Nicholas Dirks = 4200, h-index = 25
• Citations for Gerald Berreman = 2865, h-index = 26
• Nicholas Dirks' book Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India is well over 250,000 spots higher on books sales list than Susan Bayly's Caste, Society, and Politics in India.

Setting aside the book sales list, both Dirks and Berreman have significantly higher citation index scores (see wiki's WP:RS guidelines for relevance); both are well respected by the community of scholars, and have had more impact/acceptance on the subject than other authors on this subject. The contributions of Berreman and of Dirks should be included in this article about caste. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Conflict in tertiary sources

1. Here is a part of an article on caste from Encyclopedia Americana, the first significant tertiary source encyclopedia published in America. I copy the initial portion of it, because it is from the 1851 version and the copyright has long expired.

CASTE: certain classes whose burdens and privileges are hereditary. The word is derived from the Portuguese casta, and was originally applied, by the conquerors of the East Indies, to the Indian families, whose occupations, customs, privileges and duties are hereditary. This term has been sometimes applied to the hereditary classes in Europe; and we speak of the spirit or the prerogatives and usurpations of a caste, to express particularly that unnatural constitution of society, which makes distinction dependent on the accidents of birth or fortune. The division into castes, among the people of the old world, comes to us from a period to which the light of history does not extend; hence its origin cannot be clearly traced: but it is highly probable that, wherever it exists, it was originally grounded on a difference of descent, and in the modes of living, and that the separate castes were originally separate races of people. This institution, is found among many nations.

The article then goes on to explain caste in Egypt, Persia etc etc., including a note about four castes in India.

Reading this American encyclopedic article on caste and three cited above suggests a conflict between tertiary sources.

2. Is this a unique fringe conflict? I respectively submit, no. Consider Encyclopedia of Africa by Henry Gates Jr., Kwame Appiah (ISBN 978-0195337709). I can not copy and paste it here, because that would be a copyvio. However, if you read it:

There are many articles that discuss castes in various countries of Africa, a continent with great ethnic diversity. For example, see pages 34-47, 132-135, 503-504, 597-598, and other places. Many of these cover socio-cultural facts about caste, are exquisitely detailed, and none of these articles mention India.

Reading this Africa-focussed encyclopedia and those cited above confirms tertiary sources have significant differences/conflicts on the subject of caste.

Tertiary literature about Africa is no less significant than tertiary literature that is India-focussed such as the Taylor & Francis sources cited above. Tertiary publications from America are no less significant either.

If there is conflict or differences amongst tertiary sources, we must consider if one or more of them are comprehensive and complete. The identified conflicts between tertiary sources are more reasons to stick with community agreed Wiki's content sourcing guidelines: use published reliable secondary sources per WP:RS guidelines. That is what this article does.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There are two possibilities: a) you are being facetious when offering as evidence the 1851 edition of Encyclopedia Americana or b) you are being serious. My response to the two scenarios are: a) Haha. b) Can you find any Wikipedia policy or guideline that will admit a source from 1851 among reliable sources? Can you suggest any forum on Wikipedia where you would like to discuss the plausibility of an 1851 Encyclopedia Americana volume as an example of a reliable tertiary source? All the examples I have offered you are contemporary examples. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that in 1851 in America there was little knowledge of India? There are significant changes between the 1851 entry on "caste" in Encyclopedia Americana and the 1920 entry on "caste" in Encyclopedia Americana (also available for full view on Google). The 1920 edition says:

CASTE, a social class whose burdens and privileges are hereditary. The word is from the Portuguese casta, race, and was applied by the Portuguese, who became familiar with Hindustan, to the classes in India whose occupations, privileges and duties are hereditary. This term is sometimes applied to the hereditary classes in Europe; and we speak of thc spirit or the prerogatives and usurpations of a caste, to express particularly that peculiar constitution of society which makes distinction dependent on the accidents of birth or fortune. ... Recent evidence however has made the existence of a strict caste system in Egypt rather doubtful. The institution of caste is best known to us as it exists in Hindustan, where it is well known to have existed since perhaps 1,500 or 2000 years before the Christian era. (Note: The remaining three-quarters of the article discusses the caste system in India.)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Britannica, on the other hand, its knowledge of India more acute on account of East India Company rule in India, had a more up to date treatment even in 1833. See for example, Baynes, Thomas Spencer (editor) (1833), "Caste", The Encyclopaedia Britannica: a dictionary of arts, sciences, and general literature, Volume 5, C. Scribner's sons, pp. 186–192, retrieved 5 August 2012 {{citation}}: |first= has generic name (help) (Full view available.) The main point, however, is that all three sources, while great for coffee table displays and antiquarian discussions, are not reliable for Wikipedia purposes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Next, I will list some more contemporary tertiary sources (of the last 25 years) and discuss what they say on the subject of "caste." Tertiary sources are useful for gauging overall balance in article. Again, if a Wikipedia article runs counter to the emphasis in articles on the same subject in all other encyclopedias, then the article does not provide a balanced overview (or summary) of the subject. (Please do not interrupt for the next half hour or so while I gather the evidence.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I have produced 15 tertiary sources published during the last 25 years that all emphasize the Indian context very early on in the lead paragraph. I challenge you to find two contemporary tertiary sources (published in the last 25 years) that have the emphasis and balance of the Wikipedia article. I am out of time now, but will check again tomorrow. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not wish to repeat my comments and questions on tertiary versus secondary sources. I request you read them. Per WP:TPG, I invite you to answer my questions above, so that we can build a consensus on how we can together improve this article. If it would help you, I will summarize my questions, that I am unable to find answers to in your reply.

I have read your 16 sources - dictionaries, etc.; I feel you and I are interpreting the single caste article in those sources and wiki collection of caste articles differently. FWIW, the current article already has over 100 contemporary reliable secondary sources. To help reach a consensus, I am willing to make the effort and post here a few contemporary tertiary sources as well (and I will exclude dictionaries, see WP:WWIN). It will help me save time, and save space on this talk page, if in addition to answering my August 04 2010 questions above, you can answer the following with yes/no: (a) Do you have access to and have you read the various volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica published from 1901 to 1987? (b) Do you have access to and have you read the various print editions of Encyclopedia Americana published from 1920 to 2006? (c) Have you read the caste articles in Encyclopedia of Africa (2010) that I cited above?

Once again, I welcome your efforts to improve this article and invite you to join me in starting the process of reaching a consensus. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid, I don't see you as responding to my two main points. Instead, you are asking me yes/no questions about encyclopedias published between 1901 and 1987! This is the last time I will make these points here. If I do not receive an cogent response, I will not only tag the article for imbalance and bias, but, more importantly, will be forced to pursue this issue at a more trafficked Wikipedia forum.

Let me repeat again: as I see it,

(a)Wikipedia relies on secondary sources for individual statements within an article; however, it has no mechanism for evaluating (how the myriad available secondary sources are combined to create) the balance, the overview, or the perspective of the article other than reliable tertiary sources. These include not only other encyclopedias, but also textbooks, and survey articles in scholarly journals. Unfortunately, there are no textbooks (published in the last 25 years) on the subject of "caste" in all its contexts. There are plenty of textbooks about "Caste in India," but they obviously cannot be used to evaluate the historical/geographical balance of this article. Similarly, there are no contemporary surveys (in scholarly journals) on the topic of "caste" in all its contexts (without reference to geography). That leaves encyclopedias. These, as I have already shown you, are unanimously agreed on emphasizing the context of India (and Hindu India) in the general notion of "caste;" and these spend most of their contents discussing India. You will note that I have listed only encyclopedias that do not restrict their geographical contexts. There are, of course, dozens of encyclopedias about specific geographical contexts, such as Encyclopedia of Hinduism (which has an article, "caste," that discusses caste in Hinduism), Encyclopedia of African-American History (which has an article on "occupational castes" in some West African ethnic groups), Encyclopedia of Sri Lanka (which has an article, "caste," that discusses caste in Sri Lanka) and so forth. But these we cannot use for evaluating geographical emphasis within this article. That, clearly, also rules of Encyclopedia of Africa you have mentioned.

(b) The article Caste is the flagship article for all caste-related issues. "Caste in India" is a sub-topic of "Caste;" consequently, the Caste system in India is a sub-article of Caste. There are other sub-articles, such as Caste system (Sri Lanka), Caste system in Africa, Caste system among South Asian Muslims, and so forth. If you are suggesting that the Caste article is about the notion of "caste" in the abstract, then move the contents of this article to Caste (Concept) or Caste (Sociology), but the article Caste has to be in overall perspective what the predominance of tertiary sources have emphasized it to be. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

My response follows. It is longer than I feel necessary to reach consensus, because you have not answered some of my questions. I will try to keep this short.

I have over 20 tertiary sources that show there is no ‘unanimous agreement’ you claim, but ‘frequently contested’ coverage. Of these 20+, I include a few that are relatively more cited, more circulated; my aim is to focus our attention to what constitutes commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. Do note, tertiary sources are not anywhere near as cited as some secondary sources already in this article.

Many of user Fowler&fowler sources seem to be cut-and-paste of internet commercial websites such as encyclopedia dot com. My sources are based on the full, hardcopy print version. I encourage you to verify my citations below, but do so by locating the hard copy version (there are differences between online and print versions).

I have focussed primarily on contemporary/postmodern tertiary works. Since this talk page discussion may be reviewed by future editors years from now, in their attempts to improve the quality and keep this article current, I include two summaries published between 1911 - 1951 as well, and a dictionary claimed by some to the most trusted authority on the English language in America. I have also skipped 2010 edition of Encyclopedia of Africa etc. which are already mentioned above, and must also be considered.

After citing a few sources, I shall summarize what these added evidence mean in context of wikipedia’s content sourcing guidelines and this article.

The above shows overwhelming differences in content and style between tertiary sources. Some ignore India on the subject of caste, some treat India as a mere example of many, some ignore the world and cover just India alleging India is unique in this matter, without showing how?, without explaining why African/other authors are wrong when they publish in peer reviewed journals that castes - hereditary, hierarchical, ritual pollution driven, rebirth believing, local religion inspired, endogamous, closed systems - were and are present in Africa/outside India. Furthermore, one tertiary source you cited strangely asserts India is unique (ISBN: 1-57958-388-1), nevertheless hurriedly add examples of caste in other parts of the world. FWIW, American tertiary sources, in my interpretation, have a more global view on the subject of caste; Some British/Indian tertiary sources (by British/Indian authors) have an India-obsessed coverage of caste (except some, such as the various print editions of Encyclopedia Britannica between 1911 to mid 20th century).

Who is right, I don’t know, nor does anyone else. For wikipedia, this does not matter. We must, to the best of our ability, summarize all sides. Wikipedia, an encyclopedia for the world, must cherish and summarize the global view from reliable secondary sources. User Fowler&fowler acknowledges there are many encyclopedias that have caste articles with regional focus, then asserts 'But these we cannot use for evaluating geographical emphasis within this article.' Why? In addition, identify any wikipedia guideline that suggests we must ignore all reliable literature from 190+ other countries, and use your favorite country-focussed literature. We do not need Caste (concept) article or such content forks. I counter that if you wish to see India-dominated coverage of the topic of caste, please go to Varna or Caste system in India.

Given this conflict and differences between tertiary sources, where should the emphasis be? I submit this should be carefully reflected upon, not rushed. Bayly, which you and some tertiary sources you included cite, has felt compelled to note that castes exist outside India and those are outside the scope of her book. If you go by citation index, number of citations, extent of coverage, commonly accepted mainstream scholarship, then the sources I have cited, today and over last few days, score substantially higher, when we study literature that includes India with rest of the world. In African literature, in Latin American literature, in East Asian literature, my sources are predominant - it would be WP:FRINGE to assert caste system did not or do not exist in Africa, Latin America, Korea, Japan, etc. Similarly, in reliable secondary sources in anthropology, in history of the concept of caste, and in similar fields, my sources are far far more cited and respected than those you mention.

I disagree that wikipedia should measure itself against latest tertiary sources for this article, or that it should focus and summarize the latest content of some tabloid-like source, or ignore the history of publications in reliable sources within the last 25-100 years. Caste and similar socio-cultural phenomena did not erupt in last few years. There is a history behind these. History is important, it is part and essence of context. History is the root that nurtures our emotional knowledge.

It must also be noted that encyclopedias have evolved (see 1851 and 1953 version of Encyclopedia Americana on the topic of caste, for example). Encyclopedias can and have differed significantly in their emphasis on the topic of caste, while they were published concurrently (e.g. see encyclopedias published in early 1900s on topic of caste). The editors of encyclopedias printed a 100 years ago did not try to fit in or copy each other. Wikipedia should not strive to fit in and repeat what commercial, advertisement supported 4 paragraph tabloid encyclopedias on internet are offering as content. Wikipedia must strive to discover and summarize, where possible, the most respected and reliable published secondary sources. There is nothing wrong or suspicious in refusing to fit in, in being different and independent.

The current article on caste (August 7 2012 version) mentions India first, mentions India twice in the lead. This flagship article already has wiki links to main independent exclusive article on caste system in India. Given that wikipedia has a family of articles on caste, there is no need to delete/ignore the rest of the world, and replace the content of this article with overwhelming or major focus on India.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid your list is both misleading and disingenuous. I have Veena Das's article on Caste in the International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences (your first tertiary reference) sitting right in front of me. The entire article is about caste in India!! Where does it mention anything about caste in other parts of the world?? All the 17 references in the article (Louis Dumont, Kim Marriot, MN Srinivas, GS Ghurye, Andre Beteille, ...) are to scholars who have worked on caste in India! She might have her disagreements with previous scholars on the subject of caste, but the article is about caste in India (and nowhere else). I have already provide the link to Leonard, Thomas M. (editor) (2006), "Caste systems", Encyclopedia of the Developing World, Taylor & Francis, pp. 252–, ISBN 978-0-415-97662-6, retrieved 5 August 2012 {{citation}}: |first= has generic name (help), my 10th reference and your third. Here is the lead again:

CASTE SYSTEMS Caste is an age-old institution, evoked through several centuries. As a system of stratification, it has existed in many parts of the world and is being practiced today in some countries. But the caste system of closed endogamous descent groups as prevalent and practiced in India is not found elsewhere (Bayly 2010; Kolenda 1984). Caste is a well-entrenched phenomenon in countries like India. ...

Here, as in other quotes in your list, you stop just short of the first mention of India; in other words you quote only the first two sentences. You then summarize the article in your "Notes" as: "After this generic lead (emphasis added), the article mentions India, then goes on in the next 4 paragraphs to describe caste in generic terms. The article thereafter covers India, Algeria, South Africa, Burma, Japan, Kenya, Somalia, Rwanda, Nigeria, Jews and Gypsies of Europe (with a minor note), Egypt." Well, the lead is "generic" because you have halved it, removing mention of India in the next two sentences (plainly to be seen by anyone who clicks on the link)!! By the way, it's not the next 4 paragraphs, but only the next 3. What you fail to mention is that two-thirds of the article (the next 11 paragraphs) are devoted to India!! Over and over again, you have attempted to distort the quotes themselves using ellipses when there is mention of India. These you have mixed with old, obscure, citations from hundred year old encyclopedias. I'm not sure what is the point of your rambling comment on Encyclopedia Americana when I had already provided the link to its 1918 entry on "caste". Anyone can directly see that three-quarters of the article is about India. As for the modern Encyclopedia Americana (2006 edition), here is its lead:

Encyclopedia Americana, 2006, Volume 5, page 775: CASTE is a largely static, exclusive social class, membership in which is determined by birth and involves particular customary restrictions and privileges. The word derives from the Portuguese casta, meaning "breed," "race," or "kind," and was first used to denote the Hindu social classification on the Indian subcontinent. While this remains the basic connotation (emphasis added), the word "caste" is also used to describe in whole or in part social systems that emerged at various times in other parts of the world. Generally castes are organized, with a chief and a council acting in concerted authority. Often united in the celebration of certain festivals, the members of a caste are further bound by common occupation and by common customs relating particularly to marriage, food, and questions of pollution by members of lower castes. .... (ellipses represent a few sentences of definition. The next section with many subsections is about India.) (Section) Castes in India—Organizational Structure Among the Hindus. According to some estimates, there are more than 3000 castes on the the Indian subcontinent, greatly varying in size from a few score members to millions. Originally there were only ....

Nowhere have I said that this article should be about India only. However, I am saying that the major emphasis needs to be on India, which it currently is not. The Wikipedia article on caste perfunctorily mentions India here and there. There needs to be essential discussion of India, and Hindu India in particular, as there is in all other tertiary sources. You cannot have the sections on the caste systems in China, Tibet, Korea, West Africa, and England, be each longer than the one on the caste system India, even if the India section has its own longer parent article!! When we write a flagship article such as this in WP:SUMMARY STYLE, we cannot push essential discussion of India into the subarticle Caste system in India. This article currently focuses on caste outside India, and has thereby become a POV fork. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I clicked on Caste, and there too the lead is what I quoted. Generic.

One of us is misunderstanding the WP:SUMMARY STYLE guidelines. I submit the current article follows this guideline, which reads: A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it. Again in Basic Technique, the guideline suggests: Ideally many of these sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the subtopics covered in those sections.

In this article, some sections - such as one on China - are longer because there is no dedicated separate article for those sections/sub-sections. India is a shorter summary as it has an independent separate article of its own. Any interested wiki reader has all the access and necessary links.

The same format is in the World War II example described in WP:SUMMARY STYLE. Certain sections are short in World War II - e.g. World War II#Japanese invasion of China, with far more details in the linked independent article. This article follows a same format, per the WP:SUMMARY STYLE guidelines.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You disagree? What you have clicked on is not the lead; it is the abstract. The actual lead is even more generic, but that is because the Indian context in the article is understood. Like I said, find me a sentence in the article that mentions any society other than India. It is after all the emphasis of the entire article we are concerned about. Veena Das's article is, in its entirety, about the Cast system in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If the articles on caste in China, Korea, etc., do not have parents articles, then create a parent article Caste beyond South Asia (or some such name), include the details there, and summarize that article's content in a section "Cast beyond South Asia" here. The emphasis on India has to be paramount here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I am delighted by your admission that the 'actual lead is even more generic'. You may assume whatever implicit context you understand or misunderstand, it is none of my concern. This talk page's purpose is to help reach consensus, not to debate or lecture me or anyone else on socio-cultural phenomena topics such as caste. I do not want to repeat my disagreements with you - just read my discussion on leads in various tertiary sources and various prints of same publication from 100 years ago to recent years. I do not want to debate Veena Das, student of M.N. Srinivas - both of whom are Indians known for voluntarily limiting their publications to caste system in India.

As before, I welcome clarifications and suggestions to help reach consensus. Perhaps you can clarify what other summary paragraph(s) you want to add from Caste system in India, that would improve this article. I am open to expanding the summary on India. I insist, however, we respect WP:SUMMARY guidelines on including just a summary, rather than cutting and pasting that independent article into this article.

I do not like the 'Caste beyond South Asia'; or based on your 'India has to be paramount' note, perhaps a 'Caste beyond India' suggestion. It is a bad idea because no wiki guidelines encourage that approach, WP:CFORK and WP:SUMMARY discourage it, and because it would also be an implicit bias and disrespect for thousands of reliable secondary sources worldwide and to ethnic group-specific scholarship on caste in English language publications.

We must follow wikpedia guidelines on how and when to split this article. You can find some on WP:SS. For what it is worth, at this point, I feel most sections that should be split have already been split by wiki contributors other than me (e.g. Cagots, Caste system in India, Nepalese caste system, etc.). If anything, wiki has stubs such as Priestly caste that need to deleted/merged into this article.

If you can identify which non-India caste section is already covered elsewhere in wikipedia, I would welcome changing revising that section/sub-section with a summary, to help trim this article.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me suggest very bluntly that you not try to have the last word on everything. Otherwise, no consensus will be reached here and I will simply take it to another, bigger forum. You were clearly wrong in your characterization of the Veena Das article, which you had not even read, and you've been making far-fetched points about the British-Indian bias in many tertiary sources, providing us with 160 year-old quotes from Encyclopedia Americana, but not realizing that the Americana (2006) article on caste itself devotes most of its space to India. There is a limit to the patience of people who try to present the best available tertiary sources here. After all, I have not made a single content-related edit to the article during this time.

I will make edits to the article in the coming weeks, as and when I find time. We can then discuss the issues again. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to initiate WP:DR. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler writes, "... I will simply take it to another, bigger forum. You were clearly wrong in your characterization of the Veena Das article, which you had not even read..."

Please stop alleging nonsense such as 'which you have not even read...'. You are making false accusations, being uncivil, and are violating WP:TPG guidelines.

I have changed some of your edit today to this article, because your sources were mostly poorly written tertiary sources and one article was Tanjore-village focussed publication. Your changes are in dispute, inconsistent with peer reviewed secondary sources, do not meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP and wiki content sourcing guidelines.

As I noted yesterday, before you began editing today, please do take this to bigger forum and dispute resolution process. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't by perfunctorily quoting Wikipedia guidelines to a longstanding editor (who knows the spirit of the guidelines, not just the letter), stuff biased nonsense into the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Since I subscribe to 1RR, I won't revert, but be warned that caste-related articles now fall under discretionary sanctions. Edit-warring is not the way out, neither are long, verbose, obfuscating posts you have been making above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As for "poorly written tertiary sources," it was the same tertiary source, Haviland et al, that you have already cited in the lead! Beteille's definition is widely-used and turns up in various tertiary accounts of caste. Tertiary sources, by the way, are acceptable in the lead since they summarize a wide variety of source, just as the lead does. Otherwise, given the thousands of secondary sources available on "caste," we could never arrive at a consensus on what goes in the article or its summary. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As for the spurious implication in your Caste edit summary that "Tanjore village focussed (sic) study" is reason for excluding Beteille's definition of caste, here is Scott, John; Marshall, Gordon (2005), "caste", Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, Oxford University Press, p. 66, ISBN 978-0-19-860987-2, retrieved 10 August 2012

caste An institution of considerable internal complexity, which has been over-simplified by those seeking an ideal type of rigid hierarchical social stratification, based on extreme closure criteria. In Max Weber's writings it was synonymous with ethnic status stratification and constituted one end of the continuum which contrasted status honour stratification with commercial classes and the market. Possibly the clearest definition is that proffered by André Béteille, who describes a caste as 'a small and named group of persons characterized by endogamy, hereditary membership and a specific style of life which sometimes includes the pursuit by tradition of a particular occupation and is usually associated with a more or less distinct ritual status in a hierarchical system, based on concepts of purity and pollution' (Caste, Class and Power, 1965). Caste is especially important in the lives of Indian Hindus, for whom its basis is the traditional idea of the five varna: Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, and Untouchable. ....

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The user@ 117.205.129.69 has been trying to add the following two parts to this article on caste, without any verifiable support -

• The British for reasons best known to themselves, and therefore, eventually the rest of the world have not only accepted this manipulation of history, but have earnestly perpetuated it.

• South Asian society has consisted of thousands of castes called Jatis since ancient times. The Brahmins (more correctly Brahmans), who were a small and politically marginal community, became powerful during the British colonial period, and seem to have convinced the colonial masters to adopt their own theoretical view of the society as the only correct one. According to this view, which had no basis in reality at any time during India's long history...

I reverted this once because the above is neither supported nor balanced/neutral. The user is requested to identify and include a reliable source for these viewpoints per WP:VNT and WP:RS guidelines.

The user is welcome here, and I will be glad to read/discuss/help summarize any reliable source that inspires him or her to those claims. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have listed 31 modern tertiary references above. Please provide evidence that the modern tertiary sources (not Encylopedia American 1851 or Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911) have major disagreement on the centrality of India, especially Hindu India, to the notion of caste. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Response by Ratnakar.kulkarni (sarvajna):

Before I comment let me inform you again we need secondary source but still I will comment on your tertiary

sarvajna (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Response by ApostlevonColorado:

The above combined with this past analysis show that historical and modern tertiary sources agree that caste is neither unique nor exclusive to India. Additionally, that past discussion also presented some of the most widely cited, peer reviewed contemporary secondary publications on caste, showing that it is neither unique nor exclusive to India.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

In few places, including in the RfC question, allegations of OR and SYNTH have been made. Cagots and England/Europe were used as examples as to whether published sources use the word caste. I have already addressed Cagots elsewhere on this talk page. This section seeks evidence of contemporary tertiary sources, so here is yet another example of published book, one that specifically includes a discussion of castes in England.

Source: Sixth Canadian Edition of Sociology, John J Macionis and Linda M Gerber, Chapter 10, ISBN 978-0135049549, Pearson Publishing (2008)

England represents a society where caste qualities of its agrarian past still are interwoven within the modern day industrial class system.

The Estate System

England's agrarian past, with deep historical roots, was based on a caste-like estate system. Three estates, the first (clergy), the second (nobility), and the third (commoners) comprised this system. The law of primogeniture, by which property could only be inherited by the eldest son, helped maintain this system. The Industrial Revolution allowed some commoners in the cities to amass wealth sufficient to rival the power of the nobility and led to the blurring of social rankings.

England Today

Aspects of their feudal past persist today. For example, a monarch still stands as Britain's head of state, and descendants of traditional nobility still maintain inherited wealth and property....(delete rest)

This tertiary source includes this statement in its discussion of Japan: "Like Great Britain, Japan mixes both caste and meritocracy in their social stratification system." etc.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

ApostlevonColorado, you are beginning to be disruptive to the RfC process. The request in the title of this section is that of providing evidence in the 31 tertiary sources that India is not central to the notion of "caste," not to pursue you own defensive agenda about defending your edits in the article. The RfC is below, not here. If you have a problem, make a statement there, instead of attempting to showboat here. Move the off-topic content to a statement in the RfC or elsewhere; otherwise, I will be forced to remove it. There are other editors taking part in this RfC; they are respecting the process. Why should you be exempt? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

PS Providing evidence that the word "caste" or "cast-like" is used in the context of other societies hardly shows that India is not central to the topic of "caste." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:TPG.

For what it is worth, the RfC section already links to relevant sections above the RfC, and if clicked leads the reader to this section.

Please note that the above content is from a tertiary source, and is more relevant to this section than the RfC. It is yet another tertiary source that suggests caste is not exclusive or unique to India, rather has been a worldwide phenomenon. It is yet another of the numerous tertiary sources that mention India as an important example, yet avoid claiming caste is central to India or anything equivalent. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

All the same, this section is not about the RfC; it is about the references. Make your off-topic comments about the Cagots elsewhere. Please also do not distort the wording in the title. It is not "exclusive" or "unique," it is "central." The adjective "central," according to the OED, means chief, principal, leading, dominant. There is no doubt that India is the leading and dominant ethnographic example of "caste." All, and I mean all, of the 30 references above attest to that, even while some of these acknowledge that caste (or more correctly "cast-like") societies exist in other parts of the world. Again, "central does not mean exclusive or unique. Please don't distort the wording of the topic we are discussing here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

In the previous tertiary sources I selectively provided, I covered many countries and regions, but missed adequately covering East Asia/Japanese region. In the interest of wiki contributors who may read this discussion years from now, I add another contemporary tertiary source: Encyclopedia of Contemporary Japanese Culture, Sandra Buckley (Editor), ISBN 978-0415143448 (2001)

Discusses caste in Japan over 2 pages, and claims discrimination and prejudice against Japan's outcaste group remained, even increased through 1960s. It makes no mention of India during its discussion of caste.

Comment:Once again, this tertiary source disagrees with those tertiary sources that claim caste is unique to India or specific to Hindoo Hindu religion. Caste has been a worldwide socio-cultural phenomena, and has neither been exclusive nor unique to a country or any religion. This global encyclopedic article on caste should include Japan as well.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The wording of the title is not "unique." It is "central." The religion is Hindu, not Hindoo, which is an derogatory term. Be warned to not both pervert (twist, slant) and offend at the same time. It is against Wikipedia policy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk page note

ApostlevonColorado, For your further edification, in order that you not waste more time, and cause disruption in the talk page discussion, let me state clearly and unequivocally that the statement in the title uses the word "central," which means:

important, leading, dominant, key, paramount, salient, significant, foremost

It does not use the word "unique" which means:

exclusive, lone, one, single, solitary, solo, unexampled

Have you now clearly understood the difference? If you repeat "unique" or "exclusive" one more time, I will regard it as disruption of the talk page guidelines process, and will take appropriate action. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The spelling error for Hindu was accidental, not intentional and is regretted. My spellchecker did not catch it. I have corrected it above.

The wording of the title of this section is neither unique or central, it is: "Please provide evidence of major disagreement in the tertiary sources". Please do not change it or imply it to be something different. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If, for a moment, I agree that we are truly discussing only "major disagreement in the tertiary sources" (with no other qualification), why are you repetitively using the words "unique" or "exclusive?" Which hat did you pull that out of? The sources aren't talking about either unique or exclusive.

ApostlevonColorado, Please don't be disingenuous, repeatedly disingenuous. What does request say immediately below the section header above? It says: "Please provide evidence that the modern tertiary sources (not Encylopedia American 1851 or Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911) have major disagreement on the centrality of India, especially Hindu India, to the notion of caste." What does the previous section header say? It says: "Fowler&fowler's 30 tertiary sources published within the last 25 years on the subject of "caste" and of the centrality of India, especially Hindu India, in it" The only reason why I shortened the title is that I did not want to repeat a long section header, when it is understood what sources we are talking about. Let me offer a polite but firm warning that you not disrupt the RfC process by disingenuously filibustering here rather than making a statement in the RfC, which you still have not. Now that you know that the request in this section is about "centrality," please stop twisting the words to "uniqueness." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You are the one who gave 30+ tertiary sources only to demonstrate that the sources actually don't support your own synthesis that India is the only example of this system, and now you are alleging that AVC is disingenuously filibustering, you've some nerve. You're the one who is misusing BRD by needlessly having initiated the RFC, when the when we could have reached a consensus internally. Now you oppose any other proposal with claim that it's premature since the RFC isn't over, be informed that RFCs don't have any minimum or maximum time limit. You think we don't see that? Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)