Template:Castewarningtalk

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Hinduism C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Africa C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Template:Pbneutral

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fowler&fowler's contemporary tertiary sources

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

ApostleVonColorado’s contemporary and 20th century tertiary sources

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 WP:UNDUE 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The tertiary sources are largely agreed that Hindu India is central to a discussion of caste. Yet in this article (see this version) India is casually mentioned as just one example. Does this article minimize that central role (in a social and historical ill) and thereby engage in a kind of defensive universalism, not to mention original research and synthesis? 13:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:RFC guideline, I note that this RfC is improperly worded. Here is an alternate statement: The tertiary sources on the subject of caste largely admit dispute (see here). Some tertiary sources on caste focus primarily on Latin America or Africa, some focus primarily on India, and many tertiary sources discuss caste as a worldwide phenomenon. Beyond tertiary sources, numerous peer reviewed secondary source publications, highly cited per citation index scores, overwhelmingly note that caste is not unique to India and it is a socio-cultural phenomena widely observed in the world. Wikipedia has a family of interlinked articles on caste, including one exclusively on Caste system in India and numerous articles related to the subject. Does it make sense to ignore thousands of scholarly articles on caste and its history around the world, and reduce this article to something that essentially duplicates the article Caste system in India (Fowler&fowler has linked to an old version of this article above, for this RfC purposes please see the pre-RfC September 3 2012 version of this article here)? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler removed the above. I re-added this because the official WP:RFC#Suggestions for responding states this: If you feel a RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. FWIW, your time stamp is preserved above. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC guidelines also say at the very outset: "Keep the RfC statement simple and succinct as possible." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS I referred respondents to the version of the page that existed before I edited the article. The difference is only in the first two sentences. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will be inviting some Wikipedia editors who have experience in either Reliable Sources discussions or Caste discussions on Wikipedia. These are User:Fifelfoo, User:Qwyrxian, user:Dbachmann, and User:MatthewVanitas. Whether they will respond is anybody's guess. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand the problem. Nobody is going to dispute that the concept of "caste" (by which we mean not just varna, but primarily jati) is central to Indian society. This doesn't mean that the entire India article needs to focus on the topic, but obviously it is going to be a major topic under the "Society" header, per WP:SS a summary of the subordinate articles. --dab (𒁳) 06:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Dab, it is not about the India article; it is about this, the Caste, article in which a mere 478 words out of 9,443 are devoted to India. Even that content spends some of its time mentioning caste in non-South Asian cultures. This has been a POV pushed long on Wikipedia by nationalist editors, who attempt to universalize India's perceived social ills (and reel in Pakistan, Bangladesh, ..., Europe, Latin America, East Asia, .... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ratnakar.kulkarni

I don't think that there is any debate about existence of caste system among Hindus in India but even according to your source (which are tertiary references while we need secondary) caste system very much exists outside India. You just cannot cherry pick your favorite source and change the lead of the article and make it look like the article of "Caste System of India". Please note this is a general article if you say that it is dominant in India mention you can do it in a better way. I should appreciate you audacity. You are trying to fool people by writing Caste a complex social institution characterized by endogamy, hereditary transmission of occupation, and status in a hierarchy, which is especially important in the lives of Hindus in India.--sarvajna (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I wholly concur. The fact of the matter is that the much touted tertiary sources don't seem to contradict our stance, rather many corroborate what we have been saying all along, that yes Caste-system was and is a problem in Hinduism/Indian society but social stratification is present outside of Hinduism or India also. Repeating the same claims again and again, is not really helpful when they are either accepted or replied to or rebutted. That is the problem with Fowler. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 15:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if social stratification exists outside India, then put that content in the page social stratification. If social segregation exists outside India, put that content in social segregation. If racial segregation exists outside India, put that content in racial segregation. If racial discrimination exists outside India, put that content in racial discrimination. If social hierarchy exists outside India, put that content in the page social hierarchy. Why are you stuffing the garbage in Caste? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler you have made a very good move and have proposed things (below), looks very progressive. Good that you are moving away from the stand that Caste is just a Hindu thing(atleast that is how it looks). May be you are frustrated which can be clearly seen in your comments. Stop calling the opinion of other editors as garbage and do not consider yourself as the sole representative of truth and verifiability. If you are tired and want to blow off steam take some rest.--sarvajna (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the language. It wasn't the opinion of editors, but rather the content that I characterize so. The content is not about "caste" in most cases, but rather about social stratification, social segregation or hierarchy in which the word "caste" may or may not have been used (and sometimes casually when it is). In other words, the major portion of the article is an exercise in en mass original research. I challenge you to find one article anywhere (in the electronic or print scholarship) that has such a universal treatment of caste. I have never said that caste in only seen within Hinduism, but rather that Hindu India is the classic, the main, and the most frequently cited example of it. As such, it should receive proportionate treatment in Wikipedia's flagship article on caste. It shouldn't be that the Caste in Korea section is longer than the Caste in India section, that the caste in Europe section is five times as long as the Caste in South Asia section. I have proposed the spinouts in order that the other sections can be drastically reduced in size. The problem with the massive original research and synthesis will remain, but will then be the province of the spinout articles. Here we can include only what is rigorously cited and synthesis-free. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS I should add that the word "caste" has been used much more in the context of Racial segregation in the United States than any society in Europe. Yet that section, "Caste in the United States" is conspicuously absent, as is obviously the article Caste in the United States. (The topic is only briefly discussed in the context of Gunnar Myrdal's book in an abstract section later.) The reason for this, I suspect, is that it would be an obvious content fork of the racial segregation article and be immediately pounced upon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of your points mentioned above(something that happens very rarely). caste system in Hinduism is a classic example lets give give weight but that doesn't mean we mention it in very first line Caste a complex social institution characterized by endogamy, hereditary transmission of occupation, and status in a hierarchy, which is especially important in the lives of Hindus in India. As correctknowledge mentioned below we can still keep India under Asia section as it would be more logical also we can expand the India section.--sarvajna (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:) That's why I didn't revert Mrt3366's reversal of my first sentence. (That doesn't of course mean that I agree with the current first two sentences, which seem to imply that India is the most frequently contested ethnographic example of caste). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by CorrectKnowledge

Before we go off into a tangential direction, let me point out that this is technical issue rather than a NPOV/balance related issue. India like Yemen, Korea etc. has just one section in this article even though it is a predominant example of caste because of the summary style of writing articles. The content on India is just a summary of Caste system in India, History of the Indian caste system, Varna (Hinduism) etc. which in turn branch out into hundreds of other articles on caste. As such the size of the section cannot be longer than a certain limit for this article. I don't see where the problem is, please clarify further if I've missed something. Regards. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 14:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ratnakar.kulkarni and CorrectKnowledge. Per WP:SS official wiki guidelines, "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."

I plan to add a few points and a summary comparison between tertiary sources not previously covered.

Meanwhile, anyone who has not followed the discussion on this topic since early August, is urged to get the full history and consequent development of this article by reading this discussion and the last version of this article dated September 3 2012.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, CorrectKnowledge, it is not even remotely a technical issue. It is one of creating a content fork so that the content of this article can be distorted. See Wikipedia:Content_forking#Article_spinouts:_.22Summary_style.22_articles, which states, "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." The caste system in India section is not even remotely a NPOV summary of the Caste system in India article; for it to be so, it will need to be much longer, if not longer than all the other caste systems combined. Besides many subsections, such as Korea, have their own parent articles, yet the "Caste system in Korea" subsection is longer than the India subsection. The combined length of the content under "East Asia" is not much smaller than the article Caste system in India; one could easily create an article "Caste system in East Asia" and summarize it here in a proportionate one small paragraph. Notice also that an article Caste system in East Asia would have a hard time passing any AfD discussion; yet here is is blithely masquerading as "legitimate" content. If you disagree, try creating such an article. Same with "Caste in Europe." Try creating that article. The Europe section certainly has article length content under it. If it survives AfD, I'll eat my hat; yet that content is alive and well in this page. Notice also that many of the sub sections are simply titled "England," "Korea," etc, not "Caste in England," "Caste in Korea," etc. that is because many of the reference cited do not use the word "caste" at all. They simply talk of some form of social stratification. That is the major original research part of this article, which I haven't even particularly talked about. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sections shouldn't be named Caste in England etc. per MOS:HEAD (Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article), but I catch your drift. There seem to be two different issues here: a)The summaries of spinouts of India, Korea etc. do not accurately represent them, b)Some sections contain original research and/or misrepresent their sources. I am not sure how this RfC will help, it seems a bit premature. The issues need to be discussed separately and in detail. Some of the sections in this article cannot be spun out into new articles, but that does not make their inclusion here questionable (unless they violate WP:OR of course). You are also implying that India's section should have the longest length in this article. That need not be the case because editors do not predetermine the size of content they are adding to the article. It flows naturally from the number of reliable secondary sources available and the directions on splitting out into a new article. The smaller size of India's section does not necessarily imply that it is unbalanced. However, if it does not accurately represent the spun out articles it requires further discussion. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 15:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage Fowler&fowler to identify sources supporting his assertion:

....'that is because many of the reference cited do not use the word "caste" at all.'

A while ago, I verified the sources cited in this article's section on England, Korea, France, Africa, Yemen, China, etc. and each source I checked did use the word caste. FWIW, the article Caste system in India and numerous linked and sub-linked spin-off articles therein, taken together, is many many times larger than this article. They had grown to be much larger than they are now, and were heavily trimmed per consensus (see talk page of Caste system in India, for example). ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very simple solution. Why don't you try creating the article, Caste in Europe, the content here is some ten times as long as the India section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"India like Yemen, Korea etc. has just one section in this article even though it is a predominant example of caste because of the summary style of writing articles." - yup. But the thing is India is predominantly cited as an example. India is not the only example, keep that in mind. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 16:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for your other assertion, ApostlevonColorado, hah, it is hard to figure out where "caste" is mentioned because in many instances (eg citations 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128) you don't provide any page numbers whatsoever in the references. Are you saying the word caste occurs somewhere in the 300 page book. How were you able to verify that? By going through every page in the book? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article on Caste in Europe might not be a bad idea at all. It is the only major section to not have a spin out. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 16:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think sooner or later one ought to create it. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 16:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ApostlevonColorado, reference number 114 is a New York Times article about the Cagots from 1888, which uses only the word "outcast," (not the word "outcaste"). "Caste" doesn't seem to make an appearance, in this highly dated (and obviously unreliable) reference. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See citation 14, for Cagots, by Tom Knox (10 June 2010). "The untouchables of FRANCE: How swarthy Pyrenean race persecuted for centuries are still being abused today". London: Daily Mail. He uses the word caste in paragraphs 25-40. The New York Times meet wiki's reliable source guidelines, is included as a second independent source; the NYTimes article verifies the 'Cagots were considered repulsive, morally impure and shunned' part of the summary. On Roma, see Lemon's book and other publications - you will find she uses the word caste. Your own tertiary sources, listed above on this talk page, mention gypsies/Roma people have been described as castes by various scholars. Yes, please get the book and read the sources. I am certain that you will find the sources cited about castes outside India, in this article, include the word "caste".

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it is reference 116. I am not talking about the article Cagots, but the lead paragraph of the section Caste#Europe and its reference 116. It is unsupported by any other reference and doesn't mention caste. The very next reference 117, Beatrice Gottlieb (1994). The Family in the Western World from the Black Death to the Industrial Age. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-509056-7., which is cited again in the England section, seems to make no mention of the word "caste," at least the Google search fails to find the word. How many examples do you want me to find? These are just random two. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting that the New York Times from 1888, with a 150 year old printer typeface to boot, is a reliable source per Wikipedia guidelines? Would you like to debate that on the Reliable Sources talk page? Please read it again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS It is not even the New York Times; it is the Times quoting Popular Science (formerly the Popular Science Montly). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was also referring to Caste#Europe. The first time citation 116 is mentioned in that section of this article, it is mentioned together with citation 14. Please read both, I do not want to repeat my explanation above. Gotlieb supports the summary; get the book and read it. On England or Cagots or anything else, if the quality of this article would be improved by citing additional sources, we can work towards that goal. There are numerous citations out there that use the word caste in describing historical England, Cagots, etc.

Meanwhile, part of our month long dispute is whether this article should be almost entirely about India (your position as I understand it), or should it be a more balanced article with worldwide perspective as described by all sides of the WP:RS scholarly dispute on the subject of caste (my position). I request that you respect the WP:DR process. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did the Daily Mail supported by a 130 year old article from the Popular Science Monthly which uses "cretin" to describe congenital hypothyroidism become a Wikipedia reliable source? Your admonitions for etiquette notwithstanding, I am far from simply suggesting that this article can be improved by finding better sources, I am rather suggesting that you have engaged in en masse original research in much of the article. "Get the book and read it," is not an adequate response in the face of such a serious allegation, especially when a book (Gottlieb) which never uses the word "caste" once is used in a citation which does not provide page numbers. Lastly, let me suggest that you make a separate statement here, a response to the RfC statement, rather than carry on an endless dialog with me in a subsection meant for someone else's statement. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apostlevoncolorado, it is best not to change the article for the duration of the RfC. It becomes very difficult for the people who are commenting as they have a moving target. Please self-revert your Cagots edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler - I did not change the content, simply added two citations for WP:V - one book and one peer reviewed journal article citation that address your concern above. If there is an official wiki policy that suggests wiki contributors should not add citations to address verifiability concerns during RfC, please link the relevant page below. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In an article, in which much of the criticism is about original research and, consequently about the sourcing, it is not a good idea to keep changing the sourcing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mrt3366

I didn't have time to go through all of the sources and frankly I think its sheer redundancy puts it close to the category of WP:TLDR.

But from a cursory glance I can tell most of the tertiary sources that were deposited agree on one thing nearly all societies have had some form of social stratification, whether ascriptive or achieved, based on race, class, religion, ethnicity, language, education, or occupation. But they also claim, what we already accepted, that the caste system is a complicated problem in India is possibly the most complex and rigid. But we have already accepted that. How many times does the nominator want to make us repeat that? What's wrong with you (Fowler) buddy? Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 15:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, caste is a form of 'social segregation' and should be treated and talked about in such terms. The very word "caste" has been of a non-Indian origin (meaning "segregation"), yet has been imputed to Indian hindu culture umpteenth number of times in this discussion, why so? Why is fowler so eager to ascribe 'castus' - (latin word meaning segregation) mostly to Hinduism as well as Hindu culture? Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 16:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tertiary sources, whose content you distort in summary, consider India, especially Hindu India, to be the classic and most frequently cited (and some say only) ethnographic example of the caste system. As such it should be given major emphasis and space in this article. Instead, this article after a transparently perfunctory discussion of India under "South Asia," moves on to spend more time on the section Caste#Africa, which, it turns out, is longer than the parent article it cites, Caste system in Africa!!! What do you call that other than content-forking? This article is not about social segregation, which has its own article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The tertiary sources, whose content you distort in summary" - I didn't quote anything, that's my personal observation so where does this "distort" come from? Change your habit of assuming bad faith. Yes, I do it too sometimes, I know it's hard but at least try, okay? Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 06:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ApostleVonColorado Section created by Fowler&fowler

Per WP:RFC guideline, I note that this RfC is improperly worded. Here is an alternate statement: The tertiary sources on the subject of caste largely admit dispute (see here). Some tertiary sources on caste focus primarily on Latin America or Africa, some focus primarily on India, and many tertiary sources discuss caste as a worldwide phenomenon. Beyond tertiary sources, numerous peer reviewed secondary source publications, highly cited per citation index scores, overwhelmingly note that caste is not unique to India and it is a socio-cultural phenomena widely observed in the world. Wikipedia has a family of interlinked articles on caste, including one exclusively on Caste system in India and numerous articles related to the subject. Does it make sense to ignore thousands of scholarly articles on caste and its history around the world, and reduce this article to something that essentially duplicates the article Caste system in India (Fowler&fowler has linked to an old version of this article above, for this RfC purposes please see the pre-RfC September 3 2012 version of this article here)? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you can't change the wording of the RfC. You can make your objections here. Please don't be disruptive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I linked it to the version that existed before I made a contribution and before the dispute began, the version we were disputing but in which I was not able to make my contribution as a result of your edit warring, not just once, but twice, especially after you made spurious implications in edit summaries about Andre Beteille's "village focused study," when his definition is quoted in the article on caste in the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler - Please do not delete, pretend to be me, or edit my sections on my behalf. It is uncivil. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fowler&fowler

1. The main problem with this article is that of due weight.
2. Wikipedia policy clearly states, (See WP:TERTIARY):

   Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.

   In other words, we, as individual editors or as a group, cannot evaluate the weight of scholarly opinion ourselves, we have to rely on scholarly sources to do that. Typically, tertiary sources—other encyclopedias, specialist references (e.g. Oxford Dictionary of Sociology), review-of-the-literature articles in journals, and widely used academic textbooks published by academic presses—do just that. (The h-index or impact factor are relevant when evaluating the reliability of a secondary source, however they do not play a role in due weight.)
3. Reliably published tertiary sources overwhelmingly state that India is the classic, the paradigmatic, and the most frequently cited ethnographic example of Caste. The reliably published tertiary sources spend at least half their content on the Indian caste system. This article, in its current form, devotes more space to each of the caste systems in Korea, China, and England, than it does on India.
4. No one is suggesting that this article focus exclusively on India, but the coverage of India needs to be significantly expanded, that is, in proportion with its coverage in the tertiary literature. The importance of India needs to be clearly acknowledged, not ambiguously and grudgingly, as in the obviously false statement in the lead, "caste ... whose frequently identified and frequently contested ethnographic examples are those of the Hindu caste system of India." cited to a very dated article from 1960. Even this acknowledgment was a response to my input in the article. Before I intervened in August, the lead was blithely traipsing through generalities, mentioning "Hindu" for the first time as an afterthought, as in, "The use of a caste system is not unique to any religion. Castes have been observed in societies that are, for example, predominantly Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist." (See, here.)
5. It has been stated that there already is an article Caste system in India, and consequently, the coverage of India here needs to be nothing but a short summary. My riposte is simple: This is Wikipedia's flagship article on the subject of caste. All other articles, such as Caste system in India, are "children" or spin-out articles. The spinouts need to be summarized, but not in such a severe way that changes the overall weight of their coverage or importance in this article; otherwise, the article becomes a POV fork: it sweeps the India-related content under the rug of the spinout, so that it can concentrate on other content.
6. I have serious concerns that the sections on Caste in many countries, such as China, Korea, England, France, Poland, Sweden, involve great leaps of OR and Synthesis. The word "caste" is now a common word in the English language, which, especially in transformed and figurative usage, means many things. It has been used in the context of pretty much every country in the world. It has even been used in descriptions of penguin societies in Antarctica. Such usage is loose usage, just another word for discrimination, stratification or social exclusion. Many of the references cited involve such casual use, where the word "caste" is not defined, but simply used without warning or preparation in the narrative.
7. The country most written about in the context of caste after India is the United States. Yet this article is strangely silent about Caste in the United States. Creating that section (and a parent article for that) is more important than writing about caste in Finland and Sweden. I suspect I know the reason why that section or article has not been created. It is that it will be seen as a content fork of the article Racial segregation in the United States and editors from that article will quickly challenge it.
8. (Blatant and Shameful Bias and OR). user:ApostleVonColorado has created a blatantly biased section Racial versus non-racial caste systems. Evidence:
   1. AVC mentions the great African-American sociologist of the Chicago school (sociology), Oliver Cox as disagreeing with the idea of race in the US being a kind of "caste system." But he dismisses Cox's argument. As evidence, he mentions a 2007 paper by a then graduate student, Daniel Immerwahr, and states, "According to Immerwahr, by 1960, Cox claims were demonstrably false and absurd." Well, since ApostlevonColorado is continuously flaunting the h-indexes of his references, let's examine the h-numbers: Oliver Cox: 45; Daniel Immerwahr: 6. So, what do we make of Immerwahr? By AVC's own benchmark, is he 1/7 as reliable, per WP:RS, as Cox?
   2. AVC fails to mention what the great sociologists and anthropologists of caste thought of this, that, in effect, by the late 60s, the comparative school of caste and race was dead in the water. Evidence:
      1. In 1966, the great social anthropologist of caste Edmund Leach (h-index 49) wrote,

         In contemporary literature we meet the word 'caste' in two quite different contexts. On the one hand it is a word used without any particular geographical limitation to denote a type of class system in which hierarchy is very sharply defined and in which the boundaries between the different layers of the hierarchy are rigidly fixed. A 'ruling class' may be described as a caste when the fact of class endogamy is strikingly obvious and when the inheritance of privilege has become narrowly restricted to members of that 'caste' ... Obvious examples are the colour bar situation in the Southern states of the United States and in South Africa ... The other use of the word 'caste' is to define the system of social organization found in traditional India and surviving to a large extent to the present day. I myself consider that, as sociologists, we shall be advised to restrict the use of the term 'caste' to the Indian phenomenon only'. (h-index: Edmund Leach: 49) (Reference: (Leach, Edmund (16 September 2009), "Caste, Class, and Slavery: The Taxonomic Problem", in CIBA Foundation Symposium (ed.), Caste and Race: Comparative Approaches, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 5–, ISBN 978-0-470-71704-2, retrieved 15 September 2012),)

         Yet, Edmund Leach goes uncited in this article, while Berreman (h-index 26) is cited again and again.
      2. The preeminent 20th century theorist of caste, Louis Dumont (h-index 46) also attending the symposium, drew a similar conclusion:

         It was only natural that the 'something in common' between the Indian caste system and the American 'colour bar' should have attracted attention. The question is whether putting them under the same class-heading helps research or hinders it. I believe that it tends to hinder, at the least, a fundamental kind of research.

         Yet, Dumont goes unmentioned in this article, while a graduate student's dismissive sentence (h-index 6) is quoted.
      3. Stanley J. Tambiah (h-index 29) said,

         Caste embodies ideas of relative purity and impurity; it is an integrated exchange system of occupational skills and ritual services: it distributes power in a particular manner; it is a way of controlling and restricting marriage; at its highest levels it is associated with philosophical ideas which are not represented in race relations.

         Yet Tambiah too goes unmentioned in this article.
      4. Later in the same section, it is stated matter of factly, "In contemporary literature, scholars refer to the anticaste principle and various forms of racial and non-racial caste systems, particularly in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment of the American Constitution," as if this was taken for granted. If fails to mention that there are prominent critics. Jack Balkin (h-index: 52), for example, has stated:

         American constitutional theorists' romance with 'caste' as an explanatory category needs serious reappraisal ... social stratification in the United States does not really match the technical definition of caste ... caste is at best an effective hyperbole.' (Balkin, J. (1997) “The Constitution of Status,” ‘’Yale Law Journal’’, 106, 2358.

         Balkin too is not mentioned in this article.
   3. Finally, since this article is blatantly pushing the POV (which in the past was also pushed on this page by the banned Hindu nationalist POV pushers such as user:Hkelkar) that caste is not especially Indian—that what there is in India is very similar to racism in American or South Africa, that what little there was in India was always opposed throughout India's history by brave Indians, and what looms large today was really thrust upon Indians by the British—it fails entirely, flagrantly, and shamefully to mention any of the great Indian scholars of caste: M. N. Srinivas (h-index: 57), Andre Beteille (h-index: 29), Veena Das (h-index 40), G. S. Ghurye (h-index: 20) or R. S. Khare (h-index: 45). I suspect I know the reason why: they don't write about any country other than India.
9. I thought at first there were some redeeming features in this article. I now think it is plain OR, Synthesis, and Biased POV-pushing. It needs to be entirely rewritten by someone (or some people) other than ApostleVonColorado. To give you an idea of the injustice done, let me cite the first reference in ApostleVonColorado's list of tertiary sources. He notes there: "This encyclopedia is the most cited/referred to in social and behavioral sciences."
   1. I will be delighted to email the pdf to anyone who wants to read the entire 4-page article. Please email me and find out what is says about caste in the rest of the world! This after all is AVC's best reference!

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Fowler&fowler's statement

What was the original date of publication of these articles on caste in the tertiary publications? We should look for tertiary publications that are recent. The general understanding is that caste issues are not the central issue in urban India today, hence you will not find many articles on caste in tertiary publications (like newspapers) in present day. Much of what you are saying can be discussed in Varna (Hinduism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoshigaki (talk • contribs) 12:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is utter poppycock. Caste is still the defining social concept for the majority of the Indian population. Have you heard of the official reservatuon system? Arranged marriages? The 2011 census? Caste associations and political parties with clout? Riots? Not to forget the activity by subcontinent IPs on caste-related articles here at Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoshigaki, As you will see, most articles in the tertiary list were written within the last 25 years, especially the scholarly tertiaries which occur later in the list. Tertiary publications, by their very nature, are a little dated. Varna, is just one aspect of the Caste system in India (itself is a spinout of this article); jati is another. I wouldn't say that caste is not important in contemporary Indian society, but that it is undergoing a transformation. Like Sitush says, it is certainly very important in election politics; also important in affirmative action. There should be an subsection in this article on caste today. (See for example, the Encyclopedia of the Developing World cited in Ninthabout's comment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush, Are there recent sources that say "Caste is the defining social concept in India today? I doubt that publications will have the audacity to say that. Almost every country that is pluralistic has their own reservation system for minorities (in the USA it is called affirmative action). Riots based on social structures have occurred recently in the USA as well as in the UK (London). I am stressing on recent sources because India is undergoing fast-paced changes on a massive scale and what was true a couple of decades ago may no longer hold true. Hoshigaki (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler, We might be in agreement about most points but it is your contention about the centrality of caste in India that I disagree with. Caste continues to be a social problem in India but it is not the social problem in contemporary India. Hoshigaki (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoshgaki. Like I said below, you've got it backwards. It is the centrality of India to Caste; not the other way around. I'm now gone for the rest of the day. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cite one tertiary source that says, "India is the classic, the paradigmatic, and the most frequently cited ethnographic example of Caste." - even if you could, that wouldn't justify removal of content from any other sections in the article. If you wanna add something, why don't you propose it here and we can, instead of wasting time, discuss that effectively? India is central to caste, is a subtle violation of WP:SYNTH. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would, it would violate Wikipedia due weight guidelines. In keeping with other tertiary sources, which have anywhere between 75% to 100% of content devoted to India, if we were to keep the Caste-outside-of-India material, the India section would have to be expanded at least 15- to 20-fold. And, that only addresses weight. The issues of OR and Bias in the non-India sections of the article, as I indicate above for one, is another story. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS And please don't boldface your emphasis. It is enough to italicize it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The h-index numbers reported by Fowler&fowler are incorrectly determined and wrong. A correct determination would exclude different authors with same name, and focus on caste-related literature. Additionally correct h-index and citation scores would search for exact author name match, not diffuse match (such as two or more authors with one with Veena as first name, and another author with Das as last name). For example, there are more than one M.N. Srinivas. For evidence, see this. Similarly there are several authors named Edmund Leach. With correct and more relevant h-index and cite score determination, one gets significantly smaller scores for M. N. Srinivas, Andre Beteille, Veena Das, G.S. Ghurye, R.S. Khare, Edmund Leach, T.N. Madan and others. I will address this in my comment to this RfC, and I skip repeating it here. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AVC, Please no nickel and diming. None of these software tools are perfect, but no one in their right minds would compare a third year graduate student, Daniel Immerwahr, now a junior faculty (whose specialty is not caste anyway), with the great sociologists of caste such as Edmund Leach, Louis Dumont, Stanley Tambiah, M. N. Srinivas, Andre Beteille, G. S. Ghurye and R. S. Khare. There is a good reason why they have long-standing Wikipedia pages (and I didn't create them) and Gerald Duane Berreman (or Gerald D. Berreman or Gerald Berreman or G. D. Berreman) or Daniel Immerwahr (or D. Immerwahr) do not. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AVC Edmund Leach is the subject of his own scholar biography: Stanley J. Tambiah (2002), Edmund Leach: An Anthropological Life, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-52102-4, retrieved 17 September 2012. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AVC. And there is a entire paragraph devoted to M. N. Srinivas in Encyclopaedia Britannica article on "Anthropology." Here is what it says:

The Indian scholar who in the immediate postwar period played a critical role in linking Western anthropological theory with locally grounded knowledge was M.N. Srinivas. He had studied with Ghurye in Bombay before seeking admission in 1945 for the D.Phil. in social anthropology at Oxford. At Oxford Srinivas first studied with A.R. Radcliffe-Brown and then completed his doctorate under the supervision of Edward Evans-Pritchard. Srinivas adapted the structural-functionalism of his mentors to his own work in India. In his well-known published dissertation, Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India (1952), Srinivas demonstrated how it was possible to discern patterns that had widespread significance in India even among a people like the Coorgs, who considered themselves a distinct ethnic group. After a brief period at Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Srinivas would become in 1959 the first professor of sociology at the University of Delhi. This department—embracing concerns that might, in a British or American university, have occupied sociologists and political scientists as well as social anthropologists—became the preeminent training ground for an Indian school of social science of broad scope, great theoretical originality, and high international visibility.

Please don't tell us about his h-index not being perfect. There is a limit to which Wikipedia and Wikipedian's can put up with low-level polite disruption that you continue to pursue in this article and elsewhere. When you search for "Gerald Berreman" on Britannica; it takes you either to "Brahman (caste)" or "John Berryman (poet)" That says it all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler - On Immerwahr and rest, your objection seems to be with peer reviewed journal articles and reliable secondary sources. That is what wikipedia community agreed content sourcing guideline is. Strange? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AVC, In this day and age you can find a source for any assertion, however crazy, such as the one you found in Immerwahr. Our job, however, is to report scholarly consensus, or, in its absence, to report the controversy. The scholarly consensus is determined, per Wikipedia policy, by scholarly tertiary sources, not by us. These tertiary sources are unanimous in the view that the leaders, the trend-setters, the major taste-makers in the field of Caste are: Louis Dumont, Edmund Leach, Kim Marriott, Ronald Inden, Stanley Tambiah, M. N. Srinivas, G. S. Ghurye, Andre Beteille, Veena Das, R. S. Khare. The consensus view is not decided by Wikipedians after Googling h-indexes; otherwise, we end up with a Theater of the Absurd in which one scholar, whose views have now been largely discarded by the scholarly community, Gerald Berreman, has been given star billing and a nobody, Daniel Immerwarh, who wrote a caste-related article as a graduate student, and doesn't even work in the field, gets to make an appearance and trash the major scholars. That has brought this article to the sorry state it is in today. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what our job is, but I know what it isn't. Our job is certainly not to censor information based on our own POVs and interpretations of what the sources are actually saying, that's an unalterable fact. It is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic. WP:BALANCE says

Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, okay Fowler? You cannot filter out verifiable information based on your predilection and preferences. That's most certainly not our job. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by RegentsPark

From the Encyclopedia Britannica article on caste ("caste." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 06 Sep. 2012): 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. From the Encyclopedia Britannica (the first two sentences in the lede). Later, in the lede Caste is generally believed to be an ancient, abiding, and unique Indian institution upheld by a complex cultural ideology. Note the repeated use of unique. Need I say more? --regentspark (comment) 18:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler has already used Encyclopædia Britannica in his 30 tertiary sources which have been reviewed by sarvajna and ApostlevonColorado (all in collapsable boxes). Mrt and sarvajna have commented upon the sources further in their RfC comments. Basically, if you have the patience to go through all that data you might find objections and responses to your comment. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it necessary. Britannica clearly says that caste is a uniquely Hindu issue. Can't imagine what sort of objections and responses there can be to that. But, I'll try later - no time now. --regentspark (comment) 19:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't take very long. Apostle's objection seems to be an obsession with India regarding caste by British authors. He/she explicitly excludes Britannica since 1911 (presumably because, since 1911, it has been an American institution) and these quotes are from the current edition. Are there other 'objections' and 'responses' to these specific quotes I've missed? --regentspark (comment) 19:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if I am recollecting my due diligence and interpreting my notes here correctly, the 12th, 13th and at least one print of 14th edition of Britannica, had a lead similar to the 11th edition (1911). See this list and discussion for more. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, this provides the context to that list and discussion. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark - The author of the caste article in Encyclopedia Britannica, T.N. Madan has authored a much longer article on caste in Students' Britannica India (Volume 6, 2000 Edition), ISBN 0-85229-762-9, pages 127-135.

T.N. Madan notes in Students' Britannica India article that his unstated and obvious assumption is that caste is an institution typical of South Asia. He acknowledges that this assumption's validity depends on whether one takes a structural or cultural approach. He then gives one example of structural approach wherein a racial social stratification is caste (outside India). In other words, T.N. Madan has acknowledged that caste, when considered in structural sense, is not unique to India. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TN Madan's article, written for Britannica's major revision of 1979, has one throwaway line, in an article of six pages, on the structural-functional literature. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A New York Times article states this as it compares the Britannica and Wikipedia([1]):

Since it was started 11 years ago, Wikipedia has moved a long way toward replacing the authority of experts with the wisdom of the crowds. The site is now written and edited by tens of thousands of contributors around the world, and it has been gradually accepted as a largely accurate and comprehensive source, even by many scholars and academics.

Britannica sales peaked in 1990 and is going out of print. They seem to be adopting the Wikipedia model now to stay alive and definitely lag behind Wikipedia. Should we give it so much importance then, especially to an article on caste written in 1979? Hoshigaki (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia unfortunately doesn't have signed articles (if slightly dated) by world experts on the topic of caste, such as T. N. Madan. This RfC is not about the viability of Britannica; it is about Caste. Same goes for your off-topic optimistic comments about Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my comment sounded off-topic but the intention was point out that your source number 5 of the 30 tertiary publications may be out dated (being from 1979) since a lot of things have changed in Indian society after the caste system was declared illegal by the Indian constitution. We need recent tertiary sources. I am certainly optimistic about Wikipedia, hence my presence here. Hoshigaki (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:) OK, last point well taken. See my reply in the section above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoshigaki, we've had the "illegal per the constitution" statement made on countless occasions in countless articles and talk pages. It didn't matter then and it does not matter now. For all of the grandiose social ideals displayed around 1948, the fact remains that caste is a social mechanism that is accepted and indeed employed by the various governments within India, including the Union government. The official reservation system is proof of that, as is the recognition of caste-based political parties etc. Please do not kid yourself otherwise. And since the constitution was 1948-ish, I am unsure why 1979 is a particularly significant date for proposing to invalidate sources. Sure, we should use recent sources where possible but in order to be balanced it is may well be that we cannot legitimately ignore "star quality" authors of the recent past. I do think that this RfC is wandering off down various somewhat murky byways. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush, Sources stating and showing the progress with regard to eliminating caste inequalities outnumber sources making the claim that caste is the central social issue in India today. If a Wikipedia article gives that impression (as this RfC implies), we will be misleading our readers. Hoshigaki (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoshigaki, The RfC statement does not even remotely imply that Caste is the central social issue of India today, only that India is central to any general and complete discussion of the concept of Caste. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler is correct regarding the scope of the RfC. Let's not drift too far away from it in these discussions. How India may or may not be proceeding with its social engineering schemes, except in so far as that they exist is a rebuttal of your earlier claims. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoshigaki - T.N. Madan has voluntarily limited himself to caste system in India, and he admits caste is not exclusive to India. If we go by h-index, citation scores and such measures, on reliable source publications about caste in reviews, in books, in peer reviewed journals, numerous authors are far more widely cited and accepted than Triloki Nath Madan. As you note, Encyclopedia Britannica has been phasing out - the caste articles in Encyclopedia Britannica editions prior to 1979 had a much longer article on caste and those old versions included a more extensive worldwide discussion. In the era of possibly high inflation and low sales past 1979, combined with too many topics and costs of paper/printing in 1980s, the paper encyclopedias shrunk articles at the expense of quality. Thus, I believe, wikipedia's content sourcing guideline 'rely on secondary sources' is prudent and wise (see WP:RS). For this article, it would be unwise to ignore the most cited secondary sources. Yes, tertiary sources should be considered, but not with bias or selectively; if you consider encyclopedias written say in 1950s to 1970s and the same encyclopedia in 1980s, and see a major difference or complete absence of worldwide coverage - we must ask what happened? (after all sociocultural phenomenon such as caste are not a new unexpected event that just happened). If you see a dispute between encyclopedias and textbooks, we must ask what happened, and we must ask if we can rely on one but ignore the other in our effort to create a quality article. Creating or improving quality of an article such as this one, with balance, NPOV, no original research, and verifiability in reliable published secondary sources is hard work. Welcome to wikipedia, by the way. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AVC Can you list all the authors you have used on the subject of caste that have higher h-index than T. N. Madan? Please list authors and h-index you have used. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AVC. I took a look at the Students Britannica reference that you cite above and, while Madan does say what you quote above, he is quite explicit that the idea of caste is very Hindu in nature. For example, he clearly states that the term caste came into usage as a means of describing the division of Hindu society, first by the Portuguese and subsequently by in English and other European languages (Dutch and French). Caste, according to Madan, is centrally Hindu in nature and is only peripherally used to describe social divisions in other cultures. --regentspark (comment) 15:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fifelfoo

My comments were solicited. I have not read your article.

Using the discussion of tertiary sources here #Serious Neutrality and Balance Issues, the following tertiary sources are worth attending to, because they are appropriate scholarly tertiary sources, mapping the advice regarding history and tertiary sources in WP:HISTRS onto this social science field (and as I have done anyway, in the past, repeatedly, at RS/N), and keeping in mind the field specificity of caste's scholarly interest we should esteem:

• Barnard, Alan (2002)
• Kuper, Adam; Kuper, Jessica (2003)
• International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2008
• O'Brien, Jodi (2008)
• Schaefer, Richard T. (2008)

the others being either non-scholarly, or to my mind sufficiently removed in topic from the sociology of stratification across time.

ApostleVonColorado fails to provide adequate citations for more than one of the works they attempt to cite and I am highly resistant to doing extra work because other editors can't find a publisher with two hands and a worldcat. As such I'm not going to comment on these things which may or may not be publications.

In the scholarly tertiaries, India is mentioned as a critical example repeatedly. This article should, therefore, give prominence to the summary style section dealing with the significance to the sociology of caste of the Indian example. This example should probably be ordered first if examples are used in writing this article. If examples are not used then a summary style section with a main link to caste in India is probably required due to the prominence of this example to the development of the social science concept. While this article has a responsibility to the social science concept of caste across all human societies and cultures, and across all sociologies of stratification, at the same time this article has a responsibility to reflect the development of the concept in relation to the "paradigmatic example" (Kuper and Kuper 2003).

I have now read your article. It is a coatrack of the most disturbing kind. If I wanted a list of examples I would go to category:caste. If I wanted a discussion of the social phenomena and sociological classification of strata known as caste I would come here. The section on Italy is OR, the only theory in use is from 1917 and is a just-so story. This isn't an article on caste, it is a list of OR related to stratification. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "I regret that ISBN and titles is all I can provide, because my due diligence has been based on the hard copy print versions." look at the page with the bibliographic details, it is one of the first ten pages of a work. I am not liable to deal with your serious competence issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fifelfoo - I provided bibliographic details for each. For example: Encyclopedia of Developing World, Thomas Leonard (Editor), ISBN 1-57958-388-1, Volume 1, 2006. Do you need anything else? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The publisher and the place of publication is pretty damn essential to evaluate the quality of sources. If you are citing a separately authored chapter in an edited book, then I also require the author of the chapter, the chapter title, and the book's editor along with the book title, year of publication, place of publication and publisher. All of this data can be acquired by you if you possess the ISBN. I am not going to go out and sift through worldcat or british library to find bibliographic details that I have a reasonable expectation of if the issue goes to source reliability for claims, weight or structure. It is a matter of courtesy. When citing for your readers you can use any consistent style. In this kind of situation, where you're specifically asking for the time and attention of editors who want to at first glance draw conclusions from the publisher, title, author list and year alone so they know which part of the citation to interrogate through detailed searching it pays to provide a full citation. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fiflefoo - The O'Brien, Jodi (2008) work may be a reliable source for gender studies but with entries on topics like castration, breast implants, cervical cancer and none on the varna, jati systems, I would not count it to be reliable for the subject area of this article. It defines caste to be a "form of social organization unique to India..." That would a wild claim, even if you were assume she meant the Indian sub-continent. Hoshigaki (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is why it is essential in encyclopaedia or edited collections to actually cite the section of the work that you're using. If I use wikipedia in real life (as a primary source on shared editing say) I would cite this page as "2012 RFC on …; Talk:Caste"(diff link) at 2012-09-20 English Wikipedia—I wouldn't just cite this discussion as English Wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Fifelfoo: That was my mistake. I have since corrected the citation. It is: Iyer, Nalini (2008), "Caste", in O'Brien, Jodi (ed.), Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, SAGE, p. 114–116, ISBN 978-1-4129-0916-7, retrieved 15 September 2012

@Hoshigaki: The statement "form of social organization unique to India" or to Hinduism is not at all a wild claim. It is the majority opinion in sociology and anthropology, subscribed to by all the great scholars of caste: Edmund Leach, Louis Dumont, McKim Marriott, Stanley Tambiah, G. S. Ghurye, M. N. Srinivas, Andre Beteille, Veena Das, and R. S. Khare. I have already provided evidence of that in my statement. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiflefoo - The Nalini Iyers entry on caste makes it clear that it is about gender studies, particularly from a viewpoint of women:

Caste is a form of social organization that is unique to India and is based on Hindu religious belief. This essay defines the meaning of the caste system and describes the ways in which it has been used to control sexuality, marital status, and economic and social life among women in India.[2]

Nalini Iyer's qualifications from her home page at University of Seattle [3]

B.A. University of Madras, Stella Maris College, India

M.A. Purdue, English

Ph.D. Purdue, English

She's teaching/taught: 19th and 20th century British literature, Postcolonial lit with a focus on anglophone writing from South Asia, Africa and the Caribbean, Transnational/International Women’s writing. Courses taught: Postcolonial literatures and theory, Literature of India, African Literature, International Women’s Writing, Contemporary South Asian Literature and Culture. My courses are often cross-listed with Women Studies, Asian Studies, and Global African Studies.

Her home page does not list any other papers or publications to her name.

The Indian caste system sure did originate in Hinduism but to say that it is unique to India is a really wild claim. The strictest of proponents of this "uniqueness/centrality" theory would admit that it exists in Nepal, the only Hindu country on the planet (Nepalese caste system), as it does in the entire South Asia region, formerly known as British India.

From another source cited by Fowler (Berreman, Gerald D. (2008), Caste, International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |original_year= ignored (help)):

Among social scientists, and especially among those who have worked in India, there are basically two views: (1) that the caste system is to be defined in terms of its Hindu attributes and rationale and, therefore, is unique to India or at least to south Asia; (2) that the caste system is to be defined in terms of structural features which are found not only in Hindu India but in a number of other societies as well. Those who hold the latter view find caste groups in such widely scattered areas as the Arabian Peninsula, Polynesia, north Africa, east Africa, Guatemala, Japan, aboriginal North America, and the contemporary United States. Either of these positions is tenable; which is preferable depends upon one’s interests and purposes.

Overall, I am not sure how we can use an encyclopedia on gender studies to determine such a fine point on the Indian caste system. This article is in a bad shape and if we use a source on gender studies to determine the finer points, we will only make it worse. Anyway we are now repeating the same argument so I will refrain from further comment until something new comes up. Hoshigaki (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo - I understand you better now. You are trying to sense the quality of the publication by place of publication and publisher of an encyclopedia, rather than locating the source and reading it. Both Fowler&fowler and I did not include place of publication in all of our citations, while in some cases Fowler&fowler did include publisher name and I did not. Both of us always had the title, edition, year published, name of editor(s) and such information with quoted sections in different encyclopedias with articles on caste in dispute. I have updated my list now with publisher name and place of publication. You can find them here.

Please note that Fowler&fowler and my sources have just one article on caste, no separate article on caste system in India, while wikipedia has multiple linked articles on caste. Part of our confusion, one that remains unanswered is (1) Should we duplicate content by taking 20% to 50% of Caste system in India article and copying it into this Caste article, or (2) Should we summarize the linked, independent main article on India in 500 to 1000 words in this article, per WP:SUMMARY guidelines? This is assuming that quality wikipedia articles should not be too long, and preferably about 10,000 words per comments from wiki editor Piotrus and related discussion elsewhere on this talk page. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other people chat with themselves

Fifelfoo writes: "ApostleVonColorado fails to provide adequate citations for more than one of the works they attempt to cite and I am highly resistant to doing extra work because other editors can't find a publisher with two hands and a worldcat. As such I'm not going to comment on these things which may or may not be publications."

I regret that ISBN and titles is all I can provide, because my due diligence has been based on the hard copy print versions. My 'disagreement in tertiary sources' citations are encyclopedias/etc. that your local university is likely to have in possession or access to. Yes, the prints of different editions of Encyclopedia Britannica and Encyclopedia Americana from 1900s to 1970s may or may not be difficult to locate, depending on where you are.

At the time of your review, the ISBN citation links were broken; I have now fixed them. If there is anything more I can do to help you access those sources, that you did not consider in your response, let me know. FWIW, I acknowledge and appreciate your response, even without a complete review of all my sources, and find your feedback constructive.

I urge that we do consider published, well accepted secondary and tertiary sources such as encyclopedia that include and extensively cover caste topics for Africa, Latin America and elsewhere. Wikipedia's current coverage on the society, cultures, anthropology, etc. is weaker for these regions than some other regions. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support for Caste in Italy

This follow-on note aims to address part of Fifelfoo’s concern about coatracking. He supported his concern with this specific evidence: ‘The section on Italy is OR, the only theory in use is from 1917 and is a just-so story.’

First, I acknowledge and agree the current version of the Italy section is weakly supported and gives an impression of OR. This perception isn’t isolated to section on Italy, but applies to a few others. This issue must be resolved to improve this article.

Second, I request that Fifelfoo and others read about caste and caste system in Venice in this published source: Venice: Lion City - The Religion of Empire. I urge you read just Chapter 11 if you are rushed for time, other chapters and the numerous peer reviewed citations therein if you have time to spare, from that book by Gary Wills (2002, ISBN 978-0671047641).

The source focuses on Venice. There are numerous more English language secondary and tertiary sources on this, that caste system extended beyond Venezia, and were present in Italian city states such as Napoli and Firenze. If you are fluent in Italian and French, I can provide hundreds more citations which I believe will persuade you that this Italian aspect of caste subject is notable, and that while there is scholarly debate, the balance of opinion among the scholars is - caste existed in city-states of Italy, this stratification was not class or race based or other forms of stratification, but were castes, and included the elements of hereditary, hierarchy, endogamy, exclusion, ritual purity, and that the caste system in city-states of Italy lasted for centuries and to the start of modern era of human history.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not arguing that the article doesn’t need improvement. It does. But, in my humble opinion, an exclusive focus on India in this global caste article will be the worst form of coatracking, because as WP:COAT states:

A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject.

Coatrack articles can be created purposefully to promote a particular bias, and they can accidentally evolve through excessive focus on one aspect of the subject.

With an exclusive focus on India, the article will focus on one aspect of the subject of caste, and the particular coatrack bias will be giving the impression that ‘caste is unique to India’.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I am not suggesting change in relative emphasis; I am suggesting the emphasis should remain on India and South Asia, but the article/linked article should include a reasonable summary about castes in city-states of Italy. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AVC, Since when did Gary Wills, prolific writer of popular history trade paperbacks, whose 1992 book on Lincoln and Gettysburg almost killed the beauty of the Gettysburg address for me, become an expert on the topic of "Caste?" He is using the word informally. Has he defined it somewhere? He introduces the word in the book on page 95 in this sentence:

Patricians were all equal in legal terms—they all (even the doge) had one vote in the Large Council, the basic expression of their caste.

More pertinently, why are you shirking from creating a section "Caste in the United States?" After all there five times as many books on the Caste system in the United States than there are on the Caste system in Italy. Could it be that the editors of Racial segregation in the United States will be hurriedly looking to AfD it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how your personal, subjective experience with Gary Wills is an objective measure? Gary's publications on Italian city states have higher citation index scores than some of the authors you have quoted in this RfC.

Your google search links are limited. Re: your google search for caste+system+USA and caste+system+Italy; Include google.it and search a combination of "Caste or Casta or Popolo or Popolani or Cittadini etc" and "italia or venezia or firenze or napoli or <all city states>". Or better still, for experts and secondary source publications, visit a quality university library and get your librarian team to help you.

Let us wait for Fifelfoo and others, if they have anything more to add to this RfC. I will be happy to provide peer reviewed journal articles on Italy and other sections, when appropriate. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sitush

I agree with Fifelfoo and would draw attention to the manner in which AVC has perhaps coatracked elsewhere in articles relating to caste also, eg: Caste system in India. Such articles are ballooning in size and becoming overly detailed. The caste construct is clearly an area of interest for AVC, which is fine, but the sometimes dubious methodology has often been obfuscated by academic verbiage, if you will excuse the parody. I regret to say that I have severe doubts about weighting issues and detail both here and in other articles to which AVC has been a major conributor. We are not a replacement for an academic secondary source: if you want to write a something akin to a thesis on caste as a socio-economic/political/religious/whatever stratifying construct, which seems often to be your intention and perhaps also your academic area of expertise, then please feel free to do so, but not in a single Wikipedia article. Wikipedia's role is to reflect succinctly the reliable secondary sources in a manner that as best as possible reflects the balance of those sources. Both those secondary sources, and also tertiary ones, most commonly place emphasis on its Indian basis and do so to a very dominant degree.

Although I understand there is some "law" that alleges all links within WP can end up at Philosophy after a surprisingly short routing, that does not mean that we should include 90% of the Philosophy article in this or any other, and the same goes for Caste. Believe me, AVC, I admire scholarship and in-depth coverage but this is not the place to do it. And hyperlinks are a beautiful thing. - Sitush (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sitush. Our goals are same in our effort to contribute to Wikipedia. As you know, we concurred back in about mid July on the talk page of Caste system in India, during WP:OVERCITE in lead discussion, that the Caste system in India article is too big, overly detailed and needs significant rewrite. I haven't worked on it, and back then I encouraged all wiki contributors and you to please rewrite/clean it up. A good main article there, I thought would help provide good summary to this article.

In my discussion on this talk page since August, my goal has been, as you put it: Wikipedia's role is to reflect succinctly the reliable secondary sources in a manner that as best as possible reflects the balance of those sources. I wrote something similar on August 4 2012 relating to this.

On the very first day of Fowler&fowler's post, I acknowledged the importance and the need for emphasis on India on the subject of caste. Per talk page guidelines, I have felt that I do not need to repeat myself. To ease your review, I quote from my first reply on August 3 2012:

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...

So we agree. Overall, taking all wikipedia articles together, the emphasis should be on India.

When Fowler&fowler began editing this article, I accepted some of his changes, including more emphasis on India in the lead, while collaboratively providing what you suggest: as best as possible reflects the balance of reliable secondary sources.

My struggle since August has been to put a balance between various wikipedia guidelines (in this case WP:SS and WP:SYNC). In that struggle, I even posted a request for your guidance on your talk page back in August with a link to this talk page. I am glad to see you and others finally participate to help guide this discussion so as to improve this article. Since you are active on the numerous caste-related topics on wikipedia, you probably know I have not contributed anything to over 90% of those caste topics/articles on wikipedia, and sometimes refused to participate because I felt unqualified or unprepared. I feel a bit disappointed that you had to wait so long to express your concerns here, finally, on my contributions to Caste system in India. In past, you had praised my contributions there, which encouraged me (see your past praise here):

Caste system in India

I've been watching you from afar. Good stuff. Keep it going and yell if you need a hand. - Sitush (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have not stopped or ever pretended to own that, this or any article; rather enthusiastically watched and sometimes encouraged Ashley, you and others to revise it. No one has worked it for months, though; and that article on India remains in bad shape. I hope you and others will work on it, because it may help improve this article, by providing a better basis for a summary here.

No one has denied yet, including Fowler&fowler, to the best of my effort to digest what has been posted so far, that there is abundant secondary and tertiary literature on castes outside India. FWIW, I submit that there are sections in wikipedia articles that discuss caste in parts of Europe, well supported by cited secondary sources, contributed by wiki editors I do not know, and in those articles I have made zero contribution. For example, see Caste in a part of England. Similarly, long before I ever read or edited this article on caste, it already had a description of castes outside India along with various citations. I continue to believe that this article's future versions will be better by including an appropriate summary of the abundant secondary and tertiary literature on castes outside India.

Of course, sections that violate WP:NOR / WP:SYNTH / WP:V guidelines should be properly and promptly dealt with. Hyperlinks, I agree, are great. I encourage you and others to revise this and the main Caste system in India article that in balance reflects the secondary and tertiary sources, including changing the combined and individual emphasis, as you suggest.

I urge that you and others watch and not let this article evolve into a version that, directly or through absence of linked articles:

1. pursues an agenda such as to selectively highlight or hide "India's evils" or such (for basis of this concern, see discussion link elsewhere on this talk page, and the edit history of this article).
2. only uses selective tertiary sources, while ignoring all highly cited and widely accepted published secondary sources on castes and other tertiary sources
3. ignores secondary and tertiary sources focussed on African, Latin American, Japanese etc. societies that substantially discuss castes in those parts of the world without mentioning India (I have listed links to these elsewhere on this talk page)

I also urge that Fowler&fowler assume good faith not just for me, but everyone; and focus on proposing edits that improve the content of this article while constructively welcoming input from everyone.

I look forward to your and other people's continued constructive and active collaboration to help improve this and related caste articles on wikipedia.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ApostlevonColorado, Let me suggest that you read WP:FILIBUSTERS, in particular,

They will write a 10-page essay on the talkpage. A person will respond to them with a few sentences and they will reply, "But you didn't respond to my points!" You ask what points they want you to respond to and they say, "All of them!" So, you go through with the tedious task of responding to every single trivial point they make and click save page. Five minutes later, you look at the talkpage to see another 10-page essay. Again, the cycle continues. You respond in a few sentences and perhaps the person themselves even responds in a few sentences, but the conversation goes on and on and on, in such a way that it's clear that it's more of an intellectual game, like a staring contest, to see who will give up first, rather than an actual rational, meaningful discussion.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush - I am in the process of composing a comment to this RfC. To do so, I need a clarification on a comment you made. For context, I quote parts of the discussion (full discussion is here). Then I ask my question.

Fowler&fowler wrote @ 11:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC): By the way, the idea of two broad schools of thought is itself dated. The mostly Berreman-led American school has long retired (and, in many cases, long of happy memory). [...skip rest]

For brevity, skip Mrt3366's comment @ 10:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

ApostleVonColorado replied @ 12:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC): Fowler&fowler - The most cited literature, highest h-index and scholarly impact score secondary sources including peer reviewed journal articles on caste, published in last 20 years, is the 'caste should be broadly defined, it has been a worldwide phenomena' school. I have posted examples of this, on this talk page, with specific h-index/citation scores data etc. Per WP:TPG, I do not need to repeat. If you have h-index /cite score / etc of reliable secondary sources on caste, that dispute this - please post it on this talk page. [...skip rest]

Sitush replied @ 14:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC): WTF is "highest h-index and scholarly impact score secondary sources ". My minimal knowledge of h-index (gleaned from discussions ar AfD) is that it is only relevant for "true" science, not sociology etc.. [...skip rest]

ApostleVonColorado replied @ 14:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC) - Sitush asks: WTF is "highest h-index and scholarly impact score secondary sources "? Answer: See Impact factor and h-index. For relevance, search articles on these and sociology (an example is here). For relevance to wiki guidelines, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which reads: One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. [...skip rest]

Sitush replied @ 15:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC): "Who cares?", was really my point. [...skip rest]

My question: Has wikipedia community discussed or granted any special exemption to this article on caste from WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP guidelines. I quote the guidelines for convenience:

1. Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.
2. One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes.

I am less interested in what your personal feelings and opinions are on that matter. I am interested in a link to the appropriate community discussion and consensus, if any, that this article is exempt from those key content sourcing policies. I would like to read it for myself and incorporate past community discussion in composing my comment to this RfC.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AVC Please do not distort Wikipedia's guidelines. Secondary sources are used for individual statements, especially analytic or evaluative claims, within an article. Tertiary sources (not h-index or citation factor) are used for determining due weight issues. (See WP:TERTIARY). By the way, what h-index have you computed for Gerald Berreman and Kingsley Davis, authors you have quoted extensively in this article. Please give us the numbers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AVC PS As for "Has Wikipedia community discussed or granted any special exemption to this article on caste from WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP guidelines?" the literally interpreted answer would be, "Obviously it has, otherwise it wouldn't be in the poor state it is in." Please also read WP:INDCRIT, especially where it says, "Keep in mind that sarcasm cannot easily be conveyed in writing and may be misinterpreted." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ninthabout

The problem here, as I see it, is that there are two general definitions of the caste. The first refers to the rigid social stratification of India, the latter and broader definition refers to the concept of social stratification in general. If we are to make an article on the latter sense (which is essentially what this article is), then it becomes redundant with Wikipedia's article on social stratification. The problem of loosely applied definitions is not unique to this article, it also plagues articles like Fascism (a word that has been used as an epithet against authoritarian, semi-authoritarian, and even democratic governments).

This dispute also needs to be brought to the attention of the wider community, and not just editors interested in South Asian history. As an editor who mostly focuses on China-related articles, I only stumbled onto this RfC by accident. The input of editors interested in European and East Asian history is absolutely necessary to evaluate the characterizations (some controversial) of European and East Asian societies as castes. I recommend contacting the appropriate WikiProjects.--Ninthabout (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on the point that this article makes social stratification redundant. A mere look at the latter will convince editors otherwise. Please also note Four occupations isn't directly related to this article (I am assuming that is on your mind when you say East Asian history). More details are in my comment below. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 12:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two major scholarly sides each with its own definition indeed. Both have a significant following. Per WP:VNT and WP:NPOV: wiki articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Knowledge, your argument that the Four occupations article is invalid because it don't mention the Yi people is completely absurd. The Yi people are a separate ethnic group from the Han Chinese, and are culturally distinct, closer to the Tibetans than the Han Chinese. The Four occupations article, on historical Chinese society, does not mention the Yi people, because the Yi people have, for large portions of Chinese history, not been part of China. Misunderstandings like this litter the article.--Ninthabout (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern here is that sources are being misrepresented to make a point of view. I agree with previous comments stating that this article is a WP:COATRACK. My interests are in Chinese history, and I have little interest in the dispute being fought between editors who frequent South Asian articles. But when blatant errors are being made about Chinese history to prove a point about Hinduism, then I have objections. Mentions of a 17th century Chinese hereditary aristocracy when "imperial China had not been aristocratic since the third century BCE" is one of many examples. And this is just the Chinese section! This is why the article needs attention from more outside editors. WikiProjects need to be informed of the RfC.--Ninthabout (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's guidelines include verifiability in reliable secondary sources, NPOV by including all non-FRINGE scholarly sides, and the summary should include no original research. The term original research is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Below is a list of reliable, published sources which use the word caste, extensively discuss caste and caste-like societies in China. For a complete, balanced view a proper summary of these and similar sources should be included:

1. A book with Chapter 4 at page 68 by Lu Hui, and other Chapters by other authors, each with extensive discussion of caste, and why Yi society is best described as castes (along with the difference between Han and Yi, caste and class): Perspectives on the Yi of Southwest China, edited by Stevan Harrell (2001), ISBN 978-0520219892
2. A journal article: Ethnicity, Local Interests, and the State: Yi Communities in Southwest China, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Volume 32, Issue 03, July 1990, pages 515-548 (1990)
3. A tertiary source: Arienne Dywer (2005) - The Minorities of China, The Encyclopedia of the World’s Minorities, pages 286–294
4. this at page 296 by Potter and Potter, the whole chapter 15 devoted to caste-like society; but chapter 1 through 11 are more historical sections with repetitive use of term caste and caste-like, rather than class.
5. this chapter from Unger's book
6. Chinese hierarchy in comparative perspective, Romeyn Taylor
7. this from journal article, and
8. this from journal article

While I agree that the current article, including the section on China can be improved and needs work, a quality wiki article on caste would include a summary of reliable, published sources on caste and China.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ps: Also see other citations provided by a different wiki contributor here. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yi people and Han Chinese are two separate ethnic groups, that are culturally distinct. Yi society has no links to the Chinese class system, and vice versa. It's elementary mistakes like this that litter the article. My concern is the misrepresentation of sources, like Chinese Outcasts: Discrimination and Emancipation in Late Imperial China, which never calls the Chinese system a caste, and argues instead that the "the complex Indian caste system is sui generis and no equivalent can be found in other cultures." (p. 10) Just compare statements like "from the 17th century to the early 20th century, Chinese society was divided into closed social classes" in the Wikipedia article with statements from the actual book: "upward mobility into the elite was theoretically possible for virtually all male commoners" (p. 30) It's been completely skewed to fit the argument being made by the article. I don't care about the point of view being made about Hinduism or whatever, but making unbalanced or inaccurate claims on other regions of the world means that the article will attract extra scrutiny. This article is Jagged85 quality work.--Ninthabout (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ninthabout - That comment is difficult to understand in light of what you wrote elsewhere on this talk page on 12 September 2012 - "The Yi people may have had a caste, but the Yi are about as Chinese as the Tibetans are. Yi and Han Chinese are two separate ethnic groups." If you agree that reliable literature supports Yi people may have had caste, should this mention of caste and Yi people not be included in this article? If not, why? Of course, if appropriate, we should include a clarification that Yi and Han were separate ethnic groups.

On 12 September 2012, you also edited this article to include this - "Classes within Chinese society were not closed, and imperial China had not been aristocratic since the third century BCE because of "the meritocratic line in Confucian thinking would eventually find realization under the empire in the remarkable Chinese civil service examination." Why did you add this? Is it because commoners were a caste by itself, or because wiki readers should know Chinese society was meritocratic 3rd century BCE, or something else? A short clarification from you will help clarify your edit and whether it should be retained in this article.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AVC that the Yi should have their own section. The sources provided clearly prove that Yi have a caste system, as shown in the Ethnicity, Local Interests, and the State: Yi Communities in Southwest China article. I'm a bit more hesitant on China. The claim previously made in the Wikipedia article was that "from the 17th century to the early 20th century, Chinese society was divided into closed social classes", which would contradict with the current statement quoting that the "upward mobility into the elite was theoretically possible for virtually all male commoners" during the Ming and Qing dynasties. None of the classes within Chinese society were rigidly hereditary, including the lowest rungs. An excerpt from Class and Social Stratification in Post-Revolution China, quoted from below, could be used in the article. I think the best compromise would be to create WP:BALANCE in the article by using all the sources, both those provided by AVC and Ninthabout. I agree that the caste was not restricted to India, but we should be keen on making sure that Chinese history is accurately represented. (this comment should technically be under the China heading, but seeing that the China discussion has been closed until the RfC is over, it looks like the discussion is now taking place here)--SGCM (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree almost entirely with what you've written. The sources (in section below) document caste among Yi in China, so we can add them under a separate section or as I suggested earlier (in one of the collapsed sections below), we can add a descriptor ahead of Yi people so that readers don't confuse them with the Han majority. Something like Yi, one of 55 ethnic minority groups officially recognized by the People's Republic of China, are divided into.. etc. I'll wait for further comments from AVC and Ninthabout on how to word the para on classes in China. Ninthabout has already made some changes to the section. I hope that fixes a lot of errors in the section. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 17:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed SGCM. Yi people should have a section in this article. What about Manchu people section, again clarifying if appropriate the difference between Manchu and Han? See this, page 290-291 if you are short of time, other chapters of the book if time permits because it discusses caste and Manchu: Manchus and Han, by Edward Rhoads (2011, University of Washington Press, ISBN 978-0295980409).

I feel China section, and others, need to be rewritten to not give skewed impression - as Ninthabout's constructive comments suggest too. Let us wait for Ninthabout to explain his reasoning on including meritocracy in this article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SGCM, AVC, and Ninthabout: I've said something similar in Piotrus's section below. We need to clearly understand the difference between undue weight and original research. Listing some academic sources that discuss "caste" in China, or among the Yi people, might be used as an argument against accusations of OR. However, Caste is a core topic, featured in English language encyclopedias, references, and university textbooks, for over 150 years. If the overwhelming majority of modern tertiary sources on "Caste" do not mention China or the Yi, then we cannot have a significant section on China in this encyclopedia's article on Caste. It simply means, that while there may be some literature on "caste" in China, the concept of "Caste in China," has not been deemed notable enough (by the scholars who review and summarize such literature) to receive coverage in the scholarly tertiary sources' article on "Caste." You may attempt to add that section to a Society of China article, or the Yi people article, provided it has due weight there, but not here in any significant fashion. I am asking you again, do you have some modern scholarly tertiary sources, published in the last 25 years, that discuss the caste system in China. If so, please cite them here. It is not enough to give just one tertiary source example, or an older example.

Since Wikipedia's article on "Caste" is longer than most similar articles in scholarly tertiaries, one could argue that it will inevitably have more content. This is true to some extent, but it still doesn't allow us to devote entire individual sections to this new content. One could add a separate sub-section at the end of the Asia section, which states something like, "Caste-systems (or systems akin to caste) are found in China (or among the Yi people of China). See ....." and discusses this briefly, along with examples from other Asian societies that have not been included in the tertiary sources, and provides the references you have been discussing above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly for the UK. I am a born and bred UK citizen and despite my interest in the subject matter cannot recall anyone seriously discussing the caste concept in a UK context except when discussing it in relation to - for example - arranged marriages among the Asian diaspora. The UK "class" concept is complex to the point of being almost indefinable but, despite my wide reading etc, I can honestly say that the word "caste" has a neglible context here. In fact, most of us idiot Brits have probably never even thought of the thing.

It could well be that we need a fair few short sections or See Also's to new articles discussing international variants on the amorphous, broad-brush theme ... but Fowler is correct that weighting is a real issue here. Unless there are a shed-load of reliable sources referring to X as a caste system in country Y, any mention should be minimal because otherwise it is original research. For the UK, "class" is (alas) a perceived system for which countless throwaway comments and decent sociological attempts to define can be found; "caste" is not. I know little of China, past or present, but rather suspect that the weight of the "caste" word in sources relating to it only slightly less thin. Certainly so when compared to the Indian/Hindu references. - Sitush (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caste in Yi society is well–documented by tertiary sources like dictionaries (An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of China), encyclopedias (Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania, Encyclopædia Britannica), guide books (Rough Guide to China) and others (The Languages of China, The Culture of China). I had mentioned this in the now collapsed section on China. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 08:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@CK, Well, then put this content in Wikipedia's article on the Ethnohistory of China, or like I say above, Society of China. I mean, your sources are not articles on Caste. Please provide an example of a scholarly tertiary source's general article on "Caste," which discusses China or the Yi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@CK Thanks, btw, for making the effort to look for the sources. It was very helpful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@CK Here is an example that does mention China ("caste like") page 255. Notice the relative weight. Leonard, Thomas M. (2006), Encyclopedia of the Developing World, Taylor & Francis, p. 255, ISBN 978-0-415-97662-6 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, it mentions Susan Bayly. And, here she is on Caste and Plurality: Bayly, Susan (2001), Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age, Cambridge University Press, p. 28, ISBN 978-0-521-79842-6. Note she mentions the debate about whether caste exists outside India in a footnote. I should add that we shouldn't highlight this debate too much. It was mainly a debate of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, when, in part, spurred by the American Civil Rights movement, some scholars tried to define caste more generally. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC). Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley anthropologist Gerald Berreman has been extensively cited in this article. He was the leader of the school which espoused a more universal definition of caste. But this is no longer popular among scholars: even his defenders acknowledge that "his totalizing enterprise has rightly been discarded by anthropologists". Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Encyclopedia of the Developing World, Sociology of Religion (yes it's old) stands by a broader definition of caste, which includes "caste–like stratification" in China, in its section on Social stratification. Broader definition of caste in modern tertiary sources, in sections specifically dealing with caste, can be found in 1) Sociology in a Changing World (India, US, South Africa, Middle East), 2) Sociology by Giddens and Griffiths (India and South Africa) and 3) Cultural Anthropology: An Applied Perspective (Hindus, Roma). There are other such tertiary sources out there. The discussion on Berreman's relevance is beyond me. I'll wait for more knowledgeable editors to comment. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 10:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Leonard, Thomas M. (2006), Encyclopedia of the Developing World, Taylor & Francis, p. 255, ISBN 978-0-415-97662-6 is the only one that has a specific article on caste. (The others have case studies within larger sections on stratification or race; Sociology of Religion, obviously, is dated.) This 2006 article, which is about as long as the Wikipedia article, gives you a feel for the weight scholars accord to caste outside India. Approximately 1/4 is devoted to Caste Systems in the World. The rest is either definitions in the beginning or mostly (> 50%) about India. I think we should take a cue from his article for how to emphasize different aspects of Caste. I propose it should be 25% percent on definitions and review of literature; 40% on India; 10% on other societies within South Asia; and 25% on societies outside South Asia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that this article is also about the concept of Caste, and agreeing with AVS's comments somewhere upstairs) that this article needn't be a clone of other articles, I could go along with: 30% to definitions, historiography, and review of literature (from Marx and Weber to Dumont to the Post-Colonialists.); 30% to Hindu India; 10% to non-Hindu India and rest of South Asia; 30% to cultures and countries outside South Asia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ApostleVonColorado, mainstream views of imperial Chinese society refer to it as meritocratic, with social mobility, thus rarely use the term caste. Like Piotrus called it, this is "pure UNDUE/FRINGE lunacy." Most academics write that Chinese classes were not based solely on birth, and the mainstream viewpoint needs to be given priority. SGCM, balance is hardly the only problem. The biggest issue is the misrepresentation of sources. If the source cited for China does not call it a caste, and warns against doing so, then the Wikipedia article should not call it a caste either. Like Piotrus view of Poland, I don't think China should be listed at all. Manchu and Yi society should not be confused with the Chinese, because when most readers see the word Chinese, they think of Han Chinese culture.--Ninthabout (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&Fowler makes a strong argument, I disagree with CorrectKnowledge, SGCM, and ApostleVonColorado. It's not just "balance" that needs fixing here. Most tertiary sources for caste don't talk about China at all! Neither should Wikipedia.--Ninthabout (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ninthabout - If Yi and Manchu people are not part of China and Chinese history, which nation do they belong to, and under which nation should we list them under in this article?

Fowler&fowler counts numerous dictionaries, in his list of 31, as tertiary sources. Over 10 Chinese-English dictionary entries for jianmin, 賤民, refer to caste / Dalits / untouchable (see this and this, for example). At least 125 secondary sources (book and journal articles, including those by Chinese authors) discuss caste and China, particularly in light of China's Hukou system of social segregation (see this at page 6-11, and this, and this, and this). These and many other scholars use the word caste, they discuss why it is a caste system not class. These scholarly peer reviewed journal articles have been cited and the books have been reviewed and cited as well. Per wikipedia content guidelines, they should be summarized, at least briefly. Why not?

You edited this article to include meritocracy - but that is coatracking because this article is on caste, not meritocracy. Yes, I agree with SGCM that some wording should be included to prevent wrong impression about social mobility in commoners in historical Han society. We should also include some wording on Yi people, Manchu people, Jianmin, Hukou system, etc and caste from reliable published literature. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ninthabout - you mention Piotrus initial criticism/comment, in discussion below on caste and Poland. Please note that as the discussion developed and evolved, Piotrus noted that 'Jewish caste in Poland could be a notable article on its own' and 'this article (caste) should discuss more than just India'.

You wonder if tertiary sources mention caste in China at all. See Encyclopedia Britannica here, which reads: 'A caste system formerly divided the Yi into three groups.' I understand you differentiate between Yi and Han, etc. However, Yi people are part of the country we now call China, even if they are a minority, about 7.5 million. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yi should be grouped with the Tibetans, not the Chinese. Meritocracy and caste are contradictory, one implies social mobility, the other does not, and the mention of China's meritocracy must be included for the reason of neutrality, or else it gives the reader a wrong impression that imperial Han Chinese society lacked social mobility, just as you said. The hukou system is a regional form of segregation, but is hardly based on occupation or race and it's FRINGE to call it a caste. It is a form of social segregation, but not all forms of social segregation are castes. One's hukou can be changed and the hukou system only segregates people of one region, of any class, with people from other regions. I'm sure you can find sources that call modern China a caste, along with modern America or Britain or Germany or any modern country, using the broadest definition of caste. But articles on Wikipedia must represent mainstream views, and this article cannot be an indiscriminate list of everything that someone has called a caste at some point in history.--Ninthabout (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you include Manchu people and Jianmin?

If dozens of scholars are writing in peer reviewed journals about Hukou system/jianmin/Yi/Manchu/etc and caste, and these are getting cited in scholarly opinions and reliable publications, you may call it FRINGE, but per wikipedia guidelines, it isn't. See this: Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative for identifying the mainstream view. I share your concern that we should not list everything in this article that someone casually used the word caste for something at some point in history. However, if there are chapters/books/journal articles/etc dedicated to caste, discussion of caste with description of hereditary/hierarchical/exclusionary/etc aspects, or repeated discussion of caste in scholarly peer reviewed publication by many independent respected and relevant scholars, it is an encyclopedic aspect of the subject. If you are aware of any specific wikipedia guidelines that suggest otherwise, please provide a link - I will read it, reflect on it and then get back to you if appropriate.

On social mobility and China, weren't jianmin people a strata below commoners? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by OrangesRyellow

Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia and the main article on any issue should be displaying a global perspective. In the interests of neutrality and comprehensiveness, it should not be displaying a narrow, sectarian Indian perspective. There is already an article on "Caste system in India". That is the place to discuss that issue. Caste is a global phenomenon and not just a "Hindu India" phenomenon. Even within India, it is not just a Hindu phenomenon. Caste system is also prevalant among some Muslims, Christians and Sikhs and various other communities in India. If someone wants more coverage of caste system in India, they should write more articles on caste system in India, but it is not necessary to make this article take a myopic view of a global phenomenon.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually couldn't agree with you more. You're 100% right. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please also contribute to the section Specific suggestions to improve this article below. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 12:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia OragnesRyellow! Delighted to see that in their first week on Wikipedia a new editor has boldly entered an RfC. I didn't know what an RfC was well into my sixth month. Your comments are most welcome. You say, "Caste is a global phenomenon." Well, after India, the country most written about in the context of caste, is the United States. (See here, for example.) Shouldn't we be creating a section, "Caste in the United States," and an article Caste in the United States? Also, since caste in baseball is the subject of as many secondary sources as caste in Finland, shouldn't we have a subsection devoted to baseball? Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. I have looked into the link which you provided. I had expected to be led to some scholarly book or article etc. It lead to a google search with the words Caste "United States" typed in the search box. If the results of that google search were meant to evidence the point "after India, the country most written about in the context of caste, is the United States.", I have to say, it hardly succeeds. It seems to have 604 results, all of which seems either to be irrelevant, or have very, very little on "Caste in US", or to be written by non expert sources. On the whole, it gives me a bit of a disinclination towards believing that US could be "after India, the country most written about in the context of caste, ...". Is there something else which could lead me to believe your claim?

Secondly, I think it might help if you could please show an encyclopedia from the last 25 years which has an article on "Caste system in India" and also on "Caste", where the "Caste" article duplicates much/most of the material in the "Caste system in India" article?

Regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If an encyclopedia from the last 25 years be too difficult, how about one from the last 250 years?OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by So God Created Manchester

I saw the message on WP:CHINA and WP:UK, and I've worked on the Talk:India dispute on the DRN noticeboard which involves the same parties, so I hope to add my two cents to this discussion as well. My opinion is somewhere in the middle. I don't think that the caste article should focus exclusively on India, but I oppose restricting its coverage as well. As long as WP:BALANCE is maintained, there shouldn't be a problem. Each topic should be given its due weight, as determined by the coverage of the reliable sources.--SGCM (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Intothefire

This article could improve bringing reference to a few of the following groups with caste correspondence dynamics . In the first two instances I have provided indicative links from google books .
1) The institution of Mawali : See for example The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4
2) Hamsaya Clans Indigenous Peoples and Ethnic Minorities of Pakistan: Constitutional and Legal Perspective by By Shaheen Sar Ali and Jaivaid Rehman
3) Old Testament clans such as Canaanites Hittites , Girgishites , Amorites , , Perrizites ,Hivites
4) Religious honor group with family succession : as in Silsilas or Ovlat in Turkmenistan e or the hereditary Khadim at Sufi Shrines
5) Morisco ( discrimination to)
6)The pre eminence of Arab Lineage in Kafa’ah Nikah .See the article on Ibn Abidin for a brief explanation .
Intothefire (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestions section has been collapsed so that editors do not get distracted from the RfC. Ideally, your comment should have gone there. Please comment on the RfC and add your suggestions there. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same problem as Intothefire. With the suggestions section collapsed, should we just reply to the comments by the RfC editors? The China section was collapsed, so I went straight for one of the RfC statements that dealt with China. This is going to be an issue with the influx of editors from the WikiProjects, of which I am one (WikiProject China in this case).--SGCM (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those boxes should be open through the course of the RfC so that editors who come here to comment on the RfC can also take part in other discussions, if they choose to. However, editors wiser than me have decided that it's best to keep the section collapsed. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CorrectKnowledge, I am ok with your suggestion ,please feel free to shift my above comment , I do not wish to distract the ongoing RFC .Intothefire (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Piotrus

See here. (added with permission by ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Comment by Hoshigaki

I request some time to add my comment. I will first discuss with the participants above then add my comment here. Hoshigaki (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC) In order to make an effective comment, I am approaching the RfC in two steps.[reply]

• Step 1: Determine if Hindu India is central to a discussion on caste.
• Step 2: If step 1 is true, does this article minimize that central position.

For determining the centrality argument, I have gone through the 44 sources provided by Fowler&fowler (33), CorrectKnowledge (3) and ApostleVonColorado (8). I will add my comment after my analysis in the section below is complete. Hoshigaki (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion based on actual content in sources

All 44 sources were classified in to one of five categories - those that:

• Strengthen the argument that India is central to a discussion on caste - these were 5 in number
• Weaken the argument - these were 7 in number
• No consensus about whether India is central to a discussion on caste - these were 5 in number
• Do not meet the WP:Reliable criteria - these were 5 in number
• Irrelevant to our discussion since they simply discuss a host of caste systems from more than a dozen countries - these were 22 in number

One comment that stands out in particular (and weakens the centrality argument) reads:

"Among social scientists, and especially among those who have worked in India, there are basically two views: (1) that the caste system is to be defined in terms of its Hindu attributes and rationale and, therefore, is unique to India or at least to south Asia; (2) that the caste system is to be defined in terms of structural features which are found not only in Hindu India but in a number of other societies as well. Those who hold the latter view find caste groups in such widely scattered areas as the Arabian Peninsula, Polynesia, north Africa, east Africa, Guatemala, Japan, aboriginal North America, and the contemporary United States.

Either of these positions is tenable; which is preferable depends upon one’s interests and purposes."

Conclusion based on recency of sources

It is clear that social changes art taking place rapidly in India today. The caste system has nearly collapsed in India and is not relevant in India anymore. It is not a central social issue in India anymore. Even if India were central to caste, it would be more or less in a historical sense.

Analysis based on actual content in presented sources

Step 1: Determining centrality

I have found that the sources fall in four categories:

1. Those that support the position that Hindu India is central to a discussion on caste
2. Those that simply discuss and/or critique the caste system
3. Those that imply or explicitly state that there is no consensus on the centrality issue
4. Those that actually weaken the argument by stating that India is not central to such a discussion
5. Sources irrelevant to our subject area

Here are the details of where the sources stand.

Note:

• This analysis includes the 33 sources presented by Fowler&fowler (exceptions: I have partial or no access to these sources: 9, 32), 3 sources from CorrectKnowledge and 8 sources from ApostleVonColorado. Help from anyone providing the full text (with references and further reading sections) will be appreciated.
• Sources are numbered FF1, FF2, FF3 and so on for Fowler&fowler's sources, CK1, CK2 and CK3 for CorrectKnowledge's sources and AV1, AV2, AV3...for ApostleVonColorado's sources. Hoshigaki (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are you interpreting the sentence, "Although the concept of caste is associated almost exclusively with India, elements of caste can be found in a few other societies, such as Japan during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and more recently in the United States and South Africa." to mean anything other than "India is central to Caste, although a few other societies have some elements of caste? The adjective “central” means

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

it does not mean:

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

In other words, “almost exclusive” is a stronger version of “central.” Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the link in ref 8 (O'Brien, Jodi (2008), Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, SAGE, p. 114, ISBN 978-1-4129-0916-7, retrieved 15 September 2012, please click). It defines caste to be a "form of social organization unique to India and based on Hindu religious belief." Unique is strong than central. So one more for the "centrality" group. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be misinterpreting "centrality." For example, references 29 and 30, which are both titled "caste," devote their entire content to India. They don't have to say in words whether India is central or not. They are simply not considering any non-Indian examples notable enough to be admitted into their articles. India is clearly central in these situations. The same applies to references 7 (to which I've now added 7.1(a), titled "Anthropology of Caste," from the same encyclopedia). 7 devotes 80% of its length to India; 7(a) devotes its entire length. Whether or not they say India is central, but they nonetheless focus their articles in large measure (80% and 100% respectively) on India. They are demonstrating by their actions India's centrality. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one more reference to the list: Das, Veena (2001), "Caste", International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, pp. 1529–1532. Note: This is reference number 1 in ApostlevonColorado's list, to which he has added a note: "This encyclopedia is the most cited/referred to in social and behavioral sciences." If you click on the link and read the abstract, you might think that the article could be about other societies as well, and I suspect this led him to give it star billing. However, the entire article (and I mean every last word) is about India. The author Veena Das does not even bother with considering the option that caste exists in other societies. All the old comparative theorists of caste, such as Gerald D. Berreman, are conspicuous by their absence, quite plainly ignored, not a peep even in indirect allusion. If someone would like the pdf, please send me email. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will look at this in more detail shortly and update the table accordingly. Hoshigaki (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of completeness, please also analyze the three tertiary sources I've provided above ([4], [5], [6]). They are within the 25 year limit, have an exclusive section/article on caste and are easily accessible. Needless to say, you are free to analyze them independently regardless of what I claim about them. If you choose to ignore any of them please state your reasons for doing so. Five of ApostleVonColorado's eight tertiary sources are recent and distinct from Fowler&fowler's sources. While all of them are inaccessible by internet, asking AVC for their scanned copies might be worth a shot. Hopefully, by the end of the RfC, this table will give future editors a good idea of where the tertiary sources stand with respect to caste. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 06:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The table has been updated to include CorrectKnowledge's sources as well as 7a by Fowler&fowler. We would be advancing our own personal opinion if we are to assume India is central to caste because a source discusses only India (this is why CorrectKnowledge's sources and Fowler&fowler's sources FF29, FF30 are in the 2nd row/category). I have gone through Fowler&fowler's 8th source (FF8), but the encyclopedia seems to be off-topic and views the topics through a prism of gender (for example the entries preceding and succeeding caste are castration, care-giving, cervical cancer, etc. It does not have basic entries on Brahmins, Shudras, Dalits, etc, nor on Hinduism or India. Will keep updating table. Hoshigaki (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this should be helpful:

1. Of AVC's eight sources,
   1. the first is Veena Das's article, which is also now the last reference in my list. I will be happy to email the pdf to anyone. Please email me. As I have already said, the entire article is about India. It doesn't even mention anything else.
   2. the second appears in its entirety in the link: Caste and inherited status. As you will see, 75% is about India (paragraphs 4 through 25). In other words, although it discusses Japan and Rwanda at the end, India is the predominant, the central, theme. I am only asking for 40% to be about India! (See Piotrus's post below.)
   3. the third is the same as number 10 in my list. I have already provided the link there. If you are able to see only pages 255 and 256 (i.e. not 253 and 254), then do a Google books search for: Encyclopedia of the Developing World Caste. This should also bring up pages 252 and 253. If you are having problems accessing the link, please send me email and I'm happy to email you the scans. Of the article's 7.5 columns, 0.5–0.75 are about general definitions; 1.5 about other cultures and the remaining 5.25–5.5 are about India. 5.5/7.5 = 73%. In his description, AVC says, "After this generic lead, 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." as if to say, India is just one country in a long list of countries.
   4. the fourth is an odd reference since that encyclopedia doesn't have an article about caste. What is mentioned is the article about social organization. It does have an article about "Untouchables" (see here). Notice how much weight it accords to untouchability in other cultures. It mentions it at the end, but devotes only one sentence.
   5. the fifth is garbage. It is an article on "Colonial Latin America" in the Encyclopedia of Latin America. Why would it mention India??
   6. the sixth is the same as 2. in my list. But after Fifelfoo's statement above, I guess, we are not paying too much attention to definitions in dictionaries.
   7. the seventh is garbage. Article from 1921 (so says AVC).
   8. the eighth is also garbage. Article from 1911.

More soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoshigaki, If an encyclopedia discusses only India in its general article on "Caste," then it considers India to be not only central to caste, but caste also to be uniquely Indian. We are not advancing any personal agenda. If we were to follow that encyclopedia's model, we would devote the entire article Caste to India and not mention anything else. India wold certainly be central! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoshigaki: Why is the prism of gender an issue? The RfC is not about gender, it is about geography (ie. relative weight to different regions of the world). Gender affects all parts of the world equally. It is encyclopedias restricted by geography, such as Encyclopedia of Latin America in AVCs list that are problematic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoshigaki, If you do not think that my references 7, 11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, and 31 advance the idea that India is central to the notion of "Caste," then we have a basic disagreement of interpretation. Given that you were having problems understanding the meaning of "central" itself, that you misunderstood "India is central to caste," to mean, "caste is central to India," and that you think that gender is somehow restrictive to the issue at hand, I am not entirely confident that you have understood the concerns here. I don't know you level of comfort with English, but if you are having English comprehension issues, it is better to acknowledge them, and seek help from one of Wikipedia's resources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references you list (7, 11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, and 31) simply discuss the Indian caste system. They make no conclusions or even observations on the centrality issue. It is not the case that there aren't any sources which do not discuss centrality. The sources listed in category 4 of my table (your sources 3, 12, 15, 16, 20, 27, 28) do seem to address the centrality issue. In such a situation I am not sure why we should be making our own original conclusions when well known sources have done it for us. I have understood and continue to understand that "caste is central to India" and "India is central to caste" are two different things. I need time to consider the last set of sources from ApostleVonColorado before I make my comment. Hoshigaki (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If per WP:TERTIARY guidelines on due weight, if 13 sources discuss only India in their general article on Caste (not a specific article, such as "Caste system in India,") then we will interpret that to mean that Wikipedia's article on caste should only be about India. But let us not worry about semantics. Let's say, for example's sake, if none of the references said anything about "centrality," but the content in all was only about India, then what would be your conclusion about what the content of this article should be? Please answer this question. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, I have read multiple Wikipedia policies and my overall/big-picture understanding is that if we attempt to answer the question you are posing above, then we would be indulging in original research. This is especially applicable in our case, since academicians and scholars (many of whom are from the sources you have brought forward) have done this for us. Hoshigaki (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoshigaki - Thank you for the review. It is thorough, detailed and useful. I disagree with assertions by Fowler&fowler above, examples of just two incorrect assertions are below:

Fowler&fowler alleges that "the seventh (tertiary source ApostleVonColorado cited) is garbage. Article from 1921 (so says AVC)." What I actually wrote on this talk page included the note that 1920s through 1970s edition prints of Encyclopedia Americana have almost the same lead paragraphs, this -

CASTE, a social class whose burdens and privileges are hereditary. The word is derived 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 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, where it appears in its most typical form, 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.

Fowler&fowler alleges that eighth tertiary source I cited was from 1911. Once again what I actually wrote on this talk page is that later editions are essentially same; in later discussion, I clarified that 1911 (11th edition), 12th, 13th and one print of 14th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica has the first 1000 words with caste as a worldwide socio-cultural phenomena. Just 2.5% of those 1000 words were on India. The most recent edition of Encyclopedia Britannica was rewritten by a new author, T.N. Madan; the article size significantly reduced, and new version covers caste in India. Instead of quoting those entire 1000 words, here is pre-15th edition version of Caste briefly -

CASTE (through the Fr. from Span, and Port, casta, lineage, Lat. castus, pure). There are not many forms of social organization on a large scale to which the name "caste" has not been applied in a good or in a bad sense [...delete for brevity (deleted material has two sentences on India, numerous other sentences on history/civilizations/cultures outside India)...]

There is no doubt that at some time or other professions were in most countries hereditary. Thus Prescott tells us that in Peru, ...[.delete for brevity..]

Again, Zurita says that in Mexico no one could carry on trade except by right of inheritance, or by public permission. The Fiji carpenters form a separate caste, and in the Tonga Islands all the trades, except tattoo-markers, barbers and club-carvers are hereditary,—the separate classes being named matabooles, mooas and tooas. Nothing is more natural than that a father should teach his son his handicraft, especially if there be no organized system of public instruction; [...deleted rest for brevity...]

In Madagascar marriage is strictly forbidden between the four classes of Nobles, Hovas, Zarahovas and Andevos,—the lowest of whom, however, are apparently mere slaves. In a sense slavery might be called the lowest of castes, because in most of its forms it does permit some small customary rights to the slave. In a sense, too, the survival in European royalty of the idea of "equality of birth" (Ebenbürtigkeit) is that of a caste conception, and the marriage of one of the members of a European royal family with a person not of royal blood might be described as an infraction of caste rule. [...deleted rest for brevity...]

Fowler&fowler calls a long article in Encyclopedia of Latin America as "garbage" too. Yes, the encyclopedia is about Latin America, but that does not make it irrelevant. That encyclopedia article is about caste in Latin America, describes the emergence of castes under colonial times, and discusses the evolution of caste system in Latin America. Published literature on Latin American people is as important and relevant as any other country, to this article. I have listed Encyclopedia of Africa and others previously, beyond my short list of eight. These too use the word caste, describe castes in various African countries/cultures including elements of hereditary, hierarchical, endogamous, ritual, exclusion and in some cases shunning of outcastes. All these are relevant, due and an encyclopedic aspect of the socio-cultural subject caste, this article. All these show abundant dispute and diversity of opinions across tertiary sources on the subject of caste, this article.

Fowler&fowler claims 'we will interpret that to mean that Wikipedia's article on caste should only be about India.' I disagree, because this violates community agreed wikipedia guidelines. This RfC is a process. Your, Hoshigaki and other wiki contributor's independent findings and views are important and will be considered to help reach consensus and next steps.

A balanced article, per wikipedia's community agreed guideline would include all sides reflected in published reliable sources. Allow me to politely ignore Fowler&fowler, as I do not wish to repeat my other comments per talk page guidelines.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are wasting our time with these verbose disquisitions. Whether 1911, 1920, 1950, 1970, they are all too old for WP:RS. The latest editions of both Britannica and Americana (of the last 25 years) have spent most of their texts discussing India, and I mean > 75%. Are you disputing this? If not, what then is the point of long-winded asides on the 1851 editions and 1911 editions, ad infinitum and ad nauseam or nonsense about T. N. Madan's article being shorter? It is four pages long. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica has only four articles with the word "caste" in their titles. They are "Caste" (the flagship article, entirely about Indian Hindu society), "Caste (biology)" (about bees), "Islamic Caste (Indian Society)" (a short page) and "Christian Caste (Indian Society)" (also a short page). If they thought social differentiation in Poland constituted a caste and it was notable, they would have had a page on it, at least a short page. What does that tell you? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoshigaki - I should have clarified that the older editions of encyclopedias, from early 20th century to later part of 20th century, have different authors and editors. A careful read shows a bit of rephrasing and a few sentences have been rewritten, but most of the article remained same, the broad worldwide emphasis was retained by different authors/editors over this time. There is no wikipedia guideline on 'age of citation for social science topics' and 'reliability of social science references of 1950s or 1970s versus 1990s or 2000s'. Many encyclopedia articles, you analyzed so diligently, use/cite literature that is some 50 years or more old, suggesting these new editions are not based on new discoveries but are summaries of some of the same old sources. If anything, as world becomes more open and regional encyclopedias get published, there are more peer reviewed journal articles, more books, more secondary sources and more regional tertiary sources that suggest caste was not or is not unique to any one country.

For example, see caste in Yazidi people of West Asia article, a people and culture distant from India, they have their own unique religion, but had castes for many centuries, their past population estimated to be between 100s of thousands to millions by scholars, and there are reliable secondary sources and encyclopedic articles on Yazidi people and their caste system - but not covered by this article yet. That article, like this one, needs more sources for WP:V and improvement. For what it is worth, I have never edited Yazidi article, other wiki contributors have written it. There are many more such articles on caste, in tertiary sources outside of wikipedia, that have nothing to do with South Asia or any one country.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the meandering statement about Britannica and the statement that there is no wikipedia guideline on "age of citation for social science topics" is a gross violation of Wikipedia policy.

• WP:RS#Some_types_of_sources clearly says: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent."
• WP:TERTIARY clearly says: "Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other."

That means that to evaluate present consensus, current tertiary sources should be used, not editions from 1911 (not to mention 1851) supplemented with meandering speculation. If you, AVC, are serious about it, let's have an RfC on the reliability of using Britannica 1911 and Americana 1851. You can add all your rationalizations in the RfC statement. I am openly challenging you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fowler&fowler. Tremendous social changes have taken place over the last few decades (and continue to take place today) in India. We should consider recent sources; evaluating present consensus is critical. I will create a separate sub-section to evaluate consensus based on recent sources.Hoshigaki (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please update the number of sources column in the table above. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 07:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoshigaki, You are doing this again. I have serious concerns about your level of competence in the English language. I feel your comprehension skills are poor at best. Caste might be less of a central social issue in India today (although the jury is out on that), but that doesn't make India any less central to the topic of caste. Caste someday might be nonexistent in India, but India would still be central to the (by then) historical topic of caste. You have also misinterpreted Wikipedia guidelines. They are about citing present consensus on a 3,000 year old form of social differentiation, not about citing the consensus on the present state of a 3,000 year old form of social differentiation. There are already concerns that you might be a sock, as there are about OrangesRYellow, though I'm willing to AGF this a little more. I have been on Wikipedia six years. New editors, don't jump into an RfC on a controversial topic such as caste in their first week and then hold forth in long-winded unfocused statements. New editors usually don't know about RfCs. New editors are diffident. You can tell their rawness by their tone. If you don't hunker down and focus on the material we have, if you don't seek help from some Wiki resource on English comprehension (whose poor state I'm not sure is real or feigned), I will consider your statement disruptive to the RfC process. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fowler&fowler, I think there may have been some misunderstanding on your part about me, my English skills and my participation on Wikipedia. I respect the fact that you are a senior editor and I only wish to work collaboratively with editors like you and the thousands of other editors irrespective of their seniority. My English skills are out here in the open for anyone willing to or interested in evaluating. I have pointed out on earlier occasions too that it is not too difficult to understand the question this RfC asks. I have understood the RfC very well and I have absolutely no comprehension issues. Fowler, I respect your work here as a senior editor and I hope we can work collaboratively now in the future for a long time; I hope we can benefit from our interaction and make the articles better at the same time. Hoshigaki (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler - I invite you to respect wikipedia's community agreed talk page guidelines. Please avoid personal attacks on Hoshigaki with statements such as 'I have serious concerns about your level of competence in the English language. I feel your comprehension skills are poor at best.' His or her comments are relevant and everyone is welcome to wikipedia and to this RfC. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is all ok, ApostleVoonColorado, I have explained to Fowler above that I do not have any comprehension issues whatsoever. I am asking all of us here to put our misunderstandings and differences aside so we can work collaboratively, improve Wikipedia content and benefit from knowledgeable interactions with each other. Hoshigaki (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis based on recency of presented sources

According to Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze in 2002:

"No less eminent a sociologist as M. N. Srinivas has even suggested that we are 'living in a revolution'. Even if we do not accept such optimism about the recent changes (there are fields of stationary as well as transformation), the last fifty years have certainly been a time of significant change in India's social structure. There is nothing in the record of India's last half century that would vindicate the thesis of the futility of changing the hold of antecedent economic and social inequalities in India."

Dreze, Jean; Sen (2002), India: Development and Participation, Oxford University Press, USA, p. 356, ISBN 9780199257485 {{citation}}: Text "first2Amartya" ignored (help)

This observation seems to fall in the same category with recent reports from 2011 like:

A recent analysis of government survey data by economists at the University of British Columbia found that the wage gap between other castes and Dalits has decreased to 21 percent, down from 36 percent in 1983, less than the gap between white male and black male workers in the United States. The education gap has been halved.

Polgreen, Lydia (2011), Scaling Caste Walls With Capitalism’s Ladders in India, The New York Times

Other reports from 2010

Another survey conducted by Indian researchers along with professors from the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard showed that the social status of Dalits has risen as well — they are more likely to be invited to non-Dalit weddings, to eat the same foods and wear the same clothes as upper-caste people, and use grooming products like shampoo and bottled hair oil.

Biswas, Soutik (2010), Is the free market improving lives of India's Dalits?, BBC

Also from 2010:

“Caste has no impact on life today,” Mr. Ganesan said in an interview at one of Chennai’s exclusive social clubs, the kind of place where a generation ago someone of his caste would not have been welcome. “It is no longer a barrier.”

A crucial factor is the collapse of the caste system over the last half century, a factor that undergirds many of the other reasons that the south has prospered — more stable governments, better infrastructure and a geographic position that gives it closer connections to the global economy.

Polgreen (2010), Business Class Rises in Ashes of Caste System, The New York Times {{citation}}: Text "Lydia" ignored (help)

While caste is very much a social issue in India even today, based on the sources above, it is clear that caste is no longer even amongst the central social issues in India. To make as accurate an analysis as possible, I will utilize only recent sources from the 44 presented for this RfC in determining if the reverse is true, i.e. is India central to caste today? Hoshigaki (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoshigaki, you are being disruptive to the process, by consistently misinterpreting language. These are secondary sources that could be useful in a section "Caste today" in the article, they have nothing to do with the question being discussed in the RfC. See my post above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoshigaki, please include the following references into the table above before the analysis of 44 (now 48) tertiary sources begins: 4) Sociology by Macionis, 5) Sociology: A Global Perspective, 6) Sociology by Shepard, 7) Invitation To Social And Cultural Anthropology. IMO, the last reference weakens the centrality argument even if it considers India to be the paradigmatic example of caste. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 19:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoshigaki - That is an interesting and relevant interpretation of RfC, caste in current context. I encourage you to read and contribute to other wikipedia articles on caste such as the Caste system in India. Some of the content you include above may improve the article there. This article links to it, and ultimately, a better summary from that article will be included to improve this article (see WP:SPINOFF and WP:FIVE for details and guidance). ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@CorrectKnowledge You are wildly off the mark about the last source. It has 13 pages devoted to Caste. Of these only one small paragraph mentions other countries. The rest is all about the Indian caste system. How is India not central if 97% of the pages on caste are devoted to India? CK, none of those references in any case are relevant or reliable. Find a scholarly tertiary source such as an encyclopedia article on "caste" or a specialist reference in sociology or anthropology which has an article on "caste," not a high-school text in sociology!! After Fifelfoo's note above, those are the tertiary sources we are looking at. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CK7 is an Indian reference written by an Indian author which describes caste from a universal perspective before going on into a lengthy subsection on Caste in India. It is pretty clear to me that it weakens the centrality argument. In any case, the reference is available for everyone to see. CK4 is a university textbook with a dedicated article on caste (as a closed class system). CK5 and CK6 are cengage learning material which combine articles on caste and class. Hoshigaki is free to analyze them independently and place them with FF8, 10, 23 if necessary. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 08:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoshigaki, Be warned that Caste-related article fall under Wikipedia discretionary sanctions. If after my repeated warnings, you continue to deliberately misinterpret language, you will be disruptive and I will ask for sanctions against you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fowler, Again I feel you have misunderstood this section in which I am analyzing according to the year of publication and other similar data. The intention in citing the Amartya Sen, Jean Dreze, The New York Times and the BBC sources above (in continuation of your reasoning that we need to consider the present situation) was to establish a baseline year for the inclusion sources. I know you favored sources going back 25 years at most but I feel we should make it even lesser, say 10 years or even the last 5 years - that is the inference we can draw from the M. N. Srinivas/Sen "We are 'living in a revolution'" statement. With that in mind I am working on the tables below and will continue to update them. I am excluding sources FF8, FF10, FF23, AV3, AV5 since they are not reliable per the table in the "Analysis based on actual content in presented sources" section. Hoshigaki (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CorrectKnowledge, Let me finish with the 44 sources first, then we can add the remaining sources. Hoshigaki (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ApostleVonColorado, While I have an interest in the topic, I came here by chance following links from RfC for a country template (where I was invited by another editor). I have no interest and am unlikely to edit any India caste articles for now. Hoshigaki (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

China

Per guidelines, WikiProjects should be informed of the RfC. This article makes some rather skewed claims about societies outside of South Asia, so it's only fair that editors familiar with regions outside of South Asia are brought here to provide a wider range of outside opinions. I wouldn't have realized the article was like this, as an editor with no interest in articles on South Asia, had I not accidentally stumbled onto it while browsing.--Ninthabout (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did post on WT:INDIA and the RfC itself informed the History and Social-something-or-other projects. But you are right. Other projects need to be informed. Do you have any ideas? Should the England, China, Korea, Poland, etc projects should be informed? Part of the reason why this article is warped and stuffed with OR is that it lies neglected. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to post on other projects. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per guideline, editors from the Irish, German, French, Polish, Italian, British, and Korean WikiProjects have been notified.--Ninthabout (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ninthabout. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think this article has some major issues, and most certainly a lot of sections about castes outside India are pure UNDUE/FRINGE lunacy. Coming from WikiProject Poland and WikiProject Sociology, and speaking with two hats on (as a Pole and as a professional sociologist), Caste#Poland is simply idiotic. That a few people used the word caste does not make it correct (UNDUE/FRINGE). I am not familiar with any serious scholar, or any serious body of work, which supports the idea that Poland has/had a caste. The correct term is social class. That's why we have the article on Aristocracy (class) there and not at Aristocracy (caste). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, Could you please move this (or at least copy it) to a proper Comment in the RfC. It will be easier that way, when the time comes, for the closing administrator to evaluate where the spectrum of opinion lies. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't have time to analyze the intricacies of this RfC at this point, I however grant you or any other editor permission to copy my statement (just post a diff in reply here or at my talk page). Or if you want to be more clear what part of this RfC I should post in, link it and I'll consider it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Piotrus. Please see this, starting page 59. It is a chapter titled Caste. The focus is entirely Poland. The author is Aleksander Hertz, a sociologist.

Of course, we should not rely on one scholar for FRINGE reasons. We must strive to check for more support. On caste and Poland, Hertz is not alone. As another example, see Celia Stopnicka Heller, another sociologist whose book On the Edge of Destruction: Jews in Poland Between the Two World Wars has been widely cited. See page 58 onwards of this book. Celia Heller discusses Max Weber's concept of caste, then discusses caste in Poland. Beyond Hertz's publications and Heller's publications, there are many more.

Verifiability not truth is our content guideline. If content is verifiable and widely discussed, it belongs here. I agree with your comments on Aristocracy etc.; the section needs to be rewritten for balance and due. But, I am not convinced how works by sociologists such as Hertz, Heller, etc. are fringe or undue? If you have evidence that these independent sociologists are unacceptable, or that they are a minority, please provide relevant evidence that can be verified. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You, AVC, are not in a position to evaluate the weight of opinion in the literature by citing one, two or three sources. That needs to be acknowledged in the tertiary literature. Do you have some (not just one) recent tertiary sources (published in the last 25 years) that mention the Caste system in Poland in their article on "Caste." That is the proper benchmark for such evaluation. Otherwise, why can't we also have sections on the "caste system in baseball?" There are many more books written on that, or on the "caste system in cricket?," which too has received significant coverage in the literature? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some good points. I am pretty sure there is no such thing as "caste system in Poland". I see three hits on Google books using this term, all referring to the Polish Jews. As I noted below, this theory is probably notable (perhaps even deserves its own article), but a) majority of scholars of Poland don't see it as a country which had or has castes and 2) even those who argue otherwise (and who are in a very small minority) agree there was only one caste in Poland (Jews). To imply otherwise is quite misleading, and we should avoid this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing to those two works, I looked at them briefly. They make an interesting point (I also found a review of Hertt'z book here, but I cannot make much of it due to snippet view only). Same for [16], which may be another Polish work discussing Polish Jews as a caste. Aleksander Hertz in particular seems to be big proponent of the "Polish Jews as a caste" theory. In fact, I think his argument is somewhat convincing; however we again run into undue or fringe. Even if we have another reliable scholar using this term (Celia Stopnicka Heller), they are, as far as I know, in minority. I would like to see more reviews of their work and learn what others have wrote in reply to them, but I am pretty sure that his theory is at best just gaining acceptance - and I certainly don't have any sources to back this optimistic statement. With regards to the current section Poland, my recommendations are as follows: 1) remove quote attributed to Francis W. Palmer (I guess?). 19th century controversial claims fails reliability. 2) Remove Lenin claim (for similar reasons), replace it with a sentence saying that Aleksander Hertz and Celia Stopnicka Heller (explain who they are) made arguments that Polish Jews should be seen as a caste. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Piotrus. I have read a number of reviews for these books, one in a peer reviewed journal. Yes, I agree that the section needs to be rewritten. Here is Heller (it is not about baseball or cricket or non-sociological stuff; I skip her citations which she includes in her book):

Caste, as defined by Max Weber, is a closed status group. The Jews of Poland were such a group - closed and shared status of compelling inferiority. Their caste status, which emerged in the middle ages and continued....(skipped to save space)

Here is Aleksander Hertz (again it is all sociology, I am quoting parts to save space):

Throughout their centuries in Poland, until their destruction, the Jews formed a caste.....

This was not the only caste in Polish society. However, no other group - except the Gypsies - had such characteristic and conspicuous caste features as the Jews....

The caste system is not confined to such social systems as that of the Indians or the ancient Egyptians. In one form or another it emerges in various systems, in various civilizations, countries and epochs.

I have seen peer reviewed journal articles on Jewish/Roma people as caste or caste-like and Poland/Eastern Europe (see one example here). I agree, we should revise the section with content that is balanced, due and properly cited. I agree the Palmer quote should be taken out. Do you mind if I move your section as one of the comments in the RfC section above? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best thing would be to transclude the section there by adding it under a new heading and then noting that the discussion is here through a redirect? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ApostlevonColorado, You need to clearly understand the difference between due weight and original research. Using some academic sources that discuss "caste" in Poland might be used as an argument against OR. However, Caste is a core topic, featured in English language encyclopedias, references, and university textbooks, for over 150 years. If the overwhelming majority of modern tertiary sources on "Caste" do not mention Poland, then we cannot have a section on Poland in this encyclopedia's article on Caste. It simply means, that while there may be some literature on "caste" in Poland, the concept of "Caste in Poland," has not been deemed notable enough to receive coverage in the scholarly tertiary sources' article on "Caste." You may attempt to add that section to Society of Poland, provided it has due weight there, but not here in any significant fashion. A note could be added at the end that states something like, "Caste-systems (or systems akin to caste) are found in Poland. See ....." I am asking you again, do you have some modern scholarly tertiary sources, published in the last 25 years, that discuss the caste system in Poland. If so, please cite them here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article (caste) should discuss more than just India, but it is probably not necessary to have a section on Poland (and many other countries). With regards to Jews, I would expect that the cited literature could be situated within a larger body of work on Jews in Europe (if not more general) as a caste. Such a section could be encyclopedic. Alternatively, we could try to have sections on castes in Europe and so on, and within it, a paragraph on Poland (I still think that Jewish caste in Poland could be a notable article on its own). In either case, our text should make it clear that that the Jewish caste in Poland is an idea that is not universally recognized (but I do agree it is notable enough to be discussed somewhere in this project in more detail, and likely, deserves a passing mention - but not necessarily a section - here, in the caste article). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I say in a comment section upstairs, the article on Caste in Leonard, Thomas M. (2006), Encyclopedia of the Developing World, Taylor & Francis, p. 255, ISBN 978-0-415-97662-6 (please click on this link), published in 2006, could be used as a model. Accordingly, I propose that this article should devote 25% to definitions and review of literature; 40% to India; 10% to other countries in South Asia; and 25% to countries outside South Asia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that this article is also about the concept of Caste, and agreeing with AVS's comments somewhere upstairs) that this article needn't be a clone of other articles, I could go along with: 30% to definitions, historiography, and review of literature (from Marx and Weber to Dumont to the Post-Colonialists.); 30% to Hindu India; 10% to non-Hindu India and rest of South Asia; 30% to cultures and countries outside South Asia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd cut half of the coverage of outside India and replace it with more on the social (sociological) aspects (would partially fall under expanded literature review). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus - I like your idea: Jewish caste in Poland could be a notable article on its own. If you want to start it, I will help along. We can link that as the main article to a summary here. Here are two additional reviews of Hertz articles: review 1 and review 2. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus - On ideas to improve and rewrite this article, I had started a discussion section after RfC was opened, elsewhere on this talk page. See this. But, the discussion was stopped, and held off while the RfC is open based on comments in there. If you disagree with Fowler&fowler or Sitush there on procedure, I will appreciate your comments there. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AVC, That discussion is closed and collapsed. This discussion is open only because it the same as Piotrus's statement. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: So (if one interprets "hut" to be a typo, and assumes you mean "half"), are you suggesting that 45% should be devoted to Caste (sociological and anthropological concept) and Review of literature, 30% to Hindu India, 10% to non-Hindu India and non-India South Asia, and 15% to Caste outside South Asia? I am happy to go along with this as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the disclaimer that I have not read much of the RfC and other's views, which also means I think my opinion is fairly neutral - yes, this is the structure I'd propose for this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal based on Piotrus's proposal

In light of Piotrus's proposal above, I am offering some page statistics and amending his proposal to the one below. (Piotrus, author of 7 FAs and one of Wikipedia's most prolific contributors since 2004, is a professional sociologist.) (Updated: In light of user:Ratnakar.kulkarni's comment below, I have decided to keep Piotrus's original proposal above, in conjunction with Wikipedia article size guidelines. See Second proposal below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC) )[reply]

Analysis

The current article, Caste, has a readable prose size of 9,443 words. (Readable prose size means actual prose within the paragraphs and does not include prose in tables, bulleted text, infoboxes, photo captions, references etc.) Of the 9,443 words in Caste, the Lead + etymology and two abstract sections at the end constitute 1,160 words; India, 478 words; rest of South Asia, 365 words; caste outside South Asia, 7,444 words: of this, caste in East Asia has 2,260 words, caste in Africa has 1,163 words, caste in Europe has 2,877 words.

Contrasting this with other major related articles, we find: the FA India has 8,091 words of readable prose, Sociology has 7,759 words of readable prose, Anthropology has 6,735 words, Social Science has 5,445 words. Among subject topics in Sociology and Anthropology, Social class has 2,039 words, Social mobility has 4,900 words, Social stratification has 1,667 words, Cultural anthropology has 1,785 words, Social anthropology has 1,190 words, Ethnography has 2,730 words, Kinship has 3,733 words, Social group has 2,401 words

Proposal

1. The entire article should have a readable prose size of no more than 5,000 words (ie. approximately half the current size). This is in well in keeping with other Sociology and Anthropology topics, such as Social mobility. Of this,
   1. Definitions, concepts, review of literature, should constitute (40%) or 2,000 words.
   2. Hindu India should constitute 30% or 1,500 words (note this is 1/6 the prose size of the spinout article Caste system in India which has 8,462 words, but has issues of its own.)
   3. non-Hindu India and extra-India South Asia should constitute 10% or 500 words
   4. Caste outside South Asia should constitute 20% or 1000 words
2. We end the RfC and move towards rewriting the article:
   1. user:ApostleVonColorado should rewrite 3. and 4. (non-Hindu India and rest of South Asia; and Outside South Asia) a total of 1,500 words. AVC, has experience in writing Wikipedia articles on socio-economic indices, poverty, and nutrition.
   2. user:Sitush should write 2. (Caste system in Hindu India, a total of 1,500 words) Sitush has vast experience in the myriad India-related caste articles and is principal author of the FA James Tod, the first British author on the Indian Caste system.
   3. I, user:Fowler&fowler write 1. (Definitions, historiography, Review of literature, a total of 2,000 words). I have experience in writing FAs (Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760) (which, for example, has a historiography section; India (History, Geography, Biodiversity), and soon to be FAs (Mandell Creighton and Company rule in India.
   4. The others taking part in the RfC (in particular those such as user:Ninthabout, user:CorrectKnowledge, user:Ratnakar.kulkarni, who have contributed significantly, help the three editors above by offering critical insights, sources, writing, etc.
3. That these various editors work on their different sections for the next six weeks, and then have user:Piotrus weigh in on 1 November 2012.
4. This I believe is the best and the least disruptive option; otherwise, we risk debating this endlessly and accomplishing nothing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we hold off on this. Not because I do not like parts of your proposal Fowler&fowler or your initiative, but because there is a major unresolved issue on spin-off articles and wikipedia guideline on how main article must be summarized. I plan to include this statistical and "due weight" analysis in my reply to the RfC. I will show that, per wikipedia guidelines, the majority of encyclopedic article on caste, which is sum total of 'caste articles that are linked and sub-linked per wiki spin-off guidelines' is already on India. It is already far more than what Piotrus and others have suggested.

@Piotrus - We have an independent main article on Caste system in India, which is linked to this article, Caste. The situation is similar to the articles you wrote. For example, consider your article on Max Weber; that article links to the main article The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism and others. A short summary of the linked articles are provided in Max Weber article. I see no persuasive need to copy heavily from The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, or The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism, or The Religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism, or others into the Max Weber article. Shouldn't this family of articles be structured in a way similar to the way you have structured Max Weber and other articles?

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Caste system in India article (also mainly contributed by AVC) has more issues than this article. That too will need to be rewritten. However, like many flagship articles, such as India, which too had problematic spinouts, the summary section here, "Caste in India," will need to be independently written (based on scholarly secondary sources and guided by scholarly tertiaries) and the problematic spinout, Caste system in India, then rewritten/expanded based on the summary sections. That happens all the time on Wikipedia. Otherwise, we risk being here until the end of the world (which I'm told is happening in December 2012). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for Max Weber, the essay The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism later published as a book, is one of the dozen themes in Weber's life. Tertiary articles on Weber don't devote 75% to 100% of their content on that book. In terms of numbers; Max Weber has a readable prose size of 7,906 words; of these 521 words are devoted to "Protestant Ethic" section (which is summarized from The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, a page of size 2,288 words; in other words, we have a reduction to 23%. Caste system in India, on the other hand, has 8,420 words. In keeping with Weber, 23% of that is: 1,936 words. However, this article only devotes 478 words to "India." We are only asking for 1,500 words in the proposal! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compare, for example, how even concise tertiaries treat caste vs. Weber. Here is the Concise Dictionary of Social and Cultural Anthropology (which takes a point of view more sympathetic to the comparative method).

caste. The hereditary and hierarchical (see HIERARCHY) division of SOCIETY in (usually) India, associated there with HINDUISM. Members of a caste share the same profession and STATUS and traditionally avoid physical con-tact with members of other castes. Subdivisions of castes ("jatis") are linked to particular obligations and rights (the "jaimani" system). Anthropologists disagree on whether caste should he read in ways similar to SOCIAL structures outside India or as something unique. The nature of jajmani conventions has also been disputed. The word "caste" derives from Spanish and Portuguese, casta (" race" ). Further reading: Dumont (1980); BeteilIc (1996).

Now see the same source's entry on Weber:

Weber, Max (1864-1920). German sociologist, born Erfaut, Thuringia. Weber studied law at Heidelberg, Berlin, and (Gottingen, gaining a doctorate in 1889. He became professor of political economy at Freiburg in 1894, soon moving to Heidelberg. He had a breakdown and was unable to teach from 1898. He traveled, wrote, and lectured, and co-founded the German Society for Sociology (1909). From 1919 he taught in Munich. Much of Weber's work was published after his death: key texts include Die protes-tantische Etbik und der "Geist" des Kapitalismus (1904; The Protestant ethic, 2009), Konfiizianismus told Taoismus (1920; The religion of China, 19.i I), Theory of social and economic organization (tr. Henderson & Parsons, 1947; originally part one of Wirtscbaft und Gesellschaft, 1921), and Gerth and Mills collection Front Max Weber (2009 [19461). Crucial ideas developed by Weber include AUTHORITY. CHARISMA, the PuonsTANT (WORK) ETHIC, the IDEAL TYPE., and RoulmizATIoN. See also CAPITALISM, CLASS, CONFUCIANISM, DAOISM, FEUDALISM, POWER, PROPHECY, STA MS, vt:RsTEIIEN. Further reading: kasler (1988)." (Sorry about the last few sentences; the scanned image is blurry and my character reader is choking.)

But you get the idea: compare the weight given to India in the first and to "Protestant Ethic" in the second. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]