Talk:India

Education in India

At least there should be one section about education in India: Education in India
-User:Chu86happychu (talk)

Exactly my point! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BharatRakshak (talk • contribs) 09:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct Portrayal of India through Updated and Current Images

I am disappointed to to see that the images used to describe various issues on wiki article on India looks somewhat biased. Like in the society section, no images of cultural or folk dance but a image of rural methods to prepare food. Same is for the other sections like ox plowing of vegetation fields. There is no mention of the modern India in images and the articles portrays visually, India like a very undeveloped third world country. Please add images that truly represents the today's India. About the current infrastructure, Commonwealth Games held and India's representation in Olympics and that sort of material, more positive. I am not saying to cream it, but still what is true and recent should be portrayed. Thanks. - Sidd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.98.224.132 (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur. But you should not be ashamed of shy away from embracing your past heritage, they are what gave India its unique identity in the first place. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 05:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No one's "ashamed" here! You should be careful while using such words! And I too, agree with Sidd as this seems a deliberate attempt to tarnish India's image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BharatRakshak (talk • contribs) 09:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean it that way, please try assuming good faith, at least try not assuming bad faith. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 09:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I assume good faith, but there were many others before who found it inappropriate and I'm sure that it'd be in the archives. Glad, you could make some pictorial improvements in such a short period of time.

Regards, --BharatRakshak (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Structure of the article

The structure of article is not correct, lacking vital information and seems too short as compared to those of other countries. There ain't any sections relating to Science & Technology, Education, Infrastructure, Health, Tourism, Energy, Industries, Transportation and the images have been deliberately chosen to portray the weaker side of India. I demand these issues to be addressed immediately as the article has a daily traffic of over 3000 and is being viewed a million times in a month. Also, this is the first link that pops up in search engines' results. --BharatRakshak (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried to update the article by adding images of modernized India. But I think your query is already addressed in FAQ section above. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 09:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope you can add the above mentioned sections so that the article looks complete.--BharatRakshak (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't. I simply can't.

Q4: Why aren't there sections on science and technology, education, media, etc?

A4: New sections require talk-page consensus. In archived discussions, it was decided to keep them out. See WP:WPC.

Talk:India/FAQ

Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 10:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand what you're saying. But, there has to be a format or a template laid down for articles related to countries and according to which, all the points should be covered. I think that we should rope in some senior editors who have contributed significantly to countries' specific articles, administrators and then arrive at a consensus. Not just by a handful of editors (and I'm not talking about you :) but the editors who are too stubborn to listen to others as it's evident that many people want those sections to be covered). I noticed that previous versions of the article had these sections and some good images. I believe that the article should be modified in a neutral light so that people should can actually gain something out of it. Forgive me for the strong language. --BharatRakshak (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The content of an article is determined through consensus. This article is a featured article (means it's complete). However, if you still want to bring about a massive change to the structure,

1. You might start an RfC. To do that, first succinctly lay down the issues and then put forth a proposal in a new thread on this page in such a way that others can properly understand and support or oppose or simply comment on your proposal. That is, I think, the most effective way to reach a broad consensus, albeit it may take about a month to settle.
   Or,
2. You could visit India project and raise your problems there. For doing this quickly click here.

If you have any queries or proposals, you can visit my talk page and post messages there. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 14:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

First plastic surgery - in India 600 years before Christ

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Many Hollywood stars and world famous singers today are going for plastic surgery to make them look nicer and more sexy. Less well known is that the plastic surgery performed in India - 600 years before Christ. According to Croatian daily 24 hours, and there are about written texts in Sanskrit which describes in detail the procedures, and most were also performed on the nose. 78.2.101.254 (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Latest blanket revert

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Recent blanket revert just confounded me. I start this thread so as to know what was so unacceptable in my edits that the user rashly reverted everything? Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 07:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's the way it works here. You made a bold edit to a longstanding FA without discussing anything on the talk page first. Chipmunk has reverted your drastic edits. You now need to discuss every proposed edit here and gain consensus for each. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for it coming off so harshly. Your edits greatly increased the number of images on this page, which added a great deal of clutter. This is not a case of WP:DEW (which is really not something you want to use as an argument for reverting a revert of your edits, but that's another matter). Images in wikipedia are meant so support the text, rather than dominating it. We have a whole MOS to do with their implementation, WP:MOSIMAGES. One part of this that was very pertinent to your edits was the bit about text sandwiching. It's important text isn't cluttered by the pictures, it not only looks bad, but in some cases can actually hamper reading, as and images sometimes overlap making the text unreadable. If that isn't happening on your monitor, then you still have to think about the possibility of it happening on the screen of someone who has a different monitor or software, in the spirit of WP:ACCESS. Regards, CMD (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

As a postscript to Chipmunk's reply here, let me add that the choices of images in the article were not made lightly. They were, earlier this year, chosen from hundreds of nominated images in a labored consensus involving dozens of editors lasting over two months. I'm afraid such major community effort can be negotiated only every so often. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler - I know full well "how things work here". IIRC, I added images of mountains, cities, etc. I explained most of the things in my edit summaries. It's User:Chipmunkdavis's job to validate his reversal since (s)he is the one who reverted without explanation. There was nothing controversial among the things I added, it's chipmunk's turn to explain why he felt the need to revert.

“that's the way it works here” — is nowhere near good enough.

If chipmunk doesn't explicate his reservations against my edits I will change it again. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 13:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I gave a short summary reason in the edit summary, and explained my reasons more fully in the paragraph above. See also WP:BRD. CMD (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"Images in wikipedia are meant so support the text, rather than dominating it." - where does it say that here images are dominating the text and not supplementing it? Also, where did I contravene MOS:IMAGES?

If you think it was cluttered, I will say that the inclusion of images didn't make it any more cluttered than it already is now. Seems like it's a subjective objection. Nevertheless you didn't just deleted the images but also the contents, so I will implore you to restore the content which was backed by reliable sources. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 13:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There is an objective guideline noted at WP:MOSIMAGES which I explicitly mentioned above, that of text sandwiching. Your changes clearly and obviously sandwiched the text. If you want that guideline changed, you'll have to discuss it there.

Would you please note here what changes you'd like backed by what sources? The only changes I can see are just economic ranking ones, and I think it'd be good to have the whole different economic sources discussion at least present on the talk page before the edits go straight in. I've seen even this erupt into large disputes before, and India is a touchy article already. CMD (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"If you want that guideline changed, you'll have to discuss it there." - that's a tautology.

"Would you please note here what changes you'd like backed by what sources?" - I didn't understand what you're trying to convey with that.

"it'd be good to have the whole different economic sources discussion at least present on the talk page before the edits go straight in." - you can think that. But I think I provided a reliable source and updated the info, I did my part as a BOLD editor. Like I am saying again and again, it's your job as the reverter, to explain to me and other concerned editors, why it is not acceptable. Do you understand my point? It's not me who should be doing the explaining now. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 13:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Noting where to discuss something isn't a tautology. Anyway, you said I reverted "contents". Please note here what those contents are, and the sources they're from. If other editors agree to your changes, then you can edit them into the article. CMD (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am sorry but it is a tautology, because I know where to go if I want the guideline change. Also a redundant statement since I never said that I wanted the guideline changed.

"Please note here what those contents are, and the sources they're from. If other editors agree to your changes, then you can edit them into the article." Oh! Then that can only mean that you didn't even check my edits before reverting it. You tell me what was unacceptable. I don't need to give you any more justifications (you already reverted my edits, didn't you?), you are the one who deemed reversal as necessary, now I want to know, why? Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 13:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not what a tautology is. Anyway, it's the WP:BURDEN of those seeking to make the change to justify them. The only burden on the reverter is to explain their revert, and participate in a discussion once it arises. CMD (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong. I think, I provided a reliable source and updated the info, I did my part as a WP:BOLD editor. I repeat, it's your job as the reverter, to explain to me and other concerned editors, why it is not acceptable. Do you understand my point?

"That's not what a tautology is." - We can quibble over the phraseology and semantics, or we can discuss your reason for blanket reversal. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 14:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed both WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN. I've asked you to clarify what exactly the content is you're talking about, specifically asking for confirmation at one point that it was just economic stats, but you have refused to do this. If you do post your content changes here, I'd be more than happy to comment on them. Until that point though, I'm afraid there's little I can do. CMD (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"You seem to have missed both WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN." - No. I have not. It's your perception.
"I've asked you to clarify what exactly the content is you're talking about" - and I am asking why are you not able to tell me that even though you have reverted it? It means you blindly reverted my edit without checking it thoroughly. You should be more responsible. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 14:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's usually considered poor form to change an edit that has been replied to. My edit summary noted it was a blanket change. Editors aren't expected to spend their time looking through every detail of large edits to separate the good from the bad. You can either continue to try and use this discussion to disparage my editing form, or constructively move it forward by focusing on content. CMD (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"Editors aren't expected to spend their time looking through every detail of large edits to separate the good from the bad." - apparently some editors are expected to do just that after their edits have undergone blanket reversal and all of their efforts are put to vain in one shot.

And where does it assert that anyway? Admit it that some portion of your reversal was needless and utterly irresponsible. I am disappointed with you.

"poor form to ..." - oh give it a rest, will you?

"constructively move it forward by focusing on content." If only you follow your own preaching. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 14:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to gain consensus here, Mrt3366, for every non-trivial edit you make to this FA. That has been the longstanding policy on this page, a policy hewn out of numerous RfCs dating all the way back to 2007. Thus far, you haven't gained consensus for anything, only harangued us in long monologues. You are wasting time, yours and ours. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The best thing for you to do would be to propose an image here, explain which image it should replace in the main article and why, and then let the discussion proceed. It will have to be done one image at a time. In light of the fact that this page has only earlier this year arrived a two-month long, excruciatingly achieved, consensus on images, I might warn you that it will likely not be easy to rehash this with any dispatch. The discussion about images cannot, and I repeat cannot, be made in edit summaries. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I will do it eventually, don't worry. You have given me no other option.

But first let's recapitulate, I made several edits which would otherwise be considered minor/acceptable changes, but all of them got reverted. And then as a corollary to my conversation with the reverter, I would say, it was sort of revealed that (s)he didn't even bother to check the textual changes I brought in, before reverting each one of them in one stroke. Yet, somehow I am the one who is to blame for the wastage of time?

"That has been the longstanding policy on this page, a policy hewn out of numerous RfCs" — I want to see what discussion took place that established the policy which you're alluding to. Where is the discussion that says none can add any relevant image on their own, and if they do it will be reverted.

Who made you the guardian of this article? You've barred me so far from improving wikipedia and didn't even explain me why my edits were reverted. The only rationale you seem to be foisting is, editors just can't edit the page without your (CMD & you) approval.

Please understand that I am not obliged to follow your made-up rules. I beseech you to give me the links of the earlier discussion, or explain to me why my edits were reverted, otherwise let me go about editing the page. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 15:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Mrt3366 don't you know few people own this page, how dare you make changes to this article without their consent, this is how it works here. Mrt3366 did not just add images he added other contents as well. I see that (s)he made edits after few edit requests made by some IP address, apparently few editors are not interested in making any changes to the article, this is not an article about some Yugoslavia where the content might not change for a long long time. Its expected that few things keep changing in this article. It would be fine if you can explain what was wrong with his edits(apart from the image thing). --sarvajna (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Mrt3366, It is also best not to spam other user talk pages, as you are now doing, with requests to comment here. Drumming up fake consensus by eliciting opinions of selectively chosen editors is in violation of Wikipedia policy. As for editing this page, these rules apply to everyone. If I want to make an edit, I too bring it up on this page first. Please read Wikipedia policy on Featured articles and ownership. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Mrt3366, Finally your claim (in your reply above to me), "I know full well 'how things work here'. IIRC, I added images of mountains, cities, etc. I explained most of the things in my edit summaries." does not seem to stand up to scrutiny. Here are some examples: a) You added major POV-content on the subject of caste in this edit without any edit summary, b) you added an image on the Mumbai skyline and made changes to India's GDP in this edit again without any edit summary, without even indicating what section the edit was made in, c) you added three images, starting with this edit, each with edit summary, "adding image, feel free to revert" (what explanation is that?), d) you added five images and a new rotation template in this edit with no edit summary, e) you added two images to the economy section in this edit again without any edit summary, e) you removed five images (added earlier through strenuous consensus) in this edit again without any edit summary, and f) you moved images out of the rotation template and besides added an outsized image, again without any edit summary. That is when Chipmunkdavis stepped in. Where are those vaunted edit summaries that supposedly provided the rationale for your edits? I don't see any. Be warned that disingenuous defense of unilateral edits borders on disruptive editing. In my view, Chipmunk has been very patient with you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

@sarvajna
"Mrt3366 don't you know few people own this page, how dare you make changes to this article without their consent, this is how it works here." - few people own this page? But I thought WP:OWN was valid here too. Do I smell sarcasm here?

@F&F You are cherry-picking the edits with no summaries. There might have been one or two edits where I missed the summary, yeah. But, does that serve as grounds for a reversal of almost 2 days of work by multiple editors? I do not think so. You talk a lot about the "past discussions", I want to see those discussions, myself (Link please). You are acting as the exclusive owner of this article. I do not like that. I have every right to know why my edits were reverted. So far you haven't given me any. Now, either you restore the textual info which you deem fit or tell me why not, otherwise simply step away. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 05:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Mrt3366, I think you're getting unnecessarily upset here. You added many images to the article in good faith and CMD did do a blanket revert but it is hard to see how else he could have undone the image changes. Doing an edit by edit revert is not going to work because of conflicting edits. Going through the article line by line and removing images that were causing the problem is also not easy. On the other hand, it is not that hard for you to make a case for any changes you'd like to make here on the talk page. Images have been contentious on this particular article (everyone has their own favorite images that they would like to see) and fowler is correct that we had a long process of voting on images a little while ago (I had forgotten about that else I would have warned you). There is no way that any editor can add or subtract images from this article without due consensus. You acted in good faith and did not know that but now you do so just let it go. --regentspark (comment) 22:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"it is hard to see how else he could have undone the image changes" - by checking the diffs and not removing my textual additions, for a start. Nobody promised that it would always be easy editing on wikipedia. You patrolled my edits, pruned some and I accepted. These guys are acting inappropriately by not depositing the links and practically bullying me away from improving this article which I am starting to loathe. If I were you I would not have defended that. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 05:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request on 3 September 2012

The map of "A clickable map of the 28 states and 7 union territories of India" in "Subdivisions" section shows wrong information. That is, "2. Arunachal Pradesh" is a part of India. this is wrongly shown there. Change this. 202.185.74.72 (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Arunachal Pradesh is a disputed state that seems to be controlled by India. No change. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 05:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes that I seek to bring

First, I don't disagree that much with CMD or F&F. Yes, I concede that I could have discussed the additions and it would have been more sensible. For some reason I lost my cool, I unaffectedly thank all involved editors for bearing with me. Forget about the pictures for the time-being (i.e. I will discuss them here in detail later), here is what I am talking about now:

Text that I (Mrt) want to add	Sources	remarks
1. The existence of a caste systems has also been observed among other religions of the Indian subcontinent (including Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism)	1. (Barth, Fredrik (1962). E. R. Leach (ed.). Aspects of Caste in South India, Ceylon, and North-West Pakistan. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-09664-5.) 2. (Martin A. Mills (2002). Identity, Ritual and State in Tibetan Buddhism: The Foundations of Authority in Gelukpa Monasticism. Routledge. pp. 40–41. ISBN 978-0-7007-1470-4.) 3. (Kenneth Ballhatchet (1998). Caste, Class and Catholicism in India 1789-1914. ISBN 978-0-7007-1095-9.) (Elijah Obinna (2012). "Contesting identity: the Osu caste system among Igbo of Nigeria". African Identities. 10 (1): 111–121. doi:10.1080/14725843.2011.614412.)	I retract this as it is unnecessarily delaying other possible changes. This was after RegentsPark checked it, and pruned some.
2. Article 17 of Indian Constitution declared any practice of untouchability as illegal. Since 1950, India has enacted and implemented many laws and social initiatives to protect and improve the socio-economic conditions of its Dalit population.	("Constitution of India". Ministry of Law, Government of India. Retrieved 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help))	Important piece of information that shows Indian Government's initiatives to stem the issue of caste-system.
3. The Indian economy is $1.848 trillion by nominal GDP and corollary changes owing to that.	("GDP (current US$) Data in 2011". World Bank. Retrieved 27 August 2012.)	This was partly discussed on the talk of Economy of India.

Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 07:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Please give a {{tb}} tag on my talk once you reply, I don't mind it. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 08:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The GDP estimates of IMF and World Bank tend to differ. Most of the other articles on countries like Indonesia, United States, China etc. use IMF data. Using IMF estimates looks like the convention to me, maybe there is a formal consensus on this in WP:COUNTRIES. As such, there should be a good reason to move from one convention to another. If you have one, please provide it.

Two of your edits in the society section: "Article 17 of Indian Constitution..." and "Since 1950, India has..." are positive changes even if they feel slightly out of place. The information you are conveying is significant. The third edit: "The existence of a caste systems has..." is redundant because the society section does not say that caste is limited to Hindus. Regards. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 08:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"The GDP estimates of IMF and World Bank tend to differ." - no, not really when it comes to top 14 economies. Only in India's case they tend to differ. Look here. And I think The World bank data is the latest and was updated in 9 July 2012, if I am not mistaken.

"The information you are conveying is significant." - nice, then I take it that according to you, inclusion is possible.

"redundant because the society section does not say that caste is limited to Hindus." - come on it names, Dalits as "ex-untouchables", what do you make of that? Besides, it's not about Hinduism. It's about providing info about the societal segregation in India. And, of course, we can always modify/moderate the language of the sentence. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 09:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What you mean perhaps is that difference of GDP estimates in India's case are huge (all figures differ slightly because IMF and WB estimate the data independently). I don't think that World Bank data is more recent. GDP estimates for 2012 will only be available in 2013, all other available data are projections. I don't get this: Dalits as "ex-untouchables", what do you make of that. Why do you think listing religions in the section will explain societal segregation better? Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 09:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"difference of GDP estimates in India's case are huge" - unusually huge, yes. And not talking about 2012, but 2011 so july 2012 seems to make sense, doesn't it?

"I don't get this" - you said, it doesn't name hinduism and I am telling you that yes, it is implicitly pointing towards Hindu caste system by naming only Dalits (i.e. "ex-untouchable") and not other segregated classes from other religious groups.

Like I told you before, it is about Indian society (not Hinduism), hence the article should also mention the social stratifications that exist in Indian society due to other influences. cheers. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 09:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If there is a convention to only use IMF then lets not change what is present in the article. The other edition of Article 17 is good enough to add. I feel we need to include The existence of a caste systems has also been observed among other religions of the Indian subcontinent (including Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism) as it would be a good information about how the caste system works in India --sarvajna (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"If there is a convention to only use IMF then lets not change what is present in the article" - Please tell me:

1. Where is the convention?
2. how does it apply to India?

Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 10:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

What I wanted to say got lost in all the edit conflicts. Let me try again. If you mean that an estimate on July 2012 will be better than an earlier one, I agree. It looks like a decent reason to update the data. I still don't get the second part. How does labelling Dalits as "ex-untouchable" point towards Hindu caste system. Untouchability was pre–dominantly a Hindu practice, but it existed in other religions in India as well. Identifying Dalits as ex-untouchable doesn't imply anything. Maybe I am completely missing it, but I think the section is reasonably balanced. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 10:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am only saying if there is some convention else we can arrive at some concensus here, but I just checked the link of IMF that is present in the article and for 2011 even in IMF the GDP is 1.8 trillion not sure whether I am looking at the correct page or not this is where I checked. Are we having wrong/old data in the article? --sarvajna (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Shaded cells in IMF data are projections. We can't use them. There is some consensus here to use UN data for GDP estimates. Other than this I can't find anything. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 10:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"If you mean that an estimate on July 2012 will be better than an earlier one, I agree. It looks like a decent reason to update the data." - I totally agree.

"Untouchability was pre–dominantly a...but it existed in other religions in India as well." - Yes, and I am not talking about untouchability.

"Identifying Dalits as ex-untouchable" - again, please understand that I am talking of social segregation of all kinds (i.e. from caste system to class system). Do you get me know? Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 10:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but that still does not explain how appending a list of religions will add anything to the section. I am not very keen on opposing the addition, however I still think it's redundant. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 10:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"does not explain how appending a list of religions will add anything to the section" - don't append then, albeit clarification will be helpful I think.
and BTW the referendum you linked to is dated 2006, many things have changed since then. I do not think it will be prudent to base our edits on that but I may be wrong. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 10:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a discussion in 2006 will do us no good. Basically, I wanted to point out that there have been no discussions on choosing IMF over WB that are significant to us. Regarding the second part, a clarification along the lines of caste system is found among all religions in India... with a secondary reference, is what we should be looking for. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 10:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you here. It seems, you and I have reached concord. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 10:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just one minor addition, if you want to include religions in the section do it in a nondescript way. For instance, "Traditional Indian society is defined by a relatively strict social hierarchy. The Indian caste system embodies much of the social stratification and many of the social restrictions found in many religions (careful about weasel) of the Indian subcontinent." You might also like to inform RP, CMD and others. They might like to comment on this. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 10:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I already have informed them and I am waiting for their view too. (Meanwhile please comment on the proposal below.) Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 10:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Caste, the social inequality deeply embedded in Hinduism now for over two thousand years, is the burden of Hinduism alone. To be sure, superficial vestigial notions of caste are found in India's other religions, mostly as a result of formerly Hindu converts to those religions bringing over some of their caste prohibitions with them, but these vestigial distinctions have never been as elaborate, ideologically driven, or inhumane as the caste practices of Hinduism. If you are trying to insert this traditional upper-caste Hindu apology into this flagship article on India, let me bluntly suggest that you are wasting your time. I don't see any consensus ever appearing for it, simply because the sources are overwhelmingly agreed that Hindu India is the paradigmatic example of caste. Consensus on Wikipedia is not a vote, but dependent on what the predominance of sources say. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

If it is not mentioned than the section would not be balanced, it is very true that Caste, the social inequality deeply embedded in Hinduism now for over two thousand years but even you agree that the caste system is now present in other religions in India (ofcourse Mrt3366 has provided sources as well). Now if you feel that we should not mention something because it is a traditional upper-caste Hindu apology then I am sorry this is not how it should work here. Keep your view to yourself lets bring out facts.--sarvajna (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I've created a subpage (of my user page, so please don't edit it), User:Fowler&fowler/Tertiary sources on Caste, which has some 30 tertiary sources, themselves summaries of the secondary sources, on the subject of caste. Hindu India is what is typically associated with caste, not Muslim India or Christian India. That caste is superficially found in other religions of India is not notable enough to gain mention in this page, simply because it doesn't gain mention in the overwhelming majority of sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The textbook, Haviland, William A.; Prins, Harald E. L.; Walrath, Dana (2010), Anthropology: The Human Challenge, Cengage Learning, pp. 536–537, ISBN 978-0-495-81084-1, retrieved 2 September 2012 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) summarizes the anthropological view: "A caste is a closed social class in a stratified society in which membership is determined by birth and fixed for life. The opposite of the principle that all humans are born equal, the caste system is based on the principle that humans neither are nor can be equal. Castes are strongly endogamous, and offspring are automatically members of their parents' caste. The classic ethnographic example of a caste system is the traditional Hindu caste system of India (also found in other parts of Asia, including Nepal and Bali). Perhaps the world's longest surviving social hierarchy, it encompasses a complex ranking of social groups on the basis of 'ritual purity'." How much clearer a description, association (with Hinduism), and indictment do you want? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I will be gone for the rest of the day, but I don't see any easy consensus for this piece of garbage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the addition of a mention of the existence of the caste system outside Hinduism as being particularly controversial, though the wording and emphasis perhaps needs some thought. Caste and religion are intertwined in India (caste, for example, being an important driver of religious conversion) and in certain religions there is active caste discrimination (Mazhabi Sikhs are one example). The pervasiveness of the caste system in India and the difficulty in eradicating it is interesting and, imo, worthy of inclusion and perhaps that's what the focus of the text should be. --regentspark (comment) 12:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the addition would be informative. What about this form: Traditional Indian society is defined by a relatively strict social hierarchy. The Indian caste system embodies much of the social stratification and many of the social restrictions found in the Indian subcontinent. Though the classic caste system is empirically associated with the Hindu society, it spilled over to most of the other religions of the subcontinent….. AshLey ^Msg 13:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't necessarily disagree with this last phrasing, but it is the degree and form of the spill over that is at stake. Unfortunately the sources do not regard the spilled over caste system as important enough to emphasize. I've just produced 30 of the best-known tertiary sources on caste. Their lead paragraphs emphasize Hindu India. How, then, in a summary-style article on India (not on Caste) are we making a case for this inclusion? Consensus on Wikipedia is not a diplomatic compromise worked out between editors based on their personal views of a topic; it has to be essentially rooted in sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Just stop your POV-pushing, nothing is spilled over to others by Hinduism.

"Though the classic caste system is empirically associated with the Hindu society, it spilled over to most of the other religions of the subcontinent….." - wow spilled over to most of the other religions? Should I bring in other Hindu sources? That's an anti-Hindu POV, fowler&fowler.(Informing you, not blaming you)

"Caste, the social inequality deeply embedded in Hinduism now for over two thousand years, is the burden of Hinduism alone." - Hinduism alone? These anti-Hindu POVs are extremely offensive to Hindu community do you know that? Divisive even.

Why only focus on western-indologists when it comes to Hinduism? Why not then state what actually the Hindu saints like Swamy Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Dayanand Saraswati, etc and modern Hindu activists like Subramanian Swamy have said about caste system? Don't forget that one might say that there are 73 sects of Islam alone. Every religion has segregation and stratification, misinformation about caste system while neglecting to mention other religious groups is not how we should work here.

@sarvajna "Now if you feel that we should not mention something because it is a traditional upper-caste Hindu apology then I am sorry this is not how it should work here." - yes, you are right. Fowler&Fowler is deliberately creating a problem here. Nobody is denying that India is grappling with societal stratifications, but why pick on Hinduism alone? Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 13:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fowler take this for example Baylyl, Susan, Saints, Goddesses and Kings: Muslims and Christians in South Indian Society, Cambridge University Press, retrieved 2 September 2012 on page 253 it says In practice, since virtually all thoroughfares were built to accommadate some kind of sacred or ceremonial function, this meant that low-caste Christians were barred from just about every town and village street in Malabar. The caste system is not just present in Hinduism and I might slightly agree that the kind of caste system present in Chritians might have been superficially borrowed from Hindus but that is not the case with Muslims. Also superficially or not superficially you just cannot hide the fact that caste system is present in other religions. --sarvajna (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Offensive or not, Mrt3366, the sources regard caste as the defining social inequality embedded in Hinduism from time immemorial, long before there was any Islam or Christianity in India. I challenge you or anyone here to produce (on any forum on Wikipedia) such a predominance of tertiary sources on caste as I have done.

Ratnakar.kulkarni, Anyone can produce secondary sources in support of anything, but find me the widely recognized tertiary sources that emphasize these alternative views with such unanimity. (PS. If you think I haven't read Susan Bayly (and several times, at that) read the Kurmi article.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sarvajna, Mrt, Fowler and others please don't waste time reinventing the wheel. A detailed discussion on this has already been done at Talk:Caste#Serious Neutrality and Balance Issues. All of F&f's arguments/sources were examined and counter arguments/sources were presented. I don't see anything new happening here. Let's consider RP's suggestion instead. We can't just list all the religions afflicted by caste in the article, there should be a point to it. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 13:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"I will be gone for the rest of the day, but I don't see any easy consensus for this piece of garbage." - mind your tone. I demand replies that are polite and civil. Calling somebody else's proposal to include verifiable information as "garbage", is downright rude. I could careless about what you think. I think you should step away from the article now. You have already done enough.

"Ratnakar.kulkarni, Anyone can produce secondary sources" - then balance it. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 13:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"We can't just list all the religions afflicted by caste in the article, there should be a point to it." - I couldn't agree more. That's why I say you don't have to name any religion in particular. Just say that other creeds also have this problem, but don't blame it on Hinduism wholly. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 13:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Mrt, you also have to click on the link that you have given, WP:CIVIL. You can't simply blame somebody for POV-pushing without sufficient grounds. Let me waste 1 more second: I think Bayly corroborates, at least clearly in the Christian case, the "spill over" (anti-Hindu:). AshLey ^Msg 13:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fowler what I understand from Wikipedia:Verifiability/reliable sources is we need secondary sources let me quote I know you might have read this as well and honestly I did not know that you have read Susan Bayly you see I am not in a habit of tracking everything that you do Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources.

Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion

I Can provide you more sources on caste system in other religions in India. No one is denying the fact of presence of caste system in Hindu India, we are just saying that Caste system is not just limited to Hindus in India. We need to mention this in the society section of the article. --sarvajna (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Very well said. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 14:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Caste isn't unique to India or Hinduism. Every argument you make on this (including sarvajna's last one) has been discussed in the link I provided in my last post, so let's not spend any more time on this. Back to what RP said: The pervasiveness of the caste system in India and the difficulty in eradicating it, this should definitely be the focus. But if we choose to write along these lines, we will need a different source. I don't think Bayly will be useful. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 14:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"Every argument you make on this (including sarvajna's last one) has been discussed in the link I provided in my last post" - I know. What should we do then? I, for one, think we're needlessly wasting time quibbling about this thing, it's almost pre-decided settled. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 14:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Pre–decided... that had an eerie feel to it. Let's try to find sources which highlight the difficulties in eradicating caste in India, cutting across religious lines. I'll be able to continue this only tomorrow. What I am hoping for is that there is some sort of a consensus that this is the way forward. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 14:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

@F&F
You said, "let me bluntly suggest that you are wasting your time." - you have given me far too many suggestions now let me give you one in return, listen to what others are saying before being rude. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 14:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

CK and RP can you please elaborate on what you are suggesting? To be honest I did not understand what you said The pervasiveness of the caste system in India and the difficulty in eradicating it, this should definitely be the focus --sarvajna (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I second the concern raised by sarvajna. I know what CK wants, but I am unsure about RP's suggestions. It seemed too hazy. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 14:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't thought it through completely, so my explanation right now will be poor. Basically, after Most Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and members of other lower-caste communities continue to live in segregation and often face persecution and discrimination we can include Mrts content on laws, positive discrimination etc. Then we can describe how discrimination continues to this day in all religions briefly (in a sentence or two) despite the laws. I'll check tomorrow to see how others have improved/modified this idea. Hopefully, RP will have elaborated on the idea by then. Regards. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 14:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure we can wait for RP's suggestions and ofcourse Fowler's comments --sarvajna (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell the article as it stands doesn't link modern caste discrimination just to hindus, but to Indian society as a whole. The insertion of a sentence specifying religions would actually bring more attention to each specific religion than is there now, from my reading. CMD (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Not explicitly, you're right. But it does mention dalits as the primary victims of caste system. What does that imply? It's implicit behind the statement that Hinduism is to blame (like F&F so firmly believes). Also, we as editors are in no position to decide what to censor based on our apprehension about increased 'attention'. There are other groups that have in past faced or still today face the same discrimination. Why then mention one and not the other? Besides I do not think that adding a sentence about how segregation exists in other creeds of Indian society, will bring a tsunami of edit-wars Mrt 3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 16:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

All that implies is that dalits are the primary victims. It's hard to be more of a victim of social discrimination than to be completely untouchable. It is mentioned because it is a extremely prominent issue. A full list of every problem belongs on more detailed articles, and past ones probably shouldn't even be touched on in this article outside the history section. Wikipedia content isn't about what will or won't cause edit wars, but about information taken from reliable sources. CMD (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• To be honest I am not an expert on economy, so I want to stay away from it. The caste system is limited to very few places, and untouchability is almost dead. However it is true that the SCs and the STs are still economically weaker. I think Mrt3366' suggestions are good, as currently the article seems to have a little POV on this topic. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 17:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct Knowledge, please don't promote falsehood here by suggesting that the POV-ridden article Caste—which starting from the days (2007) it was edited by banned Hindu nationalist editors such as user:Hkelkar, has pushed the POV that caste is not unique to Indian society, but is found the world over—has no issues. It is currently being promoted by another editor, who edit wars over it. I tried to insert the sourced tertiary content, but simply didn't have the appetite to edit war. Please see the article history. Why don't you and the current author try to nominate it for a featured article, and then watch me (and others) take it apart? In fact, I challenge you. Why do you think it has the neutrality tag right at the very top? I presented some 15 sources on that page, the main editor there responded by providing 8 sources, most of which were disingenuously quoted, and two of which were the 1921 and 1911 editions of Encyclopedia Americana and Britannica!! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

As for the other views, either leave the wording as is with no reference to religion, or, if you are going to mention religion, then state what the preponderance of sources say about caste's clear, definitive, and unbroken link with Hinduism. After you have spent at least a paragraph discussing this, you may mention in no more than half a sentence the fact of the superficial spill over to other religions. The spill over is that inconsequential on the scale of emphasis in writings on caste. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ranakar.kulkarni, Wikipedia relies on secondary sources for its details, but on tertiary sources for determining on how the details stack up to create balance and emphasis. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Lots of stuff here to read but .... ! Anyway, whatever we add to the article, it should be clear that India's caste system is essentially Hindu in nature and that these caste distinctions "spillover" into other religions. The wording needs to be carefully done because castes are not institutionalized in other religions and we don't want the reader to be left with the impression that castes are something other than Hindu in origin and essence. (I apologize but it is a holiday here and I have many guests at home so can't make a more specific suggestion then that.)--regentspark (comment) 19:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw this discussion linked on another page and came to take a look. As usual, Fowler&Fowler is unnecessarily brusque, but essentially correct. I wanted to correct one main error made above, wrt secondary and tertiary sources. While, as a general rule, Wikipedia prefers to use secondary sources in articles, we absolutely do look to tertiary sources when trying to determine an overall picture of a field, especially when we're trying to balance POV issues. If the overwhelming majority of tertiary sources say one thing, than that is a clear picture that the field as a whole (in this case, the study of Indian history/politics/society) supports that perspective. To pick and choose a few secondary sources to try to balance against that gives undue weight to that minority viewpoint. It is possible to make a small mention of other religions, as regenstpark points out, but it has to be done extremely carefully. Based on the sources F&F provide, it sounds like it is important that the end result no sound like "Caste comes from Hinduism, but exists in other religions in India, too". Instead, it needs to sound like "Caste in India is the result of Hindu religious teachings, existing in India for thousands of years, and deeply embedded in every aspect of society (at least until recently). As other religions came to India, some of them also came to be affected by the caste system." Obviously, not really written like that, but with that impression. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

All we are saying is just mention the verifiable fact (I gave sources too) or, as you others may call it, "assertion" that there are "segregation" (not to be confused with the word "caste") in other creeds of Indian society also. To try and muzzle that voice with sophistry is not only needless but, to some extent, also hypocritical.

F&F indignantly and constantly labels anyone who so much as voices a favourable opinion of Hinduism or Hindus or Indian society as "Hindu nationalist"/"Biased".

And if you can give me one reliable tertiary source that says that no other societal or religious group had social segregation/discrimination except for Hinduism, then I would believe that you and F&F have a point. Otherwise it's just plain sophistication to suppress the truth and nothing more.

Caste is neither unique to Hindu religion nor to India; caste systems have been observed in other parts of the world, for example, in the Muslim community of Yemen, Christian colonies of Spain, and the Buddhist community of Japan.(Gerald D. Berreman (1972). "Race, Caste, and Other Invidious Distinctions in Social Stratification" (PDF). University of California, Berkeley. doi:10.1177/030639687201300401. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help))(David Cahill (1994). "Colour by Numbers: Racial and Ethnic Categories in the Viceroyalty of Peru" (PDF). Journal of Latin American Studies. 26: 325–346.)(Worth, Robert (December 7, 2008). "In slums without hope, Yemen's untouchables". The New York Times.)

Besides why mention the word "caste", why not mention the word "stratification" if you're not talking about Hinduism only? For example, this article about Christian caste in Indian society is from Encyclopædia Britannica. Tertiary source? Also read wikipedia's Caste system among South Asian Muslims don't you think these are worth mentioning? Will it be fair to those who faced discrimination in one form or the other, but not even mentioned in one sentence? Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 06:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• @F&F- you say, "the preponderance of sources say about caste's clear, definitive, and unbroken link with Hinduism." - what do you mean by clear, definitive, and unbroken link? The 'untouchability' in India is illegal and nearly dead. Indian government (composed of Hindus predominantly) is grappling with this casteism. Prominent hindu sages and leaders have constantly & fervidly spoken against the social discrimination and tried to explain how caste system is not actually pre-decided based on birth rather occupation. But you see none of that? You don't want to listen to the leaders, you won't let that voice to be heard. Again as sarvajna said above, “No one is denying the fact of presence of caste system in Hindu India, we are just saying that Caste system is not just limited to Hindus in India.” Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 08:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

On tertiary sources There isn't a unanimity among tertiary sources on this issue (see this). Once we acknowledge the conflict among tertiary sources, we shouldn't be tempted to discuss them any further (interpretations, age, space given to the topic, country of origin, field it specializes in etc.). As WP:RS suggests Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Actually, we don't need to use tertiary sources at all to evaluate what weight each viewpoint should have in an article. By examining quantity (no. of reliable secondary sources) and quality (no. of times cited, h-index etc.) of secondary sources we can accurately determine the same.

On sweeping statements Sweeping statements linking caste to India/Hinduism alone can be easily refuted with just one example. I'll let that example be caste in Islamic Senegal (there are plenty of others).[1][2] Statements that suggest that conversion from Hinduism is responsible for caste among other Indian religions are definitely more agreeable. It explains Mazhabi Sikhs, caste among Goan Christians etc. However, caste in Ashraf-Ajlaf (arab–non arab descent)[3][4] and STCs might be harder to explain using this logic. This probably requires further discussion.

@Fowler, the other editor on Talk:Caste was quite patient with you as you refused to answer their questions, used dictionaries as best sources, attacked them personally and in absence of consensus and despite repeated suggestions to take it to DRN went on to edit the page; but simply didn't have the appetite to edit war.. doesn't look like it.

@Mrt, this is just the stage where you've made the proposal and editors are already divided into no change required, change with Hindu focus and change with equal focus to all religions. Getting a consensus on sources, final wording will be an uphill climb from here. All this seems as bit wasteful for an addition of one or two lines to the section. If I were you I would take whatever consensus I got from here, close the discussion and flee. :) Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 08:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• At least say that "Indian government has declared untouchability as illegal, and is trying to eradicate the caste system that pervades all strata of Indian society". Although that might need some additional sources, this should be acceptable, right? Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 08:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought there was consensus on adding that already. That is a significant piece of information that is missing from the article. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 08:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, Encyclopædia Britannica. says

"As for “untouchability,” this was declared unlawful in the Indian constitution framed after independence and adopted in 1949–50.

..Although a great many spheres of life in modern India are little influenced by caste, most marriages are nevertheless arranged within the caste. This is in part because most people live in rural communities and because the arrangement of marriages is a family activity carried out through existing networks of kinship and caste."

Encyclopædia Britannica.

Is it not a tertiary source? Not saying we should include all that but just illustrating what the present scenario is. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 08:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

One more clarification for Mrt on dalit; the term is defined in the linked article as "Dalit is a designation for a group of people traditionally regarded as untouchable.[4] Dalits are a mixed population, consisting of numerouscastes from all over South Asia; they speak a variety of languages and practice a multitude of religions.". Dalit is not synonymous to SC/ST and not always a Hindu; so a mention on the discrimination against dalits is not an "anti-Hindu" POV as Mrt tries to establish here. AshLey ^Msg 08:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Dalit encompasses a wider base than Hindu/Buddhist communities. That shouldn't be the only reason to balance the article. Of course, this has no bearing on the constitution related content Mrt is adding. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 09:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Mrt asked me back. I have no opinion on how to mention the untouchability point, as I don't know enough to give an informed opinion. But the point about other groups and other religions runs up into WP:UNDUE. Let me take a hypothetical example: if 90% of a countries citizens were all Buddhists, and 10% were Christians, we would certainly mention that in the country's article. But we wouldn't include detailed information about the rites, practices or other aspects of Christians in that country--to do so would violate WP:UNDUE; we'd probably put it into some sort of Christianity in Country X article. Remember, this page's job is supposed to give a broad view of India. There are a limited number of words and ideas that may reasonably be included. We need to include the ones that best represent what a broad look at reliable sources would state, giving due weight to minority opinions. Thus, while I said that regentspark's suggestion was possibly, I was simply cautioning it to say that we need to be very clear that the majority of reliable sources (especially the one's whose job it is to look at the broad view) is that this is a social structure that originates out of Hinduism, not just a social structure that happens to exist in a country that happens to have a Hindu majority. Do you see the difference? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition to what CorrectKnowledge said, I was previously asked "how appending a list of religions will add anything to the section" - I replied "don't append then, albeit clarification will be helpful I think". So I am not trying to establish anything. But you are not quoting the article correctly. It also describes dalits as "Panchamas ("fifth varna"), and Asprushya ("untouchables")", hence the word dalit sends a wrong message despite the neutral clarification given in the other article. That was what I was trying to say. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 09:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the article on Dalits you should take it up at Talk:Dalit. This might not be the right venue for such a discussion. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 09:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• @Qwyrxian

  We need to include the ones that best represent what a broad look at reliable sources would state, giving due weight to minority opinions. - I concur. Nobody is, I think, saying that we should explicitly mention any religion or give undue weight to anything. Give due weight to the fact, 1> that scenarios have changed drastically over the past few decades and 2> caste is linked to but not limited to Hinduism or India.

  @CorrectKnowledge - I don't a problem with the article on Dalits. I have problem with the context where the dalit is mentioned in this article and the message it sends because of that. I didn't mention the purported definition of the word "Dalit", did I? Ashley_thomas80 did. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 09:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian I would not agree with your logic about your hypothetical example If there are 90% Buddhists and 10 % Christians it is very much assumed that Christians in that hypothetical country almost follow the same traditions as the Christians in other countries, to clarify that the Christians in this hypothetical country follow some other traditions you need a separate article which says Christians of Country XYZ so when you say that Indian Society has something called caste an European/non Indian would assume that this is just about Hindus. I hope you got my point, I know it can be clearer --sarvajna (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct Knowledge: There is complete consensus in the tertiary sources on the centrality of Hindu India to the subject of caste. There are three Wikipedia articles, Caste, Caste system in India, and Culture of India in which original research, synthesis, and plain disingenuousness have been combined in a pseudo-scholarly style to majorly distort the perspective. If the POV from those articles is added to this Featured Article, I will certainly take a stand; however, I don't have the time to go after the content of those obscure (and obscurantist) pages themselves, in which editors hide behind the skirts of obfuscation in long and long-winded posts. You are welcome, Correct Knowledge, to nominate those articles for Featured Article status, then, with more eyes watching, I will be happy to take those articles apart. In fact, as I already have, I am again openly challenging you to nominate any of those articles to WP:FAC. If you are not willing to do that, then please hold your peace. As for any consensus here, plainly there will have to be a lot more clear explication of the centrality of Hinduism to the topic of caste before other religions can be mentioned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler, Caste system and its origin is already mentioned in the article in the Ancient India section, it is about caste system in Hindu India. The society section again speaks about Caste system and its problem without mentioning about Castes in other religion.--sarvajna (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have now edited the lead sentence in Caste and cited it to a single tertiary reference, the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. You all can now watch in real time how obfuscation is carried out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

PS I have also now added 30 tertiary sources to the talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Caste and India

Good! Waste your time and energy there, not here. Don't you understand nobody is denying that caste is linked to India and Hinduism? But when you say "only India or Hinduism has casteism" that is what the problem stems from. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 11:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

One of your tertiary sources says (International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2008), "Nearly all societies have had some form of social stratification, whether ascriptive or achieved, based on race, class, religion, ethnicity, language, education, or occupation." Then it goes on to say "The Hindu ascriptive caste system in India is perhaps the most complex and rigid." We have already accepted that. What's wrong with you? Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 11:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler I will comment on your sources there, most of your sources say that caste is not just limited to India and Hindus. Detailed comment on the caste talk page. --sarvajna (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't distort what I have said, Ratnakar.kulkarni. I have never said that caste is not found outside India or outside Hinduism, only that the tertiary sources are agreed that Hindu India is the classic, paradigmatic, and most frequently cited ethnographic example. As such, it should receive proportionate treatment in any exposition of caste. If on average, they devote twelve paragraphs to Hindu India, and only three to other examples, we need to maintain similar balance. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Fowler these are few of your own statements

• Caste, the social inequality deeply embedded in Hinduism now for over two thousand years, is the burden of Hinduism alone
• Hindu India is what is typically associated with caste, not Muslim India or Christian India. That caste is superficially found in other religions of India is not notable enough to gain mention in this page, simply because it doesn't gain mention in the overwhelming majority of sources

yes we need not elaborate anything but can't we mention the existence? Also only 10 of your sources say that it is specific to Hinduism and rest 21 either say that there is a debate among scholars or that there are caste like systems in other part of the world. If you agree that caste is not just present in Hindus then why are you opposing the inclusion of just small statement which says that caste like system is not just prevalent among Hindu Majority ? --sarvajna (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Distorting again, Ratnakar.kulkarni. They all discuss Hindu India (and 22 out of 30 mention Hindu India in the portions I have quoted. (For copyright reasons have usually only provided the first few sentences in the list.) Look at the links. I am talking about proportionate representation. As I've already stated, if you write a small paragraph on caste in Hinduism, you can then add one sentence about caste in the non-Hindu religions on India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The following claims are neither supported by respected published sources nor belong in wikipedia. These claims, made above, are false:

• "[..on caste..] the fact of the superficial spill over to other religions. The spill over is that inconsequential on the scale of emphasis in writings on caste."
• "There is complete consensus in the tertiary sources on the centrality of Hindu India to the subject of caste."

While there are quite a few authors and less followed/less cited scholars who claim caste is central / unique / etc. to Hindoos or India, and poorly written zillion topics-including tertiary textbooks/sources out there who make such claims, the more respected position - including by those referred to as founders/outstanding scholars of various branches of sociology - is that caste is more complex and diverse socio-cultural phenomena seen in many parts of the world. If anything, the subject, nature and details of caste is frequently disputed.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Best not to talk in generalities ApostlevonColorado. Dated articles by Gerald Berreman whose work from the 1960s is now mostly ignored can't be the basis of an article. Tertiary sources are important, especially when they are largely agreed. They, and not our own proclivities, determine the emphasis within an article. Citation indices don't mean as much, since many authors can be cited in opposition. I have now opened an RfC on the Talk:Caste page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler let's not stretch this discussion to the point of ridiculousness, repeating your allegations ad nauseam and thereby restarting the discussion all over again. You have said and done enough. We appreciate that. Every-body is entitled to his or her opinion and I respect that. You, like many of us, expressed your views, nevertheless more brusquely than I expected or thought was needed. I (along with others) don't agree with many lofty claims you make (same goes for me too).

But the fact of the matter is your 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 it's present outside of Hinduism or India also.

Drop it now. You're wasting your and others' time and more importantly obstructing the improvement of a Wikipedia article. My proposal is, I think, very fair and reasonable. If you out of hand assume that it's "upper class hindu propaganda" or "hindu nationalistic garbage" or just "biased" while your sources actually confirm my viewpoint then it's your problem. The claim that "there is complete consensus in the tertiary sources on the centrality of Hindu India" is your synthesis. Complete consensus is a very strong claim and in this case untrue since you're. Wikipedia is not about Winning. Your brusque behaviour reeks of battleground mentality. Now just drop it. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 15:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler, I have replied on the caste article. Please note if we follow your suggestion this page would become "Cast System In India" rather than India article. Just like I said above we already have the origin or caste system in Ancient India section and in the society section we just propose to add a small line saying that caste system is not just among Hindus. Hope you understand --sarvajna (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I thought that we can add domething like this in the society section The caste system in Indian which is not just prevalent among Hindu Majority embodies much of the social stratification and many of the social restrictions found in the Indian subcontinent......Most Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and members of other lower-caste communities continue to live in segregation and often face persecution and discrimination.Since 1950, India has enacted and implemented many laws and social initiatives to protect and improve the socio-economic conditions of its Dalit population and Article 17 of Indian Constitution declared any practice of untouchability as illegal.... --sarvajna (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Content on laws and constitutional provisions that protect Dalits is vital information missing from this article. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 13:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I support this proposal and agree with nominator as well as CK. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 15:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but no dice. Proportionate representation requires a much longer discussion of caste in Hinduism before other religions can be mentioned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I missed the not just prevalent among Hindu Majority part. That is still under discussion, but rest of the proposal looks fine. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 15:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Since the above proposal is obviously not going to cut it, I propose the following (text as before, additions bolded, and assuming reliable sources can be found for the additional assertions): Traditional Indian society is defined by a relatively strict social hierarchy. The Indian caste system, institutionalized within Hinduism, embodies much of the social stratification and many of the social restrictions found in the Indian subcontinent. Social classes are defined by thousands of endogamous hereditary groups, often termed as jātis, or "castes".[278] Most Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and members of other lower-caste communities continue to live in segregation and often face persecution and discrimination,[279][280] often even amongst converts from Hinduism to Islam, Christianity or Sikhism. Since 1950, India has enacted and implemented many laws and social initiatives to protect and improve the socio-economic conditions of its Dalit population and Article 17 of Indian Constitution declares that any practice of untouchability as illegal.--regentspark (comment) 15:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

...often even amongst converts from Hinduism to Islam, Christianity or Sikhism is a tall claim. It will be hard to prove that every non-Hindu who is afflicted by/believes in the caste system is a Hindu convert. I have pointed out earlier that the Islamic system of Ashraf-Ajlaf (arab–non arab descent) and STC casteism does result from conversion alone, there could however be Hindu influence on them. Basically, I don't like the convert from Hinduism phrase, it will not work for many communities in the subcontinent. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 15:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We are not discussing about persecution of converts by the fellow believers.--sarvajna (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You are making it only worse by adding The Indian caste system, institutionalized within Hinduism . This is what we have been discussing and have also given sources that caste system exists outside Hinduism as well --sarvajna (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The caste system exists outside Hinduism (in India) only because it exists within Hinduism. It's not as if there is an institutionalized caste system within Christianity or Islam. The only way we can mention other religions is if we clearly state that India's caste system is essentially Hindu in nature. The other alternative is to keep the text as is and add only the additional line about the GOI that starts with "Since 1950". --regentspark (comment) 16:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Caste system among religions in India shows Hindu influence. Religions in other countries have evolved caste on their own (Islamic Senegal for instance).[5][6] Even among Indians, lot of systems cannot be broken down into four-fold varna or mani-fold jatis. I like the other alternative of only including the "Since 1950..." line better. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 16:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Support RegentsPark's proposal 2. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• I oppose because:
  1. institutionalized within Hinduism - is going to stir up the issue even more.
  2. often even amongst converts from Hinduism to Islam, Christianity or Sikhism that doesn't make sense. Like CK claims, many cultures have developed social segregation on their own.

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 are people so eager to ascribe 'castus' - (latin word meaning segregation) to Hinduism as well as Hindu culture alone? Even fowler's sources refute this hypothesis. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 16:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with both proposals is the way in which connection between caste and Hinduism is being interpreted. I don't think there is going to be any consensus on the wording and then the sources anytime soon. Let's just drop it. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 17:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

On the Indian subcontinent, the caste system is found only among non-Hindus who live in close cohabitation with Hindus. Louis Dumont has written about it in his magnum opus. Caste, for example, is not found among the Pathans (who don't live among Hindus). See Dumont, Louis (1981), Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and Its Implications, University of Chicago Press, pp. 210–, ISBN 978-0-226-16963-7, retrieved 4 September 2012 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Pathans are themselves part of the Ashrafs.[7][8] You might of course argue that caste system among South Asian muslims exists because of Hindu influence on them and it would be a justified point. However, Pathans are by no means Hindu converts as the proposal suggests. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 17:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Fowler won't let us reach a consensus, as it seems. He is convinced that it's only hindus who started social segregation and also taught every other group wherever segregations exist (from japan to europe, from muslims to christians), yet I am advised not to call him a classic example of anti-Hindu POV-pusher. wow! Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 17:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Social segregation is not the same thing as the caste system which refers specifically to the hierarchy of castes developed within the practice of Hinduism.--regentspark (comment) 17:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

CorrectKnowledge: Obviously, he is not talking about Muslims who live in India and who call themselves Pathans (ie of Pathan ancestory and often with last name Khan), but the Pathans of Swat who live in Northwest Pakistan and who have, according to Dumont, a system of patronage and clientele with certain cast-like features, but not a caste system (with notions of hierarchy and ritual purity, etc). This also supports RegentsPark's statement above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Social segregation is not the same thing as the caste system which refers specifically to the hierarchy of castes developed within the practice of Hinduism" - the very words caste originated from a latin word 'castus' meaning nothing but segregation, and you are attempting to make me believe that segregation is not same caste system? Of course it is. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 07:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Of citations 279 and 280, CBC News is a poorly written summary of a report submitted to the United Nations by one activist group. Citation 280 is Stanley Wolpert's New History of India. Neither supports the current language on caste in this article or parts of suggested two proposal drafts. The cited Wolpert's page 126 is part of a chapter on Mughal times (1556-1605). The chapters covering contemporary times start in chapter 23, page 351. It would be inappropriate to take historical description of Wolpert and transpose it into a language that implies it to be the current status. Either better WP:RS support should be provided, or the summary rewritten to more closely reflect what the source actually says.

Similarly the UN report by one activist group should not be taken in isolation. United Nations has received many reports on caste system in India, some authored by Indians and some by non-Indians; the cited CBC News article referred to just one, and is therefore incomplete. See UN website mentioned by CBC News for the actual review of various primary source reports submitted to the United Nations for India and many other nations (e.g. see United Nations 2007 Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination)

Per WP:NPOV, the relevant section of this article, and draft proposals to revise it, would be better if it did not take sides, rather explain all sides fairly. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, RegentsPark has not mentioned anything about references for proposal2, but many exist. By the way, 279 is the signed article on "Caste" in Britannica written by the sociologist T. N. Madan. 280 should be removed; thanks for pointing that out. As for Wolpert, also cited for the same sentence, the wrong book by him has been cited. It should be Stanley Wolpert (1999), India, University of California Press, p. 126, ISBN 978-0-520-22172-7 That book is more appropriate for the Society and Culture section. Whether page 126 is the correct page, I can't tell (the discussion on caste is somewhere between 119 and 126). In a much trafficked article such as this, the second-most viewed country article on Wikipedia, things are continuously being tampered with by all sorts of drive bys. Thanks for pointing out the errors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If text is getting to the point where it cites specific parts of the constitution of specific laws in a very high level summary style article like this, then that is a good indication it is probably undue, and better used in a more specific article. CMD (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, CMD. The culture section is the weakest section of the article, one in which everyone and their brother have thrown in their two cents going back to 2007. Unfortunately, its parent article, the snow-job Culture of India, has major original research and neutrality issues. Until not too long ago it was claiming in its lead that Indian culture goes back to 8000 BCE and citing it to an book by a Hare Krishna businessman. The problem with a topic like culture is that it combines history, sociology, arts and architecture, etc in varying amounts. The experts in these subfields, such as Romila Thapar or Andre Beteille or A. K. Ramanujan don't write simplistic accounts for consumption by the average layman. It is consequently left to aging non-experts such as Amartya Sen, to hold forth loquaciously on culture and be regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Both this section and its parent article need to be majorly rewritten. But who has the time (and the ability to rigorously summarize the real experts)? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• In my note above, I was referring to [279][280] in proposal 2, which for clarity I quote: "...The Indian caste system, institutionalized within Hinduism, embodies much of the social stratification and many of the social restrictions found in the Indian subcontinent. Social classes are defined by thousands of endogamous hereditary groups, often termed as jātis, or "castes".[278] Most Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and members of other lower-caste communities continue to live in segregation and often face persecution and discrimination,[279][280]..."

I checked the alternate Wolpert book. I cannot find support for "Most Dalits and members of other lower-caste communities continue to live in segregation and often face persecution and discrimination" between pages 116 through 132 in this either. Also note that this alternate Wolpert book was written before and published in 1991, re-printed in 1999 with no change other than a new preface. Last 20 years have seen significant economic growth, expansion of schooling and changes in India's AA/EO efforts. If Wolpert citation is used to support any sentence, then for balance, the sentence should clarify "In a 1991 publication Wolpert observes...".

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You are quibbling about the 1999 reprint of a 1991 edition being outdated. Coming from an editor who cites a 130 year-old article from Popular Science—which uses the word cretin (for congenitally hypothyroid)—in the spurious subsection "Caste in France," in the article Caste, sounds like ironic joke. ApostlevonColorado, RegentsPark likely included the references without much thought, maybe even as an accidental cut and paste, he even says, "assuming reliable sources can be found for the additional assertions." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:TPG, I invite you to avoid using this page as a forum, assume good faith and welcome suggestions that can improve this article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup. As my proposal says, I only added the bolded bit and would only accept their inclusion if reliable sources can support them. --regentspark (comment) 01:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And here is a source that supports RegentsPark's sentence "Most Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and members of other lower-caste communities continue to live in segregation and often face persecution and discrimination" Haviland, William A.; Prins, Harald E. L.; Walrath, Dana (2009), The Essence of Anthropology, Cengage Learning, pp. 264–, ISBN 978-0-495-59981-4, retrieved 4 September 2012 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), Quote: "Although India's national constitution of 1950 sought to officially abolish the caste system, and its faith-based discriminatory practices against Dalit untouchables, the caste system remains deeply entrenched in Hindu culture and is still widespread, especially in rural India. In what has been called India's "hidden apartheid," entire villages in many Indian states remain completely segregated by caste. Representing about 15 percent of India's population nearly 170 million people--the widely scattered Dalits endure near complete social isolation, humiliation, and discrimination based exclusively on their birth status." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Most and often are a weasels that the source does not support. If the source says ..entire villages in many Indian states remain completely segregated by caste, that is how the sentence should be worded. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 04:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

RegentsPark - you may want to consider whether Haviland's book on Anthropology is a qualified and reliable source for economic data and on status of social civil/human rights in any country including India? In my studies, I find Haviland is one of the better textbooks on anthropology, but not a reliable source in other respects. For example, the allegations of 'hidden apartheid' and caste is racism in India is controversial and has been criticized by many including that Andre Beteille, someone Fowler&fowler often refers to. Similarly claims of 'near complete social isolation, humiliation, etc.' must be cross checked to be sure if is broadly accepted by scholars/economists/human right survey groups. It would be inappropriate to write a summary that unfairly praises or bashes India. Here are four sources that may give you additional info in drafting a fair and balanced summary sentence: 1. One of the social activist group tracking status of Dalits 2. A review article covering the issues and progress of Dalits in India 3. Economic reforms in India and its effect on its society 4. Annual surveys and reports resource on Dalits in India

These may be enough to start with. The United Nations Human Right Commission and social entrepreneurs/volunteers tracks these things and publish their own reports. FWIW, from my background research about 8 months ago, that Haviland summary on current status of Dalits is not widely accepted. The reports present a more complicated situation than that Haviland's summary above.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that the entire content of Haviland be incorporated into the text; only that Haviland (which is used a number of time in the article Caste starting in the second sentence) can be used as a citation to support the statement in RegentsPark's proposal, which says nothing about "hidden apartheid." Your references are unreliable and too specialized. A balanced summary for such an article is created by using a well-recognized tertiary source, not by trying to balance (on one's own) four separate articles: one of a social activist group, another from a conservative American institute, and two from departments within the Government of India. That is a perfect recipe for synthesis. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

PS The last sentence in RegentsPark's proposal will need to be balanced with another about how successful these new laws and social initiatives have been. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The institutionalization of caste is not just among Muslims in India who live among Hindus but also among the muslims of Swat in pakistan Aspects of Caste in South India, Ceylon and North-West Pakistan Fredrik Barth says on Page number 113 that ..the people of Swat, as Sunni Moslema, fall far outside the Hindu fold, their system of social stratification may meaningfully be compared to that of Hindu caste system. Fowler, please note even as per your sources caste is not just present in India.It would be total distortion to say that caste system is institutionalized thing only among Hindus.--sarvajna (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please also see Louis Dumont's response to Barth's work on the Pathans of Swat that I've cited and linked above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Problems with proposal 1: It does not proportionately represent Hindu influence on caste system in South Asia.

Problems with proposal 2: a)Every caste/community in India has not been converted from Hinduism. b)Non-Hindu, Non-Indian institutionalized systems of caste are also seen in the subcontinent.

Even assuming for a moment, that we change proposal 1 to proportionately represent various religions or we modify proposal 2 according to Dumont's theory (change it to Hindu influence etc.), the resulting content would still not serve our purpose. I assume that there is a consensus to include content on constitutional protection to Dalits. So what we are really looking for is something to connect constitutional protection to Dalits and their situation in modern India. Basically, any proposal should suggest a decent connector:

<Constitutional provisions> — — [Connector (Why have the laws not worked well enough)] — — <Situation of Dalits in Modern India>.

The connector cannot be Caste prevails in all Indian religions or There is Hindu influence on every religion. It has to be something which highlights the failure of state policy, government etc. Besides, any historical fact might look out of place in a section on society. One example of such a proposal could be:

<Constitutional provisions>— —[State policy has not touched more than half of Dalits][9] or [Economic liberalization did not affect Dalits]— —<Situation of Dalits in Modern India>. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 10:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think, this is a better (if overlong) explanation of what I suggested in my last PS upstairs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Seeing as how the above two proposals have all gone to unmanageable stages. I propose a new one. Basically keep it as it is but append Indian government's legislation against untouchability.

Traditional Indian society is defined by a relatively strict social hierarchy. The Indian caste system embodies much of the social stratification and many of the social restrictions found in the Indian subcontinent. Social classes are defined by thousands of endogamous hereditary groups, often termed as jātis, or "castes".[280] Most Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and members of other lower-caste communities continue to live in segregation and often face persecution and discrimination even though since 1950, India has declared the practice of untouchability illegal, and implemented many laws and social initiatives to protect and improve the socio-economic conditions of its Dalit population.

---

• Object A single sentence addition about the supposed abolition of untouchability needs to be balanced with one about how unsuccessful it has been. We need a sentence on the institutionalization of the caste system within Hinduism. You are beginning to sound disruptive, so determined you seem to be to have your way. We aren't done discussing RegentsPark's proposal and you already have a proposal 1. Too many proposals confuse respondents and reduce response. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"A single sentence addition about the supposed abolition of untouchability needs to be balanced with one about how unsuccessful it has been." - it has not been unsuccessful at all. Besides, no body has made the claim that it has been fully successful so what do you want to balance in the first place? it already says that "lower-caste communities continue to live in segregation and often face persecution and discrimination". What's your problem? Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 10:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm fine with this. The success or failure of government action is a complicated business that cannot be discussed in a summary article and adding a sentence about legislation and initiatives is not undue. --regentspark (comment) 12:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • My suggestion is to link the last two sentences with "though"; hope that would clear the concern of Flower too.AshLey ^Msg 12:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I like your suggestion very much and changed my proposal accordingly. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 12:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I liked the original formulation better. The "even though" part implies that the policies of the government have failed and we'll need to see a categorical reference for that. The fact that discrimination continues is already included in the previous sentence. But, I'd go with this if that's what it takes. (I've added a missing article to the sentence). --regentspark (comment) 13:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course, we need have to be cautious of WP:SYN. However, if we can find any reliable source to support the "even though" version, it will be a way out from this labyrinth. AshLey ^Msg 13:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I am going to give it some more thought and time, then make the edits. You're free to help. Ask Fowler he might have some sources that supports the phrase "even though". Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 13:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess using though, instead of effectiveness of state policy, to connect the two sentences is a better idea. :) Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 13:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of this adding of content by dribbles here and there. Personally, I'm still leaning towards not changing anything. However, in the interests of getting this monkey off our backs, I could go along with it. This is what CorrectKnowledge and I were talking about at the end of the last section. Saying that the laws were abolished without saying how successful (or unsuccessful) they were, would not be encyclopedic. I think Haviland (quoted in the last section above) provides good reference for this statement. Now for the grammar and stylistic issues. The language as it stands is clunky. "implemented many laws and social initiatives" is vague; and we certainly can't say "protect the socio-economic conditions of its Dalits" since those conditions were abysmal. How about:

Although India declared untouchability illegal in 1950 and has since enacted other anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives, most Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and other low castes live in segregation and also face persecution and discrimination.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with it. This looks sensible and neutral. I am assuming you can back your claims (in fact, I bank on you) with good tertiary sources. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 14:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC) - Gave it a thought after User:ApostleVonColorado's latest comment below and found that he is right. If my proposal is not balanced it will leave the reader with the impression that Dalits and low caste are in as bad a shape now as they were in 1950. 16:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler's proposal looks alright. Haviland is more than enough, we don't require more tertiary references. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 14:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, my only regret is that we spent a lot of time discussing something and we could not arrive at a consesus.--sarvajna (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry wikipedia has no deadline. But I second your regret. There was way too much obfuscation, rudeness and digression. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 15:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

RegentsPark - Proposal 3 is starting to look better. The success or failure of government action is a complicated business that is best not discussed in a summary article. I agree that adding a sentence about legislation and initiatives is not undue. The various drafts above have an issue - they leave the reader with the impression that Dalits and low caste are as bad a shape now as they were in 1950. This is not supported by majority of publications and scholars. India is a poor country - about 94%+ of its population lives on less than $5 per day, and about 16% of its population are Dalits. Per independent World Bank / UN surveys, and WSJ/FT etc reports, all sections of its society have progressed on absolute and relative basis, particularly in last 20 years. Its census data for 2001 and 2011 count the Dalits as SC and it counts ST too. The census data does not suggest segregation in India, as the term segregation is understood widely. Take the WB/UN HDI reports over time, which are widely accepted by scholars who focus on human development and human/civil rights status - and it is clear India has made impressive progress and has a long way to go. FWIW, rely on a source other than Haviland for this; Haviland's 2010 13th edition text book has been re-printing the same summary since its early edition, and is not a good source on this aspect of India. Haviland summary is neither current nor widely accepted majority view of current status of Dalits and various castes in India.

For a fair and balanced version, please consider if notable majority and non-fringe minority sides on 'current status of Dalits' have been included. A more neutral draft may be along the lines: While some reports suggest Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and other low castes have made economic and social progress over time, other reports suggest they live in segregation and also face persecution and discrimination.

ApostleVonColorado (talk)

You're right and I would like you to back your claims with reliable sources and let's get this over with. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 16:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The sentence being considered goes into the "Society" section, not economics. It is about social exclusion, about persecution and discrimination, not about economic progress. There is plenty of data that supports the view that these social variables have changed very slowly, especially in rural India. (And that is one qualification I would like to add to the proposed sentence, to insert "especially in rural India," to the sentence.) So, it would read:

Although India declared untouchability illegal in 1947 and has since enacted other anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives, most Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and other low castes, especially in rural areas, live in segregation and also face persecution and discrimination.

If you don't like Haviland, I'm sure I can find other sources. Btw, I forgot to mention earlier, untouchability was abolished before India's independence on 30 April 1947, by the constituent assembly of India. (They obviously would not have waited until 1950.) It was reported worldwide, even in Australian newspapers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And, as I suspected, it didn't take that long to find a reference. Rawat, Ramnarayan S. (2011), Reconsidering Untouchability: Chamars and Dalit History in North India, Indiana University Press, p. 3, ISBN 978-0-253-22262-6Quote:

The widespread practice of untouchability continues to deprive individuals and communities access to resources, educational opportunities, em-ployment, and other avenues of advancement. Many caste Hindus still do not allow members of Dalit communities to enter their homes, particularly the kitchen, and will not permit their children to marry into these communities. In most rural areas separate sources of drinking water are maintained, away from those used by caste Hindus, and Dalits are expected to reside in separate colonies at some distance from caste Hindu settlements. In many parts of South India, even today, teashops keep separate sets of cups to be used only by Dalits. The government of independent India abolished untouchability and caste-based discrimination in 1947, declaring them cognizable offenses (for which offenders could be arrested without a court warrant), and instituted an affirmative action program for federal and state employment. Nonetheless, practices of exclusion manifest themselves today more violently than ever before. Combining economic and social discrimination, untouchability has survived the constitutional changes made immediately after independence.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

PS Not just discrimination, but actual violence against them as increased. Since this is the culture section, here is another reference, a hot off the press book on Indian culture: Dalmia, Vasudha; Sadana, Rashmi (2012), The Cambridge Companion to Modern Indian Culture, Cambridge University Press, p. 294, ISBN 978-0-521-51625-9 Quote:

In the case of Dalits, constitutional law in India does prohibit discrimination on caste grounds and has explicit provisions not just to promote low-caste mobility, but also to protect Dalit life and security. But as any number of studies show, atrocities against Dalits have continued to grow in proportion with India's accelerated growth under its liberalization policy and within a dramatically globalized economic order.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a complete waste of time to have ApostlevonColorado, gather up more obscure secondary sources of the type he has cited above, and then for all of us, in a massive exercise in original research, to attempt to summarize the studies in a vague (and false) "One the one hand, and on the other hand," statement. That is a technique that has been historically employed on Wikipedia by India apologists to skirt around the bitter truth. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Folwer&fowler here, we can't mix this section up with economic data on Dalits. Yes Dalits, particularly in Uttar Pradesh (as an article AVC referred to earlier suggests), have improved economically over the last six decades, specially after the economic liberalization. But if we add that data in the society section, the article will appear defensive and awkward. However, I have a problem with the wording of the proposal as it stands now. Adding especially in rural areas implies that Dalits are facing segregation and persecution in urban areas as well even if to a lesser extent. Can we just go with most Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and other low castes in rural areas...? Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 16:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You are right. So it would now read:

Although India declared untouchability illegal in 1947 and has since enacted other anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives, most Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and other low castes in rural areas live in segregation and also face persecution and discrimination.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Corrected. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Support this proposal. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 17:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Just make the bloody change. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 17:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler - please stop this 'That is a technique that has been historically employed on Wikipedia by India apologists to skirt around the bitter truth.' Please respect community agreed WP:TPG guidelines. I compassionately invite you once again to assume good faith and be civil.

I am fine with any language that does not leave the wiki reader with the impression that nothing has changed between 1950 and 2011, and most Dalits and low caste are facing segregation, persecution and discrimination as much as they did in 1950. The published reviews on Census data for 2011, 2001, 1991 from district / tehsil/tehseel level do not support claims of segregation by caste. The WHO worldwide and national violence reports and other social justice group surveys do not support claims of systematic persecution (yes, there are few media stories and tragic persecution case reports, but one or a dozen cases per year involving a few to hundreds of people cannot be used with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to describe 1.2 billion people and India, this article. You need better WP:RS scholarly support for that.)

Mrt3366 - See World Bank Report 2011. Many sections discuss exclusion, discrimination, economic and social status, etc. in context of overall poverty in India. Chapter 6 of this WB report focuses on trends in social exclusion/discrimination/mobility from caste perspective, and may offer the direct support for a balanced language sentence being proposed for this article. There are numerous Indian Planning Commission reports out there as well (for trends on literacy from 1961 to 1991 for Dalits, please see this, for example.).

This high level general article on India will be better without complicated sentences and without going into too much details. Just avoid taking a side, avoid leaving a wrong impression, and summarize the major sides. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I too am uneasy about connecting the two statements with an although or a though. My preferences are (a) leave the current text as is; (b) change it to Most Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and members of other lower-caste communities continue to live in segregation and often face persecution and discrimination. Since 1950, India has declared the practice of untouchability illegal, and implemented many laws and social initiatives to protect and improve the socio-economic conditions of its Dalit population. or (c) tweak fowler's words as follows: Although India declared untouchability illegal in 1950 and has since enacted other anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives, many Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and other low castes continue to live in segregation and also face persecution and discrimination.--regentspark (comment) 19:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I am agreeable to your (c). I too was thinking about both those changes, but worried that changing it again, would turn it into an endless discussion. Anyway, my first preference too is (a), but at this point (since three others have already expressed support for some version of (c)), I'm happy to go along with your (c). The version that incorporates yours and CorrectKnowledge's versions, now reads:

Although India declared untouchability illegal in 1947 and has since enacted other anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives, many Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and other low castes in rural areas continue to live in segregation and face persecution and discrimination.

Cited to 1. Rawat, Ramnarayan S. (2011), Reconsidering Untouchability: Chamars and Dalit History in North India, Indiana University Press, p. 3, ISBN 978-0-253-22262-6 and 2. Dalmia, Vasudha; Sadana, Rashmi (2012), The Cambridge Companion to Modern Indian Culture, Cambridge University Press, p. 294, ISBN 978-0-521-51625-9 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I support (b), because I too am uneasy about connecting the two statements with an although or a though. Connecting the sentences synthesizes and implies something that isolated sentences do not imply or deny. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a grammatical synthesis of two sentences using a subordinating conjunction, but it is not a synthesis of material from two different sources to advance a conclusion not present in either source. The two sources and many others, including Haviland, support exactly such an "although" or "though" statement. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The suggested tertiary citations are weak. For example, Rawat focuses on 'Northern India'; and cannot support the proposed statement(s) for all of India. I suggest using WP:RS secondary sources reporting India-wide survey on discrimination, instead of citing region-focused weak tertiary sources with low sales and low citation scores. For example, consider these citations: 1. United Nations Economic and Social Council Report, Commission on Human Rights - summarizes primary sources such as Human Rights Watch on discrimination and persecution based on caste in India; 2. World Bank Report 2011, ISBN 978-0-8213-8689-7, doi 10.1596/978-0-8213-8689-7 - this discusses the laws and social initiatives India has taken for its Dalit population since 1950 in Chapter 6. This report also discusses current status of discrimination based on castes.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Weak? North India? Do you have a review of the book that states that or are you randomly musing? Yet, Rawat says, "In many parts of South India ...." in the long quote above. UN Reports are not externally peer-reviewed as academic journal articles or textbooks are, and, as was evident in the report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of two years ago, can contain inaccuracies. Sorry, but in such a high level article, we need solid tertiary sources, even if they are (allegedly) a little dated (such as Haviland); we cannot summarize the weight of scholarly opinion ourselves, in patently false "On the one hand ... and on the other ..." statements. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:SCHOLARSHIP on wiki guidelines for sources. UN reports are written and then peer-reviewed by very qualified people; whether we or the world agrees or disagrees with their reports is a topic not suited for this talk page as it is not a forum.

In good faith, I have added the citations that I believe are better. Having read this discussion, I know this page has many talented, well meaning and inspired wiki contributors. I leave it to the community to reach a consensus, and I am okay with whatever combination of citations the community chooses from various options above. Our goal, after all, is to collaboratively help improve this article. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you not perfunctorily and repetitively throw WP:XYZ and WP:xyz at established users. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says nothing about UN reports. UN reports are reviewed internally. They are uneven in quality, the equivalent of technical reports or working papers published by academics or labs at universities, and generally nowhere as reliable as peer-reviewed journal articles. Only some of them, after many revisions, are published in academic journals a few years later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler: See WP:TPG - this talk page is neither your forum nor a forum. I invite you to note that comments here are aimed to improve this article, address all wiki contributors and encourage participation by all, including newcomers to wikipedia. Including links to official wiki policies is "making the extra effort so that other people understand you" as suggested by WP:TPG.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

F&F is acting well within TPG. Discussion the reliability of UN reports isn't forumy at all. CMD (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

CMD - I was referring to Fowler&fowler's comment: "I suggest that you not perfunctorily and repetitively throw WP:XYZ and WP:xyz at established users." This talk page is not meant just for established users or exclusively him. The discussion of UN reports reliability isn't forumy indeed. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

Folks: If the current version is revised to something assertive like "many Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and other low castes continue to live in..." and the article remains silent on improvement in their conditions from 1950 to 2010, I urge the following:

1. that current citations for the passage being discussed in this article, be replaced because of the issue I explained above (Wolpert's page 126 is part of a chapter on Mughal times). For alternate citations for this article, I urge that we do not use poor quality tertiary sources, per WP:PSTS guidelines. Secondary sources are preferred, but external tertiary sources are useful in certain cases. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. Wiki's official guidelines encourage us to screen and include reliable sources, and avoid unreliable sources. One way to screen between tertiary sources is to check the way we check articles in Wikipedia, another tertiary source. If the source for a passage is not identified in a wikipedia article, we can tag it with {{Citation needed}} and if satisfactory source is not identified, in due course we can remove the unacceptable passage. Similarly, if a non-wikipedia tertiary source such as a book does not identify reliable sources for specific content in its footnotes or in its discussion or elsewhere in the book, that tertiary source may be less reliable for sourcing the specific content than another external tertiary source that does identify its reliable sources. In my review, some of the alternate tertiary sources proposed above are not reliable. This article will be better if it screens, seeks and cites reliable sources.
2. add "neutrality is disputed" tag, i.e. {{POV-statement}} at the end of the clause "many Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and...". I suggest this because reliable sources exist that suggest their conditions in the society have improved over time (and there is lot that remains to be done for everyone), and because we must not leave wiki readers with a wrong impression. Without such clarifying sentence, I dispute this passage. For support see World Bank Report 2011 (Chapter 6, ISBN 978-0-8213-8689-7, doi 10.1596/978-0-8213-8689-7). I note that the relevant chapter of this published source has numerous inline citations and a list of references for Chapter 6 on pages 265 to 270. Additionally other chapters in that book have their own references after each chapter and they too discuss castes, trends and current status of the society in India.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

2^nd option is what I don't want to see. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 11:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It would be very helpful if you could propose an alternate way to write and cite the sentence to make it neutral. It's always easier to comment on a tangible proposal. Please also note, Wolpert is not the only citation used to reference the sentence. Rawat and Dalmia are two other reliable secondary sources used for the same. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 11:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid UN and World Bank reports are not externally peer-reviewed tertiary sources. They are internally peer reviewed and sometimes even that process, under pressure of meeting a deadline, is sloppy and hurried. While they are good for quoting India's GDP numbers in the infobox, they are not appropriate for normative statements, such as the ones we are discussing, in a featured article. For that, peer-reviewed tertiary sources published by academic presses such as the two I have provided above are more appropriate. If ApostlevonColorado objects to these sources, he can produce academic reviews of the books in journals; simply throwing out tired jargon ("weak") or making knee-jerk deductions about the contents of a book by cursory readings of its title ("North India", "region focused") is a disruption of the talk page process, as it is patently disingenuous. Furthermore, objecting to the books, published in 2011 and 2012 respectively, on the grounds that they have "low sales and low citation scores" is bizarre. Should we all then be citing the Bible (highest in citation scores and sales)? This is the society and culture section. It is discussing the societal characteristics, the strengths and the ills. It is not the place to discuss economic gains achieved by some Dalits or the burgeoning political clout of some Dalits. Those discussions and additions belong to the Economics or Demographics or Politics sections. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

ApostlevonColorado, In your previous statement above you said, "I leave it to the community to reach a consensus, and I am okay with whatever combination of citations the community chooses from various options above." You have now been suddenly moved to advocate slapping a neutrality statement tag on the sentence. Are you saying that you will do this against the consensus that you have left the community to reach? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The third option, which RegentsPark and I, were advocating early on, is not to change anything in the text, to cut our losses, and call it a day. In my view, a featured article is better served by improving entire sections (or subsections) at a time, and by discussing that improvement and achieving consensus for it on the talk page first. That way overall balance is maintained. The days of "anyone can edit" (ie. any editor throwing a string of sentences in any part of the article) are long gone. Even if consensus is achieved for one particular edit (say, in this case, the Dalit edit), it affects the balance. People are usually too focused on the wording of that particular edit to ask how the balance and emphasis within the section suffers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

user:Saravask's initiative in October 2011 of nominating, discussing, and choosing images (from among hundreds nominated) for the rotation templates is an excellent example of such a planned group process. The rotation templates now have some of the finest and most diverse images found in any country article on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Fowler, let others (e.g. RP et al) speak for themselves. And ApostlevonColorado although you have point, it will be better if you speak in specific terms (post the exact language you want) or leave things as they are right now, let's not stretch it too far. My observation is that the language concerning society is closer to neutrality now than it was before. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk?)(New thread?)} 13:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer to not change anything. If that's not acceptable, then I'd rather not link the government initiatives and the continue to live in segregation sentences. Let's face it, the reality is that it is true that there are still issues of caste segregation and discrimination in India but it is also true that the situation has improved vastly since Independence. Partly due to government initiatives, partly due to the continuing modernization and urbanization of India, and partly because of education. To say that India still has the problem of untouchability is correct. To say that the government has made it illegal and has promoted many initiatives to get rid of it is correct. To imply that these have failed is not correct (nor is it correct to say that they have succeeded). The linkage of the two is problematic, imo. --regentspark (comment) 13:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The only problem with simply saying "The Government of India abolished untouchability in 1947 and has since enacted several anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives." is that we imply, by omission, that these initiatives have been successful. An evaluating or modifying clause is needed. The "segregation, persecution, etc" clause was such a clause, but perhaps we could supply another modifier, say, "The Government of India abolished untouchability in 1947 and has since enacted several anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives, producing mixed results." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, Mrt3366 has already implemented a pretty reasonable version of the previous proposal. So, I'm taking back my suggestion in the previous post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Because the previous sentence clearly states that the problems of untouchability continue. I see the government line as a bland soviet style propaganda thing that shows up in country articles. Perhaps the best thing to do is to not add anything at all to the article. The addition by mrt3366 implies that government programs have utterly failed which is incorrect. Blandly stating that there are government initiatives appears to give the impression that they have succeeded. Which is equally incorrect. Clearly, any addition will require a great deal of explanation which is unsuitable for a summary style article. At this point, I !vote to leave the text as it was before the mrt addition. --regentspark (comment) 14:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. :( I don't see Mrt3366's edit as that stark (i.e. implying that the programs have failed, only that in rural areas segregation and discrimination continue). In any case, I'm done with this discussion. So, where do I stand:

The State of Fowler&fowler—the Show-Me-the-Source State, the Raw-Knuckle-Wrassler State, the No-Easy-Pass State—casts its one vote, half to Mrt3366 and other half to RegentsPark as the next President of Wikipedia. Let's throw that Jimbo guy out.

I will now be going down to the bar to order a Vodka Martini. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

RP, I couldn't disagree more. If you are going to draw the meaning of a section by connectors that have been omitted (albeit, though etc. in this case), please don't fail to note that not mentioning state policy at all, in the society section, gives the impression that the Indian democracy cares little about a vast section of its underprivileged population. A version which does not include information on the constitutional protection to Dalits is unfair to the makers of Indian constitution, Indian government and Indian people by association. I don't see how leaving the sentence out entirely is going to improve neutrality of the section. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 14:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there is an implication that the untouchability situation has not been addressed by government action (in the mrt version). However, like I say somewhere above, if that version is the consensus version, then I'm ok with it. --regentspark (comment) 15:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

On reliability of UN Reports. Some reports are more reliable than others. Stereotyping all UN reports as unreliable is wrong. Like all published secondary or tertiary sources, we must screen and determine if a UN report is worthy to be relied upon. One way to do so is to check whether the report cites published, peer reviewed scholarly sources and those sources when checked support the chapter/article/"content of interest" in the report. If it does, that report is more reliable than say another report that does not identify any published, peer reviewed reliable sources. After all, this is what wiki guidelines suggest and what we at wikipedia try to do.

Claims such as internal peer reviewed versus external peer reviewed is neither relevant nor always true. Any peer review is better than no peer review. I have witnessed external peer review of some UN reports (I agree some go through only internal peer review). I have also witnessed how many books and tertiary sources such as textbooks/etc get commissioned, written and published - these books have deadlines, and many do not go through quality peer review at all, or the kind of peer review that highly competitive, high impact factor journal articles go through. The best way, in my humble opinion, is to skip superficial gloss of a textbook/book/report/etc, and focus on the question: does this tertiary source cite published, peer reviewed scholarly sources inline, and those sources when checked support the chapter/article/"content of interest"? Rely on those that thus persuade you as reliable. In the case of UN report I cited to improve this article, it does cite numerous sources for Chapter 6; and on relative basis, it is a far better source than some others mentioned here.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Presently what the article says is in normal font and what you might add is in bold,

“Social classes are defined by thousands of endogamous hereditary groups, often termed as jātis, or "castes".[279] India declared untouchability illegal in 1947 and has since enacted other anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives and, according to world bank survey data, there is some intergenerational mobility for dalits,[280] albeit numerous reports suggest that many Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and other low castes in rural areas continue to live in segregation and face persecution and discrimination.[281][282]”

BTW, I am not going to impose this change. You will have to do this yourself or find somebody else to do it for you. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Mrt3366 - I have been reflecting on this, and I need a bit more of 'think time' before I have a concrete proposal to share, if any. Meanwhile I will just comment on your latest draft and then share my confusion.

I am not a fan of long, connected sentences. They are difficult to comprehend. They may lead to synthesis and unintended impressions. Here is another version based on Proposal 3 from you/RegentsPark/others. It feels better to me than current article version, although still unsatisfactory:

Traditional Indian society is defined by a relatively strict social hierarchy. The Indian caste system embodies much of the social stratification and many of the social restrictions found in the Indian subcontinent. Social classes are defined by thousands of endogamous hereditary groups, often termed as jātis, or castes.[xyz1] India declared untouchability illegal in 1947 and has since enacted other anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives.[xyz2] India has witnessed some intergenerational mobility for Dalits ("ex–Untouchables").[xyz3] Still, many Dalits and other low castes continue to live in segregation and face persecution and discrimination.[xyz4]

My confusion, and hesitation in proposing something, arise from the use of words segregation, persecution and discrimination. These are loaded words. They imply severe things in America and many parts of the world. Segregation here implied signs outside restaurant and hotels that refused entry to some people, signs outside restrooms that refused entry to some people, mandating people to sit in the back of the bus, separate segregated schools and so on. There are thousands of published sources that describe segregation in America. When a wiki reader reads India has segregation, do you mean the same thing? Are there segregated hotels/restrooms/buses/trains etc in India? - independent surveys and social entrepreneurs predominantly publish no. Buses, trains are reported to be packed and bulging in India, not segregated by castes; etc. Persecution similarly, reminds of systematic subjugation, imprisonment, mistreatment and extermination of people, such as what happened during World War II. When a wiki reader reads India has persecution, do you mean the same thing? Again, independent surveys, social entrepreneurs and secondary sources publish no. Don't get me wrong. There are incidences that have been reported. But, if a newspaper reports 500 people in one village, or 4,000 people in a town, or even 50,000 people in a city are being mistreated or that they do not have access to drinking water or are suffering something along with the general population, is this enough to use the word persecution? Should reported incidents be generalized to paint India, this article, 165 million Dalits and 1.2 billion people society as one with persecution like what happened during World War II and other times of recent human history? A fair summary would avoid excessive and unwarranted, poorly sourced sweeping claims or implied message. A fair summary would also not hide information, and include major issues in a balanced way.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to put a largest cities template in the demographics section

I don't wish to restore the images which I added to the article previously and supposedly made "a mess". I don't want to do that. What I am proposing is, let's make a largest city template (like these Kazakhstan, Belgium, People's Republic of China, etc and there are many) [and obviously I am willing to help if a consensus is reached], listing top 10-20 cities of India based on criteria like population/economy and I suggest we add images of top 4 modern cities of India that will help give the readers some idea about largest populated areas/settlements/cities in India and reflect the modernization which India has undergone. It will also be more conforming to the status quo followed by other FAs. Feel free to weigh in. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 10:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC) 17:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Do we need to make the template to include images of top 4–5 cities? Besides, 5 new images might be a bit excessive. I'll wait for other editors to comment. I didn't go through this painful process to decide which images to keep in the article. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 11:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"Do we need to make the template to include images of top 4–5 cities?" - Jokingly speaking, why do you take everything as reversed to what I actually mean? haha.. I meant that a template is more necessary than Images. Not only the images of modern India but also a list of largest cities is lacking in the article. We need to do something about it and it need not be so painful. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 11:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And most other articles about Countries, have a list of largest cities. I do not think it will harm the quality of the article, rather I believe it will enhance it. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 11:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Including a template of largest cities in the demographics section is a good idea. Other FAs Canada, Australia, Germany etc. have one. Considering your previous experience on this page, you should be happy that at least I agree with some of the things you propose. :) Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 11:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This was discussed in the past and the template was removed because it doesn't add any value to the article. I for one think that these city templates are nothing but an eyesore. One of the reasons I stopped editing this article or even contributing to the talk page is because this has consistently become a page that people seek to use for glorification. —SpacemanSpiff 12:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a consensus on this. I find such templates helpful, information on major cities is something I look for while reading such articles. However, I accept your point, there is no need to clutter the article with trivial information. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 13:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"This was discussed in the past" - where? Don't just throw around claims, that hampers the progress of discussion.(I retract the redundant statement) And even if there was a consensus, it can be changed for the betterment of the article.

"it doesn't add any value to the article." - I humbly but firmly disagree. List of largest cities gives a rough idea of countries cities and growth. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 13:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree in entirety with Spiff. No need for more clutter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Same here—no to a city template. Saravask 22:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Clutter, clutter, clutter, ..Stop harping on that word F&F. It won't make it any worse than it already is.

@Saravask why?

Wikipedia is not a vote. And he/she doesn't like it is not a credible rationale. come on. You've got to be better than that. Other FAs Canada, Australia, Germany etc. have one. And we must follow the convention. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 06:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And you better show something other than WP:OSE and stop repeating yourself like a parrot. —SpacemanSpiff 06:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"And you better show something other than WP:OSE" - I already have. Look above. Information on major cities is something that ought to be there in an article about a Country because it gives the reader an Idea about population and infrastructural growth that the country has undergone. Now you are free to disagree. You may say it's an "eyesore", albeit I don't think it is just an eyesore. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 07:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary clutter. Merely providing a list of cities doesn't really say anything about infrastructure or growth. I assume that every country has a few cities, regardless of the quality of their infrastructure and regardless of their growth rates. --regentspark (comment) 15:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not talking about putting this into economy section, mind it. This could be put in demography section and might help give the readers some idea about largest populated areas/settlements/cities in India, you're saying that's unnecessary information? You mean existence and use of these templates are all unnecessary? Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 17:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

City templates are fine with me as long as they're in the right place. A country article is meant to be a summary and a template with a list of cities of the sort you're proposing is unnecessary detail here. --regentspark (comment) 17:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I generally approve of city templates. They aren't that large, and they give me a rough idea on whether the population is distributed throughout various areas or concentrated on a few major cities (if it's just one city, then that could just be said in prose for much less space). This article however covers is quite well with the current population density map, so there doesn't seem to be a strong lack of population information, although I note the demographics section is about half the size of the Economy section above and a quater of the size of the Culture section below. CMD (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"they give me a rough idea on whether the population is distributed throughout various areas or concentrated on a few major cities " - I don't think the current article gives an idea about what the exact population is, do they? And you're also assuming that the readers are familiar with Indian map. Wikipedia serves a global audience so it's safe to assume, I guess, that many are not acquainted with locations of Indian cities on the map. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 07:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added a {{Largest cities of India}}, in the demographics section for the above-mentioned reason. Hope it helps. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 12:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks awful. But, let's see what other editors think. --regentspark (comment) 13:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely no to such ugliness. Mrt3366, it is time to take it on the chin and move on. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"it is time to take it on the chin and move on" - you're free to saunter on with your uncouthness. "Looks awful" - "Absolutely no to such ugliness." are not credible rationale and they seem woefully similar to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. They give information about Indian cities based on their population. Besides, many other FAs have that same thing. It doesn't harm the article in anyway it enhances it. The population figures are based on census 2011. I don't see why should anyone say "no" to that. Its primary objective is not to provide entertainment/eye-candy for people rather it is to inform the readers. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 13:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not that fine because most populous cities may not be the most developed or 'strategically or otherwise' important cities of the nation. Also, in my browser, the template is not looking tidy. AshLey ^Msg 13:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Right now, the header of the template is too large and the line spacing between each of the cities is excessive (I am comparing this to Germany). Six images also seem a bit too much. Basically, a template, like an image, should not dominate the text. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 13:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Never underestimate the importance of aesthetics and good taste Mrt3366! Especially when the added value is questionable. We can do without that ugly list and, as a wise person above says, "it is time to take it on the chin and move on"! --regentspark (comment) 13:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"may not be the most developed or 'strategically or otherwise' important cities" - but it is not a list of most important cities, though it includes all the important cities of India, it was in the demographics section because it listed the most populous cities. I am sorry but your logic doesn't add up.

"the header of the template is too large and the line spacing between each of the cities is excessive " — so?

"Never underestimate the importance of aesthetics and good taste" — As far as I know, I am not doing that. By the way, aesthetics and good taste cannot be the only reason to remove the template from the article.

You're free to edit the template, I don't own it. But the list, however "ugly" it may look to someone, is important and pertinent to the section. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 14:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I did like the template present on the United States , and do we need 20 cities? --sarvajna (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Although we do not need 20 cities, it is more informative than a list of 10 cities. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 14:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about the looks of the template

Does this look workable?

or does this look better? (Try viewing this in other browsers if you sense something is wrong)

If not, what can I do to make it more aesthetic and "not ugly"? Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 15:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

IMO we can use the color combination of US template Template:Largest Metropolitan Areas of the United States --sarvajna (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Both United States and Germany colour combinations are fine with me. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 15:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Decide among yourselves what color combination or other modifications you want. That will help me tremendously. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 16:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's take this one step at a time. First let's get consensus on inclusion of a template and then we can worry about how it looks. --regentspark (comment) 18:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Do not think we need a template, just a mention in the article of the top five in prose somewhere would do. A template gives undue weight to city populations to what is an overview article on the whole of India in which more than a mention of the top five is not really needed. The city template already exists in Demographics of India which where it is more suited. MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Firm Objection I object to this and any other metropolitan centers (cities) template. India is preeminently (and in my view thankfully still) a rural country, with 70% per cent of its population living in villages. Why does it needs a hoakey List of Cities template, whether 5, 10, 15 or 20? If you insist on a template, it would be far more representative to have one about rural India. India's population breakdown suggests that you would need to have two rural templates in place before you can have one urban template. The US, Canada, and Australia are preeminently urban countries. (Sorry, I didn't see MilborneOne's post, but he and I are on the same page.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

In the "Demographics" section, the major urban areas are mentioned. I see Ahmedabad is missing in there. We can add that. In this way, we will have major urban areas mentioned.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Dwaipayan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It's better to avoid the template, aesthetically and also for the sake of equilibrium. The list of 20 cities, selected from the source based on population, even doesn't represent the urban demographics in a balanced way. Without a clear consensus, how we could set the threshold of population for inclusion/exclusion. In the list of 20 Vadodara, with a population of 16,66,600, found the place, whereas Ludhiana, with a popn of 16,13,878, is omitted as if it failed in the board exam. However, if we consider the list of Urban agglomerates per [this census report, there will be many alterations in the list of 20. AshLey ^Msg 06:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC) changed indentation 06:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

@F&F

"India is preeminently (and in my view thankfully still) a rural country" - what do you mean thankfully? And how is your logic relevant here anyway? India has poverty so what? Does it make whatever urban agglomerations there are not worthy of mention? India has progressed and the depiction of India in this article is heavily biased towards the poverty-stricken part of India. There is not a glimpse of the modernized part of India. Not one picture of urban parts. If this continues then I don't think we're being neutral at all. I am saying nothing exceptional, most other articles about important countries (Including FAs) have this sort of a list. Now, I don't know if it looks "ugly" to you and you might be delighted to see that India is mostly poor. And frankly I couldn't care less about what you feel.

"if we consider the list of Urban agglomerates per this census report, there will be many alterations in the list of 20" - that is useful information and I think we should work on that. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 07:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. There is a discussion on ANI about this. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 08:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Now, in my view, the list represents the Urban India better, compared to the previous version. But let's wait for more input. It still looks misaligned; spacing before the last line looks awful in my browser. AshLey ^Msg 09:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

the spacing in the second template has some problem (or may be its my browser). I am sure that can be resolved. The rest looks good for me.--sarvajna (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

also IMO we can just have 10 cities if not 20--sarvajna (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

@Ash,
I told you already, please take a screen shot and send me. Have you checked my other template? Same error? This seems like an issue to me, albeit not a serious one. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 09:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

An outside drive-by opinion: I think these tables look very nice! The blue one is better looking than the grey one. I especially like the well-chosen thumbnails of Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, etc. I think this table adds to the article; it is certainly not unnecessary clutter. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with inclusion of the template for this article. Pale blue is a better colour here than grey, but a maximum of three images should suffice, in line with the style of template used on other country articles. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I am talking about. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Six images seems a bit much, but three images will require a different style (Australia#Demographics). It might be better to go with four images and the same style. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 06:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Limited it to top 4 cities from East, west, north and south India. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The pale blue template looks alright to me. The four cities selected represent India best both geographically and demographically. So, hopefully, there will be no issues this time. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 06:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The second part of my comment is no longer applicable. The fourth city appears to be oscillating between Bangalore and Chennai every five minutes. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 08:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on including the template in this article. But I have concerns on the template itself. The name of the template is 'Largest cities of India' corresponding to this list List of most populous cities in India. But, User:Mrt3366 has changed the content from cities to urban agglomerations, corresponding to List of million-plus agglomerations in India. Ideally, a new template should be created for urban agglomerations if desired. Further, regarding the pictures, I think the top four cities in the list should be included. --Anbu121 (talk me) 08:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I honestly think that there should not be any issues in including a template, just to clarify this template looks good on my browser. But I still think that we can mention just 10 cities instead of 20 --sarvajna (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Mrt3366, adding the template to the article is not a good idea. Not only is there no consensus for a template, but there is also unmitigatedly none for the atrociously ugly vanilla images of Indian cities. They simply can not go into this FA. There is a basic and longstanding consensus on this page, achieved by a much longer and more inclusive discussion, to not include airbrushed elitist vanilla images of India. Whether other countries have such images or not is unimportant. Please also don't patronize other editors here by suggesting that their objections are of the "I don't like it" variety. I won't revert now, but I expect you to self-revert. Please respect Wikipedia consensus. You are violating Wikipedia policy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Vote count as of 11:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Editors who oppose a template: Saravask, RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, Fowler&fowler, CMD, MilborneOne, AshleyThomas80, Dwaipayan.
• Editors who support a template: Mrt3366, CorrectKnowledge, Ratnakar.kulkarni, and two drivebys.

There is no consensus, not even remotely. I respectfully suggest that Mrt3366 not violate Wikipedia policy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. Mrt3366, to keep adding the template when there is clear consensus against its inclusion is disruptive. The sooner you realize that consensus sometimes means that the stuff you like won't be included in an article the better for you. --regentspark (comment) 13:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I finally took the trouble to read Mrt3366's long (brevity usually works better!) post here and, at the very end, he does make a good point. The images that we do have in the article do tend to focus more on history and culture rather than on the more modern India. Perhaps we should consider adding a few images that reflect the growing economy side of India as well. For example, the picture of sea link with the skyline of Bombay in the background was a particularly nice one but there could be others as well. --regentspark (comment) 15:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is a slightly different issue and one that I'm sympathetic to. Last year, when we had the images discussion, there was a plan to add images to the economy section, but it was never carried out because it took us over two months to do the Culture section. I propose that we replace the Bombay Stock exchange picture with a rotating template and invite nominations from editors. We could then choose 8 pictures for this template. As before, only high resolution un-photoshopped pictures will be considered. RP, you could open a section below for this at your convenience after others have responded, and are on board. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Or, perhaps we should have this (new) discussion in another section, otherwise, people might think it is more of the same. What's your thought? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I am on board, though I am not sure many editors are going to accept rotation of the BSE image (see this post). Using high resolution un-photoshopped pictures also seems like a good idea. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 15:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Why don't we let Mrt3366 take the lead on this. I'll drop a note on his talk page.--regentspark (comment) 16:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)