This category is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Although I agree with not using Dalit as a category to categorize people because of BLP violations, I think it is not a caste category. So the argument to be used not to use this category for people has to come from WP:BLP. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys I have a solution for this revert wars. How about a category called Dalit activists and remove personal under Dalit category and add Dalit activists to those who are activists for Dalits. That person can be a Dalit or even a Brahmin. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dalit is not a caste, it seems though some cannot or will not grasp that. From what I see, it is a term being used for empowerment and unity of a previously oppressed group. Thank you Taprobanus for stepping in to help resolve/mediate this. Out of curiosity what would it violate in WP:BLP?--Kathanar (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dalit is an oppresed category of people. To categorize someone as such may not be up to their linking (if alive) or may have been not their intention to be identified (if they are dead). But if some one identifies himself/herself as a Dalit activist (that is who represents Daluit interest or causes) then that person is doing so even if he is a Brahmin or Pulaya. Activist category is a normal, non controversal category, that will not attract this much opposition. Taprobanus (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Taprobanus and Kathanar.Dalit is not a caste in India or hindu religion.They are Scheduled Caste and Tribe,Sudra or Harijan as per offical Indian category and Hindu religion.But We need to take Baka opinion also.I respect his right to his opinion.He has been reverting one page since April and had to ask protection for it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct the word Dalit is used as a identity of an oppressed people, though it seems to be used to instill a pride and unity, i.e. dalit rights, dalit hindus, dalit muslims, dalit christians, dalit theology etc. My only misgiving of your suggestion "dalit activist" in the use you're talking about Taprobanus (non-identity label, where a bramin or a pulaya can be one) you undermine the purpose of the term dalit, by removing the possible socio/ethnic benefits of a unifying term which erase and empowers formerly oppressed people. I'm open to suggestions though. --Kathanar (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with something along the lines of "Dalit rights activists" as Taprobanus suggested.Bakaman 06:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So can we put this thing behind and move forward ? Taprobanus (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am still apprehensive about the removing the ability of the use of Dalit as not everyone will be a dalit rights activist, but they will be under the banner of dalit , can anyone think of any other alternative?--Kathanar (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they are not Dalit rights activists, why are they notable as Dalits? Relata refero (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know what was bothering me. These 2 particular people (Mariamma Chedathy & Dadala) actually are not activists for the Dalit community. The next thing someone would do is to say why is the Dalits rights activist labels used for them. One is a freedom fighter and one is a preserver of a almost extinct tradition, they are a pride to the dalit community, but their activism does not extend specifically to dalits. I think there is nothing that would be objectable to the use of the term Dalit. It is not a caste, and not used for unity and empowerment, it is a valid identity and can be used to identify notable people from that population group. Would you like to use Dalit Community instead? Or is there another suggestion?--Kathanar (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I prefer Dalit activits over Dalit rights activits, because the latter is more restrictive. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
