From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

On India: egregiously incorrect[edit]

The first paragraph about India together with the article intro imply that there was never "social stratification characterized by endogamy, hereditary transmission of a lifestyle ... occupation, status in a hierarchy and customary social interaction and exclusion based on cultural notions of superiority". The distinction between caste and occupational classifications the sentence tries to draw is confusing and misleading at best. All of those practices existed and exist in India! The second paragraph affirms that: 'What is now called the caste system in India has consisted of thousands of endogamous groups...'. However, most of that paragraph is about issues that are secondary to the main topic which is barely touched upon (in later paragraphs). The main topic of the section should be: what is the system of stratification, exclusion, endogamy, hereditary lifestyle, exclusion, etc. Only after that can we (but need not) discuss how it was treated during colonial times, the Colonial Census etc. On the whole, the section gives the impression that caste was not and is not an issue in India. The section needs to be rewritten. Pgan002 (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the article was vandalised in the recent past by POV pushers. I will try to recover the original text. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caste. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Published genetics data on castes cannot be ignored[edit]

Some editors here who appear to be of not of the scientific background are reverting edits that cite published scientific research in highly reputed journals, such as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.

Who gives them the authority to judge on the scientific merit of published and accepted science research? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkv22 (talkcontribs)


The accepted etymology in dictionaries is from Portugese Casta. Here it's listed second, after a Greek origin. The source for the Greek origin does not show that the word caste was derived from it, but is just a Greek dictionary with the words they claim it to be from. Therefore, there's no source for this. I am going to add citation needed, and propose deleting it. If the Portugese derived it from these Greek terms, then it should stay, and I propose not saying "However, it is also maybe from Portugese Casta..." (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)John Dee

 Done. I removed the entire reference to the Greek term as being WP:OR. Thanks for bringing it up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)