Talk:Caste/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Lede

Since we now have a plethora of sources asserting that caste is essentially a form of social division amongst Hindus, perhaps it is time for the lede to be rewritten to say just that. The current first sentence is meaningless. Perhaps we could start with: "Caste refers primarily to the division of Hindu society into rigid social groups that are hierarchical, hereditary, and endogamous. This social stratification has its roots in ancient India and persists till today, though, because of urbanization and government programs, the rigidity and importance of the system within India has been declining. The hindu caste system is sometimes used as an analogical basis for the study of social divisions outside Hinduism and India." Something along those lines should be the first paragraph of this article. --regentspark (comment) 20:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

In the excerpts from the sources above, I will soon separate the lede section from the rest of the text. My general impression is that the specialist references (e.g. Oxford Dictionary of Sociology) tend to define the concept, in the first sentence or two, independently of India. Also, Piotrus, the professional sociologist, whose proposal we were considering suggested that (in light of the spinout Caste system in India, this article should be 45% about definitions, concepts, paradigms, and review of literature, 30% about India, 10% about caste or caste-like stratification among Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Buddhists in India, and in other countries of South Asia; and 15% to extreme (cast-like) stratification in other parts of the world. In other words, this article should be more sociology and anthropology oriented. I checked the early history of this page it seems to bear Piotrus out. So, a slightly modified version of your text could go after a lead sentence or two which define it abstractly. Something along the lines of:

Caste is a form of social stratification based on endogamy, hereditary transmission of occupation, ritual status in a hierarchy, and social exclusion marked by purity and pollution. Its paradigmatic (and some say only) ethnographic example is the division of Hindu society into rigid social groups, with roots in India's ancient history and persisting until today. However, the economic significance of the caste system in India has been declining as a result of urbanization and affirmative action programs. A subject of much scholarship by sociologists and anthropologists, the Hindu caste system is sometimes used as an analogical basis for the study of caste-like social divisions existing outside Hinduism and India.

What do you think? I mean something along these lines could be a place holder until the various sections are revised or added. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure. We need to fix the lead quickly. The current version makes no sense at all. --regentspark (comment) 11:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I am still trawling through this page, trying to catch up. And I keep getting drawn away, sorry. However, the proposed change to the lead makes perfect sense to me, based mostly on my own understanding from past readings of sources etc. I'd probably drop the "(and some say only)" because it sounds a bit weasely, even in a lead, but that is a minor quibble. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I put the "some say only" in later to acknowledge the (few? many?) scholars who consider caste to be unique to India, but yes, it seems lede-inappropriate. Scratched. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll change the lede to the version above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've also added a so-called "ethnographic" map of India based on the 1901 Census. Since a major thrust of this article is a discussion of the theories and scholarly literature on caste, such a map, based on then current but now outdated theories is an apt illustration. But, mainly, it, like the rest of the lead, is a place holder. The illustrations will be reevaluated once the text is more complete. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had mentioned it here earlier, but apparently I did it somewhere else, but the previous 72 prints of Indian castes illustration doubly inaccurate as it was not even accurate at the time it was created. It clearly furthers the previous POV of the article, that caste in India was really not the preserve of one religious group. It starts with "Muslim man," and includes "Arab soldier," "Sikh chief," "Tribal chief," and "fencer" among the 8 chosen. What the caption forgets to tell you is that they were pictures of "castes" observed in the Madurai area during 25 years, that there are 72 in the collection, most of which are Hindus. What it also forgets to tell you (and this is my own reading) is that it was a collection presented to an American Methodist leader, Revd. Manning, by an American missionary in India, Daniel Poor. With the 1813 Charter Act, the British government had allowed Christian missionaries to proselytize in India. Since 1813+25 = 1838, the approximate year of the presentation, it was the initiative of a "first generation" American missionary in India. In other words, this is a naive view of caste and ethnic differences in India. I mean naive for the level of general understanding about caste that existed in 1837. The British has already established the Calcutta and Benares Sanskrit colleges in the 1780s and 90s; Calcutta's Presidency College had been founded in 1817. William Jones had already founded the Asiatic Society and proposed the Indo-European languages hypothesis in the 1780s. These pictures were hardly state of the art knowledge in 1837. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions by Tijfo098

• The fact that there's a debate among scholars as to whether the "caste" terminology applies elsewhere should be mentioned, cf. Social Science Encyclopedia, Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology, and The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery, Volume 1
• I think Japan (burakumin) could me mentioned in the lead as a historic example (in the wider sense) cf. The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology, Encyclopedia of Community, and the Social Science Encyclopedia.
• The introductory sentences from The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery, Volume 1 are a very good explanation why India is the paramount example. It should be paraphrased in the lead. (A similar argument is made in the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.)
• The "caste-like" treatment of African Americans and the SA apartheid might be worth mentioning cf. The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery, Volume 1 and A New Dictionary of the Social Sciences, but with the differences emphasized in the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences

-- Tijfo098 (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

European section

I know that much has been discussed above but much has also got lost in the noise. I have just removed the England and Sweden/Finland sections completely as being clear coatracking. Those and other sections are referred to above and my gut feeling is that the entire Europe section should be binned pending a rewrite that summarises the use of "caste" as an analogy for other social stratification systems. I see no benefit in retaining these leaps into OR and synthesis that of very few sources. Regarding the deletions, I acted as an Englishman who has read the cited sources for those sections + Weber and similar. The long paragraph concerning the role of the House of Lords in recent times as an example of the caste system in England was simply ludicrous and I would challenge anyone to do a survey in Britain that achieves even 1% recognition of this. That something has or had a hereditary principle does not necessarily make it an example of caste, and passing mentions are flimsy support for the notion.

Someone had fun creating those sections but they are tangential to an extreme even though the RfC has not completed. The RfC is going to go this way in any event, given the recent handing-out of topic bans etc that effectively negate much of the opposition to it: we do not usually rely on the comments of socks and nor do I think we rely on the comments of people who have been deemed disruptive of the process to such an extreme that they are banned. While the article (and this talk page) are as lengthy and meandering as they are, it is extremely time-consuming to edit. Slash and burn has its place, I guess, safe in the knowledge that the forest can be cultivated and managed thereafter. - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I have demoted the Europe and other sections to subsections in light of the article structure proposed by Piotrus. So, the Europe bit is not looming as large. For now, I'd say leave it in. What I would like to propose is that we go through the tertiary sources, some of which do have something to say about caste outside South Asia. Figure out which ones they consider notable. Then rewrite the section in light of the tertiary source evidence. We could then remove the European subsections that are not notable and summarize the ones that are. It shouldn't take us long. I'd be happy to email you the fuller tertiary texts. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'd appreciate any info that you could send over. This is going to be a tedious, messy process because of the extent to which the article has been spun out. I'm off out again now but feel free to revert me or I will do so on my return. - Sitush (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I'll list what the tertiaries have to say about Caste outside South Asia in a section below. That way the info will be more organized and also available for anyone to inspect. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, I've now listed the general tertiary sources that mention caste-like divisions in other societies. In addition, there is the more specific Historical Encyclopedia of Slavery, which is featured in the longer list above, and which Tijfo98 refers to. I think you may for now remove the sub-sections of the Europe, Asia, Africa sections that don't gain mention in the tertiary sources below. If evidence mounts later that their contents are notable, we can always put them back in, but for now, this likely OR and Synthesis should not be allowed to stand. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll try to work my way through what you have offered and also see what I can dig up. A good dose of common sense probably will not go amiss. It might take me a while, so feel free to ping me. - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Issues with this article

I came to this article from the social class article. This article is incomplete. I disclose I am a sociologist with publications on caste over the last 30 years.

1. The section on various definitions of caste, caste as a concept and its history is incomplete. Consider summaries from Weber, Dumont, Merton, Berreman and Srinivas.

2. The article is missing a section that compares caste, social class and ethnic groups. A discussion of differences and similarities between the three concepts should be considered.

3. India section is incomplete. It should be expanded.

4. Parts of Europe section are repetitive. These parts should be merged and reduced.

5. Sections on South Asia, Africa, Middle East, Latin America, USA, Japan, Korea, China and Polynesia need some revision.

6. The article is missing a section on modern status and controversies about caste.

7. The lede is in bad shape. It should be a summary structured similar to the social class article.

I would limit item 1 to 3000 words, item 2 to 1000 words, item 3 to 2000 words, item 4 and item 5 to 200-500 words each for each region, item 6 to 500 words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Couriel76 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Pretty much everything you've said has been said by others above. The article is in a stage of very early reconstruction. Please drop by again in a few months. Thanks again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Coat-racking by Indians on this page

It is tiresome, that Hindu activists are distorting this article. Caste is a huge embarrassment to them. So, they are playing around with immature censorship and obfuscation on this page. As if somehow the world doesn't already know about the Indian caste situation, and that they can magically reverse people's awareness. Honestly, why bother? ThievingBeagles (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Allegations of allegations of apartheid apartheid. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Coatracking by Indians? Hindu activists? Looking at the article history I see that no Indian/Hindu activist have edited this page in recent past, except one revert of mine. It is amazing to see your conclusions. You have no proof of whatever you are saying so I politely ask you to just SHUT UP !! --sarvajna (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

1. Do we really need the pic of Kurmi cultivators? If not mentioned it could be anyone a Holiya or even a poor Brahmin tilling their land. I don't think it serves any purpose.
2. The whole section of Europe was completly removed, it was discussed on this talk page about the caste system among jews in Poland, how about Romani people? --sarvajna (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Basically, this article had taken on the appearance of being hijacked by Hindutva sympathisers etc and it will take some time to figure things out in a neutral manner. You are well aware that the Europe section was hopeless in its then form. Far better that the article says nothing for a while than that it says something contrary to our policies etc. If you want to draft something then feel free to do so, but it will likely not get a tremendous amount of space for the reasons that have been discussed here previously and were also discussed in the ANI thread that you were a part of. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, your response makes a lot of sense. I am not saying that we need to have a big section dedicated to Europe but because we have good sources we can have a section.Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ratnakar.kulkarni, You are talking through your hat here. What are the chances that Brahmin women would be working on the field with their menfolk? Zero. The kurmi had become famed as cultivators from Mughal times. They were not only used by Mughal grandees throughout the middle Ganges plain to cultivate recently cleared land, but also charged higher rent because of their productivity. The British revenue specialists could tell merely by looking at a field whether it belonged to a kurmi or a Brahmin. The latter's fields were shabby. Please read the Kurmi article and Susan Bayly's book on Caste. There is good reason that both the Mughals and the British were so impressed by the kurmi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Fowler, you really did not get my point at all. Also I said it could be people belonging to Holiya (caste) or anyone. This article is about caste not how good were Kurmi's at cultivation. My point is, that pic of Kurmi's cultivating the land is not adding any value to the article at all. If you disagree can you please tell how it adds any value. Also coming to your point What are the chances that Brahmin women would be working on the field with their menfolk? well let me tell you the chances are pretty high. I don't see any reason why the chance should be zero --sarvajna (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a good source

Chapter one of Anders Hansson (1996). Chinese Outcasts: Discrimination and Emancipation in Late Imperial China. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-10596-6. has a good overview (pp. 9-18) of caste and caste-like (which he just calls outcast/pariah) groups, and makes an important distinction (p. 11): "Some societies have dual systems: the majority of the population is not subdivided into a caste hierarchy [but] one or more minority groups are segregated from the majority who hold the inferior status groups in contempt. Although such discriminated groups differ from the Indian untouchables in not being part of a real caste system, they are often loosely termed outcasts and pariahs." Tijfo098 (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources for Pictures ?

There seem to be three schools of use , employed for content from books from British Raj or older on various India related articles . (1) Such books are valid sources (2) Such books are not valid sources (3)Such Books are valid sources on some articles and not valid sources on others .(4)Such books are valid and not valid for the same article as citations . The rationale of consistancy is undermined when different articles on wikipedia apply one of the 4 different index above on articles for British colonial era(or earlier) books . Which also raises the question if photographs are valid sources from these books then so should content and also Vice versa . So are the following "period" pictures valid or invalid for usage from books published in 1916 on this article and contributed by Fowler and Fowler and MathewVanitas . Lets take a look at the pictures added here .

Description	Source	Book Published Date	Contributed by	Picture appears also on article
Basors making baskets of bamboo added by Tobby72	The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India Volume II Author: R. V. Russell	1916	MatthewVanitas	Basor
Kurmi sowing added by Fowler and Fowler	The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India: volume IV. Descriptive articles on the principal castes and tribes of the Central Provinces	1916	Fowler and Fowler	Kurmi

The Kurmi article has common engaged editors as this article Fowler and Fowler , Mathewavanits and a third editor .Some Citations used on that article raise the same question of consistency , are those sources valid or invalid across different articles .The other important question is the rational for selection for usage of these 2 "ethnographic" pictures of 2 purported clans from a 1916 book on mother article for caste .Intothefire (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

ITF, do you really think that any of the regular, knowledgeable editors seriously take your opinions in good faith any more? I rather suspect that boat has long sailed. Sorry, but until you manage to get that chip off your shoulder (and it is a chip that quite obviously moves from one to the other, depending on how you can design things to make others look bad), well, I suggest that you back off a bit. You have been told umpteen times of the various avenues that you could take, including WP:ANI and WP:DR. That you choose not to do so and persist in engaging in this snide rabble-rousing across a multitude of talk pages (article and user) merely serves to bolster the suspicions of others. - Sitush (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Attempt at close of old RfC

That is, the RfC listed on Archive 4 of this talk page, "RfC: Does the article minimize the centrality of India to the notion of caste?" That the discussion wasn't closed earlier is of little surprise: it is long, it is technical, and the older it gets the less appetizing it gets: such discussions are very much not like Parmigiano-Reggiano. In fact, the discussion is so long that you'll have to accept the general conclusions I think I was able to draw without my being able to point at each and every individual comment supporting it. What I, as a non-Hindi-Indian currently middle-class college professor, conclude, are the following points:

1. Scholarly consensus appears to be that the caste system is still of the greatest importance to Hindu India; vice versa, discussions of the caste system in secondary and tertiary scholarly sources note the centrality of Hindu India to the very concept of "caste".
2. Scholarly and especially less scholarly discussions on the concept of caste in other societies, esp. those outside SE Asia, mostly seem to use the term in the "broader" sense signaled in various places in the RfC--as a convenient shorthand for "social stratification" and such. I note also that the application of the term "caste" to some other cultures, popular until the 1970s and perhaps after, has now come under (academic) scrutiny and criticism.
3. Considering those two points, I conclude that it is
4. The 1 September 2012 version of the article does suffer from OR and some coatracking; the current version is much better in that respect, though far from perfect. Note, for example, the very loose use of the word "caste" in this newspaper article to warrant the inclusion of Cagot. As it turns out, there are sources "comparing" their segregation to that of the Indian caste system: such a comparison is perhaps valid, but does not itself warrant calling them a caste.

Allow me a few observations and suggestions.

1. "Caste" should (and this is supported in the RfC) include extensive discussion of the situation in India.
2. Examples from other cultures (some of which well established and verified in the current version of the article and associated main articles) must of course be thoroughly verified; an article from The Independent cannot suffice for what is, after all, an encyclopedic article.
3. I believe it is imperative (and comments in the RfC and elsewhere in the talk page archives support this) to come to a clarification of terms. The current lead does some of that already, but a separate section is warranted. Etymology should be the least important part of such a section; more important is a history of the usage of the term--not to be able to list every example of its usage, but rather to sketch the attractiveness of the paradigm to scholars of various periods, an attractiveness that has by now lost some of its currency. Parts of the lead of the 1 September 2012 version point to that as well; what's important is to delineate the term and its currency. Fowler&Fowler cites Balkin in the RfC ("social stratification in the United States does not really match the technical definition of caste ... caste is at best an effective hyperbole") and it's precisely that kind of research and criticism that need to be used here.
4. Sourcing should continue to be scrutinized--in Caste system in India, I read "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 Japan", with one reference possibly very outdated (1972) and another a newspaper article from the New York Times. This is an article in which Wikipedia's crowdsourcing "hey it's in the paper let's add it" needs to be held in check.

In all, I believe this was an interesting discussion in which the participants are perhaps closer to consensus than they thought. It is clear that there is no consensus that the article is redundant to Caste system in India etc.; it's clear also that there is consensus that the article should be much more focused than the 1 September 2012 version was, and that India must occupy a position of great(er) importance. In various places various quantified suggestions were made; I cannot comment on those numbers. I sensed some hesitance at perhaps "borrowing" material from Caste system in India--well, if that's where good content on the concept of caste, its history, and its usage can be found, that's where you go. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Link to discussion: Talk:Caste/Archive 4#RfC: Does the article minimize the centrality of India to the notion of caste?. Cunard (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobility/Aristocracy?

Aren't nobles something of a caste? I mean, they were for most of the time born into their social class, could hardly degrade form it, and had a fixed function in society (fighting and reigning). Even when the ancien régime had ended, nobles continued to fill many important positions in politics and diplomacy, and they are still widely considered inherently dignified. Nobility/Aristocracy, moreover, is not confined to Europe: a similar class either exists or has existed in the vast majority of cultures. The difference with India, of course, is that the rest of the population was not divided into legally defined classes, and that there was no class of untouchables (exluding certain ethnic groups like Jews or gypsies). But even so: why isn't aristocracy considered a caste? Steinbach (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent revert

I've just reverted this. Yes, a caste system involves social stratification but the edit seems to be extending our definition from being a series of layers in a society to one where societies comprise "us and them". Perhaps the content would be of greater merit in Untouchability? Or perhaps I'm missing the point? - Sitush (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Difference between caste and class systems

This might be a useful addition to the article.

The United Kingdom, for example, traditionally has a very strongly embedded class system; how might this be differentiated from a caste system? In terms of meeting the requirement of endogamy and stark social hierarchical divisions, it could be described as having a caste system. Perhaps this grows less so with time, but it's still a distinctive national and cultural trait compared with other Western nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.255.176 (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Caste is not a "stratification" system

The reference [2] (Oxford dictionary of sociology) clearly states that the idea of caste as a stratification system is an "oversimplification" and even implies that it is a distortion. So, why is the term "stratification" used in the leading sentence of this article? Uday Reddy (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Well-known Indian researchers disagree vehemently with the idea that caste is a hierarchical system (the "oversimplification" mentioned above). For instance, Dipankar Gupta writes, "To look at castes, therefore, in terms of their attributes drawn from the notion of a pure ritual hierarchy would certainly not resonate with facts on the ground." (Caste in question: Identity or hierarchy? ISBN: 0–7619–3324–7, p. ix) I am waiting to see if anybody wants to defend the "stratification" idea before I edit it to something more balanced. Uday Reddy (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

What would you propose as an alternative, given that the stratification stuff is sourced? I didn't add it and, frankly, I think this article has suffered from too much editing by sociologists and their ilk but nonetheless it is sourced. - Sitush (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Just "social organization" would be fine instead of "social stratification". "Sociologists" have mostly taken their ideas from western colonial writers of the 19th century, whose insights into the facts was quite limited. (These ideas are also reproduced in school text books in the West. So, almost all westerners and many Asians too grow up thinking the same thing about caste.) Contemporary Asian researchers disagree with the ideas propounded in the colonial writing. Their view is essentially that the caste system is a form of multiculturalism and stratification is a byproduct. The Wikipedia article should recognize that this divergence of views. Distorting its own cited reference is inexcusable. Uday Reddy (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I cannot see the source and so have no idea what it says and what weight might be given to the various theories. I'm also very concerned that this article relies so much on tertiary sources, which are not usually considered to be A Good Thing. I don't think changing "stratification" to "organisation" is a big deal but it probably is important to remember that this article is not merely about caste in some parts of Asia: does the stratification/multiculturalism difference applies to caste everywhere or just in that region? I think I have a copy of Gupta's book somewhere but I'd be interested to see some other examples from these contemporary Asian researchers, especially if they are Marxist (which would add a whole heap of issues). - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, a "Gold Standard" source is Romila Thapar's "A History of India". It has a discussion of caste pretty much throughout the book. Are these researchers Marxist? I don't think so, but I don't know what exactly that term means. Uday Reddy (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I've got one of the two volumes by Thapar. She is controversial in some quarters but perfectly ok as a source. But, to return to my main point, she is writing of India and this article covers much more than just India. Regarding Marxists, if we take on the views of, say, Gail Omvedt, then a whole can of worms opens up because of the Marxist theory that everything boils down to class - people like Omvedt try to turn "caste" into "class". I'm not saying that we should not use her either but the scope widens rapidly if/when we do. Are you aware of Caste system in India? - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I have taken on your point about this article referring to caste in many regions of the world. I will need to check some of the other references before I do any changes. I wouldn't want to eliminate the stratification idea entirely, just that it should be presented as a particular angle to the idea of caste. The Caste system in India also suffers from very much the same problems. On the other hand, there is another page called History of the Indian caste system which seems better informed.

OED restricted source

Just want to point out that oed.com requires one to create an account before accessing their dictionary, including the citation given for etymology. If the same information can be found on a more accessible source, it should be substituted. Secretkeeper12 (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The lowest cast of man In England was titled "The sin eater"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin-eater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.96.38 (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Exclusive and inappropriate anthropocentric focus

As usual, we have here the typical anthropocentric focus to be expected in any Wikipedia article where it seems that only popular sociologists, rather than, say, biologists or zoologists, have decided what the article should include. Homo is not the only animal genus that displays caste behaviour. Other social animals such as many genera of ants and termites also do. Despite this, not one mention of this crucial fact anywhere in the article. Nor is the current disambiguation page for caste of any use in this respect. A quick search of Wikipedia reveals that many of the Wikipedia articles on insects such as ant and termites species use the term caste in describing the animals' behaviours. At least one article even wikilinks to the term, which brings the reader to this article, which, of course, has nothing whatsoever to say about castes in social insects. This glaring and needless omission needs to be rectified.

From the OED online:

caste, n

c. transf. Applied to the different classes in a community of social insects, as ants.
1859 C. Darwin Origin of Species vii. 238 The castes [of ants]..do not generally graduate into each other, but are perfectly well defined; being as distinct from each other, as are any two species of the same genus.
1859 C. Darwin Origin of Species vii. 238 The castes, moreover, do not commonly graduate into each other.
"caste, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, March 2015. Web. 12 April 2015.169.53.156.247 (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This may need fixing. There is a distinction between purely cultural castes and physical subtypes of animal, but it is strange that Caste (disambiguation) has nothing to say about the latter form; surely enough has been written about it to make it notable. ekips39 (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice rant. Now go write an article about it in the non-anthropocentric sense, then link the two. If you honestly think that most people think of caste in terms of ants etc rather than humans (and in particular those in India) then it is no wonder you're getting very frustrated. Dictionaries are dictionaries, encyclopaedias are, erm, something else. - Sitush (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Lede

Kautilya3 I have already checked the article history now, not to mention that previous lead(before last edit of fowler) was on the article for nearly 2 years, but anyway I want this sentence to be on lead:- " According to Human Rights Watch and UNICEF, caste discrimination affects an estimated 250 million people worldwide."

Capitals00 (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Last lede was expanded by OnBeyondZebrax.[1] Seemed reasonable too as it was giving a look beyond just India. Capitals00 (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

For it to get into the lead, you need to discuss it in the article body first, and all the involved editors need to agree that it is worth mentioning in the lead. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Very poor article

This is a very poor article. I came to it wanting to learn the origins and history of the caste system, its relationship to the Hindu religion, its role in Indian history both before and during the colonial period, its structure and operation, and its place in modern Indian society. I found none of these things. Instead I found a few paragraphs of feeble generalisations which I could have written myself, followed by an extended attempt to pretend that caste is somehow not central to Indian life (which I know it is), and also that various other countries have "caste" systems too, so it's not so bad really. This is thoroughly dishonest and misleading. The whole article needs to be rewritten. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Intelligent Mr Toad: The main article you want is Caste system in India. See also History of the Indian caste system. I have added a link the main article now. Uday Reddy (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It needs to be made much clearer that this is not the main article on caste in India. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree! Very poor in relation to India. Even if there is a better article about caste in India, that does not excuse the text in this article, which of course must discuss India as an important case of castes. Pgan002 (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

On India: egregiously incorrect

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061105095243/http://www.countercurrents.org:80/hr-marguerite250404.htm to http://www.countercurrents.org/hr-marguerite250404.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

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

Greek

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..." 64.223.122.108 (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)

Why is Tibet not a subsection of "China and Mongolia"

Is it because the "Tibet" section is focusing on a different aspect of the issue discussed in "China and Mongolia"? I noticed a mention to the Tibet at the end of the "China and Mongolia" section, though. 燃灯 (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Ambiguous wording

On Japan: "As in Europe, the castes and sub-classes were of the same race, religion and culture." Does that mean that everyone (regardless of caste) shared the same race, religion and culture? Or does it mean each caste was homogenous in terms of race, religion and culture? Iapetus (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Caste in the United States

A discussion of the American caste system (racial hierarchy, especially as it relates to blacks and whites from the beginning of the slavery through Old Jim Crow) is conspicuously absent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.107.125 (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Aryan

I have moved the following from the article to the talk page:

The caste system is believed to be brought into Indian subcontinent by Aryan civilization and their Varna belief, all written primarily in an Indo-European language Sanskrit ; scientific research in archaeological, anthropological and genetic analysis has confirmed the origin of the migration of Sanskrit language from outside Indian subcontinent.

The first reference appears to have been a harvested one - i.e. one copied from sources but not actually seen by the editor.

The second reference merely support that "scientific research in archaeological, anthropological and genetic analysis has confirmed the origin of the migration of Sanskrit language from outside Indian subcontinent". it does not support the contention that this has anything to do with caste.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt

I have deleted the section on Ancient Egypt. The literature on Ancient Egypt does not support the idea that there was a caste system.As best I can tell, the referenced sources do not talk about caste either. Ancient Egypt had social classes, but that is not the same as having a caste system. Virtually every society of any size and complexity has social classes but only certain systems are considered to have a caste system.Bill (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Depressed classes

I am copying here the text contributed by an IP editor:

In the next (1911) Census, the Varna classification was continued, but large population groups like the Chamars (Leather workers) and Julaha (Weavers) were now put alongside what were earlier known as 'Outcasts'(~5% of the population), who consisted of groups like the Paraiyan, Halalkhore, Chhuhra and Mang etc, to arrive at a new artificial category called the 'Depressed Classes' with nearly 16% of the population under it. This group, that had never existed historically as a category before, was renamed 'Untouchables' by the mostly upper caste Indian social reformers of the time, who argued that 'the whole population of India, even the Brahman himself' was in a depressed condition. The specially disadvantaged therefore needed another name: 'Untouchable". The British, however, called the same group 'Exterior Castes' in the 1921 and 1931 Censuses, with the intention of moving the group out of the Hindu fold altogether, and then give it a separate electoral constituency.

References

I can't find most of this text in the source. So I would like to see quotations that validate it. I am also not convinced of the text in the context of this article, which is about caste, not census categories. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Sri Lanka and Indonesia sections

In the Sri Lanka section is this: "The repetition of the same caste hierarchy even as recently as the 18th century, in the British/Kandyan period Kadayimpoth – Boundary books as well indicates the continuation of the tradition right up to the end of Sri Lanka's monarchy." I'm sure that's a word-by-word translation from some other language into English, but it came out as word salad. Anyone know what was intended?

The Indonesia section says the religious caste is both Brahmina and Brahmana. I'm just suggesting that the article pick one transliteration and stick to it. IAmNitpicking (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Missing entire section: Latin America (casta)

Per WP:Summary style, we need a concise summary of Casta, the Spanish colonial caste system that still has a lot of echoes in modern Latin America. I was very surprised to find this missing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Even though the English word "caste" comes from the Spanish/Portuguese casta, the application of that term to India (ca the 16th century) I think outdates the use in Spanish to denote mixed-blood, etc. I'm about to go on a three-month vacation and I don't really know too much about casta (as practice), but we probably do need to make sure that casta has the characteristics of "caste" as described in the lead—especially endogamy, ritual purity, and hereditary social stratification—and is not just another insidious form of discrimination or prejudice, which while equally devastating to the victims, is not caste. (OED: Etymology: < Spanish casta and Portuguese casta ‘race, lineage, breed’ (Minsheu); originally according to Diez ‘pure or unmixed (stock or breed)’, < casta feminine of casto < Latin castus , casta pure, unpolluted (see chaste adj.). Apparently at first from Spanish; but in its Indian application from the Portuguese, who had so applied it about the middle of the 16th cent. (Garcia 1563). Anyway, I have to run. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

PS It would have helped had I taken a look at the rest of the article.  :) I see now that it already has the whole world there. So, yes, absolutely, casta in Central and South America belongs. Thanks for noticing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Bias

Why is only the Indian caste system mentioned??? What about other countries Odinson878 (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Lots of other regions and nations are mentioned. What do you mean? IAmNitpicking (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

A better reference

Ref. 10 has almost nothing to do with the date when endogamy started in India. Please replace with the following, on which Ref. 9 is based. I am not sure if I can do it myself. "Genome reconstruction of the history of extant populations in India"

https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1513197113 Sooku (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

What's the point of discussing the biological sense of the word in the lead of the article for a sociological concept?

User:Fowler&fowler why the revert? This article is about the sociological concept of caste. Those who are looking for the biological term can click on the disambiguation page. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, listing different meanings of the term in an article about a specific meaning of the term is not standard practice. That's what disambiguation pages are for. 117.251.198.127 (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It is not a revert of your edit; rather it is a revert to a version established by a longstanding consensus; the dab mention might have come later. It is one sentence in the lead; it has always been here. You can attempt to garner a new consensus if you'd like. I clearly oppose it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

That you oppose it is of course clear from your revert of my edit. And yes, that is clearly what it was, despite your confused assertion at the start. Any reason to oppose? Was this specific sentence ever discussed when the "consensus version" was being crafted? What were the reasons given for its inclusion? Since when did Wikipedia start disambiguating terms in articles on specific concepts? Did the consensus take into account the due weight various sources give to the biological sense of the term when discussing the specific sociological concept of caste? 117.251.198.127 (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The very word "caste" applied to insects betokens a behavior that had brought to mind the ancient Indian system. How can we not note this? The dab link of "Caste (biology)" which redirects to Eusociality, notes this in the lead, but thereafter begins its history in the 1960s or 70s.

But the interaction between sociologists and entomologists is much older dating to the turn of the 20th century. At the University of Chicago, for example, the interpretation of caste-like behavior in insects had begun in the late 1920s. Indian sociological-philosophers such as Radhakamal Mukerjee had written about it in the late 1920s or early 1930s. Obviously this article, being the flagship article on the topic of caste, will need to make a mention. I will shortly add a section on the early interaction, and sum it up more adequately in the lead. Thanks for bringing it up. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

If it is true that "the very word "caste" applied to insects betokens a behavior that had brought to mind the ancient Indian system", that might merit a mention in the Eusociality article. The reverse needs to be true if you want a mention of the insect behaviour in the article about the ancient Indian system. The sources we have for the Indian system need to be mentioning eusociality in insects if the sentence in dispute is to be considered due for inclusion in the lead. Whatever entomologists thought of the Indian caste system is irrelevant here, we need the opinion of Indologists and sociologists. 117.251.198.127 (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

This is the flagship article on "Caste." It notes every aspect. Caste in the US is nothing like caste in India. Caste in Japan is nothing like caste in India. Why should insects be different? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

As I've explained, I'll soon add a section on the caste system in insects with main Eusociality. A sentence or two will then summarize it in the lead. I've added a reference and will add a few more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

And it needs to be substantive, noting the connection in footnotes, for disambiguation or other purposes, doesn't count, specially not for inclusion in the lead.

The article is a flagship article on the concept of castes in humans, specifically Indians and India-influenced humans. Not the flagship on the word "caste", that entry is at wiktionary:caste.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.251.198.127 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully you'll using high quality sources which treat the concept of caste broadly to prove the content is due, rather than entomological sources narrowly focusing on caste on insects to push undue content here. 117.251.198.127 (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I have modified the response above to address this. This article is about the sociological concept, the biological article is at a different place. Insects and humans, as you know, differ vastly in their social interactions. Sociologists focus on caste in humans, and a different profession focuses on caste in insects. They are treated differently in scholarship, by very different type of scholars. One has a STEM degree, the other a liberal arts degree. And so because they are different types of structures in two very different types of organisms—they are covered differently. And we (or at least I) don't see sociologists covering or even mentioning insects in their treatment of the (human) caste, making the mention in the lead undue for inclusion. 117.251.198.127 (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

When I have finished adding what I propose to add, we can continue this discussion again. Let's say in a week's time. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

A talk page post that has already been replied to cannot be amended per talk page guidelines. I have refactored it above in the proper chronological sequence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• User:Fowler&fowler, it's been about a week, and I don't expect the article to be edited for another week or so. It's not right to retain a sentence based on a promise that it'll be justified by additions week later, specially when it's been doubted that those additions will be justifiable. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body. How about we remove it for now, and re-add it when you add with justification whatever it is that you want to add to the body? 59.93.138.52 (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  It has not. A week will elapse at 16:49 25 September 2022. Please also don't divine when the article will be edited next. You are not privy to that information. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  You know what "about" means Fowler. I of course don't know when the article will be edited—and that's a problem. It is one single sentence. You should have no objection to removing it right now if you are so sure you can re-add it with justification just a week or so later. You are being unreasonable in insisting that disputed content must stay because you can justify it in the future. I again propose the simple compromise to remove it for the time being and re-add when it is actually justified. 59.93.138.52 (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  Wasting the time of productive editors on Wikipedia by insistently dickering about when and whether they will be editing next is considered disruptive Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  "About" means a day earlier as much as it means a day later, so don't attempt to play Wikilawyer with me. What you are suggesting is not about to happen until 16:49 25 September 2022, and even then it will depend on how much progress has been made. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  Besides, I did not say, "about." I said, "Let's say in a week's time." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  Are you the same editor who was editing from Madhipura, Bihar, India, last week, and is now editing from Banguluru, Karnatake, India, or different editors? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  Either way, both IP addresses, seem to be single purpose accounts Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  Can't be a single purpose account when you are, in fact, not an account. Don't worry, I do make other edits on Wikipedia. But they aren't connected to these IPs (both of which are mine). 59.93.138.52 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  Accusing someone of "lawyering" while insisting 24×7 hours haven't passed yet. Ulta chor :/

  Anyway, you continue to insist that dubious content must stay and you be given time to justify it later, against basic decency and all that. Quite unfair. But okay, take your time. 59.93.138.52 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  I have no idea what Ulta chor/ is, so please don't assume familiarity with humor's idiom, not do I wish to be informed. Please disabuse me of my basic suspicion about disruption and tell me what Wikipedia article you have edited productively under what IP address. It shouldn't be that hard. Also why you cannot do a simple thing such as register. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  While I have no obligation to reveal anything of the sort (see WP:LEGITSOCK), I guess you can look at Special:MobileDiff/1107340545, that's an area where you edit. and maybe Special:Contributions/117.197.85.126. There's more, but you know it's hard to track edits without accounts. I have no obligation to register. 59.93.138.52 (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  Really, the prolific total of three edits on talk pages? Have you added anything in mainspace? As you arrogate expertise in entomology and/or sociology, attempt to edify me about STEM disciplines, perhaps something in either? I have a track record. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  arrogate expertise in entomology and/or sociology. No? Stop making things up Fowler. I only claim to have an idea of what a Wikipedia article is supposed to look like. I am familiar with policies and guidelines such as WP:DISAMBIG, WP:LEAD, and WP:NOTDICT. They tell me a Wikipedia article isn't supposed to recount different uses of the title word, rather it is supposed to focus on a specific subject. That is the policy I'm trying to enforce here.

  Anyway, I presented those edits to "disabuse" you of the SPA notion that people love to throw around to get non-regulars, even those with legitimate complaints, off their back. I am not interested in showing any track record here, since that's irrelevant here. 59.93.138.52 (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  Doesn't disabuse me of the SPA notion at all, not three edits, when you have already stacked up nearly a dozen here in the ever-present need to have the last word, a common characteristic of SPAs Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  What is that even supposed to mean? You think I have a "single, narrow purpose" in editing Wikipedia despite in fact, me having quite a broad range of interests? If you need a broader sample, you can check the IP range of my Bihar address. But again, that's irrelevant. You should stop crying "IP! Not a regular! Single purpose!" when you disagree with an unfamiliar face. It's almost morning. I'm going to sleep now. I'll come back later. Hopefully you would have thought through what's the scope of this article and whether anything beyond a hatnote is due if the scope is restrained to the human social construct. 59.93.138.52 (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not crying anything, I just don't see any evidence of content creation, only dickering and bickering on talk pages, all typical of SPAs when they assume IP avatars. Why don't you use this same IP address and create some reliable content on a vital Wikipedia article? You may create it on a biology topic or a sociology topic. Thus far you have done nothing but Wikilawyer, not once giving any evidence of an iota of knowledge about caste in any of its manifestations. Not once. You have only quoted WP rules compulsively and ad nauseam, another feature of POV-pushers. They don't have knowledge, only bias to spread, so they need the armaments of WP rules to lean on. Because they can't impress anyone with knowledge Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  I asked you to contribute content to a vital article, you shameless IP, not make sarcastic posts on the talk page of Doug Weller who is not well. The Madhipura, Bihar, India IP who started this thread and the Bangaluru, Karnataka, India IP who has taken over midway are the same people, unless they are collaborating as meatpuppets in wasting my time. I will now be beginning the Sociology and Entomology section of the article, based initially on the work of Rodgers, a anthropologist, and Gordon who is an entomologist. Please do not interfere in my editing.

  Could @Abecedare, RegentsPark, Bishonen, and Vanamonde93: please look into this? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  I have to go now for a couple of hours. I will then return to finish the rest of the section, especially Rodgers' which has a substantial discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

'Caste' and 'caste system' are two different topics. The third line starting with the word 'However' just bluntly diverges from the main topic. It needs correction. 2409:4050:2D4C:2806:EDA0:7F99:B448:7AEE (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

recognition of caste bias in America

In 2022 there have been lawsuits and arguments about discrimination in the USA by South Asian immigrants against other South Asians of lower castes. I invite somebody who is knowledgeable on this to add this to the section on the US. Pete unseth (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Ok this sentence is superb academic writing, technically accurate but I had to read it twice, which suggests many readers will skip and not absorb. "Its paradigmatic ethnographic example is the division of India's Hindu society into rigid social groups, with roots in south Asia's ancient history and persisting to the present time." terrific sentence...love, when pitched at undergrads. Then again maybe I'm just a palooka (and I haven't read all the Wikipedia guidelines-chagrin!) but it seems that a write-up of such q major concept that impacts a lot of curious people of all ages and reading levels ought to be written for the general reader. Not to the point that it's reads like textual plain oatmeal, just slightly less technical. I don't even know if it is possible to do that without miring the content in arguable gray areas. Maybe just a problem to consider. if it's any consolation the hard science articles do this to no end. OrangeCounty (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The first paragraph uses too much specialised language. Wikipedia says "the introduction ... especially should be understandable by educated people without having to follow links" I am flagging the article accordingly. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at simplifying the lead. Please check my work though. :) --Tserton (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, this is also a very controversial topic. I have been watching it for 16 years. I wrote the lead with an admin after an RfC. It took a lot of effort to make the lead precise in order that everyone and their biased, lead fixated, brother would not come dickering. I don't mean you guys, obviously.

I will take a look at it and also at the newer sources and see what I can do, but be warned that Britannica 's article on caste begins with: "caste, any of the ranked, hereditary, endogamous social groups, often linked with occupation, that together constitute traditional societies in South Asia, particularly among Hindus in India. Although sometimes used to designate similar groups in other societies, the “caste system” is uniquely developed in Hindu societies." It is less abstract, to be sure, but not exactly lay person language either.

So, please hold on. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! I'm happy to leave the topic in the hands of experts. For what my two cents are worth, it might already be some improvement to find less jargonic alternatives for terms like "paradigmatic ethnographic example" and "analogical basis."--Tserton (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is a possibility OrangeCounty (talk · contribs), Tserton (talk · contribs), and Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs). It describes caste in common words, and avoids links and references.

Caste is a way of categorising people on the basis of their ancestry. It often specifies an occupation, prohibits marriage outside the group, and limits social mixing. The division of Hindu society into rigid social groups is the best known example, and it has been compared with social distinctions around the world. Although it has existed for centuries, the significance of caste has been declining as India evolves. The term “caste” has also been extended to variations in the appearance and behaviour of social insects, in which there are different roles such as queens and workers. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Excellent introductory paragraph, leaving the technicalities and controversies for later. CharlesHBennett (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Fowler&fowler's Comment:The current version of the leadis based on an RfC,

• Does the article minimize the centrality of India to the notion of caste?, which began on 4 September 2012
• During it, I made a list Fowler&fowler's scholarly tertiary sources with their references included on 24 September 2012.
• A discussion on the lead, Talk:Caste/Archive_5#Lede began on 25 September 2012 posted by admin user:RegentsPark in their customarily pithy manner, although I do not now remember if they participated as an admin or a general editor.
• The lead from this discussion was added to the article on 26 September 2012. diff
• The mantle for closing the RfC was taken on by admin user:Drmies on 2 January 2013 in a wisely summarized statement that I only just now became aware of :) So thank you Drmeis! Strange how WP works. (For some reason "Her ways are ways of pleasantness and all her paths are peace." on wisdom (which is always feminine) from the Ecclesiastes, I think, popped into my head just now.)
• Well, what can I say now ten years later, far away in time and thought? (a) Is the language too technical? (b) Does WP have an imperative to avoid subject-specific terms? (c) Does our fellow-traveling competition (Britannica, OED) simplify? Never having boned up on WP policy in 16 years, I can't speak to the first two, but here is the evidence for the (c):

• "caste, any of the ranked, hereditary, endogamous social groups, often linked with occupation, that together constitute traditional societies in South Asia, particularly among Hindus in India. Although sometimes used to designate similar groups in other societies, the “caste system” is uniquely developed in Hindu societies." (Britannica; usually required a subscription)
• "caste, n. 2. Any of the (usually hereditary) classes or social ranks into which Hindu society is traditionally divided; a class of this sort forming part of a hierarchical social structure traditional in some parts of South Asia; (sometimes) spec. any of the four classes of the varna system" (OED entry; subscription reqd.), but significantly, for us, it is preceded in the OED by this entry:

• 1. †1. A group or class of people regarded as having properties or attributes in common; esp. a group considered as having a common origin or comprising a nation, community, ethnic group, etc.; a people. Obsolete.

• So, summing up, in light of the two main entries, which do use subject-specific language, but especially in light of the last OED entry, which suggests that simplifications are likely to create obsolete meanings, and bring us back to the pre-RfC phrasing of more than ten years ago, the lead is something I'm tempted to leave well alone. (Pinging also user:Vanamonde93, user:Sitush for wisdom in addition to the two already mentioned.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This is an excellent review of the history of the lead of this page. Thank you for taking the time to write it. In a vacuum, I 10000% think the lead is too technical. Most average readers' eyes are likely to glaze over before they're two sentences in. And plenty of other articles on extremely complex topics manage to be more accessible without sacrificing nuance or accuracy. But, now being aware of the painstaking way the lead was constructed and the compromises taken to get there, I would (somewhat reluctantly) be okay with leaving it as is. --Tserton (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: What a surprise to see that someone else has already recently complained that the lead sentence is too technical! I agree. When I made changes, you argue that I'm simplifying a complex sociologic concept. This is not true. I'm merely simplifying the grammar, while trying to keep the complexity of the concept itself intact. Let's work toward a better way together please. Air your specific grievances with my wording here -- thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, can you point me to the discussion from "ten years ago"? Ten years is a long time on Wikipedia. Thank you. Wolfdog (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Someone has expanded the first few sentences of the lead, simplifying and explaining along the way. I think it reads well, and will be a help to the average reader. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

That was me, haha! Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)