Talk:Caste

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)

Wiki Education assignment: This is America

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 September 2023 and 18 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rohan menon (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Llynn2 (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)