The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Numerically, the opinions for keeping or deleting the article are about equally divided. But viewed in the light of our core policies, the "delete" opinions are considerably stronger.

The "delete" opinions argue - in some detail, based on the specifics of the discussion surrounding castes in India - that there are no reliable sources on which this list could be based. If this argument is true, then the core policies WP:V and WP:NOR mandate the list's deletion. As it happens, the "keep" opinions mostly do not address or rebut this argument; at most, they broadly assert that sources must exist, without however naming specific reliable sources that could be used as a basis for this list. The argument for deleting the list as unverifiable is also supported by the fact that three days ago, apparently without opposition, the list was reduced to the one entry (of potentially several thousand) for which a source is cited. Consequently, because the argument of unverifiability appears valid and has not been rebutted, the list is deleted.

There seems to be consensus that this would be in theory a worthwhile subject for an encyclopedic list, if the sourcing issue could be resolved. As such, this deletion discussion does not bar the recreation of a reliably and thoroughly sourced list of this kind, but I suggest that any draft (and the sources used for it) should first be discussed in userspace or in a project forum among knowledgeable contributors. Sandstein  08:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian castes[edit]

List of Indian castes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is very rare that I see a list that needs to be replaced by a category or hierarchy of categories. That only happens when the list is so enormous as to be unmaintainable and when a list per se adds no value to the project because of size and maintainability.

So it is with this list. It is incomplete, but who can tell? It is assuredly important. The area is of great encyclopaedic interest. But the list is a woefully inadequate tool to provide the reader with an encyclopaedic view of the topic matter.I do not doubt the excellent motives that drove the creation of this list. It has simply grown into an unmaintainable item.

I am perfectly aware that it is unusual to suggest a list for replacement by categories, Usually I support the existence of both indexing mechanisms. I have given this list a great deal of thought, and cannot see that splitting it into sublists would serve the purpose.

The final nail in its coffin for me is the almost impossible job of validating each entry as being a proper member of the list. The list has few enough references to consider it to be unreferenced. Any set of references would double or treble the length of the list.

With all this in mind I recommend it be deleted and be replaced by a valid scheme of categories and subcategories, a scheme which may already exist. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. There is no provision for referencing, to verify a topic meets a category's criteria of inclusion
  2. The category namespace is not included by default in searches using Wikipedia's search box. ...
  3. Entries are arranged in alphabetical order only ... They cannot be organized into sections and subsections on a single page, each with its own descriptive introduction.
  4. Does not support other forms of tracking, such as adding red links...
  5. Gives no context for any specific entry, nor any elaboration...
  6. Alternative names for the same item can be included only by including redirects in the category.
Our editing policy is to improve content in situ rather than deleting it. By maintaining imperfect work we are able to study and refine it. Deletion of such a large list would disrupt this work by making the content inaccessible to all but admins. Are admins going to do the work of improving this subject? Warden (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the book you link to (Edgar Thurston) is not a reliable source. Also, listing castes was an obsession of the British Raj. It didn't exist before and it has not existed since - I think that a read of H. H. Risley, in particular, would be instructive for those arguing for WP:LISTN and, indeed, most of the other standard "keep list and category" arguments. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • People can read about Edgar Thurston and his work here. This demonstrates the notability of the topic. When he writes, for example, that "The Kabberas are a caste of Canarese fisherman", this seems fine for our purpose. He provides a source (W. Francis) and we see this confirmed in other more recent works such as The Fishing Culture of the World. Warden (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. Now do the same for all the other castes that he mentions. There is consensus that he is unreliable. Honestly, there will be very few people here who know more about the subject of caste in India than myself and it is I who wrote articles such as those for Risley, Rose and Thurston. No-one is disputing that there should be articles on notable castes: the issue is whether there should be a list of them. I draw your attention to my comments at Talk:List of Indian castes, referred to above. This is not a straightforward WP:ARS or "I always vote to keep lists and cats" type of situation. The only person who is likely to take on maintaining this list any time soon is me, and the same could be said for any time in the last couple of years. I'm not prepared to do that maintenance because it is a completely hopeless task. - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, I trust that you are aware that Thurston's book was published in 1909 and that your link is to a 1987 reprint. Francis was c. 1840, which puts him just after the utterly dreadful James Tod (another of "my" articles, if you excuse the claim to ownership). - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is quite normal for systems of classification to have difficulties and disputed entries. The issue here is not whether we can have perfection but whether categories are an exclusively better way of doing the job. The standard guidance is that lists and categories are complementary and so we will get the best result by using both. Your claim that you personally should determine this should be dismissed per WP:OWN. The graveyards are full of indispensable people. Warden (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't care less what is normal: there are always exceptions. Equally, I am not so stupid that I seek perfection - I just do not think many people realise just how difficult it is to get even within, say, 70% of perfection here, which would make the list so lacking in authority as to be an embarrassment. If you want to take me on regarding that aspect then put your money where your mouth is, I guess. These Indic caste subjects can always use the help of more people with the sort of experience of Wikipedia etc that you have.

    Also, I specifically did not claim that I should determine things. Please do not put words into my mouth. I haven't even formally supported or opposed this yet because I am still thinking about it. - Sitush (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You seem to know a lot about the topic area. Please could you provide some background for those, like myself, who are coming fresh to it. The list seems to have existed since 2005 but this seems to be its first appearance at AFD and it doesn't seem to have much in the way of clean-up tags. My impression is that it has been neglected and so some brisk cleanup would make a big difference. What can you tell us of its history, please? What has provoked this nomination? Warden (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tbh, I think a lot of experienced contributors see an article about caste and simply run for the hills because, as Malleus says here, it is a misery to deal with. Things have improved over the last couple of years, prior to which probably the only person who was consistently trying to keep things in order was Utcursch. However, the sheer volume of articles cf the number who are interested in cleaning them up is very disproportionate. And as India/Pakistan become more connected with the web & are more encouraged to contribute by the high-profile WMF initiative over there, so the number of problems is rising at an alarming rate.

    I will try to come up with a mini-essay in my userspace that explains the problems in the context of this article but, honestly, I am already in the middle of another big clean-up and so it may take me a while. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • As proposer of this list for deletion I would like to confirm that I am wholly in favour of individual articles on notable and verifiable castes. Sitush has summarised the issues with articles in this area far better than anyone I've seen. What I've noticed with articles of this type in this geographic area is an attitude of "Their name appears, so must mine" and the list gets out of any semblance of control very fast. This is the main reason why I suggest that this list is better presented as a category or categories, with all the deficiencies that Warden has enumerated so well of a category scheme. Sometimes one must choose a 'least worst' approach. Usually I favour lists and categories together. Very rarely indeed I feel a list is out of place. This one I feel to be appallingly hard, if not impossible, to maintain. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regrettably neither of those arguments hold any sway here. The list is not important at all. Simply looking at it shows that in spades. And it cannot add any value to Wikipedia. Again just look at it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Backing Tim here, I can't imagine how you found this article useful. In all absolute seriousness and not at all being sarcastic, did you actually look at the article, or are you simply assuming that castes are important topics (they are) and that a list seems like a convenient way to organise it? That would sound logical, but in actuality the list is utter junk, with a bizarre tacked-on sub-article, and generally in a constant state of flux that doesn't indicate lively evolution, but just nobody having any idea what should be here and what shouldn't, and a zillion drive-by IPs with axes to grind. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Castes are important, of course they are, and are verifiable and notable, and should be here. The list of castes, while doubtless a great idea when started, is worse than useless. The list does not add value to Wikipedia, nor does it perform a useful function for those researching castes, either fully or casually. We need at times to throw out the trash. It started out well, but has become utter trash. There is no scope for recycling this trash, it is landfill material only. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh, Of course it is a valid reason for deletion, per WP:V. So it would help if you go source it, please, and (seriously) be prepared for me to challenge those sources. The last couple of keeps here merely demonstrate the usual piling on that happens when it comes to list articles being proposed for deletion. You need to understand the background and it seems likely that you do not, in the sense that I cannot recall either of you having had any substantive involvement with Indic content. Let's put it this way, there is nothing wrong with anyone supporting or opposing a nomination at Afd ... but it helps if you understand that sometimes the issues run a bit deeper than a mere policy reaction. Yes, any decision in theory has to be based on policy but common sense can apply and, sadly, too few people understand the underlying issues in this particular subject area. Even most of those signed up to WT:INB seem to prefer to keep out of it. I really need to write the mini-essay that I refer to above, I guess, although I'd welcome people to actually do something practical to improve the article rather than just issue platitudes. I have posted a note of this discussion at WT:INB. - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB: only one reference in that list currently relates to the matter at hand. The rest relates to what amounts to a (presumably well-intentioned) hijacking of the list by a prolific-but-poor creator of caste stubs etc. There is a shedload of difference between castes and the umpteen lists of Other Backward Classes & the contributor knows this very well. That issue, of course, can be fixed merely by deleting the inappropriate content but given that this AfD has superseded the discussion that I opened on the list talk page, I for one am not prepared to do it right now. - Sitush (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where have I admitted that it just needs clean up? I was referring merely to the hijacked element currently towards the bottom end of the list. Have you looked at my critique of it at the talk page? Caste censuses are not new in India. They've never been other than disputed in the past and, frankly, I doubt that the 2011 version will be any different when the final results emerge (if, indeed, they are ever published ... and they may not be for political reasons).

    The list that you linked to has nothing to do with that census. It relates to a reservation system introduced following Indian independence, when the constitution had formally (if not practically) abolished the caste concept. Additionally, holding that J&K list up as an example suggests that you are failing to grasp (a) a tribe is not a caste; (b) Scheduled groups are only a small part of the whole and a large number (the so-called Forward Castes) are not enumerated by any government; (c) the names used by the J&K government will not align with those used by other state govts and union territories, etc but can be the same groups - hence WP:OR comes in; and (d) there is no agreed definition of what does constitute a caste beyond the blindingly obvious. This is a very complex area and I rather suspect that you do not fully understand it, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, difficulties with classification are quite normal. For example, there's the well-known controversy about whether Pluto is a planet. Many entities such as rivers have no exact definition but we manage to have a list of rivers regardless and we'd be a poor encyclopedia if we didn't. Warden (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, in this instance, resolving classification difficulties seems to be completely unfeasible. Unless you have any suggestions as to how it might be achieved while remaining compliant with our various policies - WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR etc. Instead of this being some sort of meta-discussion, it should be one of those examples where an article really has to be considered on its own merits. I'd welcome any help in enabling this list to remain but I fear that it will not be forthcoming: what I am seeing is people giving theoretical reasons for retention that bear no relation to the practicalities of maintaining something that is remotely encyclopaedic. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Castes were written into the Indian constitution and there have been multiple censuses. There is a huge amount of scholarship on the issue and so the difficulty seems to be that we have too many sources not too few. This just makes it a matter of hard work. If you're not prepared to roll your sleeves up and do this work then that's ok because this is a volunteer effort and we don't have a deadline. We maintain drafts in mainspace so that editors can inspect and update them and it is policy that we should work in this way. Warden (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am afraid that just shows how little you understand. I suggest that you read your own search results. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we look at the first page listed there then the first caste named in one of the abstracts is Pallar. We have an article about these people and from what can read there and elsewhere, they are recognised officially as a scheduled caste. A further search indicates that there are numerous scholarly sources which recognise these people as a caste and which detail their history and circumstances. How is there any kind of problem or difficulty in including this entry? Warden (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are known by numerous other names in numerous other regions - we would have to engage in original research to establish that we are not duplicating them as, say, Mallar (that's an obvious example, by the way, and it is usually beyond tricky). We could also be engaging in synthesis of sources, since no single source will iterate all of the various names. Furthermore, that they are a scheduled caste in one place does not mean that they are a scheduled caste somewhere else: they might not even be classified as a caste at all but rather as a tribe (a completely different thing). - Sitush (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just removed Scheduled caste from Pallar. That was pure WP:OR. I note that you have included them in the list. Are you aware that untouchables are by definition outside the caste system and that the word "caste" is often used as a synonym for "community" or "group"? - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at the first paragraph of Ezhava. That is a fairly uncomplicated example of naming issues, although we frequently get people from the Thiyya community here claiming that they are a distinct caste (but unable to verify it - see the histories in the numerous redirects). - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then note Chekavar, who are mentioned in the lead of the Ezhava article. We think that they are a sub-caste - or, at least, that is what the Chekavar article currently says. In fact, they may not be even a subcaste but rather a gotra. Multiply this by over 4000 (the last estimate of the number of castes in modern India alone, thus excluding the many extinct groups and the issue of how to define modern-day communities in Pakistan etc that are no longer castes but many once have been prior to partition). Then multiply it by, say, another 1000 (for example, there are over 2700 gotras of the Jats). - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naming problems are normal. Consider rivers again. You are, like myself, perhaps familiar with the River Cam. Notice that this river has an alternative name — the Granta. Notice also that it has several namesakes such as River Cam, Gloucestershire. Notice also that it flows into the Ouse and so is part of the larger drainage system. There are many thousands of such rivers in the world and yet, despite the difficulties of definition, naming and scope, we endeavour to maintain lists of them. The difficulties here seem no different in principle. And it still does not seem that categories are any better in dealing with these difficulties.Warden (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not said that categories are better. All I've said is that this list is useless. To extend further from your Pallar example, read p. 169 of the source to which you referred. "Scheduled Caste" (more commonly known in Indian govt parlance as "Scheduled Class" because they abhor the idea of caste)Struck: it is OBCs that they detest calling "caste" because they are the mostly Hindu elements, whereas SCs are mostly Christians/Buddhists etc. is a "state welfare category". It has nothing to do with the traditional caste system as defined by the Hindu religion and, indeed, as dalits and Christians, the Pallars would be outside the traditional system. Indeed, the precise reason why they will appear in Scheduled Class lists is because as dalits they are deemed to be socially and economically disadvantaged: the true castes have traditionally oppressed them. This has a bearing on one of the points I raised at Talk:List of Indian castes - how the heck do we define this and keep people from warring over it? You may not be aware of the extent to which warring goes on but it is because of that we had to introduce general sanctions for caste/community articles not too long ago. - Sitush (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim that "categories are fine" seems absurd. For example category:Indian castes by profession is tagged as under-populated. If we drill down a little, we find an article such as Arayan. This has multiple categories category:Indian castes and category:Fishing castes. There are no references to support this and so no way of verifying the classification. How is this fine? And if we wanted to keep an eye on these categories to check that they are kept in good shape, how would we do it? Does the "back end" take care of this for us in some magical way? Warden (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that the categorisation system is black magic to many people but that is not a reason to keep a completely unencyclopaedic list that hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of being encyclopaedic any time soon. The likes of myself can work on improving the categorisation schema and the verification of its entries should be in the articles itself. It isn't as if the list would do a better job than the cats and, in fact, as I've explained above, it will in most cases fail abysmally even if it were sourced (which it isn't). - Sitush (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (after edit conflict) Unfortunately you are using rhetoric regarding the back end, Mediawiki software, which is alarmingly deficient in much of its processing of data anyway. But we use it because it is what we have.
The list is a bizarre and hopeless mess, and is unmaintainable despite efforts to maintain it. Those who police the individual articles police the categories into which the article are entered. In many ways you have it backwards. People do not police categories because the articles are policed. That has always been the case here and will be until the software is enhanced. None of this removes the plain fact that the list is an appalling mess and way past anyone's ability to maintain. It outgrew maintainability a long time ago.
You make a good case for improvement of the underlying software, though, and should propose this in the correct forum. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why the categories are okay is because there is no requirement that the members of a category meet [{WP:NPOV]] (that is, this has nothing to do with technical issues). The category itself must be neutral, but there is no obligation to make sure it is fully populated with all available topics. Another way of saying this is that categories are not, themselves, encyclopedic entries; rather, they're just a collection of hyperlinks of articles that are similar. The responsibility for making sure that each article belongs in a category falls upon each pages editors. It's fine to have an incomplete category; incomplete lists may be fine if the incompleteness is "neutral", but that is not the case here. If this isn't clear, I can make an analogy, but I don't want to overburden the discussion if it already makes sense. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put this a different way: if the article is not deleted, we will be obligated, per WP:NPOV, to blank it until such time as we can find adequate sourcing to ensure that we are covering the topic neutrally. Obviously, it would be ludicrous to have a blank list. But I will do so if necessary. We cannot have unsourced items on this list, we cannot rely on poor sources (like Thurston), and we cannot synthesize multiple lists unless they are absolutely non-contradictory. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tearing down a list and building it up again with improved sourcing and structure is fine and I have seen this done in several cases. But that's ordinary editing not deletion and deletion would be disruptive to the process because it makes the history inaccessible. The issue here is use of the delete function. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Colonel Warden, I don't think you understand--if the article is kept, now that I am aware of it, I will blank it and keep it blanked--there cannot be an NPOV compliant version of this list given the lack of available high quality sources. As for Dream Focus's comment, again, you're not understanding—listing only some castes and not listing others, or calling something a caste when another source calls it a sub-caste will fundamentally violate NPOV. This is not a case where we can afford to get it kind-of right. I am even willing to argue that BLP applies here if I have to, per the WP:BLPGROUP extension. Having an incomplete list is much much worse than having no list, and is actively harmful to living human beings. So, if you want to preserve a blank article awaiting the day when decent sources become available, go ahead, but this list cannot until such time as things change in the real world. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The threat is an empty one because page blanking is not acceptable. See also WP:PRAM. Warden (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP and WP:NPOV override other concerns. It's not a threat--it's making the article compliant with policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rephrase: I would not, of course, blank a page which met our policies. But it is my belief, based upon what I know about this field, that sources do not exist which would allow us to build a neutral article which does not do harm to living people. If such sources do exist, and have simply not yet been presented, I welcome their addition to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to read what Sitush has written about this area. While your assumption is reasonable about such a list it seems absent in practice. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did. If you doubt one source, look for another. And if anything is disputed on the list, add a disputed tag to it. If we can call them castes in their main articles, we can put them on list that calls them that here. There is no way possible there isn't a valid government document out there somewhere listing the castes. Check some old census data perhaps. They kept track of it before, and probably still do. Dream Focus 10:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... And there is where you appear to be wrong. Find that information and you will have done something no-one else has managed to achieve in a very long time. - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a case of wishing to delete a list because I (as nominator) prefer categories. I do not generally do so, nor do I nominate a list lightly for deletion. There are a few cases where it is plain as a pikestaff that a list simply does not or can not do the job effectively. Normally I argue strongly for a list to be retained alongside relevant categories. This is not a case where I feel I can make that argument, and I have gone further than not making it and suggested we reach a verdict on the retention or deletion of the list. Sometimes we must take a view that goes counter to instinct that lists always to be preserved. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not seem to have provided any evidence, logical argument or policy to support your contention that categories are superior to a list in this case. The standard guidance contradicts you. To make a case, you need to do more than just assert it. Warden (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me to be altogether strange that the evidence of one's own eyes is a thing that can be disregarded here. 'Lists' on Wikipedia is a topic that always seems to have those who consider that every list must stay come hell or high water even when use of the mark one eyeball shows in a very few cases that a particular list is not serving the project well as a whole. What I have to do and do not have to do is never set in stone. We are not in a court of law, and even the law is a grey area as lawyers will tell you. All I need to do is to ask the community to look with care at the article and at the arguments presented, and to use reasonable care in coming to a conclusion. I am doing that. Lists are not things that must remain here unless they have a useful purpose. When their usefulness passes so must the list article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might help if those favouring a keep would define "caste". I am unsure that even after all this discussion they really understand that there is no agreed definition and that if we try to bring some sort of order to the article by use of a contrived definition then all hell will break loose. Yet if we do not contrive a definition then all hell will also break loose eventually because the list will end up containing many tens of thousands of gotras etc and pretty irrelevant stuff such as the OBC and SC/ST lists. Just the single example given by Warden above re: the Pallars already demonstrates this (basically, I am contesting his edit to the list). - Sitush (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your statement about the need to contrive a definition, together with what will happen if a definition is not contrived suggests very clearly that this list is a list that should not exist, even must not exist.
Do you intend to cast your own !vote in this discussion or will you rely on your statements to others in the discussion and anticipate a thoughtful closure in due course to "count" your !vote"? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I'll be !voting. It is just that, as I said in my first post on the article talk page, I am seeking some compelling reason not to delete the list. So far, I haven't seen one. I am also wondering whether I should copy that opening post over to this discussion! - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are multiple definitions, not one. Which is precisely my point. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? You couldn't figure that out?
1 : one of the hereditary social classes in Hinduism that restrict the occupation of their members and their association with the members of other castes
2a : a division of society based on differences of wealth, inherited rank or privilege, profession, occupation, or race b : the position conferred by caste standing : prestige
3: a system of rigid social stratification characterized by hereditary status, endogamy, and social barriers sanctioned by custom, law, or religion
4: a specialized form (as the worker of an ant or bee) of a polymorphic social insect that carries out a particular function in the colony
  • Now obviously these aren't ants or bees, so number four you can ignore. The first three are all the same. It is a hereditary social class in Hinduism, and this is used also to do number 2 which as the caste articles explain divides people based on inherited rank, privilege, profession, and occupation. And number 3 fits also into this. Dream Focus 14:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Saint Thomas Christians are not in the list in question, nor are they in a caste category. Britannica doesn't call them a caste and neither do we. Not seeing the problem there. B. R. Ambedkar was born a dalit and we have him in various dalit categories. Britannica confirms this saying "...leader of the Dalits (Scheduled Castes; formerly called untouchables) and law minister of the government of India (1947–51). Born of a Dalit Mahar family of western India, he was as a boy humiliated by his high-caste schoolfellows." As neither of these entities is in the list in question, is there a point to these questions? Warden (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, my point is that (a) St Thomas Christians are considered to be a caste by many anthropologists and sociologists, and they have been campaigning (like so many other groups) for a revised scheduling because they feel they are losing out under the reservation laws; and (b) Ambedkar denied that caste existed: he was the architect of the constitutional statement that caste is an invalid construct, and his dalit community appears in the Scheduled Caste lists. He was a Buddhist. Go figure. - Sitush (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, there are at least two possible reasons why the STCs are not categorised as a caste. One is simply because no-one has bothered to do so yet, and the other is discussed at Saint Thomas Christians#Caste status. I've dealt with STC people on Wikipedia and, believe me, they argue strongly that the STCs are a caste and they have produced plenty of evidence to support their POV. That evidence often appears to take a form rather similar to the concept of Sanskritisation, ie: campaigning and adapting to change the perception of how they are seen/treated in order to better themselves. Similarly, the Paravars are mostly Christian and are a caste. There are also many Sikh and Muslim castes, although some of those in Pakistan (formerly India, of course) claim to be tribes but were treated as castes by the Raj. - Sitush (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Btw, the "India" section at Caste is supposed to be my responsibility. Obviously, anyone can have a go but if you check the voluminous talk page threads you will see that I was asked to expand that section ... and I warned that it would take a good long time to do so. When people such as Fowler&fowler defer expansion of a section to me, well, it kind of indicates the level of complexity that exists/degree of knowledge that is required to knock it into shape. (Although the less charitable might question the nominators' sanity, I guess). Similarly, you will see that I have been involved at Caste in India, where the article got taken over by a few people who are now topic banned. As things stand, neither of those articles is much good and, of course, at least one of them is a core article. If you think that they are decent articles, well, all I can say is that you have much to learn and perhaps at some point in the next few months they will be improved in a manner that enables you to learn that muchness :) Sitush (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec here too) Dream Focus, your argument is in such obvious bad faith that it should be stricken. Yes, we all agree that that is the general definition of caste. Did you write a damn thing that Sitush said? You're acting like there is one single way of dividing people in India (and its surrounding areas), as if every definable group is a "caste". That is flat out, unbelievably wrong. It would be like saying every single geographical unit constitutes a "region", no matter how large or small. The caste system is inordinately complex and, more importantly for the present discussion, not even close to agreed upon in any way. Take imaginary group X. In one naming system, they are a caste. But in another naming system, they are a gotra (which is sort-of like a sub-caste, but not exactly). In another naming system, they're neither--they're just a group of people who share a common name. Then, just to make matters worse, there's another source that points out that they were once considered a sub-caste of Group Y, but through political processes formed into an independent Caste, then later attempt to assert that they were actually always a sub-caste of Group Z. And this is normal! In the article on Group X, we have all sorts of time and space to devote to the various theories about what type of unit they are. But do we add them to this list? There is, in fact, no answer to that question--and whichever decision we make, we violate NPOV. You've made several ridiculous assertions, such as the claim that there must be an official list somewhere. My guess is that you're simply transposing what you know about population groups in your home country and transposing them onto India and assuming that there must be equivalencies. But there are not. And this is all complicated by the fact that caste permeates every day life in India, but is simultaneously "officially" non-existant, even though at the same time the government provides support for groups that "used to" be disadvantaged by the system, but, but but but but. There is no NPOV version of this list, and there likely won't be for many dozens of years. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want confirmation that someone is scrambling around a bit, look at this query. Given what I've already said (there is no such list), I was surprised to see DF pose the question at another of the many caste-related articles on my watchlist. You'll not get a positive response there, otherwise I would have fixed the darn issues a long, long time ago. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I asked people in that relevant article if there was a list since someone there might know. Just because you personally couldn't find something, doesn't mean its not out there. And I did find the census of India once kept records of all of the caste. So it might be possible to find them all listed in some old documents from that. Dream Focus 15:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am sorry but you really do not have a clue, do you? All you have found is a sack of tripe and if you think that I and others who edit this sphere of articles did not already know of it, well, I pity you. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)You seem to believe no one else will find something simply because you were unable to, and then act as rude and arrogant as can be. Dream Focus 15:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it offends me that you are treating me as some sort of ill-informed idiot. Honestly, you do not know what you are talking about and everything you are adding to this thread is just making that more obvious. If you think that is arrogance then so be it. - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) (@DF) Let us presuppose those old documents exist. Life in India has moved on since such a document (that may or may not exist) was drafted. One also has to consider by whom it was drafted, if it exists, and where that then sits in the background of flux that has been presented to you with care. I do see with clarity where you are coming from and why you argue as you do, but I think we are in an area where the water is so muddy as to be impenetrable. I'm wholly sympathetic to your argument and would be swayed by it in many other areas, just not this one. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is bollocks. Read H. H. Risley for some background please. You are teaching me to suck eggs. - Sitush (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can rename the article List of Indian castes according to official Indian Census then. You can then make a note above it why you believe that census is "bollocks" and why it was "an exercise in social engineering by a bunch of ill-informed scientific racists." [2] Dream Focus 15:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Herbert Hope Risley's article says "He is notable for the formal application of the caste system to the entire Hindu population of India in the 1901 census, of which he was in charge." So do you doubt the information there, where he list the different caste? Dream Focus 15:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Have you seen who was the major contributor to the HHR article? Have you read it right through rather than just cherry-picking? - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may also be interested in this from the Nair article (standard disclaimer regarding major contributor):

    The 1891 Census of India listed a total of 128 Nair subgroups in the Malabar region and 55 in the Cochin region, as well as a further 10 in the Madras area but outside Malabar. There were 44 listed in Travancore in the census of 1901. These designations were, however, somewhat fluid: the numbers tended to rise and fall, dependent upon which source and which research was employed; it is likely also that the figures were skewed by Nairs claiming a higher status than they actually had, which was a common practice throughout India. Data from the late 19th-century and early 20th-century censuses indicates that ten of these numerous subdivisions accounted for around 90% of all Nairs, that the five[notes 6] highest ranking of these accounted for the majority, and that some of the subdivisions claimed as little as one member. The writer of the official report of the 1891 census, H A Stuart, acknowledged that some of the recorded subdivisions were in fact merely families and not subcastes,[39] and Fuller has speculated that the single-member subdivisions were "Nayars satisfying their vanity, I suppose, through the medium of the census."[40]

    - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, from the same article, "The Nair include several castes and many subdivisions, not all of whom historically bore the name 'Nair'.[1][2]" Then look further down to the collapsed list of those subdivisions: there is no agreement. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 16:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 16:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 16:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitray break for ease of editing number 1[edit]

  • It isn't explained above. No-one has provided any evidence, policy or reasoning to explain how and why the list is an inferior way of categorising this. Warden (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Individual articles are, as I am sure I have said before, properly policed by those who edit them. Their membership or otherwise of the category is by consensus within the article. They are not the free-for-all that this list is. While the same policing should be applied to the list the calibre of the editors who add to the list is by no means the same as the calibre of those who police the articles. You are expecting miracles which patently do not arrive. If they did the article would not be up for deletion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's blatantly false. For example, see Arayan — an example which I gave earlier. This was picked out from a caste category just because it was the first. The article is a crude draft and has no citation; not one. To claim that categories are fine because they are derived from articles like this is absurd; a fantasy; a falsehood. Warden (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) @Warden - you can cherry pick anything, of course you can. Flag that article for improvement and move on. At present you are making circular arguments that seem to be based upon a religious zeal either that no article should be deleted, or that lists must never be deleted because they are lists. Both of those arguments are equally false. Sometimes trash is trash. Improve it or lose it. At the moment the article under consideration is this appalling list. DIverting us to random articles that are also poor ins amusing, but does not move the discussion forward. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not cherry-picking; I'm just showing the first examples I come across. Drilling down in the category:Indian castes, I next find Agrawal. This is in a better state but concerning caste, in its lead, it says, "Agrawals are considered to be the highest and most important subdivision of the Vaish caste in northern India." But notice that this is tagged ((citation needed)). And notice also that User:Sitush seems to watch over this article. Is this trash too? Are we to delete all these impossible-to-maintain articles and categories? Warden (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So fix the examples you find? If they need fixing, fix them Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am content to work upon the list. This is easier than editing hundreds of articles in parallel. That's a big problem with maintaining categories; they are spread out across many articles. Warden (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article Agrawal is a well referenced article missing some citations. You are employing somewhat empty rhetoric. It's your right to do so, but the exercise is rather bizarre. We are meant to be making an encyclopaedia, not scoring schoolyard style points. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the caste category which matters. You have claimed that we can rely upon these because they are based upon quality articles. That argument is false - see counter-example. Warden (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are discussing the list here, not some random article which, if it is listed here, patently should not be. It is unreferenced, as is this list. I am not about to go through every last Caste article because the topic doesn't interest me. But you seem to argue every which way. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know that article fooled me too. I saw a huge mess, and it fooled me into a hasty nomination for its deletion as a strongly suspected copyvio. Then I looked at the article history and reverted it to a decent but unreferenced stub. I have withdrawn the nomination for deletion for it and moved on. And this is what we experienced editors, among whom you number, should be doing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The version of Arayan which Fiddle Faddle has just created still doesn't have any citations and so the claimed caste category is not verified. Is this trash too? Warden (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting very silly. (1) I have not created it, I have returned it to that state. (2) It is and was unreferenced. We have the absolute right to propose it for deletion. Why should we not? Please stop diverting the discussing into other articles. Handle them or not as you see fit. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS will always be true. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • These other articles are relevant because they are the basis of the categories which you claim supersede this list. This is the basis of your nomination, remember. Warden (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)You may barrack room lawyer as much as you like, Warden. The fact remains that trash is trash. You would need an infinite supply of turd polish to attempt to polish the turd that the list article is. I'm aware that you enjoy the cut and thrust of debate. Boring folk into submission is rather, well, boring, though. Time to improve the article if you believe you can. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not of the opinion that category is easier to police. I am just saying that even if you manage to find sources for the names of the castes, a list is much more vulnerable than a category in this case, because the details and classification of castes is highly ambiguous. --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that "a list is much more vulnerable than a category" is the same thing as saying that a category "is easier to police," so if that's not your opinion you need to rethink your whole approach here. You're also missing a premise somewhere in there. "A list is much more vulnerable than a category" does not follow from "The details and classification of castes is highly ambiguous". postdlf (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that a list is more vulnerable than a category in this case because the list would contain more information than merely the names of the castes and in such a case, it is possible for anyone (even an IP) to add indiscriminate information to the list. And it is impossible to neutrally write such information and maintain them. --Anbu121 (talk me) 22:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Warden (and nominator), the category issue is a red herring. Whether or not the category is acceptable has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. The question is whether or not this article meets our policies. It does not, and cannot, meet WP:NPOV, and it probably can't meet WP:OR (noting, in fairness, that OR is applied a little less stringently for lists than for articles). The question is, given the existence of Group X, can we determine, neutrally, whether or not it belongs on this list? We can't in many cases. And when we have cases such as Sitush has raised w.r.t. Nair, where we actually know for a fact that some data says Nair sub-group X should be on the list while other data says it shouldn't, we have no means for making a determination neutrally, and the nature of a list is sch that we cannot discuss all of the subtle details like we can in the article. WP:BLPGROUP requires very high quality sources for claims about living people (and most of the groups in question still contain living members), and those sources, by and large, do not exist (despite Dream Focus's assumption that they do); those lists which do exist are known to be biased and incomplete, and thus cannot meet our RS standards. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, 100% I've provided loads of detail to support this and I've deliberately avoided the category issue except in so far as the obvious applies: eg: there is scope to add various groups to various traditional occupational categories etc. But even then, not all of them. I really would encourage the doubters to get involved in this subject area. It needs a lot of eyes ... and you'll learn quite a lot from it. I would also encourage you to accept what I and others are saying in good faith. With the possible exception of Tim/FiddleFaddle, we do know what we're talking about re: this particular topic. At least one of us is living through it and the rest have spent probably hundreds of hours at the coalface. Thousands, probably, in my case. - Sitush (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am more than happy to leave the category issue aside. And I confirm that I have no specialist knowledge at all. I edit Wikipedia in articles and areas that I come to by serendipidity, and do my best to apply the logic that suits the area at the time. If I have a dogma it is that every fact must be a cited fact, or it has no business here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevant policies here are WP:IMPERFECT and WP:CLN and they do not support the case for deletion. Your position seems to be based upon personal knowledge, which you claim to be superior to that of official government censuses and surveys. When you say that those sources are not reliable, how do we know that you are reliable? If you have access to some more reliable body of knowledge which supports your position then how is it that we cannot summarise or systematise it? Warden (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevant policies are OR, NPOV, DUE, V ... shall I go on? You are also massively misrepresenting my position and, for example, the Nair and Pallar cases illustrate that. Not to forget your complete misunderstanding of the St Thomas Christians. You are completely misunderstanding caste in India as it is and has historically been treated both by various bureaucracies and by noted anthropologists, sociologists and political scientists, such as the Baylys, Christophe Jaffrelot, William Pinch and numerous others. There is and never has been a consistent listing of castes, nor can there be because the caste system is not really a system in the sense of a logical structure. Probably the closest that there has ever been to contrive a system was the work of Risley, which his successors within a decade admitted to be grossly flawed. Risley was a zealot and, like you, misunderstood what was going on: he thought that he could impose a system in order better to administrate the Raj (read: Wikipedia). He failed. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is Susan Bayly in one of her many analyses of the inadequacies of the Raj data collection efforts (there were many all-India efforts other than the census, although like the census they were all done at local level and with local definitions, thus introducing inconsistencies):

    These were the bureaucratic operations which made it appear that colonial ethnographers regarded caste as a giant ladder of precedence defined by the logic of the four-varna scheme, with every jati a fixed unit possessing a known place and status which could be measured against that of any other caste group. Actually, not all scholar-officials identified Indians in terms of botanical or zoological specimens, and some at least were well aware that these tabulations were little more than a caricature of the complex and multi-faceted reality of caste

    That is on p. 125 of Caste, society and politics in India from the eighteenth century to the modern age, Cambridge University Press (2001), ISBN 9780521798426. Bayly very frequently uses what we would call weasel words to describe the inadequacies, ie: "purported", "supposed" etc. She has written extensively on the subject. This list is itself an attempt to identify Indians in terms of botanical or zoological specimens. - Sitush (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are numerous castes that exist across regional boundaries and have done for a long time. Sometimes they share the same name and sometimes they do not but claim to be the same caste. Although I've never really looked into this aspect, if we bear in mind that there are many languages in India, literacy rates even today are not particularly good, and transliterations from the various languages to other Indic languages (and to English) are difficult, well, this might go some way to explaining the eponymology issues. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if one caste exists across multiple region, that still gives better structure to the whole list+sub-lists. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is the case you have officially recognized castes (per the gov't of India) and then castes that aren't recongized but whose exists is supported by reliable sources, that's still not a reason to delete - that suggests splitting into two lists or if following my sub-list idea above, a "officially recognized" and an "other" section to each sublist to make this distinction. Still not a reason to delete. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no castes officially recognised by the govt of India. Around about 50% of the population are recognised as Other Backward Classes and a further 25% are listed as Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. Those lists are produced at sub-national level, they are inconsistent, they have been produced at various times in various places, they use the term "Scheduled Caste" as a social welfare construct, which is nowhere near the generally-accepted meaning of caste, and (IIRC) most SC/ST lists do not distinguish between which are "castes" and which are "tribes". The other 25%, by the way, are called Forward Classes. The latter is a default: if a community (any community, even one that no-one has heard of before because Joe Patel just made a name up for himself) is not listed as SC/ST/OBC then they are FC. There is no list of FCs anywhere. - Sitush (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless the only sources that are classifying these castes are self-published sources, there's no reason some type of breakdown per these classifications can be used - allowing us to avoid OR. If there are self-claimed castes that have no other coverage beyond themselves, we'd never include them in the first place per WP:V. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scheduled Caste" is a government-sanctioned euphemism for so-called "untouchables" or Dalits - see here ISBN 9780195309218, p. 368. They were once known as Depressed Classes and quite a lot of people nowadays refer to them as the "weaker section". Dalits/untouchables are outside the Hindu caste system, have no place in the varna system, were outside the Raj caste system and are not considered to be castes by the most of the rest of the population: they comprise a significant number of Buddhist, Muslim and non-assimilated Christian communities etc. Since they amount to a portion of the 25% total Indian population covered by the ST/SC lists, we'd be creating a list of communities who are not castes in any traditionally accepted sense and who form a relatively small fraction of the population. Everyone else would have to go in your "Other" section, even though the likelihood is that most of them are in fact traditional castes. Clearly, we'd have to finesse this suggestion. I also think that you really need to understand how jati, gotra,subcastes and subdivisions affect perceptions in lists such as these, and note that there are over 4000 "castes" containing numerous jatis and gotras, quite a lot of which claim actually to be castes in their own right. As I said above, as an example, there are over 2700 gotras of the Jats, spread across much of India but particularly prominent the the north. Can we manage this, evne if we can overcome all the other obstacles? - Sitush (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They do often have coverage beyond themselves. Again, I refer you to earlier in this long thread, where I noted as an example the situation regarding Nair - there is a collapsed list in that article which serves. There are probably better examples out there but, hey, I'm dealing with around 1000 caste articles at present and it is bloody hard work trying to remember who says what where ;) - Sitush (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitray break for ease of editing number 2[edit]

  • Given that the two prominent people desiring keep here both claim to be involved with ARS, I don't think it at all unreasonable to suggest that they primary motive may be to retain rather than to understand. It is blatantly obvious that they do not understand and numerous examples have been given in support of this. - Sitush (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can understand your frustration, but it does little good to be condescending. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Where am I being rude? I am stating an opinion concerning lack of understanding of the subject matter, and it is one that has been stated by others here also. This is a subject that is immensely complex and takes a lot of work to get one's head round. It is not something that can be understood in a week or a month. Those who have worked in the subject area have (so far) all come out in favour of deletion on pragmatic grounds and with support from policy. It could of course be argued that these people have just as much of a "bent" as anyone from ARS. But if people cannot AGF regarding what amounts to "expert" contributors in this complex area then it is a sad day for Wikipedia. Every source document so far given has been shown to be unsatisfactory and there are policies at least as valid as those cited by Warden etc. Actually, more satisfactory because some of them are core policies. - Sitush (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies: I see that you changed "rude" to "condescending" when I conflicted. - Sitush (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably splitting hairs, but I don't think the WP:NPOV argument, at least, in this case equates to saying the article is susceptible to including non-neutral content; it equates to saying the article inevitably includes non-neutral content. As for the rest, clearly, this is a notable topic, and there is precedent. But notability and precedence are not necessarily sufficient grounds for inclusion. Do you dispute the arguments advanced above that there are some fundamentally problematic issues with having this article? I'd be more interested in your thoughts on that, insofar as I don't think the topic's notability is being questioned by anyone. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is almost entirely a SUSCEPTIBLE argument because most comments on that point are directed purely at problems with presenting this information in list form. I'd be more amenable to the inherent lack of neutrality involved in the subject if not for that inconsistency: you can't say that we cannot verify any entries in this list while simultaneously supporting the maintenance of a category or even the mere description within individual articles of the subject as a caste. As long as we have articles like Kalwar (caste), which before anything else describes the subject as "an Indian caste," and categories for those articles like Category:Indian castes, it is ridiculous to me to nevertheless claim that we can't verify those articles' inclusion in a list of Indian castes. So the deletion arguments really prove too much: if the list must be deleted because "caste" is an unverifiable and POV description or classification, then we must also delete the entire caste category structure, and rewrite the intro of every included article to describe the subject as something other than a caste.

So keeping within the deletion arguments purely aimed at the list, I think the only way they go beyond that seems to be based on some perception of the list as necessarily implying completeness or authority: these are all of the Indian castes. Lists on Wikipedia do not have that quality, however, unless they expressly claim it: a list of U.S. presidents is a complete list of all people who have held that office, but other lists are merely lists of instances of that grouping we have decided merit articles, and lists sometimes cover groupings for which membership is controversial.

I think there's also a reification problem here, in that there seems to be a concern with the list including entries that aren't "really" castes on the basis of sources that they consider outdated or not authoritative. "Caste" is obviously a cultural construct, and it seems to me that regardless of whatever lack of real basis there might be for defining a certain group of people as a caste or subjectivity inherent in including one person in one caste or another, there are indisputably cultural constructs that are definable only as castes. There may be caste groupings that are as arbitrary and unrelated to real human social groupings as the straight lines European colonizers drew across Africa were unrelated to real cultural and linguistic boundaries among African people, but both should still be listed and described for what they were.

Anyway, all of that is why I'm comfortable not merely deferring to what many of the deletion !voters have invoked as their greater familiarity with the subject. The types of arguments that they raise are familiar ones to me on Wikipedia, and they are simply not valid arguments for deletion. All of the problems raised can be dealt with through editing: remove entries that are not verifiable according to any reliable sources, place a ((incomplete list)) note at the top, an intro explaining the history and changes in the concept, organization into subheaders and sublists to group by different historical or government classifications, and/or annotation of each entry to explain its inclusion and whether there is a dispute. postdlf (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are great points. Personally, I don't support conversion to a category, and I don't think that's technically the issue at hand, even if it's been raised by numerous people (and, indeed, the nominator!). To the apparent contradiction you then raise, regarding having it as a "description within individual articles," that's something I'd considered. My thinking is that having a list called "List of Indian castes" essentially calls everything on that list a caste, whereas an article on a group that might be considered by some to be a caste has more room for flexibility in it. In other words, the list paints a black-and-white picture, whereas an article can be grey where appropriate regarding a group that may be considered a caste by some and not by others. That's basically my concern, and I think it's an inevitable WP:NPOV concern. I more or less agree with everything else you write. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • LISTPURP is a guideline and, like all guidelines, there are occasional exceptions. "Terribly ambitious" might be considered an understatement ;) However, if it happens then the list(s) will need a lot of eyes on them to counter the influx of upset members of the various communities. There will be a lot of them and it will go on without end, so it would be great if you would watchlist the things. Suggestion for how to achieve the ambition would also be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclaimer: I'm a big white guy from Idaho. That said, I wonder if we're talking less about caste and more about Jāti. There's a strong case to be made for categorization. Even so, this page at the very least should exist as a redirect or a disambiguation. Faustus37 (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm a big white guy from Manchester so no need to be concerned! Jati has been mentioned in this thread and it is certainly a part of the problem: there can be considerable overlap and this is one aspect that makes the list so difficult to justify. We can explain nuances in an article that cannot possibly be done in a list, and it is the cited explanation of the nuances that locks down the pov warriors etc. Where would you propose to redirect or disambiguate? I'm not unduly concerned about the categorisation aspect: it can be improved, certainly, but it is indeed a bit of a red herring in terms of this discussion, as Qwryxian has already pointed out. - Sitush (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't believe that it's impossible to properly reference the article. I mean, if the argument for a category is that the individual articles can be properly referenced, then why can't this list be? Furthermore, the article is horribly formatted and sectioned, not to mention that it could be set up into multiple columns (3 at max) that would make it look much better. SilverserenC 08:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one here (those who are arguing for delete) is saying that it is possible to properly reference a category. The argument is that the list is more harmful if left unreferenced than a category. --Anbu121 (talk me) 08:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I completely disagree with that. I feel that a category is more dangerous, because there is a more inherent trust in the reliability of a category. This is largely because it doesn't have references. In a list article, it is clear to see that some parts of it are referenced and other parts aren't, so readers automatically know they shouldn't trust the unreferenced parts without checking the veracity of them for themselves. SilverserenC 08:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The general readership of WIkipedia tends to assume that "Because it is on WIkipedia then it must be correct" despite our best efforts to dissuade then of the fact. This list contains bewildering quasi facts and misfacts and non facts all wrapped up in one of our assumedly authoritative lists. It of itself is full of POV and OR and is not verified, nor verifiable. It fails the cirteria by which we ought to keep articles. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make any sense. First off, how is the list POV or OR? Secondly, how is it not verifiable? For any of the entries, you ask, is this an Indian caste, yes/no? Seems like a pretty simple question to me. SilverserenC 09:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does make sense if one takes the trouble to read the arguments, you know. Trash needs to be eliminated in order that the project can thrive. It really is counter productive to rehash all the arguments again for every new contributor to this discussion who arrives and waves the "Keep at all costs" flag. Some articles really must go. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not a good argument. If you're talking about rehashing what you said in the nomination, then i'll go through that.
1. I do not consider this list to be "so enormous as to be unmaintainable". I do consider it to be horrible formatted, which contributes to making it look longer than it needs to, but there's plenty of other list articles that are longer than this that work just fine.
2. Your second argument is that it may be incomplete, but it's impossible to tell. Well, that's why we rely on the sources to tell us what belongs in the article. If it's incomplete, turning it into a category isn't going to change that incompleteness, so this argument doesn't exactly advance the charge that it should be a category.
3. Your last argument is that it is "impossible to validate every entry", to which I respond, in a British sense even though I am not British, that is complete and utter tosh. You validate it by looking for it in the proper references, first in the article that is linked and then in the internet at large (or through books in the library if necessary). If you don't find anything saying that it is a caste, then you remove it. Simple as that. How exactly would changing this to a category suddenly validate the entries?
It seems to me that none of your arguments actually support changing this list into a category. Any direct problems with sourcing or accuracy would exist exactly the same in a category, except be that much more unreferenced. SilverserenC 09:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As an example, consider Goud. Yes, it is a dreadful article and one day I'll get round to sorting it out. However, during the British Raj, their so-called ethnologists referred to the Gouds as a caste. This was so even in a survey whose title began The Castes and Tribes of ... However, if you were to look at the Scheduled Tribe list produced by the government of Andhra Pradesh, the Gouds are classified thus. It is a while since, but my notes indicate that the Anthropological Survey of India (a government body) called them a caste in the 1990s and this is around the time that the AP govt listed them as a tribe. In Kerala, they appear in the list of Other Backward Classes. What do we do? How do we get all this into a list? Should they be in the list? - Sitush (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the article itself doesn't even know if they qualify as a caste? That seems to me to be an inherent problem with the article, not with the list. The easiest method for the list would be to have a section that includes "Uncertain caste designation" castes. But that certainly isn't a good argument to turn it into a category. Does that mean the article would or would not be included in the category? If the answer is not, then you just answered what we should do with it in the list, remove it. SilverserenC 09:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a problem with the list. Have you read what people have said above? And forget categories, please - red herring in the case of this discussion. There are over 4000 "castes", and in the list we would need to source all the variants when the "caste" is of uncertain designation. And then police it against the inevitable and high-volume traffic of dis-satisfied "caste" members (eg: the Gouds' own community website insists that they are a caste and makes no mention of the tribal status). We'd also have to monitor the frequent changes made to the various classifications as the umpteen "castes" put political pressure on the umpteen governments. And deal with the issues of a decent proportion of the - a rough guess - 20,000 gotras who want to be upgraded. In a list? I don't think so. - Sitush (talk) 09:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So your entire argument is "it would be difficult"? If the concern is vandals or POV pushers, that's not that complicated. Permanent semi-protection is an easy option. We can even go to permanent full protection, wherein changes can only be made upon request on the talk page. This has been done in a number of other vandal-prone articles. Saying that you would have to deal with vandals and POV pushers is not a good argument at all. SilverserenC 09:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There it is! The classic example of you-do-it-and-i-will-give-free-advice. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying I wouldn't help out with the article? SilverserenC 10:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo!
Its not just you, others also who are voting to keep with their advices of lets split it, lets lock it, and what not, are not addressing the practicalities of maintaining this list. Of what use is this list? Its just like a category, listed also alphabetically. If at all such list should exist on an encyclopedia, it should be more than a linkfarm. But practically when a linkfarm is difficult to maintain, i doubt an informative list, like a table of some sort, would work out. Hence delete it!
One question, would this list, in it's current form, have passed through WP:AFC? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how AfC normally rates list articles, but i'd say probably not, likely because of the sourcing. But that's true for a number of other articles as well that are perfectly fine. The sourcing is something that's fixable. And if you give me until Thursday, when i'll have free time, i'll get to work on improving the article. SilverserenC 10:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not, SS. I mean, you're welcome to improve it but you seem to know nothing about the subject matter and that is precisely why you do not understand the numerous points raised above. I suggest that you propose what you want to do at the article talk page and see if those who are used to dealing with caste articles agree with you. There has been enough "this is how you do its" in this AfD and, so far, every single one has been unworkable in the form presented. You can ignore my advice in this post but if that results in you wasting a lot of your precious time then do not be surprised: the idea of floating yourself into something as you suggest this with (apparently) no background in the subject area is almost certainly going to end in tears. Yopiu haven't even understood the Goud problem, dammit. Now about, say, the Irulas who currently appear in the list? Have you ever heard of the Shanar? The Chamar? The nightmare that is Nayar? Or Ezhava? Or Ezhavathy? Thiyya anyone? Just those articles alone attract a lot of argument. You need to walk before you run and that is likely to take several months even if you can come up with a scheme that has consensus. - Sitush (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and no: my entire argument is not that it will be difficult. That merely goes to show that you still have not read this discussion or, if you have, you have failed to understand the points raised. - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, my vote would be a Weak Delete Neutral leaning weak keep See below for changed vote. And no, I do not claim to be knowledgable on the topic nor do I have a lot of experience. But I do have a more working understanding of the topic under question than the average wikipedia editor. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote upon reading all the arguments while trying to summarize them. Even considering all the problems the article has, I think its way too valuable to be outright deleted. It should be rewritten or made into a category but not deleted TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, category already exists: Category:Indian castes --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the ease of reading, I suggest only the principal arguments and statements [and the votes ofc] be written down pointwise to give a brief summary of everything that has been spoken. I would have been tempted to do the same myself, but laziness has taken over my better half TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You may be right. It is difficult not to get frustrated when people appear not read what has been said and thus the same arguments have to be provided umpteen times. It is that which is causing this thing to bloat, imo. Put at its most basic... I've probably forgotten something, but does this help? If not then feel free to delete. - Sitush (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A good summary, but I was wishing to see both sides of the argument here. Unless we see what exactly are the points on both sides, you just cannot help but repeat the points. But I shall nevertheless try to complete it if I can. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There. Done! Phew!! Do edit it if there are other points to be added, or some points which are incorrect/undue TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive. (Top of the edit box)
Things would be a lot smoother if you too Warden cease your personal hitting on Sitush and see the article in question. He is obviously acting in good faith and though he has not been the most civil or considerate while speaking, this makes no grounds for you to assume bad faith just because he has voted otherwise in other places.
That being said, its important to note that Scheduled Castes and Other backward Castes are not castes in the strict or even the general sense of the term. Caste almost exclusively refers to Hindus, while these lists contain substantial numbers from other religions too. Also, those included in scheduled caste, even if they can be included in this list, do not completely form this list. There are way too many castes which do not fall under SC or OBC! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This issue of the scope of the word caste seems to be the main stumbling block here. I don't agree that we should interpret this in narrow or strict way. Please see the Britannica entry for caste which states: "Although the term caste has been used loosely to stand for both varna and jati (broadly, “form of existence fixed by birth”), it is jati — the small-scale perspective represented by local village societies — that most scholars have in mind when they write about the caste system of India. Jatis and relations among them have been accessible to observers from ancient times to the present. (Hereafter jati and caste will be used synonymously.) Empirically, the caste system is one of regional or local jatis, each with a history of its own, whether this be Kashmir or Tamil Nadu, Bengal or Gujarat. History may differ, but the form of social organization does not." Here we have a explicit and encyclopedic statement that most scholars refer to caste as a general form of social structure, rather than meaning the narrow and exclusively Hindu varna. Warden (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm.. Mind explaining the difference between the two? Its quite synonymous to me being brought up learning them as the same. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitray break for ease of editing number 3[edit]

I find the invocation of Wikipedia is not censored particularly odd here: Sitush and the rest of us are not trying to whitewash the caste system, but quite the contrary are trying to remove an article which by its very nature would be a POV tool. A category system allows us to place a given caste in multiple regions/professions/echelons, and within the article caveat "they're fishermen in FooA, tailors in FooB, asserted a claim to warrior status in Raj courts in 1893...". Then those of us who maintain India articles can watch for folks tampering with categories to, say, remove the "pejorative" but cited Category:Fishing castes. In a list, however, you file a given name in a given place with no flex to it, or else you have to duplicate the same name multiple places and yet clarify "but see Foo A fishermen, above...". Add to that the sourcing issues, or an even worse "seriously guys, just check the articles of these 4,000 entries and the sources are in there somewhere".
It's simply a topic that cannot be adequately, reliably, verifiably, and safely covered by a list. The legacy of the caste system has real-world consequences for millions of people, so an inaccurate list risks tangible social harm. And, as noted above, I'm still baffled how editors are looking at the current article and saying "yeah, I could see this becoming something useful with a little effort": expectations of a future "useful" version seem based in a flawed understanding of the topic of caste, and the current version hurts more than it helps. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • MatthewVanitas's position seems contradictory because, on the one hand, he says that it is too hard to trawl through 4000 articles for sources, while on the other he says that we should rely upon categories based upon those same 4000 articles which he and others watch over. When one looks to see what he's actually done for the page in question, the history indicates that it has just been one perfunctory edit! I've already done more than that myself since I got involved in this discussion. If editors are unwilling or unable to attend to this page then they should please just leave it to others. See dog in the manger. Warden (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea, I don't understand the maintenance issue here. A watched list page will immediately show changes that happen that can be used to fix vandals or false claims. You can't do that with category pages; watching those only show when the base text of the category page is changed not when items are added or removed from it. (This in no way says we shouldn't also have the category) --MASEM (t) 17:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) You (Warden) are getting a little close to PA here; clearly this is not my first Indian rodeo, and I have hundreds of caste articles on my watchlist. I don't edit this particular article because it's a dang dog's breakfast and a hopeless case, not because I'm some WP:INDIA Johnny-come-lately. I also very, very much doubt that any of the well-intentioned editors here are going to chip in to this "manger", and if they were to do so they would quickly realise the futility of finding any truly authoritative way to list names. Prepare for screams of agony from "wronged" castes no matter what move you make, legal threats based on "India doesn't allow caste anymore", "this will cause communal riots and people will die and it will be Wikipedia's fault", etc. I've seen very little to show that much of the "Keep" side is not based largely on "castes are important, a list seems logical, what's the big deal?" with no understanding of the topic and how is is actively damaged by a poor list, and one that is literally not possible to arrange in a satisfactory way.
My positions are not at all contradictory: within a Category structure we can deal with articles on a by-case basis. This is a complex issue that is actively done disservice by a list. A category structure has flex that a list does not have (an article can be in multiple "places" at one time, etc), and thus does not have the dangerous POV issues to anywhere the degree a list creates, again for a topic with real impacts on communities of living people. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of what you say is exemplified by the edit summary in this diff where minus Removed was added as a redlink (is it a valid entry?) and was deleted as obvious vandalism (is it vandalism and is it obvious?). Of course those who refuse to understand the scope of the problem or even a tiny part of it will refuse to understand and the remainder will use logic to understand the underlying issues. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its a definite vandalism. Its a swear word in Hindi. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for propagating a Hindi swear word. But it does show by this some of the serious issues involved here. Feel free to redact the word here if it is hurtful Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing very hurtful there. But it does show alarmingly how easily vandalism can stay on such an article. Just think what would happen for the controversial caste names, and the subsequent edit warring that shall follow. Without proper patrolling, it has been a huge menace already. I now doubt any work done by the editors will bring the list to a respectable, even if still relatively controversial position.
There's a reason why we have permanent semi-protection and permanent full protection as an option to curb vandalism. How does that not fix any issues of vandals or edit warring when they aren't allowed to edit the page? SilverserenC 19:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the castes listed here should already fall under Category:Indian castes, or sub-cats thereof (Category:Maratha clans, Category:Nair, etc.), with a few exceptions of some non-caste, tribal, non-Hindu, etc. groups where the people maintaining the full article have consensus to deliberately not file Group X as a caste, but rather under Category:Social groups of Bihar, Category:Tribal communities of Maharashtra, etc. Some spot-checking during this transition couldn't hurt, but if we reach consensus for Delete the deletion should occur pretty easily after that, with either salting, or a redirect-and-protect to Indian caste system so that searchers can encounter the overall, holistic description of the system with all its vagaries and controversies, twisty meanders, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


A brief summary of the arguments in context by User:TheOriginalSoni[edit]

Before commenting on the issue, all editors are requested to know the topic and issues already raised by the various editors, by reading through the comments or atleast by reading the summary. Any more relevant points already discussed may be added here.

  • Initial proposal was to have it as a category instead of list, since the list shall remain unsourced, and having it will be a lot more troublesome than having a category. A category on the other hand would not encorporate a majority of these problems.
This proposal was withdrawn following counter-arguments that having a category would be like getting away from the work of sourcing everything, and because the issue regarding pros and cons of a category was diverting the original discussion away.
the issue of how to categorise can be now separated from the existence of this list.
  • The sheer number of articles in the list (well over 4000) makes it totally unworkable.
The counter-argument says that if articles are not good enough, they must be improved and not deleted. That is exactly what wikipedia's policy is.
The deletion argument calls for a relaxing on the strict interpretation of the rules on this front, calling into context the sheer size of this article. This article shall never be able to have enough editors who can be able to clean it up to meet the quality standards.
On the other hand, wikipedia has no timeline and some better organisation scheme may be able to make it usable. The list is undoubtedly important in terms of its usefulness and because it is required for a place to list all the castes of India.
Point number 2 in contention - Its better to have nothing than to have something wrong
  • First objection to the deletion was that under WP:LISTN, this article is notable. This is agreed upon universally [or has not been countered yet]
Likewise, this article definitely meets WP:LISTPURP.
The other point for both these points here is that even as WP:CLN and WP:IMPERFECT shows that the article should not be deleted, it's a guideline and exceptions are allowed.
  • The issue of the article has obviously been dealt with in great detail since the time of the British Raj, with a gigantic number of lists available
The argument for deletion says that there is no academic agreement regarding a definition of "caste" in the Indian context and that all sources shall disagree with each other on a very many issues
Context for the same - Several castes are listed as tribes in varied places, while other sub-castes are actually [gotra]]s. There is an obvious problem in finding the best possible list, which leads to potential edit wars of its own.
  • There are plenty of official and other censuses conducted by the govt of India, among others, which give a list of castes in the counry.
Many "sources", especially those by the British Raj are unreliable, according to the deletion side of the argument.
The main problem with the discussion here is the absolute lack of knowledge of the history of the issue for most editors, especially those voting for the motion.
  • The communities themselves, as claimed by the side against the motion, have, throughout history, renamed castes and created new subcastes at will, further complicating the issue of which ones are actually castes. Some different castes even share the same name.
  • Therefore the primary deletion argument stands that without engaging in original research, synthesisng sources, breaching WP:NPOV, using sources that fail WP:RS (or having none at all and so failing WP:V), giving undue weight to one marker of caste status over another, this list cannot reasonably be maintained.


Arbitray break for ease of editing number 4[edit]

The only way to trim THIS particular list is to make it from scratch, or delete it simply. The other arguements are plain invalid. The list may be important but its a dead weight. Its a burden with no scope for improvement. The length of the list and the work put into it are also irrelevant. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The size of an article is also not a valid reason to Keep it, nor is "all the hard work". For what it's worth, the article was quite small until August 2012, and largely expanded by WALTHAM2 (and I would like to hear his input on this issue). No one is realistically going to look at the list, find their caste left out and get offended - oh, I most certainly beg to differ. It's harder to see on this article because so many drive-by editors don't use edit summaries, but people will regularly get upset about these things. And they don't just add their own caste, they'll remove other castes they don't like, or Caste A believes Caste B is a usurper to the Caste B name and will rename them as C, and B gets offended at this and changes it back, and so on. In an article, we can address all the permutations of Caste B and its various names and differing classifications, but in a list it's rather impractical.
I think there's an element of culture gap here where editors unaccustomed to the topic are simply failing to see that this is not a topic which can be appopriately/constructively summed-up in something so tidy and black-white as a list. And again, since this involves the classifications of entire groups of living people, it's a topic where we don't really want to work with shoddy half-measures. Again, this is not simply "hard to manage" (which it very much is), this is "impossible to manage in any way that properly meets POV/N/V and actually adds to a reader's understanding". I'm still honestly curious what the Keepers are "getting" when they look at this list that they feel is so informative. It's literally a jumble of names alphabetically arranged, absolutely no better than Category:Indian castes and far worse because at least in the cat we can file a given article in multiple places simultaneously, and have room to contextualise why Caste A is filed as both fishermen and tailors, both Goa and Uttar Pradesh states. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In a list, we can also "file a given article in multiple places simultaneously", and can actually "contextualise" that inclusion within the list itself, right next to the entry itself unlike with categories which cannot annotate directly on the category page why an article is or isn't included. Don't judge the list based on its current state, but on its potential. postdlf (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that is risible. One person with an ego problem? The whole SoftFocus people, plus the Out-of-Focus people, plus the FStop fratenrity insist on being in the article despite being classified as inappropriate. Add to those everyone else associated with Focus, some of who delete others of whom add. Oh we'll get chaos, and with that the article becomes unreliable (as it is now, POV, as it is now, OR as it is now, and trash, as it is now. We can do it your way if that is what consensus decides, of course we can Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a case of a few castemembers with an "ego problem", it's that there are unresolvable differences of opinion, sometimes literally physically violent, between castes. Caste A insists his group is a legit caste, a member of Caste B insists they're not and removes them, rinse and repeat. They won't both sourcing it 95% of the time, but even if they can then it just becomes a footnoting match. The length is a red-herring, I don't think any of the Delete crowd much cares that this is too long, so much as that it's simply terribly poor, unlikely to ever be otherwise (not alone a valid reason for delete), and that there is simply no good black-white solution such as a list provides. I'm also frustrated by the sheer number of people discussing "converting" this to a category despite the fact that there is such a category. This is just getting so dang circular, including the endless iterations of "caste is Notable ergo there should be a list of it". MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MatthewVanitas has just hit on a good way of saying what I was trying to say. Lists are, by their very nature, black and white. Being on this list means that a group is a caste. But caste is a social construct, subject to significant change over time. There is no way to cover the gray in a list of this time. In some cases, a full discussion could take paragraphs--simply not doable in a list format. Not everything in the world can be easily put into a list. And our policies place very strict rules on lists of living people, rules which simply cannot be met here. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the point I try to make in my post a few miles above in this insanely lengthy but quite interesting AfD. An article on a group, social construct, what-have-you, allows for discussion of whether or not said construct is a "caste." A list does not. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not see where people are addressing the definition of "India" here. I also do not see where those who propose to keep are addressing the definition of "caste". If even the scope of the title cannot be sorted out then there is no logical basis for a list under that title. - Sitush (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of a list is a matter to work out on the list's talk page. I really find it ridiculous the extent to which you and other commenters here are insisting that this is completely unverifiable, but only in the context of this list. As I noted above when I said that your arguments prove too much, if your arguments are correct and "caste" is ultimately meaningless, then the entire subject needs a complete, project-wide overhaul given the existence of not only this list but also Category:Indian castes and its subcategories and the many, many articles that unequivocally define their subjects as Indian castes in the very first sentence. So start an RFC about how to handle all of that, rather than trying to only delete a list that merely tries to index what is already covered in this project in other presentation methods.

And now you introduce the notion that we don't even know what "India" means here as well? Or even worse, suggest that we can't know what it means? That's no different an issue in this context than in any other context involving the people of India past and present, and India also is not unique in having a history consist of successor entities with varying borders and disputed territories. In other words, a completely surmountable problem. Overall, you are continuing to repeat the same claims that this is unworkable (in fact, expanding them to absurd ends) without even addressing the many, many suggestions made above about how to address disputes among sources and contextualize changes in classifications over time. postdlf (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You miss my point, perhaps because you have not seen that I have raised it before on more than one occasion. The definitions determines what sources we can use and have an impact of the dreadful issue of synthesis that is going to emerge should this list be retained. The list does not remotely align with the numerous Indian community articles, nor is it likely that it ever do so because we have no "snapshot" of castes in reliable sources, no point in time to use as a basis.

You are asking that this list is retained on the basis that the systemic problems that define it can be resolved on its talk page; you are being advised by those who have specific knowledge of the subject area, including people who live within the system, that it is not possible to come up with a scheme for this particular list that complies with our policies. If, for example, you want to go create and maintain a multitude of List of Other Backwards Classes in state X and duplicate the widely-available published lists then that is your choice, but a central list of castes is not attainable without breaching a whole load of core policies + "lesser" ones such as WP:SYNTH. - Sitush (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we could rename to List of communities in India, broadly construed, who have at some point been described as a caste by a reliable source but may or may not have been or presently be considered a caste by their peers or by other reliable sources. Something like that? - Sitush (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(od) As an aside, whether the list is retained or not, it is a very confused one. Clicking randomly on various links, I see a great deal of confusion between castes, community groups, last names, and ethnic groups. A caste, one assumes, has a religious identification of some sort but that is lacking in most cases in the list. For example, I clicked on Mahali and that doesn't appear to be a caste at all. Then, after a couple of castes, I get Jatt Sikh which is more an ethic identity than a caste. Clicking on, I get Bhagirathi Mali and several other communities (are they the same as castes?). It seems to me that what we're ending up with is a list of every ethnic community in India and a superset of every last name in India. It is as if we listed Smith, Doe, Carpenter, Dylan, Young, Clapton, etc. as castes in the Western ethos. I understand that there is some benefit to such lists but this seems plainly incorrect. --regentspark (comment) 03:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main question is, can they be reliably sourced as a caste? If Mahali cannot be sourced, then it should be removed. SilverserenC 06:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is where you (and many others) may be incorrect. If we can find a reliable source that says they are a caste, then it can go in, unless we can find other reliable sources that say they are something other than a caste. In that caste, it cannot be on the list. WP:BLP does not allow contentious claims without clear explanation, attribution, and due balance. If the article remains, any group for which we cannot find absolute, definitive claims and a lack of non-fringe counter claims will be removed. My suspicion, shared by several others who work in the field, is that there will be almost nothing left. That's fine I guess, but it will just end up being an odd list. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if you have read anything that people have written about the absolute and total inability to verify the great majority of what is in this list, and the multiplicity of source, counter-source, claim and counterclaim for being or not being a caste? It's not that you have to read it, but t really does appear that you have not. Please state with clarity how this list can be verified. Indeed, if you are so certain, please verify it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Comment no lomger relevant because of change of opinion by !voter. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who claims that a summary prepared by someone who has already !voted, please feel free to edit my summary to add in your points, provided you can show us a balanced picture. If that does not satisfy you, I shall redact my vote if the summary is to be put at the top. I can bear with not voting here, than to see the whole discourse of the issue being discussed again and again because some guy is too clever to not read up on the issue or the discussion. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And my suggestion is that we have all argued our points out here, so we should rather not repeat them. If need be, let us post "discussed above" with a link to the edit; or else we keep adding new points only TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that most of the article is only original research. But some of it can be verified by govt and kept. Remove all the original research and keep the verifiable content. The list is very useful and should not be deleted changed my opinion per comments above. No reliable source exists. Searched in google two times Forgot to put name (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading everything here, I am just not seeing the need to delete, because even as ignorant as an Americian about the Indian caste system, I certainly know the caste system exists, and there are several of them, and so a list of castes is truly an appropriate topic. Refocusing, defining what can go on the list, and requirement of strong source, heck yes. I accept the arguments that there are people with POVs that want to push a caste they have interest in onto the list, or to remove a conflicting caste. But once you set up basic rules for what can and cannot go on the list, these POVs have little to stand on. I point to a completely unrelated list, List of Internet phenomena, which can be the subject of POV pushing to get one's favorite meme on there; to counter this we require strong sourcing that identifies each entry as belonging there. For the castes, there's clearly some official ones, some not-so-official, and so forth. There is a way to break these down, and then demand sourcing for each subset (if they are an officially recognized caste, there should be a way to link to that official statement, for example). When you get to the unofficial or self-titled castes, this is were you start demanding strong sources to avoid POV pushing. It may be tough to maintain but that is never a reason to delete an important cultural topic. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no officially recognised castes. Caste is illegal in India. I know, I know ... but that is how it is. - Sitush (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. See The New Cambridge History of India, for example: "Even today, though, law and public policy are anything but 'casteless'. ... officials continued to insist on the state's need for 'scientific' data on the names, occupations and regional rank orderings of the country's 'tribal' and caste 'communities'." Warden (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are you rebutting? Why do you think I said, "I know, I know ..."? Caste is all over India, at every level, but nonetheless it is illegal. The biggest flip was probably the 2011 census, where they attempted to collect data on caste (as yet unpublished - see much earlier in this thread) for the first time since 1931. Well, they tried in 1941 but gave up due to WW2 being slightly more important. The fact remains, there is no official recognition of castes and it is illegal. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All sorts of things are extinct or illegal but we catalogue them regardless. As the 2011 census is quite current, this seems ample evidence that the topic remains notable, officially recognised and well-documented. Warden (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, let's empty the list and wait for the 2011 data to be published. Which they've said before now they may not do, presumably because it is illegal. They've already published practically everything else, albeit some of the numbers are provisional. I refer to earlier in the thread: no-one is denying notability. We're going round in circles yet again. - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the instruction manual for 2011 census enumerators. Pages 24-26 may be relevant in terms of judging the worthiness of any information that might, just might, be published. Equally, it intimates some of the issues that have previously been discussed. - Sitush (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To me it seems important to read that document because it effectively negates any verifiable caste (etc) as part of any present day census. If the census cannot and will not do it, then Wikipedia is unable to do it either, certainly as a list. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is arguing to "delete an important cultural topic." There is a very detailed article on this topic at Caste system in India. There is also no question of this list's notability. The issue raised is that one can find strong sources on the subject that contradict each other on the simple question of whether or not one group/organization is a caste, and the moment that Wikipedia incorporates that group/organization into a "List of Indian castes," citing a reliable source, Wikipedia has sided with one of those points of view. We could incorporate a subset entitled "Disputed Castes" or somesuch, but that doesn't really address the fundamental issue IMO. The list's title says what the contents are. Alternate titles include Sitush's previous redlink attempt at comedy well above :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article Caste system in India has a big banner tag saying The neutrality of this article is disputed and it has been there since April 2011. There are numerous caste article with associated categories and they are routinely disputed too. This list seems comparatively free of dispute because it is clean and simple. There seems to be no case for deletion of the list as a higher priority than deletion of any or all those other articles. But we're not going to delete them because the topic of caste is notable and Wikipedia is not censored. Warden (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lists are clean and simple to look at, aren't they? That does not mean they are free from original research, point of view pushing and unreliability, though. Nobody has every said that the topic of caste is not notable. The discussion here is about this list. Censorship is irrelevant here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That the list is not tagged re: NPOV etc is another red herring. NPOV etc is being discussed now. I wasn't even aware of this list until recently, and as soon as I became aware I queried it. Basically, like a lot of articles relating to caste, it has been left to its own devices and so anyone and everyone has been allowed to add whatever they chose. This entire sphere needs more eyes and that has been said time and again on the drama boards etc. Thankfully, there is now a small group of people - including the very necessary admins - who are making a big attempt to clean up thousands upon thousands of poor articles. Of which this is one. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator tells us above that he has "no specialist knowledge at all" and now Sitush tells us that "wasn't even aware of this list until recently". The claims of the nay-sayers to have some special competence or wisdom in this matter are thus shown to be empty. We should therefore rely upon our standard policies and guidelines: WP:IMPERFECT and WP:CLN. Myself, I'm on the trail of good sources for this topic and, this lunchtime, added Homo Hierarchicus to my reading list. The work of bringing this list up to a high standard seems to have barely started and it is by such research that this will be done. Deletion would be premature in such circumstances. Warden (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Before you coment any further Warden, I suggest that you read this. It might be useful to not make irrelevant Ad Hominem attacks and get straight to the point of the discussion. Which remains that the naysayers have enough competence to deal with the topic and that they've got some solid points to support their case there. The primary point remains that it is not possible to make this into a good list because there are no lists before which agree on what caste means and which castes are castes and which are not. Even the official govt census makes sure not to go into that dreaded territory, because of the outright chaos out there. Why do you think we should exercise our Original Research to even try compiling this list? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the one who doesn't know what he is talking about. Dumont is not going to help this list and that you think it will merely demonstrates your complete failure to understand the many arguments posed here by people who do know what they're talking about. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was led to the source by another work which described it as classic and the Independent wrote, "it was for many years almost impossible to write on Indian society without extensive reference to Dumont". I am already well aware that he has critics but this is quite normal in the social sciences. Our job is to summarise all such major contributions and this will not be done by closing our eyes or shirking the task. Warden (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One needs no specialist knowledge to spot trash, Warden. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed — your contributions to this discussion are WP:RUBBISH. Warden (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Warden, you are mixing apples and oranges here. Sure, you could and should use Dumont in, say, Caste system in India, but as soon as you try to use him in List of Indian castes you will be introducing POV. In order to fix that POV it would be necessary to indicate the alternates, and as soon as you start doing that then the list begins to take on the appearance of an article about each community ... and we have articles for communities. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Woah woah woah... That was a direct PA, warden. Someone ought to trought you for this TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:RUBBISH is a link to the well-known page of Arguments to avoid. The short cut in this case, is to the section which points out that just complaining about an article's deficiencies is a weak argument for deletion because articles can be improved. The nominator's repeated statement that the page in question is "trash" has this character and so the counter is bang on target. Warden (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got that. Struck TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was very cleverly not a personal attack, and one could even say it was not designed to look like one or not indeed intended to look like one. I decided not to consider it to be one, knowing there was sufficient scope for any accusation to be deflected. :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is indeed something of a train wreck but so it goes. You should please just be patient and await closure in the usual way after 7 days has elapsed. In the meantime, readers might amuse themselves by reading WP:LIGHTBULB, for which this is a good example. Warden (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Woah! It isnt 7 days already for the AfD !?? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is becoming immensely frustrating: the article Indian caste system addresses your interest in this, and I certainly agree, fascinating topic. The category system Category:Indian castes allows you to delve into its various complexities. The list itself as it currently stands is nigh-useless (and far less useful than the current extant Category), and cannot ever be made in a satisfactory way, ever. I don't mean this personally, but it is vexing that we're hitting the same arguments over and over, and a steady stream of people who are completely unfamiliar with the subject drop by to browse for a moment and say "Hmm, well, this looks interesting, great list !keep!." Your "I imagine"s are all, as described at length above, incorrect. And further, essentially all the people above who've argued for a "little cleanup" are people that aren't going to do anything to help, nearly entirely people whose names I've never seen helping out at the massive cleanups of India articles a few of us are struggling with, etc.
It's as though a few of us have been building a stone fence at the top of a hill with great labour, and there's a huge boulder at the bottom blocking our fields. We keep suggesting the boulder by dynamited, and the neighbours keep swinging by to glance for a minute and say "oh no, I reckon that boulder would fit great into the fence way up there, wonderful addition, save all kinds of time. You just have to push it up there, that's really all, shouldn't be too much effort to move a few tons of a little old stone. Whelp, off I go, good luck with that!" MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is eminently reasonable to say that Castes and the Caste System are important. In many different ways in this discussion we have learned that Castes are individually notable and individually verifiable. The challenge is that the verifiability on one source says "A" in another "B" in a third "Neither A nor B" and in fourth one cannot find that particular Caste at all. The spelling of the same Caste varies hugely and the naming varies. There can be two entirely different castes containing the same name. A simple list is absolutely impossible to create in a uniformly verifiable manner that is not Original Research or Point of View Pushing. A simple list looks attractive until one has spent only a little time learning about the area and then becomes an impossible challenge to conceive, let alone maintain. And that is just a tiny amount of the difficulties that content experts have noted here.
If one then adds the Every List is Sacred attitude about lists "needing to be here" then one compounds the error hugely. A close of "Keep" or even "No Consensus" would be unwise because one expects the closer to use diligence in understanding the arguments and to use the evidence of their own eyes and a strong helping of common sense at the time of closure. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, if I may add, the reason why the list seems incredible is because it is incredible. A hefty chunk of what is in it is not about castes in the first place. Like I say above, it's somewhat akin to a List of all last names in the United States which, I assume, is meaningless. We'd probably have to attach a cite tag to every entry in the list. I wish there was a better way of constructing this list, but there doesn't seem to be one. --regentspark (comment) 21:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • For similiar information about the USA see:
  1. List of ethnic groups in the United States by household income
  2. Demographics of the United States (which contains lists of classes, cohorts, races and religions)
  3. Category:Demographics of the United States
Warden (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what your point is here. You'll know all about WP:OSE and so it obviously isn't related to "these exist, so this should". - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for ease of editing number 5[edit]

I was admonished to read the entire AFD and have done so. It is repetitive. All complaints have been well-answered by editors Colonel Warden, Silversen, and Postdlf, including great example of indeterminate nature of Lists of Rivers. "Can't source it", "don't want to", etc., are fine reasons for persons to step away from the article, but not for it to be deleted. Consider it a list of actual castes, or things that have been called castes. All this is manageable. Welcome to my world: List of Masonic buildings, List of Methodist churches, many other lists where editors have had concerns, all easily answered by just doing the work. It is always exagerated that cruft will be added, that the list cannot possibly be managed. I think Wikipedia used to be subject to more stuff being added than happens now, so any list is more easily managed now than before. Random additions can and are dealt with harshly, easily, by bots or by bot-like editors. And for a big list in India, there is a different pool of new contributors who need to be conditioned/educated.

My experience is that the biggest problem, requiring far more time to deal with, is the "regular" editors who endlessly insist on their assertions that it will be impossible to deal with the potential cruft-adders. Let's all just shut up and go to work.

I stepped in to begin adding sources from corresponding articles, and was admonished that the first alphabetical item was not a caste. Fine. Created new List of Scheduled Castes and moved it there, which is more easily sourced, because it is a list of official designations of these disadvantaged groups, and is naturally supported by the official designations such as the 1950 constitution. This will help take pressure off this list of castes. I plan next to strike all unsupported items in this list, will do that in a big edit. Please discuss at the Talk page.

I feel bad for those who feel that keeping the article will cause them work or angst...then go away, honestly that is best for you. Or, stop this, and just work on the article. It is important, it is notable, it should stay, and I predict this will be closed Keep. So let's just stop this discussion. I'll plan not respond much here. Please, others, just stop, too. Move discussion to the article's talk page. --doncram 23:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, Doncram. It is exactly this type of post that has garnered you so much criticism on NRHP stuff. You think you know what you are doing? You haven;t got a clue. This will probably end as "no consensus". I'm willing to help and the alternate list is something that I proposed & you have adopted - it is NOT a reason to keep this list, which is and always will be useless. - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proving the point that it is easy to manage additions, Sitush and another editor have suppressed the list of castes that I moved to the Talk page of the article. It is extremely easy for one or a few editors to suppress, stop, any addition of suspected cruft to an article. I think it is useful to show the past list at the Talk page for a while, but even if it is suppressed there, that just proves the point that the list-article is manageable. Again, I'll try not to comment further in this AFD. Will participate in development of the list-article, if it not made too difficult and unpleasant. --doncram 01:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What has been proven is that your bull-in-a-china-shop approach is making matters worse. I have a feeling of deja-vu. Policies were being violated on that list at the moment I first saw it but happen I opened a discussion rather than apply the policy. Your approach has caused me to harden my position: you have ignored discussion and just gone off on one. Sure, you can be bold even in the face of discussion but when you have admitted to knowing sod-all about the subject & are approaching it on the basis that "surely something must be ok her" (paraphrase) then what do you expect will happen? You and I both have experienced the drama of ANI etc. In my case, it has been in this subject area and always in my favour; in your case it has been neither of those. I suggest that you stick to discussion for now. And, yes, this is personalising things: how else do you expect people to react to your opening statement in this section? - Sitush (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don, Vaish redirects to Vaishya, which is not remotely close to being a caste, it is a varna, an overarching social category into which castes fit. To use your Methodist parallel above, that's like listing "Monotheism" among "Branches of Methodism". And, yet again as said many times above, your argument is not valid: "Can't source it", "don't want to", etc., are fine reasons for persons to step away from the article, but not for it to be deleted.. It is not that we, those of us who have been striving to clean up caste articles for more than a year now, are unwilling to put time in. It is that the problem is inherently unsolvable, and the existence of an unsolvable list is inherently damaging to both the credibility of Wikipedia (especially to the fast-emerging India audience) and a disservice to communities of living people affected by misinformation about the caste system, such as over-simplified lists. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a technical procedural perspective it might be better to revert the example attempt that this editor started with a flurry of enthusiasm that appears to have tailed off to the huge POV and OR mess the list was previously. I have hesitated to do that on the basis that I am assuming good faith that the effort was not just the firing of a starting pistol, but was, instead the running of the race. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • People do sleep. We have a similar problem at List of Scheduled Castes and List of Other Backward Classes, which have also both been initiated with zeal but little thought or knowledge. We could tag as ((under construction)) or blank, but I'd be loathe to see the original content at List of Indian castes reinstated now that Doncram has fired the starting pistol. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's quite normal for lists to be incomplete. We have a template for this purpose: ((expand list)). I have added it to the current draft. Warden (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, Warden, whether to congratulate you for irony or for understatement :) But it is nice to agree with an edit for a change :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin - please take a look at the recent developments on the article and its talk page before closing. Doncram made a well-intentioned attempt to improve the situation but even they seem to be saying that they've hit a brick wall of sorts. At least they had a go, which is more than I expect most of the other contributors !voting keep here will do. This really is not a list that can be dabbled with: it either needs a massive fix now or it needs deletion. Of course, if any of those wishing to keep the thing are prepared to have it userfied and work on it in their own time then that is a possible solution to the immediate issue. My suspicion is that should it become live again in mainspace then it will be shredded pretty quickly for all of the reasons that have already been stated, and this also means that the "massive fix" cannot be done. But that is something that they can ponder and attempt to avoid beforehand. I'm happy to respond to any queries during that process as, I am sure, some of the other people who have favoured deletion would do. - Sitush (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, the list-article has not encountered any unsurmountable brick walls. After I removed all items not having explicit sources to the Talk page, there has been strident opposition to their appearing even on the Talk page, though. There are many castes in India, as indicated by many thousands of wikipedia articles with corresponding categories. They deserve, need to be listed in a list, if only to bring them under good scrutiny as to whether they qualify or not.
The list-article remains a work in progress, stripped down. Original objections that a list-article cannot be maintained have been disproven by the ease with which some editors manage to remove anything added now. So, all the arguments above, for keeping the list remain. Previous arguments against keeping the list, are weakened, by the development so far. --doncram 02:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, it is undue weight. You must be able to realise that? It names one group and the only reason it does that is because I was at 3RR & have since gotten sidetracked. You are also engaging in a non-argument, ie: that we have articles that are categorised means that there is a purpose in the list. You are not considering whether the articles are correctly categorised nor whether the list can do justice to the issues raised in the articles. Basically, your comments are, erm, irrelevant. I repeat what has been said umpteen times here: there is no policy that says categories cannot exist without a list or vice versa.

As for maintenance, well, the sheer stupidity/ignorance/whatever (let's call it the middle one, for AGF) of one person is relatively easy to deal with, especially when they do have a decent grasp of how we do things. Alas, most people that approach that list do not even have that grasp. Why is, do you think, that the community recently agreed to impose general sanctions across all articles concerning Indic communities? It has become difficult to deal with and, right now, the subject area is even more lacking in eyes than it was then. Sanctions are a useful tool but they do not excuse the existence of a list that has no encyclopedic potential and is a time-sink for the very few knowledgeable people that could try to maintain it. No amount of semi-protection or even full protection will stop the aggro.

Nonetheless, and as I say above, if you want to take it on in your userspace then that's fine by me. - Sitush (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More