Talk:Caste system among South Asian Christians/Archive 1

Sources only address Catholic christians no other denominations

The sources used for this article only address the practices and abuses found amon Catholic Indian Christians in Tamil Nadu and Goa. This is misleading, which could be the purpose to label all Indian christians, when it only has sources for one denomination (Catholicism) and at that specific regions. This can be seen as trying to POV this article against the whole faith, which is probably why my edits to make it more specific and neutral are being undone. For this article to be accurate, it should refer to Catholic not christian, when making specific claims or references. There are no sources for any other denomination, aside from the mention of the syrian christians as middle caste, so User:Bakasuprman and his friend User:Indiarising need to stop the reversions and read the sources again. Plus unsourced text needs to be removed, i.e. "Dalits are denied arable land by uppercaste clergy" which among other things shows a willingess to twist the text for personal biases. --Kathanar 19:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a source for the Dalits denied land. See Economic discrimination part of [1]. Also, Dalitchristians website publishes about all Christians, not just Catholics. In any case, Catholics are majority in India and protestants are minority. There are many minority societies in India that do not do Castes but unnecessary qualification makes the article unencyclopedic because this is understood. Remember that the article needs expansion, not reduction. The other thing is your bizarre addition regarding "abuses". The article is not being used to spread anti-Christian hatred. That would be totally wrong. The article merely writes about castes but does not take a POV position on it. Concerning your statement about "Catholics only", the Britannica article also talks about Syriacs (St Thomas followers) who are not Catholics because Catholicism did not come into being during the heydey of the holy apostle Thomas (honor be to his memory) India Rising 20:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Its true what you said; "There is a source for the Dalits denied land." I'm glad you read that, thats all it said, it didn't say they were denied land due to uppercaste clergy, just due to their being [[Dalits]( no mention of dalit christian in that sentence), meaning the general condition as dalits and being part of the caste system (previous condition). So that is a falsity and twisting facts to say "uppercaste" clergy were the ones preventing them from owning arable land. As you said the dalit christian website might publish about all christians, but when refering to abuses it only has references about the Catholic church, read the article again, no mention of any other denomination. I say Catholics only, because this article and sources only talks about abuses by "uppercaste" catholic christans against "lowercaste" catholic christians. Thank you, I do appreciate you being respectful to Apostle Thomas, the reference to the "Thomas Christians" only refers to their caste status in society in general, syrian christians were considered a caste among Kerala society( caste system in kerala actually is kind of unique it might require another article), theres no caste division among syrian christians, its the caste itself(i.e. no kshatriya syrian christian, no vasiya syrian christian, etc., etc.) I'm just trying to make the article more accurate according to what the sources say, otherwise its just twisting facts. Please review the sources again to see what I'm saying. Thank you for your response, I do appreciate hearing your views, I've asked an administrator User:Dbachman to take a look, as I wanted to make sure everyone could keep their cool( I do mean me as well). --Kathanar 20:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Notice that the title of the article says Caste system among Indian Christians, which can mean two things. 1) Caste System within Christian society and 2) Caste System of Christian society. The St Thomas Christians part concerns the second point, since they are collectively a single caste, a concept which they also regard. The indianhope article's main subject is Caste discrimination of Dalit Christians by upper-caste Christians ("This study is an attempt at assessing the existence and the extent of the practice of untouchability within Christian Church (principally ['but not exclusively'], the Roman Catholic Church in Tamil Nadu).") rather than by others (that matter is discussed in SC articles where the issue of their quota status etc is written about).Thus, the wp article does not "twist facts" but paraphrases them. While I agree that Catholics are mentioned as the only example, the subject of the articles involve all Christians, not just Catholics. Thus, the articles use Catholics as examples, not as subjects. Despite this, you raise a valid question. What is the status of Caste among protestants, evangelicals etc? Since the answer to that question requires additions,I guess that is why there is an expansion tag in the article, which indicates that it is far from complete. It looks that the articles referenced talk about Christians in the main point, then give only Catholics as examples. However, because they do imply Castes among other denominations, some research is required. It is possible that the protestant and other non-Catholic denominations may not have much casteism. If that is the case, sources are needed to establish. That is why the expansion tag is there to tell readers that the article as it is now is not the whole story and there may be deeper aspects that need proper sorting. In order to do that, explicit sources are needed. I will see if I can do some work on this. In the meantime, outside commentary is always welcome. India Rising 21:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you User:Indiarising for your thoughts on the matter. I do agree on what the title says and means, but we cannot make general statements or conclusions if it is not sourced specifically. This would present information that could be misleading. In general, evangelical christian churches are the ones which are going to be the least caste-like, as well as probably most protestant churches, though who knows what can happen in all the churches. But thats exactly the point, if we don't know, we should only talk of what we do know or can cite. Changes can be made the article as new information is found or arrives, we shouldn't make statements and then wait to see if we kind find the info to match it, there are rules about verifiability. I think we're saying the same thing about syrian christians, I'm just addressing the caste disrimination practices in churches that is talked about. Again thank you for your cooperation and together we can make this a better article. Have a good day--Kathanar 21:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

what can I say? try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. As long as there is no disruptive behaviour, edit-warring, or WP:POINT (like the tongue-in-cheek 'debate' aimed at creating a deadlock we see on Talk:India), there is no need for admin intervention. If the sentence

In addition, there are various instances of economic discrimination where Dalit Christians are not allowed to own arable land by upper caste Christian clergy.

is under dispute, you should add {{fact}} and ask for precise attribution (whose opinion is this? what instances? who does object to that opinion). At the moment, it is just an unsourced claim. We don't want unsourced claims, even if they are true, we want to report on opinions and analyses by someone. Keep this in mind, and there will be no need to disagree, you're just here to document the disagreement of other people. dab (𒁳) 10:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Finger Pointing

Is this just finger pointing by Hindus, who are fed up with criticisms of Hindu racism in the caste system? "You say Hindus are racist--but look, Christians do it, too." While racism by any group should not be condoned, this purported Christian racism is because they have not given up their Hindu caste system roots. The Bible states that there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free; all human creatures are inherently equal in worth. That goes for whether their ancestors called themselves--or others called them--Brahmins or Dalits.

Note, Spaniards and Portugeuse in the Americas also formed de facto race-based caste systems, and the United States had it's one-drop rule. Those too were not sanctioned by the Bible, although the nations which had them were nominally majority Christian. Chiss Boy 15:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Chiss Boy 15:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Basically you hit it on the nail, this article was made for no other purpose than to distract from any criticism of the original system, using ploys of muddling the issue with these inane articles and trying to spread misinformation where they can. This article is already addressed in a sub article of the Indian Caste System, so I would think there is no need for this article. You will see this type of behavior a lot on Wiki, as you have a gang of them working together on the supremacism of their views, its ridiculous and heinous.--Kathanar 17:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is more about propaganda than facts. It seems an attempt by hindus who want to pass the blame for maintaining the caste hierachy in India. I agree that there were possibly discremination among christians and other religious groups in the 19th century and earlier. However, the situation in South India now is quite opposite to what is written in this article. I have seen the catholic church actively helping the dalit community within, often by collecting money and giving it to dalits for helping them build house, get education etc.

christians

The source refers to all Christians, not just Catholics. Obviously this goes against Kathanar's beliefs. Its not just Catholics that virulently discriminate against dalits.

“ The high caste Christians also live separately. Its a pity that this is not known to the outside world because Christians in America and Germany are giving a lot of money to these people thinking that it will reach the poorest Christians, but the high caste Christians are eating it up ”

Averting the Apocalypse: Social Movements in India Today by Arthur Bonner

“ It was revealed that high caste Christians sat to the right and low caste on the left in churches, that no separate chalice was used for communion but that high and low castes went up to the altar at separate times ”

Hindu And Christian In South-east India By Geoffrey A. Oddie

Bakaman 22:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Expand the quotes, please, so that a determination can be made. Hornplease 01:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no need. The quotes discuss the disputed content, by not limiting it to "sections of catholics".Bakaman 23:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Context is nevertheless required. Since you are citing these works, you can perhaps provide the context? Hornplease 01:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Google books' (unfort.) partial glimpse of the context do not show these practices as representing all Christians in all India for all time. the second citation refers to what certain Tanjore missionaries described as the prevailing practice in their congregations prior to 1833. the first is actually a quote whose provenance unknown from the G-books preview. so yes, exact context is required. Doldrums 14:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Averting the Apocalypse talks about stratification in Tamil Nadu, stratification in Gujarat and stratification in Kerala of Christians on caste lines. It is a much better source than dalithinduchristians.org or whatever hkelkar put in december to document discrimination on caste lines in Churches. In fact, I specifically used it to replace the old site. Other books talk about how the government splits Latin Rite and Syrian rites by caste lines, calling Syrian rite high caste and Latin rite low caste, evidenced in the case Valsamma Paul vs. Cochin University. Another book notes that it was harder for people of lower castes to enter the seminary(A History of the Christian Tradition: From the Reformation to the Present).Bakaman 17:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

statements from the sources restricted in regional, denominational or temporal scope shouldn't be reported as being universally true. S. M. Michael's Untouchable: dalits in modern India (page 17, preview-able on Google books) has this to say, "[C]aste does not function in the Christian community in the same ways throughout India. Three variables account for virtually all the differences: location (rural versus urban), region (north versus south), and denomination (Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Syrian Christian)." and then goes on to describe these differences and attempts to summarise Caste within the Christian community. in the light of this, i'd like to see quotes from the sources to substantiate the broad statements in the Caste Discrimination among Indian Christians. Doldrums 07:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this article writen by a North Indian from Bihar or UP? I am a catholic from Kerala and believe me, it is different from north indian belt .even among hindus, there is little caste discrimination, if there is it is that of poor upper castes who curse their birth .in no catholic church I know, there are 'low castes' sitting seperately.may be there in Bihar, not in kerala.in truth, it is the 'dalit' catholics who will do anything to stay seperate to preserve reservation.I know this will be removed. this article is just part of the campaign to get sc status for dalit 'christians' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.110.171.143 (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Contradictions

Our drive-by vandal seems to not understand that his whitewashed version of the page is contradictory.

“ appears among some sections of (usually Catholic) Indian Christians ”

Hmm. a look at the Caste_system_among_Indian_Christians#Kerala section talks about virtually all Christians in that state. Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, not mostly catholic at all. Also the mention of the Nasrani in the first paragraph directly contradicts the statement that it is mostly catholic.Bakaman 18:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakasuprman (talk • contribs) 00:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted as there has been discussion from our resident troll for one month.Bakaman 02:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

PCLM

PCLM is Catholic. They state so on their website. Their last open letter went to the Pope and the Catholic Bishops Conference. They are hardly relevant to, nor do we have any evidence that they are discussing, other Indian churches.

Similarly, when social organisation in Kerala is described, do not use phrases like "Christians in India" because that is a gross misrepresentation of the references. Relata refero (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

PCLM did not criticize "Catholic schools", they criticized "Christian schools". If you read the sources, you would have seen that. That they are a Catholic group is irrelevant since the article discusses "Christian schools".

Caste discrimination persists among all religious groups all across India. The majority of Christians in India live in the South, so if the sources discuss all Indian Christians while focusing on the South, it is not incorrect to reflect what the sources say and talk about Indian christians.Bakaman 03:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Refs have also been provided noting the reasons as to why it is not so prevalent in North India. The converts there arent dalits, and the number of North Indian christians compared to South Indian christians is small.Bakaman 03:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

PCLM wrote a letter to the Pope and the Catholic Bishops Conference. Catholics habitually speak of 'Christian' as referring to themselves and 'Protestant' when referring to others. Regardless, I think you've made a start in providing some much-needed detail. Relata refero (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your statement is OR. There is no reason for anyone to believe that the PCLM is only speaking of Catholic schools, especially when many other sects run "Christian" schools in India including seventh day adventists, baptists, etc.Bakaman 19:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because they addressed their letter to the Pope? That would give most observers a clue. Relata refero (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Plus they say convent school. Also they say 'neglect' not discrimination. Relata refero (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The words "pope" and "catholic" do not not come up on the source, leading me to believe you are making fantastical assumptions about the source. The phrase "dalit christians" comes up over 7 times, meaning they are talking about Christians generally, which obviously includes convent schools.

Exploitation, Neglect, etc. are all terms with a negative connotation. Pettifoggery isnt going to change the fact that a spade is a spade.Bakaman 20:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's one of their letters to the Pope. Notice the use of the word "Church" anc "Christian" with reference to Catholics alone. (This is not uncommon.)

In the TOI article, they talk specifically about convent schools. Again, Catholic.

Exploitation and neglect are hardly the same thing. I can only suppose that you should be more careful when paraphrasing sensitive material. Relata refero (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) In the TOI article they discuss both missionary and convent schools, which in some places may be the same (ie a Catholic missionary) or may not. We merely report they only talked about Christians

What they write to the pope is irrelevant when the TOI article references christians as a whole

I stated all these words have negative connotations, and that it merely verifies that dalits are discriminated against by uppercaste Christians, which is backed up by a number of sources.Bakaman 20:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the TOI article specifically interpolates the word "Christian" when they had not so universalised their reference to missionaries. (That is what the bracket means.)

The letter to the Pope explains that they talk about Catholics alone, because their concern is the Catholic church; and Catholics tend to refer to themselves as "Christian" not as "Catholic". If you don't believe me, check out the warring archives at Talk:Catholic.

And your inability to comprehend that one word does not mean the same thing as another does not portend well for any article you write. Relata refero (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The TOI article mentions "Dalit Christians", period.

I personally do not care whether they meant all Christians or just Catholics, the TOI article mentioned Christians, that's what wikipedia reports

I am well aware the denotations are different, however the connotations are similar. I have no inability to comprehend anything, on the contrary it is because of my work (with a little help from utcursch in the beginning) that this article is well-referenced, neutral, and educational.Bakaman 21:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted because the revision contained significant inaccuracies as noted on this talk page. Webster agrees with Koshy and his reference is 1994.Bakaman 21:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Quotes please (Webster and Koshy).

We can't make a judgment about connotation - at least not one that equates neglect and discrimination.

In order to bring the other sentence into line with the TOI article, we should write "their missionary schools". Anything else is misrepresentation- again. Relata refero (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No we shouldn't, since it mentions Christian missionary schools. Anything else is personal extrapolation. The PCLM went on the record criticizing "Christian missionary schools" and is advocating for "Dalit Christians". That is what is reported, that is what will be displayed.Bakaman 21:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they went on the record criticising "Missonary schools". Are you reading the article at all? Do you know what a bracket means? Relata refero (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) I'm not going to dignify your insults, but will agree they were criticizing missionary schools. Christian was presumably added by the TOI, but the fact is that Catholic is not used.Bakaman 21:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I said "their missionary schools" is a reasonable compromise.

Please restore the "as of 1968" line, or I will be forced to take this to AN3. You must show some respect for the bright lines that govern our editing. Relata refero (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have the utmost respect for the rules, which is why I removed that phrase after adding in Webster's 94' reference (cited in another book on this page as agreeing with Koshy) per WP:V and WP:RS. I have been editing within guidelines, and have worked towards singlehandedly improving the content of this page, even when others unceremoniously issue ultimatums to escalate a solved content dispute.Bakaman 21:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The content issue is not solved. You have demonstrated an apparent inability to represent facts correctly, so until you provide a quote for this convenient fact, it is not solved. Again. Please revert yourself now with respect to that phrase. Providing and possibly mischaracterising a dubious source does not justify breaking 3RR. (And this is a ceremonious series of ultimatums if ever there was one. I begged you to show a respect for our rules so I could justify to myself not reporting you.) Relata refero (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not broken 3RR, and again I take strong offense to your insults. The quote is:

“ Caste inequalities persist within Christian communities in India, where separate seats, communion cups, burial grounds, and even churches for lower castes persist (Forrester 1980, Japheth 1998, Koshy 1968, Webster 1994 ”

from Identity and Identification in India: Defining the Disadvantaged by Laura Dudley-Jenkins.

Also I have neither misrepresented sources nor have I been unable to present facts. I have not taken any words out of context nor made any assumptions. I have done all edits with Wikipolicy in mind, and there is no instance to which you can make claims to the contrary. Your statement above is riddled with inaccuracy and misrepresents my edits and statements on this page, and as I stated before reporting me will only prove that Wikificiation is not your top priority.Bakaman 22:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out that you have a history of misrepresentation isn't an insult in this case. Plus I did it as politely as possible ("possibly mischaracterised"). So do try not to take offense at insults that aren't there. (Espcially since I have not taken offence to your rather startling remark about "Wikificiation".)

So, let me get this straight. You sourced something to Laura Dudley-Jenkins, but misleadingly claimed that the reference was from the 1968 book that you haven't read? That's a blatant violation of WP:CITE.

Incidentally, you removed "as of 1968" four times in an hour. (That isn't even detail that I added, I think.) That is a partial revert, by any standards, as there was a dispute. I strongly recommend that you avoid edit-warring like this if you wish to avoid a block.

And the most cursory look up this talkpage, and the history of this article, will demonstrate quite effectively how much you stretched the sources to make statements that weren't in them. (Neglect=discrimination, Catholic-Christian, South Indian=All over India, Kerala=Indian.) This is not a pretty pattern of behaviour, and I am amazed that you yet claim that you have taken no words out of context. Relata refero (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) I have read both Koshy and Webster, but obviously do not own the copies so I cannot quote them. No violation here, but Jenkins was the available courtesy link.

I did not remove "as of 1968" four times as stated, I made one revert. 3RR != 1RR, although you did manage to make three on this page. Improving content, adding references, and working for the 'pedia doesnt earn blocks.

The page began with sockpuppets reverting with each other and myself and utcursh working to hollow out the page. I delineated each section into stratification by state. I have represented the sources fairly (Christian=Christian, Church=Church) and succinctly in a way that makes the article a well-referenced read.Bakaman 22:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You worsened already poor content by mischaracterising references, you added references to books you could not access in violation of WP:CITE, and you removed the phrase four times [3] [4] [5] [6] in violation of our brightest line against editwarring. Given that, I don't know how to characterise the statement "I did not remove "as of 1968" four times as stated" as well as your claim to be impriving the pedia. And whatever efforts you have made on the page are undermined by your effort to spread the sources to cover all aspects of a diverse set of cultures, as every single section on this talkpage points out! ..And yet...

Whatever. Please fix the citation. Relata refero (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is all too confusing. What makes the PCLM noteworthy, other than perhaps that their president, RL Francis, has written articles for The Organiser, and their politics seem to square well with the BJP's? See this, p.192-193. rudra (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

References

Since this article seems to have been redacted from a quote-farm grab-bag, it might be worthwhile to check the references.

• The Schwartzberg Atlas, and p.232, is available online. rudra (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• I assume the review of SM Michael's book was favorable? rudra (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you blind?

The exact sentence is "Early writings also place the Syrian Christians on par with the matrilineal Hindu Nairs, but below the patrilineal high-caste Nambudiri Brahmins". WTF? Relata refero (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

On par in what? Nairs are also upper-caste, the statement can mean wealth or political status. Read this [7] page 151 It clearly states that Syrian Christians are below the Nairs in the caste system. [8] page 38 This source says Syrian Christians were indistinguishable with the low caste converts into their fold, and were not accepted to be caste, rather were treated as avarna.KBN (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

They're talking about the Syrian Christians being a "caste-like commnity". They go on to talk about pollution. There's no mention of any other type of "status" in that passage other than caste.

In your book reference, I don't see a single reference to Nairs. IF you've actually got a relevant quote, bring them here and we'll incorporate them. Till then, you don't have any justification for undoing my edit - which was already a compromise. Relata refero (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

OMG, the source mentions upper castes, there are only 4 groups of upper castes in Kerala: Nair, Namboothiri, Malayala Kshatriya and Ambalavasi/Maaran. KBN (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're getting at. I'm waiting for your further quotes. Please note that the information about Namboodiri origins in the context of Christian castes should be directly provided, rather than implied through WP:SYNTHESIS. Relata refero (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Your current wording still goes beyond what yoursources say. I am rewriting it. Relata refero (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please defend your reversion (again.) Point by point, please. Don't forget that talking about dates etc. is WP:SYNTH unless a reliable source specifically discusses this. Relata refero (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

'

This is ridiculous. You call Nairs Hindu fundamentalists, clear POV, and you seem to believe that Syrian Christians occupy some grand position in Kerala, despite them being historically treated as avarnas by upper caste Hindus, despite what some oppurtunist Syrian Christian writer claims and their ridiculed time mismatching myth to be descended from Brahmins. The sources both say that a there were significant number of conversions into Syriac Christianity from low caste or avarna communities, and that Nair and upper-caste agitation to revoke their clean caste status due to this caused them to be then treated as de-facto avarnas. The date mismatches are not SYNTH in that there is no possible way of having bias in stating factual errors. Also have removed earlier faulty ref.KBN (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe anything about Syrian Christians, and couldn't care less about what their position in the caste system is not, or was in the 1880s, or in the 1820s. However, the sources are quite clear about the sequence of events.
• I don't "call Nairs Hindu fundamentalists". The exact wording in the source says that "reactionary Hindu movements" were part of the set of causes, which is relevant.
• WP:SYNTH is WP:SYNTH, regardless in whether you think that it is a 'factual error'. If its that obvious, a reliable secondary source will have discussed it.
• Which earlier faulty ref?
• I don't see how this was a point-by-point defense of your overstretching of the sources. Please defend your replacement of my careful paraphrasing of the sources with your clunky, inaccurate, and oversimplified version. Relata refero (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, the sources both say that a there were significant number of conversions into Syriac Christianity from low caste or avarna communities, and that Nair and upper-caste agitation to revoke their clean caste status due to this caused them to be then treated as de-facto avarnas, this is all that is relevant from that source into the article. You misleading cherry picked representation of these sources will not do. KBN (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I love this. I'm the one who's writing the careful praphrase, you're the one who's saying "this is all that is relevant", but I'm the one who is apparently "cherry-picking" things. Do you know what that metaphor means?

If your sole defence of your oversimplification is "this is all that is relevant", its not very helpful. Can you explain why the activities of the CMS are not relevant? that of "Hindu reactionaries"? Status-related riots? Can you explain why what in the source is qualified as "some of them" turns into, in your text, all of them? I look forward to hearing it.

In any case, revert yourself. You've broken 3RR. Relata refero (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That section is so misleading, ah well there is only a certain degree of truth in contents of WP. Anyway I will proceed to add the dates and remove the faulty ref at the opening paragraph, which is a sentence of OR.KBN (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing irrelevant material

The caste system among Indian Christians in Kerala is this: The Knanaya endogamous community is the highest, who are believed to be descendants of Jewish settlers, then follows the rest of the Syriac Christians, then Christians converted by the Portuguese, called Latin Christians, then comes the more recent converts. This has nothing to do with the Hindu caste system on which all Christian castes are regarded as casteless or Avarna, i.e lower than Sudra and outside the caste system. Since the article only concerns the caste system among Indian Christians only that should be mentioned. Trips (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

To pretend that the caste system among Keralite Christians came into being independent of the caste system among Keralite Hindus would be absurd, and is contradicted by sources referenced in the article. Given that, the interlinkages are obviously relevant. (It is explained in the article how the view you express above, one held by a fraction of modern Hindus, evolved over time under the influence of missionary activity and Hindu fundamentalism.) --Relata refero (disp.) 04:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, the caste system among Christians is worked out by the Christian communities as all Christian castes hold the same caste position in the Hindu caste system. The Knai and Syriac Christians were on the top becasue they were the wealthiest. Similarly Moplah Muslims follow their own caste system, the highest of which are those descended from Arab settlers or the ones that claim they are related to Muhammad, though they all have the same caste status in the Hindu caste system. Trips (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

if you wish to remove all discussion of links between Hindu and Christian caste systems, you can make a start by finding authoritative sources that completely overturn the views described in the sources you just removed. formulating a novel thesis on this talk page is not enough by a long shot. Doldrums (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Have a look among the title of the article, called Caste system among Indian Christians. The extensive content removed relies on a flimsy memoir source that occupies undue weight in the article anyway. Sources can be found that describe the earlier informal caste system among Keralite Christians which I stated earlier, which is the relevant material to this article.Trips (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A memoir? What the devil are you talking about? George G. Joseph of Manchester U. is a living historian. George Joseph (died 1925) was a mathematician and nationalist. In future, try actually discovering what the references are before deleting them under false pretences, OK? --Relata refero (disp.) 05:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are separate caste systems. How can the caste system be similar if all Christian castes have one position in the Hindu caste system, while different Christian communities have different caste status within their own caste systems. Only the Hindu caste system is formalised, other informal caste systems exist among Indian Christians, Indian Muslims and Indian Sikhs, and they have been derived or influenced from the Hindu caste system, that there is no doubt, however that is already stated within the article and the material removed has no relevance to the caste system among Christians. Most of the material is present in other articles already. Trips (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Different Christian "castes" have had different statuses within the "Hindu" caste system. This is plainly obvious from the references. If you wish to claim that this is not the case, please bring some high quality references supporting your OR. Relata refero (disp.) 06:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That claim is silly OR. You wont find a single source stating that. Trips (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Its stated in the references that back up the section in the article. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Again Syrian Christian place in the Hindu caste system does not warrant a deep description as the end result is that they are Avarna, and that all that content is not relevant to the caste system among Christian communities in Kerala. Trips (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't realy follow Nambiar's line of reasoning. The passage on the Syrian Christians deals with how a Christian community inherited a Hindu caste order and instrumentalized it after becoming Christians. This is clearly within the bounds of the article topic. I personally feel that the weakness of the passage is that it doesn't specify when in history the last sentence relates to. --Soman (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Syrian Chrstns & Nambuthiris !!

[User:Rahuljohnson4u]] has been trying to add superfluous unclaimed data about Saint Thomas Christians (Syrian Christians of Kerala)- the user's main claim being

 are converted from Namboothiris and Jews

However, their history shows (inclding the ref cited by that user) the initial converts from Jews; and later got converts from many Hindu communities including Namboothiris - the Brahmins. But this cannot be stated as "they are converted from Namboothiris and Jews" .. many many later converts have been from other HIndu communities. the above mentioned claim gives a notion as if the Syrian church of Kerala only solicited converts from Jews and the Brahmins. I can only see the above claim as a desperate effort to claim descendence from the Brahmins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjun024 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see the edit history and know that it is not me who added that statement to this article. It has been there for a long period and it is not me who has been trying to add superfluous claims. I only reverted your edit because you deleted it without any discussion in this talk page. Please follow WP:BRD and most importantly try to understand things properly before you blame a user. User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I didnot accuse you of adding that. But you have repeatedly reverted the deletion of that claim in which even the source given doesnot cite the statement. Arjun⁰²⁴ 17:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reversion to original subject

This was co-opted to write about supposed caste distinctions among non-Indian Christians. All this material seems to be spurious, in particular the material on the casta "system" of Latin America, which sources specifically state is not analogous to the Indian system (see for example the long explanation here). I'm sorry to have reverted work people may have done to other sections, but surgical removal was impossible. Mangoe (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

In that case I will abandon the copy-edit I have been doing upon request of Bladesmulti because the article is unstable. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Casta is where the word "Caste" originated. Casta was a caste system of Spain. You have any backup that it wasn't caste system? Bladesmulti (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

From the main page :-

"During the Spanish colonial period, Spaniards developed a complex caste system based on race, which was used for social control and which also determined a person's importance in society. There were four main categories of race: (1) Peninsular, a Spaniard born in Spain; (2) Criollo (feminine, criolla), a person of Spanish descent born in the New World; (3) Indio (fem. india), a person who is descendent of the original inhabitants of the Americas; and (4) Negro (fem. negra) - a person of black African descent, usually a slave or their free descendants."

Also, why you removed those from Africa, Pakistan, etc? Bladesmulti (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Just because a caste system is different than the Indian caste system. It shouldn't be a caste system? Can you explain how? Read more, and also this:-

http://mlktaskforcemi.org/pathways/the-racial-caste-system-in-colonial-spanish-mexico/

Bladesmulti (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: The Third Opinion request made in reference to this dispute has been removed. All mediated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia requires thorough talk page discussion before dispute resolution is requested. With only one edit by one of the parties here, this cannot be said to be thorough. Also, the best process for working out disputed page moves is requested moves, which involves a dispute resolution mechanism (closure by an independent party) as an intrinsic part of that process. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC) (3O volunteer)

The Spanish caste system seems irrelevant here, as although it was imposed by a Christian state it wasn't a Christian caste system. None of the members of these castes were necessarily Christian. Bladesmulti has said it was "based on race".[9] Unlike the Indian caste system this article is about, the Spanish caste system was not aimed at Christians but at whole populations. Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, caste system in India, was/is based on entire population as well. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me quote from the text I linked to above:

'Casta", another medieval term, also meant lineage and was sometimes used as a synonym for raza, but without the same kind of negative connotations. The English word "caste" is misleading, as it tends to imply the strict definitions and divisions between caste groups in Hindu India—an inflexibility not found in the Spanish world. [....] In other words, race and class, or race and casta, were "interpenetrating" (as Irene Silverblatt puts it)— interpenetrating elements of a system that has defied easy definition because it was hardly a system at all.

These are only a few sentences out of a very long discussion in a scholarly book which won the Conference on Latin American History's 2010 Mexican History Book Prize. The extremely compressed version of skimming it is that the issue of mixed race parentage (which is what casta implies) played a role in the establishment of relative social status, but it drew no hard social or political lines. One's descendants could go from mixed to full "Spaniard" simply by marrying enough "purer" people along the way. The "casta paintings" (which the author claims is an anachronistic term, as they were not called such at the time) were souvenirs for Spanish visitors and not classification manuals.

This is of course a single work, but it is cited out the wazoo and I'm confident that research would find plenty of other scholars saying the same thing. Mangoe (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You can cite sources, If it is contradicting with the caste system. Well, because it is different than Indian one, like i said, it means it is still caste system, but different one. You should also tell about the removal of Pakistan, Africa. In Pakistan it is quiet common though. Regarded as "Choorahs", "chamars".[10]. Bladesmulti (talk)

Nonsense. The Indian system is the system; other others are in analogy to it, and if we have authors who say "it's not like the Indian system," then the word shouldn't be applied. I haven't looked at Africa or Pakistan, but the latter is not by any stretch a Christian society and I'm going to guess that the supposed African examples are either in non-Christian societies or are race-based. In any case this article is about how Indian Christians fit into the existing caste system in India; I don't think it fits into an article on how there are caste-like systems in other parts of the world that may or may not be dominated by Christians. Mangoe (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Having now looked at the other sections in the version I reverted from, I see that all this material is already covered in caste and should not be WP:FORKed here. Mangoe (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I know, but Mangoe you will have to confirm that african castes are based on just race or also ethnicity, and if they are assigned by religions. I have added about christian castes, of Pakistan, Sri lanka. So title can be changed back. There is evidence about Nepal, and others too. Can take some time. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is it up to Mangoe? If you think there are Christian castes elsewhere, it's up to you to find reliable sources for them if you want to add them. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Requested GOCE copy-edit

A request was made at the GOCE Requests pagefor a copy-edit to this article. We have decided to decline the request for now because the article is unstable (see my earlier post and the GOCE talk page discussion here) and the copy-edits are unlikely to be retained. Editors are welcome to re-request a copy-edit here when the article is stable and the major issues have been settled. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Pakistan and Sri Lanka

I've deleted the Pakistan section - it is certainly true that caste is a problem for Christians, but none of the sources suggested that there was a Christian caste system.

The Sri Lanka section starts "Mudaliyars are regarded to be dominant of Christian castes in Sri Lanka." But Mudaliyars or rather the redirect Mudaliar doesn't mention this at all. Perhaps this was meant to be Sri Lankan Mudaliyars but that article does not suggest it is a Christian caste. What sources say there is a Christian caste system in Sri Lanka or is this more OR? Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

About Mudaliyars, I may have lost the source, for now I have replaced information. Whenever I will re-discover, I will inform again. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Sri lanka could be extended, only if the title of the page was different, We haven't mentioned about Paravar, Shannar, Reddis, etc yet.([11]About Pakistan, It seems that converts are assigned to the Scheduled caste. Which is still discrimination.[12](319-322) Can be added, but somewhere else. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Title change to "Caste system among Indian Christians"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Consensus is clear that retitling (for the purpose of rescoping) is inappropriate in this case. Xoloz (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Caste system among Indian Christians → Caste system among Christians – Previously, for months, it was named as "Caste system among Christians", but Casta and caste system of africa were disputed by other editor on here. Right now, there is evident caste system, among christians in Sri Lanka,[13] it can be extended, it has been discussed. And there is caste discrimination in Pakistan.[14]. Evidently in Mexico, Peru, etc as well. So this page should cover multiple countries, once again. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• So this is something of a rescope, as well? Sounds good. Support Red Slash 16:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It was at Caste system among Christians from 8 December (when Bladesmulti moved it) until 27 January when Mangoe moved it back. It had been at Caste system among Indian Christians since creation in 2007. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Castas and castes appear to be distinct, if similar, topics, so I'm not comfortable with the idea of discussing castas in Africa and lumping that in with castes. Why not Caste system among Christians in South Asia or something? A key concept to keep in mind is that the caste system is a feature of South Asia, and this article is discussing Christians in that system. The proposed title suggests Christians in general have a caste system, or that the caste system is otherwise a feature of Christianity, which is highly misleading at best. I'm fine with the proposed title as a redirect, but it lacks sufficient clarity to be a good title. --BDD (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

BDD, I have edited it now. I had discovered that there is caste system among the christians of peru, mexico, etc as well, Both historical and present. Some of these sources describes very well.[15], [16], [17], [18], [19] Although I was yet preparing for it. I got 2-3 reliable sources about Russia as well, but they are mostly pre-revolution(1917). Still historical, if not present. What you think now? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

They aren't all using the word 'caste' the same way. One of your sources, A Companion to Latin American Philosophy is using it to mean Casta. Another, Quixotism: The Imaginative Denial of Spain's Loss of Empire simply mentions "Christian caste". As does Spanish American Customs, Culture and Personality - which doesn't seem to have been used as a source by other academics so shouldn't be used by us. A Companion to Latin American Philosophy writes caste as 'caste', which means 'sort of' or 'not really' a caste. That leaves The Spaniards: An Introduction to Their History. Bladesmulti, I'm bothered by your searching without evidently actually reading although perhaps you just aren't fluent enough in English, which is not to your disagrace at all by the way, I don't read or write any languages other than English as well as you do. None of the other sources discuss a caste system among Christians. And did you actually read this last source carefully? If you did, are you just dismissing it where it says "The word “caste,” born in Spain, was not used in the Hindu sense, even though later the Portuguese applied it to the castes of India."?[20](p.51}. How does this differ from 'Casta'? Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I brought it here, before editing. "The Imaginative Denial of Spain's Loss of Empire" is from a reliable publisher. This caste system probably differed from the Indian caste system. Does it means that it is no more a caste system? Or it wasn't religiously affiliated. There is not just one caste system. Each of them differs, but if they are based on lineage. They have some similarities. Page 66 of "The Spaniards" writes that "This explains why the Christian had more sense of caste than of class. The social class bases its rank primarily on its ability to govern and the amount of its wealth; the rank of the caste depends on the mere existence of the person: in the last analysis, all the hispano-christians ended up by feeling themselves a superior caste by virtue of the fact that they were of christian, rather than moorish or jewish lineage." "Spanish American Customs, Culture and Personality" page 71 writes that "The word caste, born in Spain, was not imbued with the Hindu significance. As translated by Antonio de Nebrija it meant "good lineage." It is defined elsewhere in the XVIIth Century as noble lineage and family antecedents." It further says that similar system was followed by Hebrew Spaniards. So this idea wasn't the invention of particular group, but it was separated by those who followed it. Lineage is important part of caste, and if caste has special importance/relation with religion, it should be noted. "cristaos novos", "cristão-velho" such words still seems to be in use. Later, according to some sources, the same people had converted lower caste Izhavas, Pulayas and Parayas in south asia. But they were still generalized by their caste, but under "cristaos novos"(new christian). Bladesmulti (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - but "Caste system among Christians in South Asia" sounds like better coverage of the areas of the Indian subcontinent concerned, given the shared and intertwined background. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett, read above. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose although I agree with Graeme about using South Asia. Bladesmulti, you don't seem to understand what "caste system among X Christians" actually means. The word among is key. A mention of a "Christian caste" has nothing to do with "caste system among Christians". And note that our definition of caste is "Caste is a form of social stratification characterized by endogamy, hereditary transmission of a lifestyle which often includes an occupation, ritual status in a hierarchy and customary social interaction and exclusion based on cultural notions of purity and pollution". Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dougweller here. You could have told that before. Nonetheless, the above research can be added to casta/spaniard related articles, there are about 10+, remembering that they need as much improvement. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• oppose The more I read the article, the more problematic it seems. This started out as an article specifically about caste discrimination with Indian Christian communities, and was edit-warred over for years. But it was specifically how the caste system persists among Indian Christians, which I could accept extending to the neighboring areas in which caste systems generally prevail. The fishing expedition for areas outside the Indian subcontinent where there are Christians and something which could be called a caste system is a problem, because of the lack of caste systems in general (though I get the impression that there is something of similar ilk in parts of Africa). The persistent attempt to include South America is getting very WP:POINTy especially in the presence of sources which have been cited that say specifically that "cast" != "caste". Mangoe (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment one point about the content is that an article has to be about a notable topic. Reliable sources need to have addressed the topic's scope as it is given. Have sources discussed caste systems ( social stratification ) and Christianity and included African systems and south Asian and Casta as being the same thing? Or is this a case of putting things with similar names but that are otherwise dissimilar together on the basis of the similar sounding name alone? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This seems a perfectly good topic without renaming or rescoping. The attempt to generalise it seems on the other hand to be poorly supported by sources, to the point of being at least borderline original research. Andrewa (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.