Talk:Caste system in Kerala/Archives/2012/July
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Sitush in topic Lead section
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Lead section
I have twice today reverted additions to the lead, eg: here. The article concerns the caste system of Kerala. If people are outside that system then they are outside the scope. I have no objection to something being said to that effect but leads summarise articles and we'd have to make the clear in the body. - Sitush (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Caste system is not varna system, both are different. Those who are outside the varna system may not necessarily outside the caste system. -AshLey Msg 09:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, in that case we need to define what we mean by "caste system" using reliable sources. And it will likely get very messy, very fast. Occupational basis,m varna basis, ancient basis, Brit revivalism vs invention etc. We cannot possibly hit this in the lead without a considerable exposition in the body ... and there is a massive risk of losing focus. Can you propose a summary definition with sources? - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- For that we could better refer Caste system in India.
- Well, in that case we need to define what we mean by "caste system" using reliable sources. And it will likely get very messy, very fast. Occupational basis,m varna basis, ancient basis, Brit revivalism vs invention etc. We cannot possibly hit this in the lead without a considerable exposition in the body ... and there is a massive risk of losing focus. Can you propose a summary definition with sources? - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also, there is an issue of undue weight given to the case of Nambudiri. Of course they were on the top of the hierarchy but just formed less than 1% of the population and the system was not revolving around them. Practically, Nairs were the most visible caste who practiced the rituals of pollution and all. Untouchables also were part of the empirical system. AshLey Msg 09:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- You appear to be attempting to address my concerns mainly by raising some other issue. This habit of deflection and/or chaotic discussion needs to stop because it is a time-sink. We cannot "better refer" another article in this situation: if we make a statement then we have to source it here. Furthermore, it would need to be done in the body of the article, per WP:LEAD. - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- What appear is not always true! Actually I was drawn into this article again by a previous edit which I reverted citing this WP:LEAD issue. However, I felt that the edits were of good faith and hence involved again in this messy subject. The present version of the Lead fails to give a picture of the the rest of the article. The Lead just considers the entire society in a "Nambudiri-Point of view"; it portrays the caste system in Kerala as a relation between Nambudiris and non-Nambudiris (totally misleading). However, the article better explains the relation between the major castes of the region and it should be made to reflect in the Lead too. Caste system in India is sufficiently sourced and there is no problem in referring another article to improve this one so far as we are able to verify the sources. I would like to be constructive and hope we would have a friendly talk further. AshLey Msg 08:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I confused you a bit, hence this clarification: When I mentioned that untouchables were part of the system, I was theoretically wrong. The issue of Untouchables is more messy. We may have to correct the term "Untouchables" with 'Outcastes because all non-Nambudiris practically experienced the agony untouchability in Kerala; Nairs were not allowed to touch Nambudiris, Ezhavas were not allowed to touch Nairs, Pulayas were not allowed to touch Ezhavas. So, who are the untouchables in such a system or who are not? "Outcaste" or "dalit" is more meaningful to classify the people who were not allowed to enter temples or public-places. AshLey Msg 10:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- You may notice that I have been drawn into yet more issues involving Caste system in India, which is so far off the mark at present as to be largely incomprehensible. And I have support from a couple of really top notch contributors + to a lesser extent from that article's major contributor. I think that we have a real problem here (ie: with these generalised caste articles) and I am not sure of the best way forward. We could improve from the "bottom up" or "top down" but either way we'll be looking at weeks and probably even months of work. The Nambudiri POV is absolutely crucial to the history of the system in Kerala, per sources, and since this is essentially a historical article there really isn't a way to get round that. That the detail was a "lunatic asylum" etc just makes sorting out this mess still harder. Nonetheless, leads need to reflect content, not drive content. - Sitush (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, Lead should reflect the content; 'content' details the relation between different castes especially with respect to Nairs. This is an important aspect as Nairs were the most visible caste and most of the sources describe Kerala system with respect to Nairs. No doubt, the Nambudiri-POV has a space, but proper balancing should be placed to ensure neutrality. The sources-Fuller and all-has considered Nair caste as a Noble, land-owning community having a respectable position in the system. Another unique feature of Kerala system is the unapproachability and unseeability ("By this time there were over 500 groups represented in an elaborate structure of relationships and the concept of ritual pollution extended not merely to untouchability but even further, to un-approachability and even un-seeability.") which finds a good coverage in almost all sources. You haven't commented on my request to replace untouchables with outcastes ? AshLey Msg 09:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- You may notice that I have been drawn into yet more issues involving Caste system in India, which is so far off the mark at present as to be largely incomprehensible. And I have support from a couple of really top notch contributors + to a lesser extent from that article's major contributor. I think that we have a real problem here (ie: with these generalised caste articles) and I am not sure of the best way forward. We could improve from the "bottom up" or "top down" but either way we'll be looking at weeks and probably even months of work. The Nambudiri POV is absolutely crucial to the history of the system in Kerala, per sources, and since this is essentially a historical article there really isn't a way to get round that. That the detail was a "lunatic asylum" etc just makes sorting out this mess still harder. Nonetheless, leads need to reflect content, not drive content. - Sitush (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- You appear to be attempting to address my concerns mainly by raising some other issue. This habit of deflection and/or chaotic discussion needs to stop because it is a time-sink. We cannot "better refer" another article in this situation: if we make a statement then we have to source it here. Furthermore, it would need to be done in the body of the article, per WP:LEAD. - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also, there is an issue of undue weight given to the case of Nambudiri. Of course they were on the top of the hierarchy but just formed less than 1% of the population and the system was not revolving around them. Practically, Nairs were the most visible caste who practiced the rituals of pollution and all. Untouchables also were part of the empirical system. AshLey Msg 09:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)