Talk:Dalit/Archive 1

Archive 1

New image

I wish to replace the Ambedkar image used with a collage of prominent Dalit personalities. But however, as the article is protected, I cannot make the changes. Hence, I am providing the modified infobox template here with my suggestions here. Thanks.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 06:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 06:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Dalits

Looks good except Birsa Munda is not a Dalit but an Adivasi and and the Indian consitituition recognizes the Munda people as ST not as SC.Taprobanus (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

How about File:Tbio.jpg and then we ask permission from the admin to add the pic ?Taprobanus (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tbio.jpg

Are you sure that this one is a fair-use image? I feel it is more likely that the uploader would have found the image at some website. And, by the way, I feel it is better that we avoiding adding present-day politicians to the infobox. As far as Mayawati is concerned, she is a national-level leader and a possible PM candidate. But as far as Thiruma is concerned, I find it difficult to even regard him as the undisputable leader of Tamil Dalits. There are other leaders like Krishnasamy who are in competition with him for the position. I personally feel that it would be better to have someone else. There are too many politicians and legendary figures in the infobox. Maybe, we shold have some sportspersons, scientists or non-political individuals.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 07:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree Taprobanus (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing suggestion-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 14:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Few Points to note before discussion

please read the topics before starting a new discussion on the discussion page or making changes to the main article.

this can stop people from repeating things over and over again.

thanks Thqwk (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

template

at the present time there is no need for a template since the article has neatly summarised all the relevant information. Thqwk (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

Being a social construct and there being discrimination are not mutually exclusive; being a social construct does not stop there from being discrimination. And putting information in about the discrimination without mentioning the positive steps that have been taken to change things is very misleading. It's inappropriate to write African American as if it were Racism in the United States so why do this for India? Anyway, it's well cited. If you want to take up issue with the citations, take it to the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard. Munci (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

its not well cited that is the problem. i was the person who initially put the statements along with the references but if you check the references you can see that it does not talk about the statements that i put in. we already have a section that deals with genetics. the caste system is widely practised in india. the current intro is fine. it mentions that there is still widespread discrimination against dalits and also mentions the steps being taken. there is no need to make the intro any longer. Thqwk (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the version you want does state enough about steps having been taken because it doesn't state the fact that the Indian constitution bans the treatment of people as untouchables. On the genetics, there doesn't seem to be anything in the document so that errs on the side of removal. I found another document which says different though:[1]. tl;dr:It says that the forward castes have more often haplogroups the same as those in Europe and the Middle East than backward castes do. Munci (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Aborigine Kings

As per anthropological survey of India, Mahadigas aka Dalits aka Harijans aka Girijans aka SC/ST are the Indian Aborigine Kings, and they were the first Rulers of Indian land. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Mahadiga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahadiga (talk • contribs) 12:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mahadiga (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Caste System

I would like to respectfully point out an error I noticed right of the bat when I looked at this article. In the first sentence of the second paragraph under the heading 'Dahlit' the statement "While the caste system has been abolished under the Indian constitution" is erroneous. According to the source cited, Excerpts from The Constitution of India, the Indian constitution set in place "Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth" and "Abolition of Untouchability". However it does not abolish the caste system as whole, which I would argue is still very much alive in India and has a large impact on peoples lives to this day.

    I hope you will consider making a revision to the afore mentioned statement concerning the caste system in India.
        Many thanks.
           -Ishmael77 (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not Lowest Caste but the Bending Ones

Originally the Dalits were the Humble Ones, set apart and consecrated - and that is why they could not be touched. As usual, the original ones have been supressed and things turned around. These were the ones who Crushed to Pieces the Enemy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.225.70.121 (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Factual error

I think there is a factual error in the sentence "Ezhava in Kerala are dalit, because of education because they were Buddhists", laid out in the section, Historical attitudes. According to my knowledge, Ezhavas are not dalits, since they belong to the backward castes and are classified as OBCs by the state and central governments.Also, the sentence does not make much sense either.Kindly, correct.

(Mksuraj (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC))

good job. take care of. --CarTick 21:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 189.189.255.82, 4 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Change: Although Sikhism clearly admonishes the idea of a caste system, going to the lengths of providing common surnames to abolish caste identities, many families, especially the ones with immediate cultural ties to India, generally do not marry among different castes.Irwin Baiya is the most prominent Dalit of the 20th century. Dalits form a class among the [[Sikhs]] who stratify their society according to traditional casteism. [[Kanshi Ram]] himself was of Sikh background although converted because he found that Sikh society did not respect Dalits and so became a neo-Buddhist. The most recent controversy was at the Talhan village [[Gurudwara]] near Jalandhar where there was a dispute between [[Jat]] Sikhs and [[Ravidasia]] Sikhs. The Different Sikh Dalits are [[Ravidasia]] Sikh and [[Mazhabi]] Sikh. Recently, there were news that in some village in Punjab, some Dalit Sikhs were not allowed to enter the village Gurudwara. There are sects such as the Adi-Dharmis who have now abandoned Sikh Temples and the 5 Ks. They are like the Ravidasis and regard Ravidas as their guru. They are also clean shaven as opposed to the mainstream Sikhs. Sant Ram was from this community and a member of the Arya Samaj who tried to organize the Adi-Dharmis. Other Sikh groups include Jhiwars, Bazigars, Rai Sikh (many of whom are Ravidasias.) Just as with Hindu Dalits, there has been violence against Sikh Dalits.

To:

Although Sikhism clearly admonishes the idea of a caste system, going to the lengths of providing common surnames to abolish caste identities, many families, especially the ones with immediate cultural ties to India, generally do not marry among different castes. Irwin Baiya is the most prominent Dalit of the 20th century. Dalits form a class among the [[Sikhs]] who stratify their society according to traditional casteism. [[Kanshi Ram]] himself was of Sikh background although converted because he found that Sikh society did not respect Dalits and so became a neo-Buddhist. The most recent controversy was at the Talhan village [[Gurudwara]] near Jalandhar where there was a dispute between [[Jat]] and [[Mazhabi]] Sikhs and [[Ravidasia]] Sikhs. Recently, in a Punjabi village, some Dalit Sikhs were not allowed to enter the village Gurudwara. There are sects such as the Adi-Dharmis who have now abandoned Sikh Temples and the 5 Ks. They are like the Ravidasis and regard Ravidas as their guru. They are also clean shaven as opposed to the mainstream Sikhs. Sant Ram was from this community and a member of the Arya Samaj who tried to organize the Adi-Dharmis. Other Sikh groups include Jhiwars, Bazigars, Rai Sikh (many of whom are Ravidasias.) Just as with Hindu Dalits, there has been violence against Sikh Dalits.

Also, I note that there are no references cited in this section. This is especially grave considering the allegations being made here.

189.189.255.82 (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Goodvac (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Lede

I dont like the way the lede jumps right in with "traditionally regarded as untouchable". that's out of context and sounds disparaging. i want to change this to "Dalit is the self designating term for a number of castes of peoples within India, who are traditionally identified by the caste system of India as "untouchable". If no one objects, i will do so.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It will be better not to use the word "untouchable" as it is considered derogatory. And for the information of all, Dalits were not the only untouchable ones. The definition of an untouchable varies from place to place. For example, in Kerala Malayali Brahmins considered Tamil Brahmins as untouchables. Axxn (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

regarding the point that other groups besides dalits were untouchable, the phrase "among others" could be added to what i proposed. I know that untouchable is highly derogatory, thats why dalit and harijan were proposed/chosen. but its also a word that nearly every english speaking person in the world learned as an indian caste word for certain people, at least those educated before the last 20 years or so, i might guess. We could remove it from the lede, but we cannot expunge its use, as a historical reality, from the article as a whole. Where should it be mentioned in the article, if not the lede?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well... it seems that there is no other choice. If no one else objects we can go ahead with the lede which you proposed. Axxn (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to consider this change. to be absolutely honest, i would prefer to hear from more users, particularly from people directly familiar with Indian culture (as you are, and as i am not), before i make this change, out of respect for the subject. you may speak for more people than you realize, and i want to respect that. i have only linked the word untouchable to its article, which seems like a neutral addition for now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I find no fault with the present wording but Mercurywoodrose's proposal is very reasonable and I will support it. I am not sure if "among others" is valid. The term Dalit is more commonly used today as opposed to "achut"(literally: untouchable) which was used till a century back, for people who did occupations that were considered as "polluting", such as cleaning faecal matter. It is not the same as the example given by Axxn which is very common social behaviour in India. Traditionaly Indians have been averse to any form of physical contact, even within the same caste, but this rule was enforced with members of other castes. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the term "untouchable" is widely understood and used outside South Asia, I believe it was a mistake to get rid of it in the introductory section. Just saying dalits were not allowed to form personal relationships gives a very fuzzy idea of what they had to endure. Also the body of the article doesn't describe restrictions pertaining to mundane matters like food, water, access to education, marriage prospects and so forth. LADave (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

other literal outcastes?

Here's something I've always wondered, where do non-Hindu, non-Indians fit in with the caste system? Under strict Hindu law, technically isn't every non-Hindu an outcaste too? Would they be referred to as Dalits? Or is there some technical/theological term that can be used? --86.135.177.132 (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

they would be called pariah or videshi. its not an offensive term, its just a term that means foreigner in hindi. Thqwk (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

According to strict tradition, Non-Hindus occupy an ambiguous space: not untouchable to the same degree as a tanner or "sweeper", yet not fully touchable either. Their touch or even mere presence may be considered to pollute water and cooked food. Orthodox Hindus may decline to eat with a non-Hindu, or not eat the most pollution-susceptible foods (foods cooked with water). LADave (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of a line from Dale Carnegie's famous book. It went something like this: they wont touch the food your shadow has fallen upon. Of course this was at the early 1900s and today things are much different. In the past Hindus would also associate with other members of the same caste status belonging to different religions but never accord them the same status. FOr example: One account of a Goud Saraswat Brahmin mentioned how his orthodox father would only meet GSB-origin christians at the gate, never inviting them in ; and then taking a bath to cleanse himself after the meeting (inspit of the fact that there was no physical contact). Regardles of this, the treatment meeted to lower castes, Hindu or not, was always the same. -Deepak D'Souza (talk)

Social Status Today

This article is on a sensitive and debated topic; the status of Dalits today is a complex issue with many sides. While some Dalits have undoubtedly become integrated into modern society, others continue to struggle due to lingering caste feelings. As such, we must present both sides with relatively equal standing. I think the article currently does a good job of doing this (both sides arguments are presented, with facts and sources, while neither is argued for). However, some editors have tried to change the wording to throw off this balance. Please maintain NPOV and do not attempt to undermine neutrality with biased word choice. JakeH07 (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, no. The article uses weasel words like "acknowledged" instead of the neutral "claim", and cites a partisan source not known for it's exhaustive fact checking (see Criticism of Human Rights Watch) to justify some bizarre claims, like 89% of crimes against Dalit folk go unpunished. Is that so? How does HRW know? Did they do a sample study? Where is their data for such a study? Reliable sources are required to publish this. Why is it that there are no other sources making this remarkable claim? What about the Indian judiciary? They don't log cases on their docket on the basis of the caste of their victims (which is against the law in India)? What about the Indian government? They collect census data on various castes, so surely they must have some stats to back this up? The HRW thing is Bollox and does not stand the test of reliability.117.194.201.202 (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, I have tried to remove every so-called weasel word (despite my own misgivings) and have backed up every one of my facts with four citations from well reputed sources. Please stop deleting the information I have included based on your personal beliefs. As I said, it is fine for an article to display both sides of an issue, especially an article on a complex and dynamic issues such as this one. However, by belittling one side you are not presenting a fair representation of the issue. JakeH07 (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Bogus pseudo-activism! The ohcr link you cited pertains to Nepal, not India, so does not apply to the section on Dalit folk in India. Secondly, the wsj link does not exist and is a dud. If you are from some propaganda/activism group sent here to twist wikipedia into furthering a political agenda, then please see WP:COI.59.160.210.68 (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My purpose of editing this article is to improve Wikipedia's coverage of this topic. I can, and have, provided many citations from a wide variety of very well-respected sources. Now you are simply denying the facts based on your own opinions. You can find your own sources and provide support for your side of this dynamic issue (keep in mind, we are talking about a group of over 170 million people, they are obviously not all in the same boat). But please stop deleting well-cited information for no reason. JakeH07 (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SOAP, and WP:COAT. Please stop adding text that is impertiment to the relevant section. Please stop disrupting mainstream editing of this article with sources that violate WP:FRINGE.117.194.194.3 (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You seriously must be kidding me. I have absolutely zero personal interest in the Dalits. I do, however, as a human being, feel for their cause. I can show you dozens of well-reviewed studies on the subject which validate my edits. You can refuse to believe them, that is your prerogative, but you must allow both sides of this story to be told. I have no doubt some Dalits have integrated into modern life; however, there are also millions who have not. Please do not dispute well-sourced facts. JakeH07 (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:SOAP. Wikipedia is not an attack site for advocacy or propaganda.59.160.210.68 (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

117.194.194.3, please stop making silly allegations. COI is specifically related to "personal interests" such as a musician puffing up his article on Wikipedia. This certainly is not COI. Discrimination exists even if it may not be very overt as in the past. While it is more visible in the rural areas; even in cities it manifests itself in forms such as honour killings and forced marraiges. Even the "integrated Dalits" often face discrimination in subtle forms. For example: A Dalit entrpreneur's housemaid left his service abruptly when she discovered that he was from "that caste". --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

and how is that relevant to this article? This is not supposed to be an attack site.59.160.210.68 (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right. This certainly is not an attack site and this certainly is not an WP:ATTACK. Do read the rules in detail before throwing them at others. All you are doing is finding irrelevant rules from wikipedia in the hope of dodging solid references. If you dont have any references to back your claims please stop. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

References now include Harvard, UNESCO, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and BBC, all added on to the original Human Rights Watch citation. Please read (not skim) the page Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. You will notice that scholarly sources (Harvard and UNESCO), and mainstream news sources (The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and BBC) are considered amoung the best sources. Now, while HRW is more activist, they have a generally good (not perfect) reputation. However, the added support of all these sources is more than enough to verify the information I have presented and prove this information is a mainstream issue. Your continual deletions of this information is vandalism; please stop or I will will be forced to go to administrators with this issue. JakeH07 (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Enough is enough. I have requested semi-protection as a first resort to anons repeated reverting of constructive edits. If you insist on continuing with your disruptive behaviour, you will be blocked altogether. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please some one knowledgeable add some factual research data on how present backwardness in social status (in spite of reduction in stigma) as result of centuries of segregation and lack access to resources and education. 173.3.39.109 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Judaism

I wonder what the Jews of India (Bene Israel and the like) think of Dalits. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 202.164.143.111, 11 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} A Dalit is not an outcast

Ejebil (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —GƒoleyFour— 03:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{edit semi-protected}} Change :In India's most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, Dalits have revolutionized politics{{Citation needed|date=September 2010}} to

In India's most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, Dalits have revolutionized politicsPai, Sudha (1994). "Caste and Communal Mobilisation in the Electoral Politics of Uttar Pradesh". Indian Journal of Political Science. LV, No3 (July September 1994). Indian Political Science Association: 307–320.

Thank you. Dalit Llama (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Baseball Watcher 22:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Many details not correct

The article says that most dalits are oppressed which may not be true. consider the following points:

• It is said that dalits were/are alwalys involved in doing dirty work like cleaning toilets.

This point is not totally correct because even today 70% of indian houses dont have toilet facility. Anyone can know what may have been the condition 100 years ago. So all dalits cleaning toilets of upper castes dont arise. Its only in some large cities where they are appointed by none other than government to do these works.

• Dalits are/were alwalys regarded as untouchables

This is also not totally correct because in most indian villages this so called untouchability is mutual. This means while the so called upper castes dont touch dalits, so does the dalits dont touch upper castes. This is mutually agreed and not enforced by anyone.

• Dalits are not allowed into temples.

This is also not correct because most temples in every village is small and only some temples are large. Therefore only one or two can enter into the temple and the rest have to stand out. So only priests enter the temple and all others including uppers caste people stand outside.

• Dalits are not allowed into villages.

This is again not correct. Only those who have not seen villages in india can say this. Because in villages there will be only few streets and each is occupied by members of particular caste. So dalits will have their own street and saying that they are not allowed into village is not correct.

• Dalits are not given water.

How can someone live without water. This again is based on prejudice and wrong reasoning without any idea of how life goes on in india.

So the arguments made to show that dalits are being oppressed is not correct. But sometimes we see such incidences being reported and it is only applicable in those particular cases and not everywhere in india. Wherever these happen it is the responsiblility of local administration and police to see that such incidences dont happen. The media often blow it out of proportion and depict a wrong picture of the country and its people. 223.177.31.141 (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor but glaring error

"There are many different name proposed..." should be "There are many different names proposed". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.48 (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see a clearer introduction. It states (1st sentence) "Dalit is a designation for a group of people traditionally regarded as Untouchable." This statement is very ambiguous. It led me to believe the dalit were more akin to nobility instead of serfs. Being untouchable invokes a picture of being above the law. I believe, it was used to illustrate that the `upper caste' does not want to touch them (because they are lowly and dirty). I have no problem with the use of the term `untouchable' (because it is accurate and used for this caste) but would like to see this context elucidated a little more to avoid confusion. Newtonsghost (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Major re-org at Category:Dalit

Category:Dalit had gotten quite large, with several sub-cats and probably 150+ articles sitting in the main cat. Given the size, I figured it best to treat it as a "top level category", meaning that essentially all articles but 3-5 should be placed in further subcategories. I created new cats for Dalit culture, religion, history, and politics, and sub-cat'ed some there, and the vast majority of the rest were of specific communities of people, so went into Category:Dalit communities. I hope everyone finds this a helpful way to make the category more navigable and less cluttered. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve this article / Report to the United Nations by New York group

Wikipedia requires that wiki articles maintain neutrality, balance and be complete (see WP:NPOV and WP:FIVE). To respect these guidelines,

• We must include not only claims of discrimination and prejudice, but also a balanced summary from verifiable secondary sources of action and results of actions taken in favor of Dalits. I have made an attempt to do so. I welcome revisions and constructive additions.
• We must describe all sides, but not take sides. Summarizing opinion reports written by an advocacy group, while ignoring replies to such reports and scholarly studies providing an alternate view point, makes this wiki article incomplete for an international wiki reader.
• The lead mentions Dalits as a mixed population from all over South Asia. The main article, as of June 1 2012 however, does not provide a complete and balanced discussion of Dalits outside India. The Further Reading section has many links on Dalits outside of India. It would be useful to include a section on Dalits outside of India, with summaries from these sources, assuming these are verifiable, secondary sources meeting wikipedia guidelines.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Contrasting religion with nationality

This sentence in the lead makes a peculiar counterpoint: Although identified with Hinduism in the past (1883 year data),[15] Dalits and similar groups are also found in Nepal, Pakistan[16] and Bangladesh. Hinduism is a religion: it is the dominant religion of Nepal, and a significant religion in Pakistan and Bangladesh, so the use of 'although' here seems ill-advised. I'll try to improve it.Ordinary Person (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The colonial British era census counted people, and census reports enumerated castes of Hindoos, Muslims, Sikhs and other religions. The colonial era census included Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, etc. in this enumeration and counting. These census reports did not identify caste with Hinduism, or even limit it to Hinduism. Perhaps, I missed something. Do you know the page or schedule where 1883 census, or any pre-WWII census of British India where such a claim was made? Please post the page or schedule number on this talk page. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Dalits in the UK

These edits] regarding the situation with Dalits in the UK by USer:Smith012 do not conform to WP:UNDUE,WP:NOR,WP:SYN and WP:RS. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable source.

The sources cited in the diff above are highly partisan, with only one of them (the guardian) constituting a Reliable source. The others are political partisan websites with a documented history of hostility against British Asians, and, it can be argued, seek to engineer cleaves in the British Asian community in order to undermine their structure from within. Smith012 seems to be an activist editor who is trying to slant the article in one direction without giving due weight to all relevant viewpoints. As for the political kerfluffle in the British parliament, it is certainly notable enough, but seems to be a largely unsuccessful attempt by British politicians to legislate reverse discrimination against Indian minorities. Allegations of "hate mails" etc by partisan websites are inappropriate for this encyclopedia and should not be included here.

I will remind User:Smith012 that articles on caste are subjected to discretionary sanctions. The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If edit-warring by this user persists, then there will be consequences.Handyunits (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality?

That's fine, the anti legislation view point has already been added however more references will be needed for it. The guradian is not reflecting a view point for or against it is simply a news paper reporting on findings by both reports conducted in 2009/10, one by an independent source and one through government NIESR. I have managed to find the actual report online which i am adding into the references. Can you provide proof that the websites i referenced are "Anti indian"? unless you can provide this proof your argument is invalid

For the anti legislation group no such report exists that can be referenced hence only the opinion of these groups can be referenced which they are. You will need to find evidence from credible sources that reflect the view point of anti legislation, which i have looked for but does not exist. As far as i am concerned the neutrality of the article is fine. and reflects both legislation and non legislation. You cannot delete referenced information. I am happy for this to be reviewed by a third party.

The use of "leftist" is not politically correct and violates Wikipedia policy on neutrality. You are an activist editor as your edits deleted referenced information and did not seek to replace with more references. In fact your edits attacking "Christians" for "conversions" is potentially inflammatory and a dead link was used to reference that edit. Potentially slanderous statements that attack religious groups is not acceptable to the Wikipedia community. Please farmiliarise your self with the rules of Wikipedia.

Personally i have no personal interest in the topic. I am simple an editor that has been editing and writing articles for four years. You should also refrain from personal attacks as this is not acceptable to the Wikipedia community. Smith012 (talk)

Restructure

I have taken the liberty to restructure this particular section so that the neutrality is reflected more clearly. However i am not happy about a previous edit stating the view point of christian groups seeking to convert people. A dead link was provided for this. I have also included a reference from the Equality and Human Rights Commission Regards Smith012 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Reference quality violation of Wikipedia sources policy

The reference provided for anti caste legislation, attacking christian groups to convert people is the Hindu council UK website.

This is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy on neutral reference sources. Having written and edited articles for four and almost five years now, the Wikipedia policy on sources is very clear.

Any source directly related to any issue or view point is NOT a neutral source and cannot be used as a reference. The Hindu council UK are anti legislation and insist that christian groups are "attacking" their way of life.

This cannot be used as a source as it reflects their opinion and thus is NOT neutral.

Sources must be neutral as Wikipedia policy dictate.

Books, articles, news paper reports and government reports are fine to use as they have no interest for or against and are neutral.

I have provided references from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, The government report itself The Guardian and The Telegraph (left and right wing) news paper reports as well as other sources. Using the Hindu Council UK website is a direct violation of Wikipedia's neutral sources policy. I would like a review of the sources used by the editor.

regards Smith012 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that the Hindu Council has been referenced by the Guardian themselves, your assertions are disingenous and point to activist editing. There is no reason to assume good faith on your part anymnore and thus you need to be reported.Handyunits (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

@Smith012

you write: 'Any source directly related to any issue or view point is NOT a neutral source and cannot be used as a reference. The Hindu council UK are anti legislation and insist that christian groups are "attacking" their way of life. This cannot be used as a source as it reflects their opinion and thus is NOT neutral.' Well, I think wiki policies area little different from that. In fact, I read:

Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say. [2], my bold.

I actually think you are talking about primary sources,which are allowed on wikipedia, with the caveat to use them with intelligence and moderation: Wikipedia:PRIMARY

Regards LNCSRG (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Ruling

Very well, if this is the view point of the third party i am happy to accept the ruling. However i do believe that the statement is potentially slanderous to Christians as only one reference has been provided for it. Especially when an alternate view hasn't been presented about christian groups "seeking conversions" But thank you for your ruling.

Thank you Smith012 (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible dispute

You should never assume. I have placed this topic on the open disputes board. The Guardian news paper is allowed to reference the Hindu council UK website as a need to verify a claim that the news paper has made is needed. However it is not appropriate to use the Hindu Council UK website directly as a source. It Violates the neutral sources policy.

I am already seeking a Third opinion on the matter. By deleting referenced sources that support Dalits in the UK with out valid justification you haven't proved to the Wikipedia community how the websites referenced are "Anti Indian" as you previously claimed. This burden of proof lies on you im afraid.

I believe that you seem to be an activist editor yourself writing a hindu agenda. This is clear from your edits as you have kept all my pro and against legislation arguments with references and not really added anything of your own. If what i write is wrong why did you do that? The best thing to do will be a Third opinion.

I have had no choice and i have already reported you to an administrator for deleting referenced sources, not seeking a Third opinion and for violating the neutral sources policy.

regardsSmith012 (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

LAWS OF MANU CONCERNING DALITS/UNTOUCHABLES

Excerpts from -->> Islam, Shamsul. "An open letter to RSS Sarsanghchalak, Shri Mohan Bhagwat" :

(1) For the sake of the prosperity of the worlds (the divine one) caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arm, his thighs and his feet.

(2) One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Sudras, to serve meekly even these (other) three castes.

(3) Once-born man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin.

(4) If he mentions the names and castes (gati) of the (twice-born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth.

(5) If he arrogantly teaches Brahmanas their duty, the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and into his ears.

(6) With whatever limb a man of a low caste does hurt to (a man of the three) highest (castes), even that limb shall be cut off; that is the teaching of Manu.

(7) He who raises his hand or a stick, shall have his hand cut off; he who in anger kicks with his foot, shall have his foot cut off.

(8) A low-caste man who tries to place himself on the same seat with a man of a high caste, shall be branded on his hip and be banished, or (the king) shall cause his buttock to be gashed.

(9) Let him never slay a Brahmana, though he have committed all (possible) crimes; let him banish such an (offender), leaving all his property (to him) and (his body) unhurt.

Is there a scope for a specific section regarding the "LAWS OF MANU CONCERNING DALITS/UNTOUCHABLES" on this very article ?! -- Abstruce ^(Talk) 06:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked the above-mentioned question because I was looking forward to be aware that whether it is allowed to go that far to expose the racial-bias against the "so-called" Dalits (or I should say the "so-labelled" Dalits) and/or untouchables online at Wikipedia !! Have a look : Why a Hindutva-vadi should not be the Prime Minister of India -- Abstruce ^(Talk) 15:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

A Ridiculously POV source from an Islamist website. Wikipedia is not a forum for al-Qaeda propaganda.14.139.193.45 (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A thought?

"Caste In Sikhism" can be a new article on wiki. Although theoretically they don't acknowledge it, the practice clearly exists. Thoughts any one? I have drastically improved the talhan conflict with references. If we were to explore caste in Sikhism here the sikh sub section would be too long. Hence a new wiki page dedicated for "Caste in sikhism" would be needed in my opinion. (Smith012 (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC))

This is a great idea. In fact in looking at manifestations of the caste system abroad, the Sikh caste conflicts are often the ones that have made it to the press in foreign newspapers. You can then also make links to the Ravi Dassi movement, and current Punjabi Sikh Dalit cultural movements like the Chamar music scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalitdiva (talk • contribs) 16:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Discrimination based on physical appearance is possible with Dalits!

dalits can be distiguished very easily from south indian brahmins. south indian brahmins are pure dravidian whereas dalits have considerable amount of australoid admixture.

dravidians migrated to central, eastern and western regions during aryan invasion. south indians brahmins are pure dravidian/swarthy caucasoid and carry the highest frequency of L and R2.

north indian brahmins are part aryan and carry R1a. They are pale skinned, have mediterranean features and are taller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.226 (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Using color and complexion for ethnic classifications is outdated, racist and unacademic. You cannot determine the ethnicity of any caste group in India based on how people look in a series of photos. -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 05:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Complete hokum noone can tell just by looking at me that I am a dalit. only by my last name and family history can this be ascertained.59.160.210.68 (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

While this is technically the case, I would also argue that Indian obsessions with skintone, hair texture, and "aryan" facial features come from the myth of what upper caste looks like and what tribal and Dalit looks like. There is a reason why most villans have full lips, dark skin, and wild hair. Perhaps discussing the origns of skinism in India and its relationship to caste is sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalitdiva (talk • contribs) 16:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Disputed/NPOV Section: The Hindu origins of caste described in the Modern Section

This section is problematic for the following reasons.

First, it seems erroneously tacked on to a section about the modern experiences of Dalits in India.

Second, It is not very well sourced and uses a circular form of argument to reify its findings. It is in fact a very disputed point of view within the conversations about the origins of the caste system. For example for every not explict discussion of caste in the hindu texts cited, there are many examples of implicit examples of Dalit/Adivasi characters in the Bhagavad Gita, Ramayanam, and other texts who are neutered, made docile, or written to create Dalit/Adivasi archetypes that perpetuate or continue caste heirarchy. As a result many Dalits rework and deconstruct these myths to find their own archetypes.<ref>Prasad, Amar Nath. "Dalit Literature: A Critical Exploration". Sarup and Sons. p. 82. Retrieved February 2, 2008.</ref>

My recommendation is to remove this section or to edit it so that it reflects the controversial assertion it makes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalitdiva (talk • contribs) 19:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sikh diaspora

Given the already long discussion of "Dalits in the United Kingdom" it seems that an even longer "The Sikh diaspora in the United Kingdom" disrupts the balance of the article which is about "Dalits" not about intercaste marriages in the UK. The text here show be drastically shortened and part of the previous section "Dalits in the United Kingdom". --Bejnar (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of information regarding Dalits and Jainism

Why has the information about Dalits and Jainism been removed? It is significant, based on citations from books and newspapers? Sitush justifies his removal this way: "So what? this seems like yet more Jain pov-pushing/coatracking - what is the dalit connection? " Note that It is about Dalits. A Dalit may be a Jain just as he can be a Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Muslim or Buddhist? Because the section is about Dalit Jains, it should be removed? Why? Citations from literatures are included. Malaiya (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The removed section Historically Jainism has been practiced by many different communities in different parts of India. They are often conservative and are practically always considered upper-caste. However the 1901 Census report of India reports that in some parts of India some members of Bhangi, Chamar, Chura, Dhed, Dom and Mochi communites were identified as Jain. in 1958, a Stanakvasi Jain Muni Sameer Muni came into contact with members of the Khatik community in Udaipur region, who decide to adapt Jainism. Their center Ahimsa Nagar, located about 4 miles from Chittorgarh, was inagurated by Mohanlal Sukhadia in 1966. Sameer Muni termed them Veerwaal, i.e. belonging to Lord Mahavira. A 22-year-old youth Chandaram Meghwal was initiated as a Jain monk at Ahore town in Jalore district in 2005 and was given the name Anant Punya Maharaj. In 2010 a Mahar engineer Vishal Damodar was initiated as a Jain monk by Acharya Navaratna Sagar Suriji at Samet Shikhar and was renamed Vishuddh Ratna Sagarji Acharya Nanesh, the eighth Achayra of Sadhumargi Jain Shravak Sangha had preached among the Balai community in 1963 near Ratlam. His followers are termed Dharmapal. The work of Jain Munis among the Dalits has been exmained in a PhD dissertation by Subhash Muni. In 1984, some of the Bhangis of Jodhpur came under the influence of Acharya Shri Tulsi and adapted Jainism, Dr. Ambedkar, before his conversion to Buddhism, had examined Jainism, along with other religions, but he ruled out Jainism because its adherence to nonviolence, was too extreme in his opinion. Ambedkar however continued to meet Jains to discuss religion, even on the last day of his life.

Merge Etymology section with Harijan

As far as I can see, the other article is little more than a stub. It should be merged here. Will add template shortly. Kingsindian (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible contradiction: employment rate

In the lead paragraphs, there are these two sentences:

In 2011, the proportion of Dalit population was 24.4 percent of India's total population. (source: http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/scs-sts-form-25--of-population-says-census-2011-data/1109988/)

By 1995, of all jobs in India, 17.2 percent of the jobs were held by Dalits, greater than their proportion in Indian population. (source: http://www.ambedkar.org/News/reservationinindia.pdf)

Unless things changed a lot between 1995 and 2011, I think one of these sentences must be incorrect. I suspect it's the second sentence that is incorrect... I couldn't find any mention of 17.2 in the source cited. However, I did see, on page 34, "27.2" as Class IV's % of workforce in Table 2. Profile of Central Government Employment. Is that it? If so, is this "Class IV" the same as Dalits? I didn't see anything like that in the article. -kotra (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Copy-edit

I don't have time to do this now (maybe I'll come back to it at home later on) but certain sections of the article need copy-editing. I've tagged it to that effect. 62.252.63.179 (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Dalit is not a sanskrit or even seen in any sanskrit text, same goes for the word Caste which is a latin word & aryan which is a 19th century false translation of the actual sanskrit word ARYA

The word dalit,ARYAN, CASTE SYSTEAM, have no historical links to sanskrit or any sanskrit text, all three words are modern invented words used during the british rule of india, no "Maybes" or "perhaps", or "we think".

what you should of wrote was:

"The word dalit is a 19th century word created by Jyotirao Phule during the bitish rule of india, According to Victor Premasagar, the 19th century word Dalit expresses "weakness, poverty and humiliation at the hands of a currupted upper SECTION of the Indian society."[24]92.236.96.38 (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Caplock

Official synonym

Is it really the case that dalit and scheduled caste are synonymous, ie: The government of India designates Dalits as Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). The term "Dalit" is used interchangeably with these terms, as the article says? If they are then arguably the articles should be merged. - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Dalit is a social/sociological concept of socially disadvantaged groups/castes which naturally has fuzzy boundaries, while scheduled caste is a GoI attempt at tabulating these groups for administrative purposes (scheduled tribes are similarly supposed to be a tabulation of adivasis). By design there is a lot of overlap in the people covered but the concepts have distinct boundaries and applications. For example, we talk of "Dalit history", "Dalit literature" etc while it makes more sense to talk of SC & ST when discussing specific government programs. And it makes no sense to talk of SC&ST pre-1950 or outside India (except for context); dalit people are not so geographically or temporally restricted. The topic is large enough that separate articles can easily be sustained with this article providing an overview, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes article focusing on the administrative aspects (how those lists are compiled and updated; relevant laws, economic programs, etc). Abecedare (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Indian-Americans

What do Indians in America think of Dalits? What attitudes or opinions are out there? Curious about that, too. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting thought. Could there be a section on the carry-over of caste system implications on immigrant populations? Or specific demographics like women? Ensquared (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Dalit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090922060507/http://www.expressindia.com:80/latest-news/Dalit-word-unconstitutional-says-SC-Commission/262903/ to http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Dalit-word-unconstitutional-says-SC-Commission/262903/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090521225627/http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/living/caste.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/living/caste.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080513073026/http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2005/10-12/18-29_nepal.shtml to http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2005/10-12/18-29_nepal.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090107223124/http://www.museindia.com:80/showconnew.asp?id=386 to http://www.museindia.com/showconnew.asp?id=386

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Dalits and Scheduled Castes are not same

Image Remove

2011 Census Dalit caste distribution map India by state and union territory Image show dalit data but Scheduled Castes are not Dalit. Original Data Publish By Government of India Census of India 2011 Primary Census Abstract Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes show Scheduled Castes data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongan (talk • contribs) 10:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Can we clarify this, please? The article seems to have a source that says some Dalits are classified as Scheduled Tribes rather than Scheduled Castes. In addition, are there not some non-Hindu groups in the mix? I asked this in April (see the section immediately above this one) and got no response. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Traditionally scheduled castes are classified as Dalits and scheduled tribes as Adivasis. But since the Adivasis are also socially oppressed they are also classed as Dalits. The Indian constitution recognizes scheduled castes in Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist religions. -Mohanbhan (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What about Christians and Muslims? And where can we find a source for the tradition? - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

So you have been editing the caste-related articles all these years without knowing who Dalits and SCs are? And what about Christians and Muslims--why don't you tell me? And yes, where can we find a source for the tradition? -Mohanbhan (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Some things are moveable feasts, especially when it comes to Indian articles - people make up their own definitions for quite a lot of things and, as Abecedare says below, we really should not do this. I have not actually done a tremendous amount of work on dalit groups, mainly because it is one of the most sock-infested, POV-infested sub-areas of what is generally a sock- and pov-infested topic. Most contributors in the area cannot even communicate well, which makes it even harder to deal with (I am not blaming them for the communication issue - it is just how it is, and probably because of the historic issues).

When people start arguing about definitions, as you have been doing here, it is always best to clarify where each person is coming from. - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, see my reply in the above section. From that, you'll see why census data is only available for "scheduled caste" and "scheduled tribes" categories, and it does not have an explicit category for dalits. However, that does not mean that the data is irrelevant here (far from it; it surely is the best demographic data for dalit population in India). The question that you rightly ask is whether we should use the data for SC, SC+ST, or some other derivative. I don't have an instant answer to that, but as usual, we should look at what scholars in the area prefer. Abecedare (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Who are Dalit people?

Dalits were considered by upper castes to be outside the Varna or caste system. They were considered as Panchama or the fifth group, beyond the upper caste proposed fourfold division of Indian people. Dalit, meaning "oppressed" in Marathi, is the self-chosen political name of the castes who were formerly considered "untouchable" according to the Hindu varna system. Though the name Dalit has been in existence since the nineteenth century it was Dr.B.R. Ambedkar who popularised the term. Four varnas are

• the Brahmins: priests, teachers and preachers.
• the Kshatriyas: kings, governors, warriors and soldiers.
• the Vaishyas: cattle herders, agriculturists, artisans and merchants.
• the Shudras: labourers and service providers.

Who are Scheduled Castes people? In India Scheduled Castes people are socially and economically backward. Source Lok Sabha Debates by Arjun Kumar (Mal/Malla Kshatriya and Dandachhatra Majhi castes of Jharkhand in the list of Scheduled Castes). Economically Backward Groups eg;- Government of West Bengal Mal/Malla Group people are listed as economically backward and divided in to different caste like Mal\Malla Kshatriya are listed as Scheduled caste, Mal Paharia are listed as Scheduled Tribe but Mal Muslim are listed as Other Backward Classes by the Government of India and Government of West Bengal. Source 1,Mal population(WB) 2

Why 2011 Census Dalit caste Image should be remove? Dailt are "untouchable" people outside the Varna. Image data should be show Dalit people only but Gov. of India Publish Scheduled Castes data pg. 8 this data used in 2011 Census Dalit caste Image. In Scheduled Castes data have different Jati people are present like (Shudras, Kshatriyas, Dalits & other).eg:- If Image data show lion population of India than you do not used Tiger population data because Lion & Tiger not same but If you prepare cat species Image data than you can used Lion & Tiger both data. --Bongan (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Dalits and Scheduled Castes are not same. For example, many converts to Christianity/Islam identify as Dalits, but they are not included in the Scheduled Caste category. I've updated the map, replacing "Dalit" with "Scheduled Caste". utcursch | talk 23:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for correction and upload modify image --Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 18:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of tertiary sources

The timesofindia Article try to explain dalit population figures with the help of 2011 census source, but there is no dalit data present. I think times of india use all SC data. if you can see same topic other News paper article like indianexpress they are using same word as per 2011 census published. --Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 21:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Pashtuns, Mughals, putative arabs, persians, Turkic peoples, European-Indian mixed race?=

Technically, untouchable means anyone who is not grouped in the 4 castes. Since Pashtun people are not Indian or indo-aryan, but rather an eastern iranian speaking people, then does that make the pathan new comers into india untouchables because Pathans aren't kashyatra, shudre, brahmin and w/e (when talking about those who didn't mix with indians) but they do have tribes like Yusfzai but these are just groups upon groups not castes? Does this apply to other indians of mixed heritage. Eh, the caste system was like a division of labour, but look at pashto speaking pashtuns whom live like shurdes, heck 45% of Afghanistan's population is Pathan and many of them live like sudras unless they become educated and attempt to put Hazaras Punjabis down their caste, well they did with Hazaras and it didn't turn out good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.173.174.134 (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Since when the hell are Pashtuns Indians? They are of Iranian origin like you said and they do not live in castes but tribes which are two completely different things with different intentions. Anybody who is not part of your racist caste system is apparently a "mixed indian" to you south asians. Pashtuns are they're own people, so get that through your thick indian skull. And this post is nothing more than racist rambling with an opinion, not fact. I never understood why Indians are so obssesed with Pashtuns and Afghanistan. Akmal94 (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Popularization of the term "Dalit"

I don't remember having seen the term in Ambedkar's writings. See http://navsarjan.org/dalits/dalitmovement

"Though use of the term Dalit in public discourse is of relatively recent origin – the 1960s – it is supposed to have been used first by Jotirao Phule (1827-1890) in his attempt to work for dalituthan, that is, the uplifting of the exploited sections of society. While Dr. Ambedkar did not popularize the word Dalit, his philosophy has remained a key source in its emergence and popularity. Marathi literary figures and neo-Buddhists began to use the word in their writings and contributed to the literary initiatives in replacing Harijan (man of God) and achchuta (untouchable) with Dalit, in the 1970s. They expressed their anger, protest and aspiration through this new word, rejecting the Hindu caste system and objecting to Gandhi’s belief that caste Hindus’ “charitable spirit” would be enough to overcome Untouchability."

As I recollect, that seems right to me.

Also see http://www.dalitchristians.com/html/dalitmeaning.htm

"During the 1970s, the followers of the Dalit Panther Movement of Maharastra gave currency to the term 'Dalit' as a constant reminder of their age-old oppression, .."

Malaiya (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Article states: "Though the name Dalit has been in existence since the nineteenth century, the economist and reformer B. R. Ambedkar (1891–1956) popularised the term.[6]"

Not true. And the cited reference does not state that. Malaiya (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you read page 114 on Google book search ? It says it right there. Maslowsneeds (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dalit/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Seems to meet the criteria, although the references could probably use a review. Grammar and overall structure are good. Could use more neutral historical analysis. --Daydreamer302000 (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 12:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dalit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081218123818/http://www.mfsd.org/sachar/leafletEnglish.pdf to http://www.mfsd.org/sachar/leafletEnglish.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/62Egy4bjA to http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-06-05/india/28165067_1_sect-head-dera-head-punjab

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Dalit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120913050030/http://socialjustice.nic.in:80/sclist.php to http://socialjustice.nic.in/sclist.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130430015723/http://www.worlddialogue.org/content.php?id=490 to http://www.worlddialogue.org/content.php?id=490
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110823153357/http://old.antislavery.org/archive/submission/submission2002-scavenging.htm to http://old.antislavery.org/archive/submission/submission2002-scavenging.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222164718/http://nird.org.in/OctLevel%209.pdf to http://www.nird.org.in/OctLevel%209.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141215100355/http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=88440 to http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=88440
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213194934/http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bhopal/kids-bear-brunt-of-macabre-caste-abuses-in-rural-mp/article1-1293731.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bhopal/kids-bear-brunt-of-macabre-caste-abuses-in-rural-mp/article1-1293731.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005015048/http://indianchristians.in/news/content/view/311/48/ to http://indianchristians.in/news/content/view/311/48/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141215015609/http://www.hindustantimes.com/comment/namitabhandare/casteism-exists-in-india-let-s-not-remain-in-denial/article1-1293658.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/comment/namitabhandare/casteism-exists-in-india-let-s-not-remain-in-denial/article1-1293658.aspx#sthash.rwmiGqtD.dpuf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160328011827/http://www.aninews.in/videogallery4/37837-dalits-in-mp-allegedly-not-allowed-to-use-public-borewell-forced-to-drink-dirty-water.html to http://www.aninews.in/videogallery4/37837-dalits-in-mp-allegedly-not-allowed-to-use-public-borewell-forced-to-drink-dirty-water.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150630050355/http://socialjustice.nic.in/faqs1.php to http://socialjustice.nic.in/faqs1.php#sc4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903084139/http://www.parimalnathwani.com/images/in-the%20parliament/answer-to-question-414-dated-13-08-12.pdf to http://www.parimalnathwani.com/images/in-the%20parliament/answer-to-question-414-dated-13-08-12.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120214135647/http://www.hvk.org/articles/1102/135.html to http://www.hvk.org/articles/1102/135.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090112053044/http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in:80/index.php?issueid=&id=1438&option=com_content&task=view&sectionid=21 to http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?issueid=&id=1438&option=com_content&task=view&sectionid=21
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.htnext.in/news/181_1871219,000900030010.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.trn.gorkhapatraonline.com/index.php/nation/10643-dalit-people-not-allowed-to-enter-in-temple-due-to-caste-discrimination.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Thousands-pour-in-for-Dera-leaders-cremation-in-Punjab/articleshow/4615567.cms
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081031145352/http://www.sasnet.lu.se/EASASpapers/4JugalKishore.pdf to http://www.sasnet.lu.se/EASASpapers/4JugalKishore.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dalit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513073026/http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2005/10-12/18-29_nepal.shtml to http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2005/10-12/18-29_nepal.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107223124/http://www.museindia.com/showconnew.asp?id=386 to http://www.museindia.com/showconnew.asp?id=386

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Typo

"prepostorous" should be spelled "preposterous" (with an "e").

24.161.65.38 (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

When did the term "dalit" come into use?

When did the term Dalit came into use for "scheduled caste"/"harijan" communities? Several sources state that young Marathi writers-activists introduced the usage of the term:

• "The term Dalit came into usage for the first time in 1973, though the English term depressed classes was in vogue ... The Dalit Panthers voicing their proletarian consciousness used the term in their manifesto to refer to the have-nots of the ..."
• "Marathi literary figures and neo-Buddhists began to use the word Dalit in their writings and the contributions of the literary initiatives in their writings...replacing harijan and Achut with dalit may be located as the first case of public use of the term Dalit. .. Later the term came to be used to include all the oppressed and exploited sections of the society."

The New York Times archives first used the term in 1974

I am curious - where did Ambedkar or Phule use the term "Dalit", and in what sense? Can someone share the exact source?

Malaiya (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Is the term "Dalit" inherently ambiguous?

The article seems to imply the Dalits include not only the SC (scheduled caste) and ST (Scheduled Tribe) but possibly others. Article states "members of lower-castes in India" - lower than what? Some Brahmins are supposedly "lower" than other Brahmins.

Lalu Yadav has claimed that Ram Nath Kovind, the candidate for India's President, is "an OBC, not a Dalit" (Kovind is an OBC, not a Dalit: Lalu, The Hindu, JULY 05, 2017). Kovid is a Koli (Ram Nath Kovind not Dalit but OBC, claims Lalu Prasad Yadav, Abhay Kumar, DH News Service, Patna, Jul 5 2017), in fact he has been the president of Akhil Bharatiya Koli Samaj.

In almost all uses of the term by local reporters, I have seen only the members of the SC (formerly so called "untouchables")being termed as Dalit. The term pair "Dalit And Adivasi" is widely used implying Adivasi (scheduled tribes) are not included in Dalit. See Google search "dalit and adivasi" and Google search "दलित और आदिवासी".

Can someone clarify the term in the article?

Malaiya (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

In Punjab

I have just removed In Punjab Dalits are also known as "Ad-Dharmi" and "Mazhabi Sikh. pending review.

I can't see the source but that statement seems wrong to me. For example, see this. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Improving conditions - misrepresentation?

We say From 1950, India implemented laws and social initiatives to improve Dalits' socioeconomic conditions and cite a primary source - the constitution - in support of it. It would probably be a fairly trivial matter to find a secondary source but what concerns me more is that the sentence insinuates that this was a new thing, that no laws or social initiatives happened before then. I'm pretty sure that there were efforts even in the Raj era, blighted though that period was. I can't get my brain in gear at the moment but perhaps someone can jog my memory? - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Votebank - disingenuous?

Dalits are often used as a Votebank by political parties, too, seems to be at once correct but also disingenuous. Caste politics/votebank politics is by no means restricted to Dalits but the reader might be left with that impression. Eg: this. - Sitush (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

High schools - misleading?

I've just cut "In high schools, higher caste students are often advised not to mingle with Dalits." from the article. I'm not saying it is incorrect - I'm not sure - but the source is reporting events that took place at one school in one state. That is not "often" and we really need to be more specific regarding who is giving that advice because I suspect a lot of it starts at home. I'm happy for something to be reinstated if the issues can be fixed. - Sitush (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Death row figures

I don't think we can say "About 24.5% of death row inmates in India are from scheduled castes and scheduled tribes which is proportionate to their population. The percentage is highest in Maharashtra (50%), Karnataka (36.4%) and Madya Pradesh (36%)." The source was a comprehensive study but it doesn't say anything about proportionality to the general population and we cannot extrapolate from census periods because (a) they're different and (b) WP:SYNTHESIS might be an issue. Furthermore, like most statistical reports, it is highly detailed and there are "gotchas" in that detail which get overlooked if turned into a headline statement such as ours. For example, one incident of rioting can cause a huge imbalance in one state that is atypical. I really do not think it is helpful. - Sitush (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Comparison with Muslims - why?

We say "According to a 2014 report to the Ministry of Minority Affairs by Amitabh Kundu, over 44.8% of Scheduled Tribe (ST) and 33.8% of Scheduled Caste (SC) populations in rural India were living below the poverty line in 2011–12, compared to 30.8% of Muslims. In urban areas, 27.3% of ST and 21.8% of SC populations were poor, versus 26.5% of Muslims."

Fair enough, but it is just a random paragraph thrown into the article, like so many others. Why is the comparison with Muslims significant/ What about Christians? Buddhists? Or the forward castes? I'm not seeing the point of presenting a random comparison, and especially not with a minority group that are also oppressed in their own way. - Sitush (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I got rid of it. I guess it was blindly aping the source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Population of Dalits/Scheduled Castes

The second paragraph of the article is a contradiction in itself. Dalits constitute only Scheduled Castes and not Scheduled Tribes and hence the population is mentioned as 16.6% and does not include the population of Scheduled Tribes/Adivasis who are 8.6% of India's total population.

Having said that, if you mention Dalits as both Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes then they should make up 25.2% of total India's population according to the 2011 census.

Adivasis and Dalits are different categories that substitute Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes respectively. Hemalataeditor (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is confusing. The article has grown through a lot of people inserting points, often without understanding the issues (in the case of non-Indians, usually) or wanting to "make a statement" (in the case of Indians). There are all sorts of problems because of that and, frankly, it needs a complete rewrite. Alas, that is beyond me at the moment for health reasons but maybe someone with both experience of Wikipedia and a decent grounding in the subject can take it on. - Sitush (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sitush I don't think you should take complete responsibility and there are others who are grounded in the subject though may not be as experienced as you. They do intend to improve the article. As you agree the article needs a rewrite, let the marginalized themselves speak and write, for once. They might come up with more information. You can help and provide support in improving the article by giving your valuable suggestions regarding POV, citations and anything that really matters, in a healthy way. Hemalataeditor (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not taking complete responsibility. However, I am very concerned about WP:MEAT in relation to your latest comments, assuming that I have read them correctly. Collaboration by activists is not the sort of collaboration Wikipedia needs, imo. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything in Hemalataeditor's comments that would suggest they are canvassing single-purpose editors to !vote on a party line - WP:MEAT is unfounded here. Provided that activists focus on educating not advocating, their collaboration on Wikipedia is allowed, just like any other group who can contribute reliably-sourced knowledge on a particular topic. Activists passionate about women scientists, for example, have helped fill a lot of important gaps in the encyclopedia over time. Agree the sources need work, let's stay focused on that. Siko (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You are obviously clueless about Indic topics, Siko, sorry. Socks and meats are incredibly common, especially on caste-related stuff. Better they know now. - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Some tips before you and your colleagues do return (some edited fairly recently). Read WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:RS. In particular, note that websites and other potential sources that are closely connected to the Dalit activist/advocacy movement are unlikely to be considered reliable for this article - that's any site with "Ambedkar" in its name, Dalit Camera, Round Table etc. If you use academic sources (ie: published by university presses etc) then you're less likely to stray into territory that might be dubious. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Caste-related violence

Caste-related violence goes on, no doubt about it. It happens between all sorts of castes, not just against Dalits (something we do not say, by the way). My concern is here Caste-related violence between Dalit and non-Dalits allegedly stems from Dalit's economic success amidst ongoing prejudice.

I realise we say "allegedly" and "amidst ongoing prejudice" but the allegation comes from two journalists in the US writing bleeding-heart pieces. Dalit-related violence may in part be due to the improved socio-economic situation for some Dalits but such violence has gone on since long before independence, as has intra-caste violence generally. The "ongoing prejudice" is the key because it is historic. Sources such as this and this debunk the emotive journalism, and I'm sure I could find many more (over the years, I've read enough about Indian history). I don't think we should be using newspaper articles for statements such as the one above. - Sitush (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Skewed New York Times story?

We cite this in the Segregation section. Yes, the New York Times is generally an ok source but on this occasion I think it might be problematic. The survey it referred to was incomplete (WP:CRYSTAL, anyone? Aside from common sense because an incomplete survey is no survey at all) and the one bit we pick up on - that Dalits now use cars for weddings - is plain bizarre. There is no consideration of whether that is due to changes in the discriminatory attitudes of society or just the general availability of cars in India. The claim that in the past they would not have been able "even" to use horses to get there is very peculiar: using horses to get to weddings might have been common historically in the US but it is unlikely to have ever been common in India because the horse is not a prevalent animal. I'm afraid I think the journalist/columnist might have gone off on a bit of a rant on this occasion. What do others think? - Sitush (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Just noticed we also say Also in some parts of India, Dalit grooms riding horses for wedding ceremonies are often beaten up and ostracised by upper caste people. but I still think we're on dodgy ground. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

An update on this: I've found more mentions of the horse scenario so, obviously, it looks like it has been an issue. - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

As a more general comment, I am finding myself having to fix numerous misrepresentations of surveys in this article. One thing in particular that is concerning me - although I am far from finished - is that the surveys are often cherry-picking their states. It is understandable because the Dalits are particularly concentrated in some regions and because the population of India is huge but that is also the problem: we've been saying that survey X shows Y per cent of the population face this or that type of discrimination but in fact it shows Y per cent of the population in a specific, usually high-density Dalit state. Thus, we're imputing to the entirety of India something that is not said in the surveys. And some of those surveys seem to be very poor, eg: the ActionAid one in Madhya Pradesh used a Dalit organisation to do the field work and its sample size was pathetic (400-odd households and a few panchayat officials, IIRC).

We also really need to find academic works that detail these surveys, not headlines in newspapers. Newspaper writers are rarely qualified to interpret the outcome of surveys - they tend to be interested in the shock factor and cherry-pick. - Sitush (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dalit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130429105810/http://www.hinducounciluk.org/reports/333-the-caste-system to http://www.hinducounciluk.org/reports/333-the-caste-system
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040312141948/http://www.ices.lk/publications/esr/articles_jul97/Esr-Ghosh.PDF to http://www.ices.lk/publications/esr/articles_jul97/Esr-Ghosh.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Weird reinstatement

@Jonathansammy: why have you reinstated information that is not in the source and is very poorly written? - Sitush (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Multiple sources added to support the text. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

No. You are using Kalpaz, seem to be synthesising, and you still can't punctuate properly. It is a pretty poor show. I've been trying to get a grip on this mess of an article and poor edits from experienced contributors do not make it any easier. What does a "leader" even mean? It pops up across numerous Indian politician/activist articles but rarely has any support because Dalits are not an organisation. - Sitush (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent revert

I'm not well and so responses to this thread may be slow. However, I reverted here for a bunch of reasons. Right from the top is the issue of WP:LEAD and unnecessary use of tertiary sources (Britannica) - there is not need to cite that info at all in the lead, let alone using Britannica. Then we get a change of a quote from Brahmanic to Varna, which is simply incorrect because the OED does indeed use the word Brahmanic. The photo of a group of alleged Dalits comes from Commons and is dubious at best: it could be any group from anywhere, as far as I can work out. I could go on but it might be easier if the person who added/reinstated all the info explained each change here. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sitush: Honestly, I don't see the point of your rollbacks. The only thing i did was adding photos, external links to Dalit associations, and references from Encyclopedia Britannica, which is a reliable source, to unsourced statements. Anyway, if you feel sick we can talk about this another day, i don't want to bother you. - GenoV84 (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Dalit per OED online :(in the traditional Indian caste system) a member of the lowest caste. Hope you feel better soon.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The statements did not need sourcing, per WP:LEAD and WP:OVERCITE. I've explained the issue with one of the images, and singling-out Ambedkar is not a good idea (nor is using Babasaheb as his name). The professional OED online does indeed say what the quote says. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

GonoV84, a good LEAD summarises the body. No citations are needed except when something is contentious. If anything is contentious, please raise it here. And if citations are needed, use the ones already used in the body. Changes to LEAD require WP:CONSENSUS. I agree with Sitush that Britannica is not a good source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent change to the lead

I don't understand this edit. Per WP:LEAD, there should be no need for a citation at the point where it is inserted - the existence of Dalits is amply sourced in the body. Furthermore, regardless of what the point may actually be, we're not going to use ancient primary sources when we have modern secondary sources - see WP:RS. Finally, legal threats will get you nowhere fast on Wikipedia itself - see WP:NLT. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Image

Why are we using File:Castes-India 2.jpg at the top of the article? It confuses things because we call Dalit etc varna in the lead (not caste) and because it implies a proportionality that isn't necessarily correct. I really do not see that it adds anything: if people do not understand words such as hierarchy, which we use to describe the situation, then they are not going to understand much that the article says anyway, regardless of the image. - Sitush (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The image which mentions varnas rather than castes (jatis) does do a good job of showing where the Dalits are placed in the traditional Indian society. In other words, it clarifies rather than confuses. Dalit is just the modern name that the people belonging to Panchama varna have given to themselves. -Mohanbhan (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

They're at the bottom. The article says that and if people don't know where the bottom is in a hierarchy then I give up all hope. You haven't addressed my point regarding proportionality. - Sitush (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The image is undue and doesn't help understanding the article, an image of a Dalit community would be better. Capitals00 (talk) 11:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no one "Dalit community" as such; there are many formerly untouchable communities which identify themselves as "Dalit". It is a political, not an ethnographic, category. People do understand what the bottom is but as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. -Mohanbhan (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the image is misleading. As Mohanbhan correctly points out, Dalit is a political category and the image misleadingly places it in the caste hierarchy. A reader would think that this is the caste structure of Hinduism and that's not the case. We're mixing apples and oranges in the image that's not just a bad idea but it is also WP:OR. --regentspark (comment) 15:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@regentspark Why are you misleading by calling the varna hierarchy a "caste" hierarchy? As I have clearly mentioned above Dalit is just a new name for the Panchama varna, which is also not a caste but a collection of castes forming a varna. Please get to know what the varna hierarchy is before worrying what readers would think. Your comment is a clear case of WP:LAWYERING -Mohanbhan (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dalit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160423052611/http://welfarepunjab.gov.in/SCpopulation.html to http://welfarepunjab.gov.in/SCpopulation.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent revert

I think there may be something useful in this reverted material but as it stood it seemed prima facie to misrepresent the source and I rather think that, like me, the contributor may have been working off the linked journal abstract rather than a full copy of the journal. It definitely needs to be reworded and it needs to be checked against other reliable secondary sources because this is the first time I've ever seen one refer to dalituthan etc rather than dalit. - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2018

don't add Scheduled tribes word in dalit comunity so please remove this from first line thank you. Kruking123 (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Scheduled tribes are main native people of india which are called aadivasis and they are not should be add in dalit. aadivashi can be backwards but they are live different life with their own culture and beliefs Kruking123 (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Please provide Your request in the correct format.

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

Also provide a reliable source for this change. URL will be ok. --DBigXray 15:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Traditions, rituals and customs

I believe the content in the article under the above section heading is on persecution of dalits for following caste Hindu customs, displaying their wealth or forming relationships with caste hindu women.These things have nothing to do with tradition, rituals and customs.I suggest "Social persecution" as the heading. Perhaps, others can come up with a better term.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Caste/Dalit diaspora in USA

Am just checking in to see if anybody is working on edits to the "Beyond the Indian Subcontinent" section to include the findings of the Equality Labs survey of 2016, [3] published in 2018. It's especially relevant since the backlash from the Hindu American Foundation (and others) regarding Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey's 'Smash Brahmanical Patriarchy' poster.Kingmeera (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hugely oversized lead

Everything past the first paragraph of the lead should be folded into the body of the article. It appears to me that most of it already exists lower down, but I'm not sufficiently confident of that to simply cut it out myself. pauli133 (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Dalit

Dalit/ दलित means oppressed and exploited. Karmavira (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The term ‘Dalit' has roots in Sanskrit where the root 'dal' means 'to split, crack, open'. ( This Indo-European root appears in German and English in the form of 'dal' or 'tal', meaning 'cut'. In English, 'dale' is a valley, a cut in the ground; in German, 'thal': a tailor is one who cuts; 'to tell a tale' is the same as 'to cut a tally', the cut-marks made by the shepherd on his staff when counting sheep.

'Dalit' has come to mean things or persons who are cut, split, broken or torn asunder, scattered or crushed and destroyed. By coincidence, there is in Hebrew a root 'dal' meaning low, weak, poor. In the Bible, different forms of this term have been used to describe people who have been reduced to nothingness or helplessness.The present usage of the term Dalit goes back to the nineteenth century, when a Marathi social reformer and revolutionary , Mahatma Jyotirao Phule (1826-1890), used it to describe the Outcastes and Untouchables as the oppressed and the broken victims of our caste-ridden society. Under the charismatic leadership of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (1891-1956), this term gained greater importance and popularity. This term is popular in all Hindu communities like in Nepal as well. During the 1970s, the followers of the Dalit Panther Movement of Maharastra gave currency to the term 'Dalit' as a constant reminder of their age-old oppression, denoting both their state of deprivation and the people who are oppressed. This term for them is not a mere name or title: for them it has become an expression of hope, the hope of recovering their past self-identity. The term has gained a new connotation with a more positive meaning. It must be remembered that Dalit does not mean Caste or low-Caste or poor ; it refers to the deplorable state or condition to which a large group of people has been reduced by social convention of past and in which they are now living. Karmavira (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

article feels a bit biased or subjective

do u feel the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rey0927 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Remove dalit page

I request you wikipedia administrator please remove all caste based article from wikipedia because everyone hurts by reading this kind of topics, my self not from dalit caste kindly remove this article from wikipedia if possible. Adsmohali (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is not possible. We try to have articles on every topic, regardless of whether they are historical or current. You may, of course, edit the article (along with reliable sources) if you wish. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Dalit are part of Shudras

Dalit are part of Shudras don't mention it as separate from 4 varna (based on their work) ...veda says all people are divided into 4 based on their work

even if you take doctors . if they work in hospital then they are Shudras ...same doctor if he is head of the hospital as part of businesses then he is Vaishya . there are only 4 varns .. depending on the what role they take during the work for living then are called in that varna .

if people don't work few days .. then they should not called out of verna.. for living they will take a role and live ... based on the role they have to be clarified .

Panchama means 5th . so the sentence "also known by the name of Panchama" is not complete . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.175.68.37 (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Sorry, we report what the reliable sources say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, its within these four caste there are subcastes. Karmavira (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Dalits are past Sudra Caste which was based on Sudra Varna in Veda.Varna, the term when coined meant vocation. With times priests and politicians including kings changed it to mean caste which was received by birth. Karmavira (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

However as they were not mentioned in 4 varnas we cant say that they where Hindus . Mahar's were Tribal and are Naag Vanshi From Samrath Ashoka and before and thus most probably they were Buddhist from very first and not Hindu Vivexx (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding details on S.P Kothari

The article cites a news article and claims "MIT Professor S.P. Kothari, argue that there is no caste division within Hindus in the United States today.". It refers news article : https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-03-08/us-isn-t-safe-trauma-caste-bias

However this is only half the information. MIT Professor S.P. Kothari's position should be disclosed in further details. The news article clearly explains "S.P. Kothari, chairman of the World Hindu Congress and a professor of accounting and finance at MIT’s Sloan School of Management,". Thus not only does he not have any credentials to speak on the subject, there is also a conflict of interest in defending the position of Hinduism(that created the problem of Castes and hence oppression of Dalits). Thus either we need to completely take off this part, or clarify full details about S.P. Kothari. Using his MIT credential (as if he is expert on the topic) is dishonest. -- Enjoyer of World — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caste Traitor (talk • contribs) 17:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed the mention of MIT. Since his opinion is being contradicted with authentic information, his opinion itself can stay, I think. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit by Aman.kumar.goel

The source clears states: "many incidents of religious intolerance with respect to Dalits. Since ages, Dalits have never been allowed to practice mainstream Hindu religion. " your text obscures that point. How do you wish correct that text to reflect the source? Because the current text does not reflect what the source says. Hardyplants (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The text in question is: "Most Dalits in India are Hindu. There are have been incidents which indicated that they were restricted from entering temples by high caste Hindus, and participation in religious processions."

The former text stated: Even though most Dalits in India are Hindu, they have been restricted from fully practicing the mainstream Hindu religion. They have been prevented from entering temples by high caste Hindus, and they have been prevented participation in religious processions. Hardyplants (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is the source material: "India is one of the most diversified states as far as religion is concerned. Freedom of religion in India is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. It ensures that all citizens have the right to practice and promote their religions. On the other side of the coin, there have been many incidents of religious intolerance with respect to Dalits. Since ages, Dalits have never been allowed to practice mainstream Hindu religion. Due to the lack of proper recognition in the mainstream of Hindu religion, Dalits have been adopting religions such as Christianity and Buddhism. Because of this, they are being brutally attacked by the so-called Hindu fundamentalists. As such, Dalits, who are around 20 per cent of the total population, have religious freedom in principle and lack the same in practice. In this critical game, Dalit Christians have been victimized in a greater sense. It is in this background that the article examines the constitutional obligations to offer freedom of religion in practice and the status on freedom of religion as it exists, especially with special reference to the Dalits. This article explores the incidents of religious intolerance which Dalit Christians face in India. Finally, this article summarizes, against the backdrop of some cases, the perceptions of Dalits and Dalit Christians on freedom of religion in India and their experiences." Hardyplants (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:SYNTH: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources."  This describes how you were editing, by adding your own summary by engaging in selective cherry-picking from the sources. What you have copy-pasted above is a mere summary of the PDF, but the PDF is overall in line with my edit. Your own copy-pasted text said "there have been many incidents of religious intolerance with respect to Dalits Since ages, Dalits have never been allowed to practice mainstream Hindu religion." This differs from your general statement. Also per WP:NPOV we need to use source more carefully which heavily depends on unreliable sources such as "indianchristians.in", "the-good-way.com" and others. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Your edit is not even close to what the source says because it has completely removed the information. The edit is whitewashe of the issue. So again how are you going to fix that issue? Your "complaint" about sources is nonsense, the source comes from: Centre for Regional Studies, School of Social Sciences, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. Department of Political Science, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. Hardyplants (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Whitewash would be far-fetched only in the case where the critical commentary was genuine. Utilizing a source just for sake of POV doesn't make up anything for the case. Do you even have access to the PDF? I have it, and I can guarantee you that it makes no mention of "temple", "mainstream", contrary to your misrepresentation and WP:OR. I can see it criticizes the attacks on churches and Indian laws on Dalit-related reservations but says nothing about the so-called summary you have copy-pasted above. Why you are even using a source you have zero access to? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Removed - 2021 Swaminarayan Akshardham controversy

Hi all, according to the cited article, the events occurred on the morning of 11 May 2021, and the article itself was written 13:22, only hours later. Therefore, this information should be considered breaking news which, "without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution." (WP:RSBREAKING) “Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies.” and it is better to wait for more accurate information that would come out as journalists gathered more facts. Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Harshmellow717, I definitely agree. This article contains a number of unproven allegations, and they should be left off Wikipedia until proven because the presumption is of innocence. [WP:SUSPECT] says that “editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured”. So, until a verdict is reached in court, I think it would be judicious to wait to add this. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

"2021 Swaminarayan Akshardham controversy" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2021 Swaminarayan Akshardham controversy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 26#2021 Swaminarayan Akshardham controversy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)