Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconIndia Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Note icon
This page was last assessed in April 2023.
This page is a noticeboard for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India.
Click here to add a new section
Article alerts for WikiProject India

Today's featured articles

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(86 more...)

Proposed deletions

(19 more...)

Categories for discussion

(1 more...)

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Good article nominees

Requests for comments

Requested moves

(8 more...)

Articles to be merged

(33 more...)

Articles to be split

(21 more...)

Articles for creation

(155 more...)

This table is updated daily by a bot
Shortcuts

Wikipedia Meetups edit
Upcoming
none
Recent
Outside India
Past meetups

Request for Comment: should lists of members of castes be deprecated and extant such lists deleted[edit]

We have a multitude of lists of members of castes, such as List of Rajputs and List of Brahmins. We also have existing consensus relating to castes in WP:CASTEID and the consensus that we do not categorise people by caste. There is a tension between the lists and the current caste-related consensus, not to mention long-standing concerns regarding WP:BLP and WP:V. Deprecating caste lists, and deleting the extant ones, would resolve the tension. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • To repeat what I said in the section above, I'd like to see all of these caste lists deleted. They're mostly contrary to WP:CASTEID and the consensus on not categorising people by caste. They are timesinks. They are replete with BLP violations and poor sourcing, which in the case of Indian newspaper sources often is, I think, circular. They add little to our knowledge and attract the worst of caste warriors and SPAs. Some are already lengthy, almost unmanageable, and there is no end to it, as I said a few hours ago at Talk:List of Brahmins. - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per above and the discussion here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Per WP:RFCNOT, this is a matter for WP:AFD; I suggest a WP:BUNDLEd nomination. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I did say a wonk would pipe up <g> They need to be deprecated first, otherwise AfD will become overloaded & the lists (or others) will be created again. Bundled AfDs are themselves problematic. - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support deprecation and deletion proposed above. 76 years after India's Constituent Assembly adopted the provision: "Untouchability in any form is abolished and the imposition of any disability on that account shall be an offence." and 75 years after the framers of India's Constitution proposed derecognition of caste distinctions under Articles 15(2) and 16(2), it is high time. The lists serve no purpose than make the claim that the ancestral lines of their members have remained pure by marrying within their kind. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PS 75 years of affirmative action programs in India have lessened some caste-based economic discrimination, but not social and gender discrimination. For endogamy, or marrying within one's caste, has survived in India. A 2014 survey of Hindus found 95% marrying within caste in arranged marriages. Thus, it is not only caste, but also practices—such as dowry, female infanticide (or in the modern age feticide on the heels of an ultrasound), and the taboo on widow remarriage—that wall women out from owning the assets of caste, that have had a long stay in India. These lists do nothing but advertise pure blood lines created from endogamy. WP should have no truck with them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fowler&fowler, your comment that the existence of these caste lists on Wikepedia is encouraging social evils doesn't make any sense. You should remember that we are an encyclopaedia rather than social reformers. We are supposed to have article on any notable thing which exists or existed. Tomorrow, you may say that articles like Criticism of Islam and Islamic terrorism are encouraging Islamophobia, so they should be deleted. Such arguments are very weak. Dympies (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They are lists of purity of bloodlines, akin to pedigree registers. The Indian caste system is the oldest existing form of apartheid in the world. Please don't equate it with religion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support deletion of all such lists from entire Wikipedia per discussion above and for obvious reasons. Such lists should not be present in Wikipedia. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strongly support deprecation and deletion. Caste is supposed to be a thing of the past, isn't it? The existence of these lists just encourages our caste warriors. (If you think they are a thing of the past, you're mistaken.) Bishonen | tålk 09:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Wonk note: As far as I understand from WP:RFCOPEN, an RfC must have its own section plus an RfC tag with at lest one category at the top. This is so that Legobot will find it and include it in the right lists. I have added these features. Hope I did it right, please assist if I didn't. Bishonen | tålk 11:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • Strongly support - Caste is an obsolete concept and although caste is not based on race, the discrimination it creates is similar to that of racism. Sadly that discrimination still exists, even in the UK. We should have nothing on Wikipedia supporting it as these lists do. Doug Weller talk 10:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I also agree with the arguments made by NitinMlk below. Doug Weller talk 06:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per the above. – GnocchiFan (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. The parallels with racism are overt, and it is no part of Wikipedia's mandate to classify individuals in a manner likely to facilitate discrimination. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong support for deprecation, deletion, and sanctions in case of attempts to reintroduce. Violates WP:CASTEID, WP:PROFRINGE, and probably more, not to mention common decency. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment – Sitush, does this RfC also include ethnic groups and tribes of South Asia? I mean, does the RfC also include lists and article sections like the List of Pashtuns and Baloch people#Baloch people from Pakistan? Note that multiple groups of Pakistan and North-Western India are interchangeably described by different scholars as ethnic groups, castes, or tribes, which might be used as a loophole later on by the supporters of such lists. In any case, all these lists of castes, ethnic groups, tribes, etc. have hardly any encyclopedic value. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It certainly should, in my mind. Possibly Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, too. You are right that sources for Pakistan are far less consistent in which noun they use to describe these social groups but perhaps the bigger issue is that the closer of the CASTEID discussion - Armbrust - referred only to "caste". I'm also unsure whether that was a full-blown RfC or just a project-wide consensus (I suspect the latter). While I do know that no editor with experience has ever challenged me applying it to India or Pakistan articles, the wiklawyers could have a point if they chose to pursue it.
    It should also apply to in-article lists, not just standalone ones. The problems with such lists are the same, CASTEID still applies ... and if we don't opt for that then people might just start creating massive in-article lists at Rajput etc instead, thus just moving the perceived problem. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would be emphatically against including anything not associated with what Wikipedia's caste page describes as its "paradigmatic ethnographic example," i.e. "the division of India's Hindu society into rigid social groups." Indeed in my experience, pro-caste-POV editors, try to water down the insidious effects of the caste system in India by describing other forms of discrimination to be also caste-like, or by including some forms of discrimination among Hindus who have converted to Islam or Christianity to be the vestiges of their former Hindu caste. Nothing in other cultures or religions, or in converts to Islam or Christianity compares to caste.
You can have a separate RfC once this one closes and then invite WikiProjects Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, etc. to be on board. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This RfC has been advertised centrally, so those projects & everyone else are already invited. List of Muslim Rajputs and similar will not be prevented if the scope is tightly restricted to Hinduism but such lists are equally problematic, for the reasons I have outlined. If you give people space, the proposal is likely to be lawyered out of existence if it is accepted. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fowler&fowler, just to add that I get that you don't like the caste system. You'll be in a majority, certainly among educated people who have never been a part of it, but so far you have basically said "I don't like it" as your rationale for supporting the proposal. It won't wash because "I don't like it" isn't a policy etc and Wikipedia isn't censored. You need to consider the practicalities in the Wikipedia universe, not the emotions and theories. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not a question of liking or not liking. It is what the reliable sources say. It is reliable content. I was reacting mostly to List of Pashtuns or Baloch_people#Baloch_people_from_Pakistan being included under the rubric of caste. They have no connection. Caste is an ages-old fact of life in Hindu India going back to the mid-first millennium BCE, to the centuries after the arrival of the Indo-Aryans. The Baloch and the Pashtuns have always lain outside. They speak languages that do not have retroflex sounds—except perhaps for the pre-Aryan Brahui people-which Sanskrit adopted upon its arrival in India. We note the caste system's ancient history, and its connection to institutionalized misogyny, in the lead and ancient history sections of India.
@RegentsPark: and I noted its ancient history when we wrote the lead of Caste more than ten years ago. Caste is not just an ethnic category, if ethnic means language; it is a complex category. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact, now that I recall, you, @Sitush: and I noted the liberating effect of the British land-revenue experts on tiller castes such as Kurmi, for the British recognized that they did not seclude their women as the upper-castes did, this despite the over-zealous British ethnologists of that period. I apologize if I have wildly misunderstood the goals of this RfC, but venturing beyond Hindu India is risky, in my view. By this I mean, the RfC should not apply to any list that is not a legacy of Hindu India's caste system. So, I take back some of what I said above and the RfC would apply to List of Muslim Rajputs or Roman_Catholic_Brahmin#Notable_persons as it does to various lists of Hindu castes, but I don't believe it should apply to the lists of Baloch or other lists of ethnicities, such as List_of_Macedonians_(ethnic_group). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Updating Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NitinMlk and Sitush: Please note a 2012 RfC in Talk:Caste:Talk:Caste/Archive_4#RfC:_Does_the_article_minimize_the_centrality_of_India_to_the_notion_of_caste? which was closed by @Drmies: here. Their first concluding point was:

Scholarly consensus appears to be that the caste system is still of the greatest importance to Hindu India; vice versa, discussions of the caste system in secondary and tertiary scholarly sources note the centrality of Hindu India to the very concept of "caste".

Please also take a look at: Talk:Caste/Archive_4#Fowler&fowler's_scholarly_tertiary_sources_with_their_references_included. Including lists of tribes of South Asia in this RfC will be going down the rabbit hole. I could ask: where does South Asia begin, or end? If the Baloch of Balochistan, Pakistan are prohibited from having lists then why will not the Baloch of adjoining Sistan and Baluchestan province in Iran, who are ethnically similar, but don't reside in South Asia? Best to stick to caste and India, i.e. today's Republic of India. None of the other countries, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, or even Nepal (which used to be a Hindu kingdom) has a caste system like India's. Even the Hindus there don't. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are completely missing the point and swamping this RfC with tangential comments. I suggest we end this mini-thread-inside-a-thread before things are completely derailed. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I apologize, but please tell me on my user talk page why I am missing the point and why I should not consider Nitinmlk's suggestion to be part of a longstanding defensive dilution of the caste system in India, whose lead I had to correct here and here in 2017.
You are welcome to collapse the whole thread starting with Nitinmlk's off-topic comment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support – Even if we apply WP:CASTEID partially, only those people can be listed who publicly self-identify, which makes these lists nothing more than trivia. If we try to fix this by removing the living people altogether, they will literally become lists of dead Xs (where X stands for the caste name), which will make these lists even more unencyclopedic, as scholars don't discuss dead members of a caste exclusively. And if we apply WP:CASTEID properly, then there will be hardly any entry left in these lists, as caste hardly had a direct impact on the lives of the listed people. In all these scenarios, caste lists have pretty much no encyclopedic value. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I don't see a point in endless long lists of people unless they're useful for disambiguation. --RegentsPark (comment) 03:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • moderately Oppose I hate to play the Devil's advocate but the caste lists are *very* essential given that none of the caste pages are perfectly written. Self-identification is not needed for dead people. For example, if I need to know a list of Rajput or Bengali brahmin freedom fighters, caste lists provide a quick reference. If BLP violation is an issue, please protect the caste lists. Imagine how useful a caste list will be for someone who is trying to write an article on Rajputs in the 19th century(as an example). If I want to find a Baidya poet (for example) and I can quickly find him on the Baidya page due to the caste list. We even have a list of people based on religion or race. Castes differ as much as two religions. I am pinging other editors I have worked with for their opinions @Akalanka820, Dympies, Admantine123, MRRaja001, Jonathansammy, Satnam2408, Ekdalian, CharlesWain, and Satnam2408:. It looks I am in a minority but I really feel that caste lists is a very useful "feature" - not only for readers but also for editors. Thanks. LukeEmily (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Csnvassing or what? - Sitush (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sitush:, honestly no. I literally included almost every editor I have interacted with and could think of. In fact, with some of them I had strong disputes on other topics. I was going to include F&F and Fylindfotberserk too but noticed they had already replied.LukeEmily (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you know, Bhangis in India were the lowest of the low-caste untouchables whose society-appointed duty from time immemorial was carrying a basket filled with human feces collected from old-fashioned pre-flush toilets and avoiding the direct gaze as befitted their lowly status when the upper castes passed them on the streets. As you also know untouchability was abolished in India in 1947. So if a Bhangi who was four years old in 1947 self-identifies today as a Kanyakubja Brahmin, the highest of the very highest, the lord of the caste domain, will you accept it? If not, why not? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fowler&fowler, sorry for the late reply. In this case would we have two sources, one identifying the person as a Bhangi and the other where he says he is a Brahmin? In that case we could put a note or disputed tag. No, I will not accept if a known(via other sources) Bhangi identifies himself/herself as a Kanyakubja Brahmin. Even if untouchability was abolished, the caste still remains the same i.e. Bhangi in this case. He would no longer be considered untouchable but the caste has not changed.LukeEmily (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your response. I'm responding to your ping. I have taken this article off my watchlist for now.
I don't understand that. A person with a Kanyakubja Brahmin (KB) last name who self-identifies as KB you accept along with a source—which in the instance of celebrities are a dime a dozen in India— but a person with the last name Balmiki who self identifies as KB you don't. I'm assuming there are many KBs who have dropped their caste names.
What if the Indian Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage next week and two KB-same-sex couples adopt a child of unknown parents? What if that child has only a first name? What caste will it be? I think you and everyone else who is defending these lists are wading into very troubled waters, not much different from old-fashioned notions of racial purity. The purity of blood lines should not be touched with a ten-foot pole on WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose: I completely agree with the above comment from LukeEmily. Caste lists are very important for caste subject as it gives an idea about the notable people belonging to the group. I am against this entire narrative by some Wikipedians that caste system is dead or irrelevant in India today. As rightly noted by this Newyork times article, most Indians still cast their votes on the basis of caste. Had caste system been dead, why would a large chunk of Indians still use surnames which indicate their caste identity? These caste lists are as relevant as List of Pashtuns, List of Copts, List of Alawites, List of Kurds, List of Native Americans of the United States, List of Punjabis and List of Bengalis. Whether good or bad, caste system is a reality in India. We are an encyclopaedia, not social reformers. As long as the specific entries are supported by WP:RS, there is no harm in keeping these caste lists. I am of the opinion that this Indian caste specific policy of not mentioning caste if a person doesn't self-identifies needs to be re-discussed as well.Dympies (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you read the rationale? I didn't say the caste system was dead. - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no criteria for inclusion after 1947 when caste distinctions were abolished in India. Similarly, princely privileges were derecognized in India in 1971. So if I say I am the Nawab of Junagadh or Maharajah of Mysore today and produce impeccable pedigree, will you call me "Nawab of Junagadh," respectively, "Maharajah of Mysore" on Wikipedia? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - I am sure the RSS and the wider Sangh parivar would rejoice to see the caste lists and other markers that divide Hindu society disappear.This would in its small way work towards their Hindutva agenda of creating a narrowly defined monolithic casteless Hindu society.Historically caste has been central to person's identity in india just like religion has been in other parts of the world.It determined what you ate, who you married, your right to education etc. We are here talking about removing caste lists but many supposedly secular parties in India are demanding inclusion of caste in the next census questionaire. Oppression by other castes was central to B.R. Ambedkar's struggle for the rights of his caste and other depressed classes.If you take caste out then it would be difficult for readers understand the reasons for Ambedkar's struggle.I know I am digressing but getting back to the subject of the Rfc, I would keep the caste lists but strictly enforce the self-identication rule for living persons. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another one who is missing the point/didn't read what I said? - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only
which are three groups of amalgamated former-caste distinctions, are recognized in India today. Fine distinctions such as Rajput or Brahmin have been illegal since 1950. You are welcome to making lists of the first three mentioned above if WP's servers have that kind of storage, but what is your criteria for inclusion for Brahmins or Rajputs today? How is it any different from the claimants or pretenders, to the thrones of former princely states in India whose blood lines are just as "pure" as todays Brahmins or Rajputs? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: I agree with LukeEmily; at times, these lists may provide required information, and would be relevant to the information seeker! But such lists based on caste, tribe or community must be maintained strictly as per our policies. I have been protecting many such lists for years, since these are prone to vandalism & POV pushing! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with Jonathansammy. Mention of caste and the lists have encyclopedic value and they don't create any more issues for us since we have fairly made ourselves aware of WP:BLPCAT. While the proposal echoes positive sentiments to a fair degree, it nevertheless sounds like a perfect dream for Hindutva ideologues who wish there should be no caste on paper so that they can recruit more people in their Islamophobic crusade. CharlesWain (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They create a ton of issues. I have spent hundreds of hours fixing the things and I've never seen many other people more than dabble at it. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have just deleted a bunch of names at List of Ezhavas, including at least one possible BLP violation. That article has some protection in place but the rubbish is in there nonetheless. (I've also just spent several hours fixing wrongly categorised Koli people - something else that pretty much no-one else looks out for). - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sitush: Sir, its very unfortunate that veteran editors like you have to spare hours from your busy schedule to fix issues in these castelists. But we need to get to the root cause. WP:CASTEID which was formed as a result of a discussion needs to be revised. As per this rule, caste of a person can't be mentioned on our platform if he doesn't self-identify to be belonging to it. This rule has unnecessarily increased burden on us as we need to patrol these articles esp. for compliance of this particular rule which as per me, has been given undue importance. There are hundreds of newcomers who join this platform daily. Its very difficult to make them understand this complicated rule as its not a part of mainstream WP:Policies and guidelines but applies to Indian individuals only. You remove an entry today only to find that it has been re-added by an ignorant user after a while. This whole process is very tiresome. Dympies (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or List of Nairs? Again, it has a form of protection in place but I've just started to remove literally dozens of entries, many of which violate BLP. No offence intended but where have you all been during my rather lengthy absence? - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sitush, most of them are interested in different regions of India and they are not knowledgeable about other regions. Hence, the mistakes in caste articles and list of castes of other regions are avoided by them. But, this becomes a serious issue as someone who is not aware of the limitations of Wikipedia will end up getting wrong facts about caste of some XYZ notable person. BTW have you listened about recent Rajput-Gurjar controversy in India ? Many social groups end up having conflicting claim on notable people, after their death. I think you have proposed the right thing, but i am scared that we are moving towards making biographies caste neutral. If this happens, ample number of sources will be produced in future claiming Ashok Gahlot and even Narendra Modi to be Rajput or Brahmin.-Admantine123 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
List of Bunts, too. I've not even begun checking the cites, which invariably throws up more problems. It's like shooting fish in a barrel but, particularly with BLP issues, it is out of control. And cite checks are necessary due to the sheer incompetence of many contributors (+ their socks) but getting harder because so many Indian newspapers are going behind paywalls. - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look at my edits from 19:58 to 22:52 (UTC) today. Now tell me we don't have a problem, and I've only scratched the surface. So much for people paying attention. - Sitush (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just begun sifting through List of Rajputs - plenty sourced there but, as per usual, they are fake refs (ie they do not adequately support the claim being made). Again, there are BLPs involved. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dympies, you may be slightly confused. CASTEID does not underpin the need for self-identification of caste. It is WP:BLP which does that, and if you think we can get that changed then I wish you luck because you will need it. What CASTEID is saying is that caste should not be mentioned unless it has some impact on a person's life in a direct and relevant way. Yes, caste exists and is a regular fact of life for probably most Indians but it only has relevance to their articles here if there is a close connection between their caste and some facet we are referring to. For example, someone who heads a caste association, which we mention in their bio, has a very close, relevant connection to their caste which forms a part of their notability etc. On the other hand, the caste of an actor, even if self-identified, is almost never of any significance to their actions or the general reader (the 80% of the world which isn't India, roughly). For most articles here, caste has no bearing - it is "trivia" here even though, for example, it might mean they get preferred treatment in a school, temple or McDonalds (or be discriminated against in those situations). Of course, if it is trivial in the Wikipedia context, we shouldn't be recording it in a list, let alone their biography. - Sitush (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with Sitush and share the concern associated with such articles. Yes, the purpose of adding people to such list appears to be caste glorification sometimes. Some of the extensive caste lists exists here for some of the community (eg. List of Brahmins), whose members are very active on Wikipedia. They often violate self identification related rule to add members in caste lists. But, i think caste is still important part of identity of an Indian citizen, be it a person from any field. It is also an important part of one's biography. The lists are quick way to find Notable members of a particular caste group.-Admantine123 (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with LukeEmily. Caste has special importance. The caste list not only provides information but also encourages the progress of a caste. It expresses the contribution of that caste in the development of the relevant fields. Caste also plays a significant role in the biography of some individuals. Many castes have undergone caste movements or Sanskritization. We have mentioned this in the respective articles. However, this is only not an achievement of the caste. In my humble opinion, the caste list is also a significant aspect of caste achievements. If caste glorification is an issue (Actually, Sitush is correct too; it happens), then we need to keep a proper watch on it. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As you probably know, the Constitution of India didn't just abolish caste distinctions among the vestiges of old India; they eventually also abolished prince and commoner distinctions. On 28 December 1971, the Indian parliament abolished all princely privilege in India with these memorable words: "The concept of rulership, with privy purses and special privileges unrelated to any current functions and social purposes, is incompatible with an egalitarian social order." and the next day, the Gazette of India, made it official.
    So, will you allow "present ruler" in the fifth column of List of princely states of British India (by region). It is chock-full of living pretenders just as your lists of brahmins are chock-full of living pretenders. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fowler&fowler, the Indian Constitution doesn't abolish caste system as a whole. It abolishes caste based discrimination. At the same time, it gives a scope to low castes to rise in the form of positive discrimination efforts like reservation. I don't know if you are aware of it or not, but in Indian Army, most of the recruitments are based on caste. Its wrong to assume caste doesn't have relevance today. Dympies (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I already mentioned the three groups that are recognized in my reply to Jonathansammy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Article 15(1) of the Indian constitution says, "The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them."
    If the injunction to not discriminate against a class, in any form, confers recognition of the groups that comprise the class, then does India recognize racial groups? If so, which ones? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have no idea what you are implying here. We have no evidence to state that the existence of castelists on this platform goes against the Indian Constitution. And even if it goes, why should we care? We aren't bound to follow the Indian Constitution. Tomorrow you will say that as the Indian PM has been acquitted by the Indian Supreme Court for his role in 2002 riots, we should remove all the contradictory stuff from Narendra Modi as it is a contempt of court! Dympies (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They go as much against what is constitutionally recognized in India as fake claimants to long-abolished thrones do. (There are plenty of newspaper reports of their bogus crowning ceremonies.) There is no living Brahmin in India who was born after 1950, just as there is no living Maharajah of Mysore in India, not even a titular Maharajah. Both are relics of a long-departed age. Both are fakers if they claim they are. They are just people who have last names that once belonged to some Brahmins.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fowler&fowler, can you prove your point? I don't think so. If a Valmiki can have his caste mentioned on caste certificate for job reservation and a Jat can have it for army recruitment, then whats so special about Brahmins that they would get extinct? Infact, Kerala government released a list of forward castes in 2021 on High Court order. This thought that caste doesn't exist today seems to be your mere imagination. Dympies (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)yearReply[reply]
    Can we have list of unmixed negroes, lists of mulattos (offspring of "pure whites" and "unmixed African negroes"), list of quadroons (offspring of mulattos and pure whites)? There used to be quadroon balls in the American South way back when in which white men danced with quadroon women. So should Wikipedia have lists of quadroon balls in Mississippi arranged by county and year? Will Booker T. Washington be mulatto because he had reddish hair? Will File:Charley Patton (1929 photo portrait).jpg be octoroon because he might have had seven pure white great-grandparents and only one unmixed Negro great-grandparent? These lists of Indian castes are those of bloodlines, and therefore nothing but the perpetuation of old-fashioned racism on Wikipedia.
    So what if the government of India documents it? Should Wikipedia document it? Tomorrow, if the government of India begins to publish lists of Muslim-owned businesses, making them vulnerable to attacks by Hindu-right-wing zealots, should WP aid in a future Indian Kristallnacht?
    I wouldn't touch these Indian caste lists with a ten-foot pole. I'm stupefied that their existence on Wikipedia is being defended. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • :::::We don't have List of unmixed Negroes, List of mulattos, List of octoroons, List of quadroons, either. They are all relics of the dead and frightful past. WP can't have any truck with them like I said. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hey Fowler&fowler Yours and Sitush's concerns are very fair and reasonable. You know that the present social condition is responsible for this. I am concerned that some Indian media and some intellectuals still refer to caste quite liberally. In the Bengal region, you will find a strange similarity among various surnames. For example, Chittaranjan Das may also be thought of as Kayastha. These issues also need to be resolved. I think great editors like you and Sitush would find a path keeping all these things in mind. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
    The only solution is that we, experienced editors should regularly patrol these articles and we should keep removing the poorly or un-sourced material. All the India related articles are contentious in nature and suffer from too much of edit warring. But we can't give up and say, lets delete all India related articles! Dympies (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Patrolling isn't the only solution. And in 16 or so years, despite a shedload of discussion, there is precisely one "experienced editor" who does the patrolling. There are/have been a couple who keep an eye on a specific group in which they are interested but even on those I find problems. I routinely get pinged to help out with these lists. - Sitush (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    CR Das may have been part of a kayastha social milieu of a turn-of-the-20th-century Bengal, but we can't say the same even about his protégé Subhas Bose who was in the next generation, let alone about those claiming to be kayasthas today. The kathastha, for example, in the North-Western Provinces in the early 19th-century were identified with scribal professions, with knowledge of Urdu. How are they identified today? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Having gone through the whole discussion I think Sitush is right.Eduardo2024 (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also Assamese Brahmin is worth of a mention, maybe problematic claims and sources are there.Eduardo2024 (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please check the List of Meitei people article also. Eduardo2024 (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eduardo2024, most entries are unsourced there. You may remove them. This is the basic of editing on this platform. Please stick to the topic. This discussion is not for discussing individual lists. Dympies (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose as long as self-verification of modern-day people is met; as long as verification of historic people is met; as long as there are no technical issues in the length of the articles; i see no reason why all the lists should be deleted. In fact, lists are better to manage than categories. (I support exclusion of biography articles from caste categories on grounds of difficulty of maintenance.)
    And i absolutely see no f-ing reason what have these lists to do with Constitution of India?! Am sure no one is gonna file a case on Wikimedia; and even if they do, i think Wikimedia will simply come out of it on some silly technical grounds saying their servers are not located in India or something such. And i also dont see any valid reason on why should morality of society or legal validity of castes in society come in picture here. Constitution prohibits negative discrimination based on caste, but also has provisions of positive discrimination; and in neither case prohibits identification/recognition of caste. Also we are not censored. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree completely that the Constitution issue is irrelevant. I said it here a couple of days ago and Fowler&fowler really needs to stop banging on about it. It is a distraction: we cover many things on Wikipedia which are illegal here & there, which offend people here & there, which seem "odd" to those not affected by it, which are historic/anachronistic, or whatever. And that is why articles about the castes themselves will always be present which, logically, wouldn't be the case if we extended Fowler&fowler's sentiments. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really no "f-ing" reason? What special genus of reasons might that be? So will you accept list of octoroons passing as whites (see above for the definitions) and will Lena Horne be in your list? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about stopping to give examples as arguments? The discussion can go on and on if we sit giving examples of "how if". I would suggest F&F to argue based on Sitush's basis or put forth some new basis other than OSE or OS-doesn't-E.
Answering Sitush's original argument; issue of maintenance is not valid reason for any deletion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maintenance is a big BLP issue & I've already shown that we don't have a grip on it. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can start with semi-protecting / fully-protecting all the lists and then trimming them based on verification. I don't mind them staying protected for an unreasonably long time too to steer off vandals. Maybe a year or two from now editors will get hang of what exactly is the inclusion criteria for a list. (WP:INDICSCRIPT is seeing good success over time now to remove all indic scripts from leads. Same will happen here over time.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you haven't looked at the ones I have mentioned. Most already have forms of protection on them. No admin is going to be keen to fully-protect for a year etc because it defeats the purpose of the encyclopaedia. Equally, few will learn from such a move: after a year, there will just be a new swarm of clueless and warriors. (I've cleaned a lot of INDICSCRIPT this last week or so.) - Sitush (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We know from the statement of the conclusion of the Human Genome Project that race is not a biological category, only part of a socially constructed classification.
We also say in the featured article India, "Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west. The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, and free peasants, but which excluded indigenous peoples by labelling their occupations impure, arose during this period."
So, we are talking between 3,000 and 2,500 years of unswerving racism, making the Indian caste system the world's oldest extant system of apartheid. Why should we support its vanities? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Be it extant or extinct; WP covers them both. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: To prevent an endless expansion/proliferation of caste lists on Wikipedia, avoiding maintenance issues and the attraction of caste warriors, I suggest implementing a cutoff point. After the prevalence of Western-style education in India (around the 19th or 20th century), access to skills shifted from being solely inherited through generations to being attainable through community institutions like colleges and universities. Therefore, I propose that the list should include only historical entities and exclude modern ones since universities took over the role in nurturing skilled populations. This approach acknowledges the historical importance of caste in India's economic system while adapting to the changes brought about by modern education systems. Have a read of this Imaginie (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I entirely disagree.
First, I don't think that paper is the first, even in developmental economics. See the lead of Raksha Bandhan and the reference to developmental economist Bina Agarwal in the quotes box.
Second, in much of Hindi-speaking north India, it is not only endogamy but also territorial exogamy. A female out-marries, far away, and her parents by custom don't visit her in her married home, leaving her vulnerable to mistreatment by the in-laws. A dowry ensures that she has no part of the share of the assets of her natal home. Her assets in her married home, in any case, are not her dowry, but what her in-laws, husband, or male sons (if any in later life) deign to give her. If she is widowed, especially if she has no brother and no sons, she becomes a nobody, wiped off the face of the earth, and sometimes consigned to boarding houses for widows in Varanasi or other Hindu holy places. Even with a husband who is alive, her position is not always secure. Wife abandonment among Hindus in rural India, especially of wives who don't have sons, is much higher than are divorces among Muslims.
Third, western-style education for India's elite began in the late 18th century. See Company rule in India. The first colleges were founded in the early 19th century and the three major universities—Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras—in 1857 at the very end of Company rule. The skills they imparted were bureaucratic skills, and the recipients were the male elite. Women and lower castes were left out.
Fourth, the traditional skilled castes such as goldsmiths, silversmiths, blacksmiths, potters, carpenters, market gardeners, ... or service castes such as dairymen, washermen, barbers, ... did not inherit their professions, they were apprenticed, most often to an elder male in the family. Your cutoff point works only for a small upper elite. These traditional castes have still not gone to college, probably not even to vocational school.
Fifth, 70% of Indians have not finished secondary education. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you misunderstand the state of employment and education in India. (My congratulations to you. Registered user for under a day and you find this discussion.) - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am now taking this page off my watchlist for a week, so disappointing has the "oppose" discourse been to Sitush's excellent RfC proposal. As I stated above, I am stupefied by the vehemence of the opposition. They have been summoned and have turned out in droves. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS I have an excellent memory. I will remember their names, not to exact revenge, but to be aware what views they might be promoting on WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: I went through some other lists of people from other corners of the world like List of Native Americans of the United States, List of Kurds, List of Pashtuns. I found similar issues like we are discussing here. The lista are very long, hardly any entries are sourced; BLP entries are also unsourced, let alone self-identification. Despite all this, there is a relative peace in those lists because they don't have overconcerned people around them like we have for castelists. Comparing those articles to ours, I find our castelists in a much better position.
Secondly, I see many people justifying removal of castelists citing maintenance issues. The maintenance of articles completely lies on us. If we want to improve quality of these lists, we need to devote time and keep watch on them to check compliance of WP guidelines. If the condition doesn't get under control, we should ask admins to provide extended protection to the articles. Its an effective way to stop vandals. If we don't have enough time for all this, we should rather leave them to other editors as there are things which are far more important in our lives. Dympies (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A lot of them already have protection. Never underestimate the obstinacy of a caste warrior. And the fact is that many of these lists have only really ever been watched by me, and I'm pretty sure that will apply again in a few weeks after a little flurry of group effort - it's a pattern. As for non-Indian lists you looked at, well, WP:OSE. - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just had a quick look at the List of Brahmins and saw several discrepancies that you allude to. Policing a broad all India list like this would be a huge task because there might be dozens of groups claiming to be brahmins. Having said that, I have no objection to lists based on subcastes because the number of notables would be much smaller, and therefore easier to police. My additional two cents to the debate.Thanks for coming back to India related topics.You do bring sanity to the articles. Regards. Jonathansammy (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you Jonathansammy that this particular List of Brahmins should be deleted. If we see the definition of caste, Brahmin is a varna rather than a single caste. In general, an Iyengar won't marry Iyer, a Kashmiri Pandit won't marry a Jammu Saraswat Brahmin and a Gaur Brahmin won't marry a Dadich Brahmin. These communities which we refer as Brahmin sub-castes are actually independent castes which share varna with other Brahmin communities. Considering this, List of Brahmins is not needed when we already have lists like List of Kashmiri Pandits, List of Chitpavans, List of Maithil Brahmins etc. Dympies (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, again you are listing individuals who have purity of blood lines. You are making WP a resource for checking if the blood line of a celebrity Hindu in India is pure. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. It is a common platitude that WP is not a phone book. This is much worse. "WP is not a stud book" should be added to WP policy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: There is nothing like purity of blood in this whole world. The entire human race is an admixture of different sub-races. Caste identity doesn't guarantee genetic purity by any mean. Caste depends on social status. If a child along with his family identifies himself as Brahmin and society accepts them as Brahmins, we, at Wikepedia, will call him Brahmin. We are not here to conduct his DNA test to find out whether the child in the family is a biological son of his parents or not. This rule applies to every BLP and in every context. If Virat Kohli says that his parents' names are Prem Kohli and Saroj Kohli, we would write their names without hesitation. If he says, he is an alumnus of Vishal Bharti Public School, we would accept it as such. Dympies (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two castes may be diametrically opposite but racially very close. From Gadgil:"For instance, in western Maharashtra the Rigvedic Deshastha Brahmans are genetically closer to the local Shudra Kunbi castes than to the Chitpavan Konkanastha Brahmans (Karve and Malhotra 1968)".[1] LukeEmily (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All this racial purity/genetics stuff is irrelevant to the proposal, although I am intrigued that reliable genetic studies of such groups existed in 1968 - that article & its sourcing needs a close look, regardless of this discussion! - Sitush (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why you are using these old writers to propagate these things? Do you really think Chitpavans are different to Deshashta? Do you think Ms Karve used any scientific data to make that conclusion. Ideally, these things should be decided by the autosomal genetics data with modern scientific scrutiny, which is definitely available. Unfortunately, Wikipedia as a platform is giving too much weightage to older sources here more than the modern genetic results and that is reflected in various caste articles too with all types of theories. Akalanka820 (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per Sitush. Also, I always had my doubts about the encyclopaedic value of these lists and the purpose they serve other than being a playground for racist vandals. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, and very strongly. The primary policy issue here is WP:CENSOR. I fully understand the emphatic objections and the references to §15(2) and 16(2), but those are reasons to keep this information, not delete it. Fowler&fowler's argument are directly on point and directly opposed to their conclusion. The fact that the evil of caste-driving division still exists is a critical reason that we need these lists and categories. As an encyclopaedia, we cannot simply ignore or deprecate offensive or unpleasant realities. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PS Yes, the evil very much exists. After all, 95% of Hindu Indians still marry within their caste in arranged marriages. Arranged marriages, the bane of India's latter-day caste system, are not going anywhere in a hurry. But that is not the point @Last1in:. Rather it is that there is already a consensus WP:CASTEID, which states, There is a clear consensus against including the caste of persons in biographies, if the caste doesn't have any impact on the person's life. And even in this case, there needs to be self-identification, which is reported by reliable sources per the biography of living people policy.
    Most entries in these Lists of --- don't pass muster at CASTEID. The lists are indiscriminate, so indiscriminate that managing them takes too much time and no one is up to task. As such, they serve no encyclopedic purpose. If you are looking to reverse CASTEID, that is your prerogative; then you should propose that here in a separate RfC, but the support or oppose votes in this RfC need to be made in light of what already exists, Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - I get that the purpose of this suggestion is well-natured and I agree with it in principle. But, I hope it doesn't become an exercise where we are actually "riding the crest of the wave of change" ourselves. Wikipedia is, by design, supposed to be "behind the curve". Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. The sad reality is that the Indian society is still entrenched in casteism. Moreover, I find a list such as List of Dalits actually useful to see the accomplishments of people from the most suppressed community in India.
Padurina (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - These caste lists are a shit-show and seem to be really difficult to maintain. There should be a stricter criteria for what caste lists should exist. To illustrate - a list of Dalit cricketers has more encylopedic value than a list of Brahmin cricketers. 99% of the caste lists hold zero encyclopedic value and could probably just exist as categories. Wrythemann (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On a side note - Is there a brave admin willing to take a call on this? This discussion has already run its course.Wrythemann (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Madhav Gadgil; Ramachandra Guha (31 March 1993). This Fissured Land: An Ecological History of India. University of California Press. pp. 84–. ISBN 978-0-520-08296-0.

Request for Comment: Should we mention OBC credentials of Narendra Modi[edit]

I mentioned Narendra Modi's OBC credentials in his "Early life and education" section but my edit was reverted. Then the matter was discussed at Talk:Narendra Modi here but we couldn't reach a consensus. Should we include the following line in "Early life and education" section of Narendra Modi:

He belongs to an OBC community.[1]

Dympies (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


References

  1. ^
  • Support: Its a well known fact that Narendra Modi belongs to an OBC community. He has publically said this several times that he belongs to a backward caste. His OBC identity has been widely published in the media which proves its relevance in his social and political career. So, inclusion of the said line should not be a big deal. Dympies (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A class of people in Indian society are also adamant to highlight time and again that Narendra Modi belongs to a Backward Caste. I don't know why. Interestingly, this class doesn't belong to Modi's own caste. Adding caste of Modi to his article is as much relevant as adding caste of his mighty cabinet members.-Admantine123 (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you can contesting his OBC credentials? If yes, then this Wire source is for you. Dympies (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I think we should also include a footnote that include a note on how his OBC credentials have been questioned by the opposition.
Wrythemann (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I beg to differ with you, Wrythemann. There are many political statements which are outright false. The opposition calling him a "fake OBC" should be seen in that light only. The Wire source clears that the questions raised on his OBC credentials are not justified. Our platform should be truthful without giving undue importance to such political statements. Dympies (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. Wrythemann (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • support caste name but oppose OBC/BC etc:Caste is entrenched in Indian society much more than race is entrenched in the US society. And I believe it affects more, in education, employment, politics, etc than race does in the US. In fact, unless a person is living isolated from society like Tarzan, it is impossible that a caste does not affect him/her. It would be better if we mention his actual caste rather than categorize it as OBC/forward. [updated]The OBC or BC classification should be left to the caste specific page. The OBC status of castes change so should not be on Modi's page. LukeEmily (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We obviously can't mention his Ghanchi caste as we don't have a primary source for that. I disagree with your rationale for opposing mention of OBC. If status of caste changes, nothing stops us from updating the page. Dympies (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi there @Dympies I beg your pardon, its not Ghanchi, his actual caste is Hindu Ghosi. Their occupations are totally different. Hindu Ghosis primarily raise cattle and supply milk. Whereas, the Telis supply oil. Both are OBC. I am neutral about including his caste, at the moment. I agree there are ample sources that say Modi comes from OBC background.
    Regards Nirmohiji (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nirmohiji, his party claims that his caste is Modh Ghanchi or simply Ghanchi. See this. Dympies (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Dympies You are right about him being a Ghanchi. I had mistaken Ghanchi for Ghosi earlier. Thanks for the information. I personally think Modi's caste is not a very important factor. People certainly do not vote him for his caste. It true that he known for his work not caste (good or bad).
    As per the current political scenario, it is fair to say that OBC vote bank is the most important vote bank in the country (India/Bharat).
    And I'll not be surprised if Modi's opposition alleges that "Modi wants to lure OBC voters and that is why he is presenting himself as an OBC". But
    No community stands behind him (not even his caste) like the RSS. And like it is said by the RSS members commonly, Sangh is a family itself. His Family is RSS. And also the BJP.
    I continue to remain neutral on the inclusion of Narendra Modi's OBC credentials.
    Thanks again Nirmohiji (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:2023–24 Indian Federation Cup#Requested move 4 September 2023[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023–24 Indian Federation Cup#Requested move 4 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Muslim period in the Indian subcontinent#Requested move 8 September 2023[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Muslim period in the Indian subcontinent#Requested move 8 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 16:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MP 11th lok Sabha[edit]

Can anyone share me direct link of profile of Sukhlal Kushwaha ,Member of Parliament from Satna Lok Sabha constituency for 11th Lok Sabha. From here [1] Admantine123 (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2016 Indian Line of Control strike has an RFC[edit]

2016 Indian Line of Control strike has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gotitbro (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Green's 5th Edit-a-thon[edit]

Hello Noticeboard for India-related topics:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics&oldid=1176493021"