Talk:Caste system among Indian Christians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article 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.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale by the India project.

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Sources only address Catholic christians no other denominations 2 Finger Pointing 3 christians 4 Contradictions 5 PCLM 6 References 7 Are you blind?

[edit] Sources only address Catholic christians no other denominations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Finger Pointing

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

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

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

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

[edit] christians

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

“

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

”

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

“

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

”

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

Bakaman 22:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Contradictions

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

“

appears among some sections of (usually Catholic) Indian Christians

”

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

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

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

[edit] PCLM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The TOI article mentions "Dalit Christians", period.

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

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

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

Quotes please (Webster and Koshy).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“

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

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] References

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

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

[edit] Are you blind?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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