Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forward Castes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per consensus – Pea ceNT 07:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forward Castes

WP:NOR Ikon |no-blast 08:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a pure propaganda work. The term has no meaning and has been poorly defined.Since, no sociologist has backed usage of this term, it is violation of WP:NOR.also a neology considering article Bhurabal was deleted on similar grounds. Ikon |no-blast 08:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yogendra yadav and Sathish Pande are most famous sociologists and they have used these terms here.I can provide reams of evidence about usage of these terms.Word Upper caste/Forward Caste yields 664000/1300000 hits in Google.Do you think "no meaning" word has been used so frequently by columnists,government sites,news articles,sociologists etc etc. --Indianstar 12:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sociologists do not define OBC,SC,ST,FC etc.They use these concepts for analysis. Government defines these terms for offering reservation benefits.These words are used atleast since 70's when Karpoori thakur formula was implemented in Bihar.[1](May be much earlier than that.)All sociologists who have done research on caste matter has used words like Forward Caste & Upper caste. Nichalp has provided proof for Government defining these words. You can see proof for Government/Prime Minister using these words[2][3]--Indianstar 00:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phps you are not aware most of these terms are well defined by noted sociologist srinivasan, and govt has only bought his ideas on these caste issues.Infact it was to his credit that has simplified caste based study.But he didn't define this term. Ikon |no-blast 07:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are unique and interesting.If we show news articles as citations then you say Indian news papers lack journalistic standards.If we show government sources then you say it is not valid source.If we show sociologists,politicians,prime minister using these words then you keep mum.If sociologists don't back up the term then why they are using these words.You can see Yogendra yadav defining the term in one of the FAQ.[4].You can also see that he has estimated upper caste population as 33%.If there is no definition and there is no basis for classification then how sociologists like him have estimated population?Even if we assume Indian news papers lack journalistic standards,why others are using the word frequently.You are also agreeing that sociologists like srinivasan have used these words. Why does he use it if he does not back up the term. How words used for many decades will become neology?

Keep – Bad faith nomination. Does a sociologist need to certify that the word goes into a dictionary? Word has been used here. Perhaps upper caste would be a better name to the article title? (That returns more credible online hits) =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to say every word that is used in a newpaper article should have an article n wikipedia???? Ikon |no-blast 10:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC).Is there any criteria for classifying ppl on these lines clearly violates WP:NOR. Ikon |no-blast 10:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that. But when you imply that a sociologist needs to back the usage of the term is rather pointless when the word is widely used. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite clearly upper caste would be the more appropriate name for the title. The term "exists" and is defined. It is certainly not original research since the term appears in credible citations. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we need expert opinions on what the term means otherwise it compromises the integrity of wikipedia.indian newspaper do lack in journalistic standards and wikipedia should not fall to that level. Ikon |no-blast 10:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you feel that Indian newspapers lack journalistic standards. But the fact of the matter is that long established newspapers with widespread coverage are considered to be primary sources. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources), and claiming otherwise to suit the outcome of this nomination would be best be called personal opinion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you notice WP:RS invalidates sources which may have proven motives behind them, and do you wonder why sociologists do not entertain this term. Ikon |no-blast 10:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this debate have to be on your personal opinion? What motive could a newspaper have which is just reporting the facts? =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment of yours is of course your own personal opinion about me and has nothing to do with the debate.Had these been facts it would have been defined by experts in the field , the only FACt about it is its a fiction used by propagandist journolists having no or very poor knowledge of sociological terms. Nobody knows what the term mean. Ikon |no-blast 11:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making a personal opinion about you, rather the fact that you are debunking newspaper reports as not credible since they lack "subject matter experts". Articles in newspapers are definately peer reviewed before published. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is the case with Indian newspapers specially, had it been true the term would not have found usage in the first place.Yes, they are credible when you talk of incidents but not when you talk of concepts.Can you identify Forward Castes????? Ikon |no-blast 11:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get one thing clear. Do you agree that upper caste and forward caste mean the same? =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both means nothing infact. The usable terms are Backward caste, OBC,Scheduled caste , and Dominant caste. Infact two visible entries on the page viz., Marathas and Jats are Dominant castes called Shudra in British census.Can you resolve the anamoly. Ikon |no-blast 11:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The government of Kerala has used the word upper caste. Still not convinced? The Ministry of Minority Affairs has also used the word "upper caste" here. Would the goverment of India and Kerala be faulted for using these terms? =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first link gives vague reference at one place that there are houses of Brahmins nd other upper caste(But who it does not tell, might be motivated to call these ppl upper without creating furore on who they are, as is normal in indian psyche).But next link is what sd open ur eyes, the data given doesn't use this term. Ikon |no-blast 12:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion that "I should open my eyes". Look at the pdf sourced from the Ministry of Minority affairs. Browse to page 5 (26 of the pdf), where it is mentioned in the second point of the third bullet of B: Hindu — General Category/Hindu-Upper Castes (these two terms are used interchangeably). Now this pdf is a report by the Prime Minister’s High Level Committee, in other words the credibility of the source cannot be disputed. It satisfies the verifiable clause, and the meaning of "upper caste" is clearly and unambigiously defined there. I don't find any other fault with the article, as you claim. I am now completely convinced that this nomination is in bad faith. I won't waste my time justifying a well known and supported fact. Thank you =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Bad faith nomination. Upper caste/Forward caste will result in so many hits in google. These words are used frequently by politicians on daily basis.Article has so many citations which will show how these words are used in many surveys,news articles etc--Indianstar 12:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infact anyone who uses this term don't know their own mind, nor they understand whom they are referring to.Infact apart from Brahmanas in south nerly everybody was called shudra in south, so is the case in north. Can anyone tell what exactly the word means and what is the basis of classification. Ikon |no-blast 12:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forward caste or Upper caste definition is nothing to do with varna system. Why do you confuse with the word Shudra which is part of varna system.There are forward castes from all four hierarchies. There are backward classes from all hierarchies except brahmins.(West Bengal govt. has declared Tyagi caste as OBC which is supposed to be Brahmins.??) Basis of classification is all recognisable Indian castes which are not part of OBC,SC/ST list.This is clearly mentioned in the articles.--Indianstar 12:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea may be good but don't you think it is original research on your part violating WP:NOR. Ikon |no-blast 13:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously think that this word has been used by Laloo prasad yadav[5],CPM Leaders[6],Congress Leaders [7],Vajpayee[8],Mayawathi[9] without knowing its definition.I have not invented the word Forward caste or Upper caste through my original research. It was being used even before I was born. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Indianstar (talk • contribs) 15:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My definition is taken from Yogendra yadav's FAQ.Citation is given in the article.--Indianstar 13:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what "no original research" actually means. It means that a user's findings without any credible review constitutes to be original research. Citing a credible source invalidates the NOR. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - extremely notable term. This afd smells of trolling.Baka man 17:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deletion rationale is invalid as shown by Nichalp. Flyingtoaster1337 16:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or delete In the 21st century it seems inapproptiate to label the disadvantaged and discriminated-against half of the population of a country as "Backward" which Wiktionary defines as "Reluctant or unable to advance," "undeveloped or unsophisticated" leaving the top 1/3 labelled as "Forward." How does the "backward people" "forward people" labelling not violate WP:BLP? Edison 16:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but the labelling of previously socially disadvantageous castes as "backward" has little to do with the current status, but rather politics, and political lobby groups. So, in India today, if you are born into a caste that used to be once oppressed, you are labelled as belonging to the "backward caste", even though you may be financially and socially well off (called the "creamy layer"). The wiktionary defination needs to be updated. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - poor writing is not a reason for deletion, and this article meets (or can meet) the actual criteria for inclusion. Argyriou (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infact all the keep votes are from Hindutva trolls, closing admin should look into the matter and invalidates their votes. Nichalp has failed to show it does not violates WP:NOR and still says I don't understand it. By his own interpretation, the term which is not even properly defined, they have created their own definition,when advancement itself is prohibited, how can one propose fresh theories!!!!! Ikon |no-blast 06:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Hindutva troll. Do you have any arguments which aren't personal attacks? Argyriou (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stick your discussions to project.Do not attribute wrong motives.WP:FAITH. Me or Nichalp has not edited Hindutva related articles,most of the voters are Non-Indians.We have given citations for sociologists usage of terms,definition given by famous sociologists[10],usage by government agencies,definition in government reports,usage in news articles,usage of terms by political leaders etc.If required I can show many more citations like court judgement,usage of terms by many more sociologists etc.Citations given to prove word is not neology and is being used for many decades.--Indianstar 07:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word used for residual caste is GENERAL Caste in any govt gazzette not Upper/Froward caste as you are proposing.It wd be better to do away with usage of this term.further on non indian issue do you think ambroodey, Baka and others are so because they are logging in from offshore. Ikon |no-blast 13:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of WP:NOR states that Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. We have cited reliable sources. The ball is in your court to contradict that media sources and the PMO document are not reliable. Please assume good faith before accusing us of having a set agenda. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, the sources you have cited are not reliable because they are loosely connecting General category ppl to Forward caste.No theory exists which calls these gen. catagory ppl as Forward or upper in any sense.Media sources are not relied upon in any reserach work, infact it will surprise you to know that very same ppl whom you have quoted will loathe from using this word in their research work.BTW Yogendra Yadav is not a sociologist he is a statiscian, who formulates theory on quota and reservation for govt and also does trend analysis during elections, playing with stats.So what makes him notable is data and its analysis not sociological concepts, even though he boasts of being a senior fellow in centre for developing societies, his role is that only. Ikon |no-blast 11:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more interesting argument.Prime Minister's high level committee report is not reliable!!.Sathish deshpande along with Yogendra yadav pioneered research paper given by me is working as professor of sociology in Delhi universiy.(Citation quotes that).Why Oxford university's department of sociology is inviting Yogendra yadav for its research work?[11].Beyond this,I don't want to argue whether Yogendra yadav is sociologist or not?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.