Talk:Untouchability

National Geographic source

The National Geographic source here needs to be treated with considerable care. For example, it says Hindus believe a person is born into one of four castes based on karma and "purity" — how he or she lived their past lives. which is then expanded upon and is complete nonsense. The statistics may be valid but the explanations are pretty dodgy because the writer appears to have misunderstood the basic concepts. - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes that article doesn't seem to be neutral, it is like some activist petition, it is written by a author who has written nothing except some content of a "children book". I will support the removal of that link. Sitush what you think about this book? We just have to mention that there is still some prejudice, nothing else. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That book is an excellent source, both in itself and as a means of tracking down further sources. I've used it quite a lot and have it on my "to buy" list. - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Nepal

how is it there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.27.235 (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

What does "untouchable" mean?

In Western cultures, the word means someone who is "above the law". While here it appears to mean the lowest of society, as you literally don't want to touch them. Is that correct?Kneel behind Zod (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Right, "untouchable" as a class literally means that upper castes could not physically touch them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.103 (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

More accurately; the law didn't prohibit the upper castes from touching untouchables. The law prevented untouchables from being where they or the ground they walked on or seats they sat on etc. might be touched by the upper castes. 98.164.71.229 (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"blacks in America and South Africa, and Hutu and Twa of Rwanda"

I removed this part of the sentence from the intro, since these groups are not listed in the untouchable groups section. I'd have no problem with this being restored if there are reliable sociological sources that say that these are untouchable. Smurrayinchester 11:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

As a class in the United States, blacks are not "Untouchable", since the U.S. is not divided formally into castes the way the social strata is arranged in India. There has been (and some would argue continues to be) segregation sanctioned both by law and custom including anti-miscegenation laws directed at blacks in the United States, but blacks are not as a class, "Untouchable". Using the looser definition given in this article of Untouchability, ALL societies have an untouchable class since ALL societies participate(d) in some form of discrimination. Untouchability as a caste is unique to India and since this article is about Untouchability and NOT discrimination or segregation generally, needs to be confined to a discussion about its existence in India, and not any other country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.103 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Why are "Romani" mentioned as untouchables in the end of the page?

It is bad if social phenomena like untouchability are captured by all kinds of special interest groups. Romani in Europe may be informally discriminated against and may have various social disadvantages (e.g., worse-than-average schooling etc.), yet they are not "untouchable". Nobody confines a Rom to certain jobs, there is no formal discrimination, and -- unless a Rom reveals this fact through clothes or otherwise -- people are not interested in whether somebody is a Rom, and they are not asked this question. Calling Romani "untouchable" by Roma advocates, making Roma helpless victims of a discriminatory environment, distracts from the real problems, many of which are rooted in Roma culture and lifestyle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.54.206.236 (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Very confusing article

This article is ostensibly about a general type of social group, which may in principle be found anywhere in the world. The paradigmatic example of this type are the Indian/Hindu "Dalits," who are/were excluded from the regular caste system, from most occupations, and from (most?) Hindu religious worship. Finding exact parallels to this situation outside the Hindu-dominated areas is difficult, and it is therefore necessary, at the outset of this article, to clarify exactly what the term "untouchable" does and does not mean. Instead, the article gives only a very vague and general definition, followed by a couple of names of groups which are otherwise not described. At the end of the article a list of other "untouchable" groups is given. The rest of the article, however, is devoted to Indian/Hindu conditions. In practice, therefore, the article is just another version of the (already existing) article on Dalits.

I am not a specialist on either untouchables or Hinduism, however, it would seem to me that there are two ways out of this undesirable situation:

(1) Merge this article with the existing "Dalit" article (which could also easily be improved), adding a section on how the "untouchable" category has been transferred from India to other places in the world, preferably including a passage on the conceptual problems attendant on such a transfer.

(2) Expand this article into a genuine treatment of the "untouchable" category. This would primarily entail a clear definition of the term. As it stands, the article confuses more than it enlightens. The Hutu are included. Black Americans are not. The Roma (in Europe only!) are included. The Jews are not. Why? This question is briefly addressed in a section here in Talk, which asserts that US Blacks are not "untouchable" because "the U.S. is not divided formally into castes the way the social strata is [sic!] arranged in India." But if that is the criterion, what about the Roma, or the Hutu, or Native Americans, or Somalis in Norway? Moreover, it is not very long since US Blacks were "divided formally" from the rest of society. It would seem that they at least could have been included as historically "untouchable" - like the Cagots (mentioned in the concluding list). Or perhaps "slaves" and "untouchables" are two different things? If so, the article does not mention it. --- So, a revised article would need a definition (including a negative definition of what "untouchables" are not). It also needs a shorter and more precise treatment of the paradigmatic (Indian/Hindu) example, and discussions of some (at least 4-5, I would think) empirical examples from outside the "hindusphere." Finally, it needs at least a short section on authors that object to the use of Hindu caste categories outside the Hindu world (Louis Dumont comes to mind).

I am not qualified to rewrite the article along the lines suggested above, but a simple google search of <slavery untouchables roma jews> brings up some suggestive titles, which might at least provide a starting point. Filursiax (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Filursiax: I Agree and I have added {{Globalize|2 = India}} accordingly. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The article is very confusing indeed. Untouchability is a term used largely in the context of India. Anecdotal evidence of ostracisation and extreme persecution of several communities from around the world have been misleadingly included under Untouchability in this article. While I partly agree with the proposal to merge this page with Dalit, I think there's also merit in keeping a dedicated page for it too. Untouchability is the practice to which Dalits have been historically subjected to, in India. I'm going to make some changes adding proper references over the coming few days.

In summary, this page has to be about Untouchability and not just any untouchability. It's a recognised phenomenon in sociology and history. chaos1618 (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

It has gone wrong because sociologists got involved, as also did dalit activists. The former tried to broaden the scope, the latter tried to twist it. Neither group were particularly good at phrasing things. However, the changes of today also cause problems, at least of the stylistic variety - see WP:OVERLINK and WP:LEAD, for example. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing the links to Manual of Style, Sitush. I've barely begun editing - will mind these things going forward. chaos1618 (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I would bet that 99% of incoming links to this article relate to India. That country is by far the one most associated with the practice, both in the public mind and probably in terms of numbers affected. Rather than globalise the thing, it could just be renamed Untouchability in India and let the sociologists have a field day with their ramblings elsewhere. As I said above, it is the sociologists and Dalit activists who have created all of the problems here, as they have also at articles about Caste etc. I've no idea why they are such crap contributors but that is how it is.

It is not difficult to write about untouchability in an Indian context. I just get fed up of having to deal with so-called experts who fling in stuff from far and wide with no thoughts towards many of our policies and guidelines, or coherence, or even how to write for a general audience. That's why I keep walking away from the thing. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Patrick Olivelle's Dharmasutras

@YourEditorNextDoor: In this edit, you removed Some recent theories of the origin of untouchability as a source, and added Patrick Olivelle's Dharmasutras as a source.

Please justify your removal of the earlier source. Also, please provide a page / section number in Patrick Olivelle's Dharmasutras book that supports your assertion -- the book doesn't seem to mention the words "untouchable" or "untouchability" at all. It does mention 'Outcaste' (1.20.14):

Social interaction with outcastes is not permitted, as also with degraded people. These are the actions causing loss of caste: theft; acts causing infamy; homicide; neglect of the Vedas; abortion; sex with the siblings of one’s mother or father or with their children; drinking liquor; sex with those with whom sex is forbidden; sex with a friend of one’s female or male elders or with the wife of another man — some maintain that there is no loss of caste when one has sex with a woman other than the wife of an elder—; and the persistent commission of unrighteous ( adharma ) acts.

A religious text is a primary source, and isn't a good source without scholarly analysis / commentary. Please have a look at WP:RS. utcursch | talk 15:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Ha! We edit-conflicted and your note here simply confirms some of what I was saying in my note above around the same time. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Outcastes = avarnas = untouchables I hope this answers ur query.Hindutva (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

If that's your source, it's not a good one - the passage doesn't say anything about the origin of the untouchability (which is what your edit pertains to), and as mentioned earlier, this is a primary source. utcursch | talk 18:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

English

Please Tok me 2409:4063:4005:D754:0:0:1DAE:C8A1 (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Untouchability

What is a untouchability 103.99.19.24 (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Baosnxkkxndksndb in ancient times

Baosnxkkxndksndb is rubbish and bye 223.230.24.67 (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)