Talk:Mariamma Chedathy

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

India: Kerala Low‑importance

	India portal 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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Kerala (assessed as Low-importance).

Christianity: India Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Christianity in India (assessed as Low-importance).

Caste cats

Already decided on Wikipedia_talk:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics/Archive_18#Caste_lists_vs._Caste_cats. There's no need for casteist based vandalism of the article.Baka man 16:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalit is not a caste, so I guess no problem here huh Baka?--Kathanar 19:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Again, the consensus on INB was not to categorize people by trivial clan/tribe/caste/community monikers. Adding the dalit tag is still casteist vandalism. However I find it interesting that another wikistalker decided he had to agree with you.Baka man 22:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, categorizing somebody as "Dalit" is overcategorization. It's akin to categorizing article on every Indian/Hindu as Brahmin/Kshatriya/Vaishya/Shudra/Dalit. Dalit is not an ethnic or religious group. The article is already categorized by ethnicity and religion (Malayali people, Indian Christians). utcursch | talk 05:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, but it is not akin to categorizing every different caste group, it is the rejection of caste identity and recognition of a group of people from a particular circumstance. Dalit has other connotations, especially political ones. Dalit is the adopted name of a group fighting against thousands of years of institutionalized oppression. Dalit is doing exactly what you want it to do, as it rejects or removes the caste category and unifys disparate caste groups. Some people, due to their own bias and political agendas or bent, would like to do away with it, as it serves as recognition and a reminder of historical and present transgressions. Btw did Baka bring you into this or did you stumble upon our discussion by yourself?--Kathanar 12:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utcursch was part of the original discussion, after a string of AFD's of List of Nairs, List of Iyers, etc were brought to AFD. Dalit is a political moniker used to gain reservation in college. The Gujjars, while being more of a Kshatriya group claim to be dalit now. By your own definition, Dalit is a POV term. Burakumin are the Japanese version of this, yet there is no Category:Burakumin. People in Japan do not let their kids marry burakumin either. Category:Dalit is used for events and organizations relating to Dalits, not people that some believe as Dalit.Baka man 16:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utcursh can't answer for himself Baka? Unless you don't want him to answer that question. Utcursh, I rather you not allow Baka to be your mouthpiece, but unfortunately, as he tends to jump in, that might be hard to do.

The initial opposition to Dalit being used is that it was a caste name, Baka admits now that Dalit is not a "caste" name. He said "Dalit is a political moniker....", so it is a contradiction of what he originally said. So my point has been made and Baka now confirms it.

I make a valid argument against it being a caste, that including saying it had political connotations for a group of people, now he's changing opinion or tactics claiming POV? Which is it Baka?

The relevant subjects of the discussions never seems to be followed, just things are brought up that have nothing do with a subject. Reallly burakumin is a correlation for Dalit? Compare the 2 articles, it is obvious its not. Dalit is what they labeled themselves to combat discrimination and removed caste labels in the process.

Burakumin is what society labeled them, and a negative label at that. Nobody's going to use that as a category, just as no one is going to use untouchable as a category, which is what it seems to correlate to. These are wildly disparate things being brought into the discussion by Baka, they just end up wasting time and making no sense.

As far as "over categorization" is a concern, Dalit actually merges categories of caste. Multiple former castes, as Baka unwittingly provides in his example of the Gujjar claiming be Dalits, come under this self proclaimed label. Chedathy is not being labeled by her caste name as its been pointed out.

Again my position is that Dalit is a self proclaimed label for a class of people that claim a possibly similar ethnic, and especially social and historical background. This is used to defy labels society has negatively given them. It is more complex than just political, which is a part of it, its certainly not a caste, and it should be valid as a category for people. The only opposition that could be thought of, is that it could serves has a reminder for agenda driven people, trying to erase memories of historical transgression. Good day all--Kathanar 13:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She is a Dalit and there is a category Dalit then why do you revert again and again.Kathanar has already mentioned it.Pharaoh of the Wizards 16:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a category Dalit. No person is in Category:Dalit, because we don't categorize by varna. That's why we dont put Atal Behari Vajpayee in Category:Brahmins or Lachit Borphukan in Category:Kshatriya.Baka man 17:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baka's argument is invalid as when did dalit become a varna or caste? --Kathanar 17:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalit isn't an ethnicity, people that some people call dalit consider themselves other things. Yadavs are considered by most Brahmins to be dalits, Yadav claim to be descendants of Kshatriya. Category:Dalit is only used for communities/movements relating to Dalits, not people, otherwise there really is no difference to adding Vajpayee, Borphukan, Gandhi, and Modi to Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra categories. Dalits have just as much identity as Brahmins.Baka man 00:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what you say here, your previous statement was false. Nothing needs to be proven about Dalits, its already a accepted identity. The dalit identity in no way compares to a caste identity like brahmins. Read all my numerous previous statements, answering you again, if you need a refresher in why or what. There is no reason the category shouldn't be there. Have a good day--Kathanar 14:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a Dalit, often called an untouchable, or an outcaste is not a caste.Shudra is Hindu term further legally they are called SC & ST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]