Talk:Caste system in India

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change:

I would like to request an addition to the genetics section. I see there is no direct reference to the 2016 PNAS article itself. Moreover, a new study done in 2021 is not included. My suggestion for the edit:

Original: A 2016 study based on the DNA analysis of unrelated Indians determined that endogamous jatis originated during the Gupta Empire.[32][33]

Addition: The 2016 study included a sample of 20 different social groups, including groups designated upper caste, lower-middle caste and tribal groups from several geographical regions. According to the researchers the upper caste groups in the sample started practicing endogamy around 1575 years ago, while the tribal populations admixed more freely until around 1500 to 1000 years ago.^[1]

In 2022 a study investigated among others a number of caste and tribal groups from india. They inferred founder events took place between 120 and 3500 years ago in the 78 indian ethno-linguistic groups they included. The majority of founder events took place in the last 600-1000 years. According to the researches this suggest that this period was integral to shaping endogamy in India.^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisBStevenson (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: the genetics section no longer exists 🍅 fx (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Previously, a genetics section was added, discussed at great length (and, in my opinion, in bad faith by the person who added the section), voted on, and it was decided that we should stick to the Wikipedia-wide consensus that genetics research ought not be used on caste-related pages. See the following discussion and corresponding unanimous vote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caste_system_in_India&oldid=1106906846#Genetics_section_removed

Given the overwhelming consensus, I decided to do a little bit of digging. It seems like for the next several months, multiple users kept trying to add sections involving genetics, all of which were removed, for similar reasons to the ones provided in the vote. Too eugenics-y, too irrelevant given the lack of understanding of sociology et al. from geneticists, and so on.

But in May of 2024, someone added the current section, titled it "Ancient DNA research" to get around the filters around "genetics." Once it had been around long enough, it was renamed to "Genetics research," having already been grandfathered in and thereby difficult to remove. It was more or less heisted onto the page, despite both global and local consensuses against it.

I'd like to push for its removal, especially as it contradicts the rest of the Wikipedia article and is confusing. LovelySwineTraveler (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I removed it, for at least the following reasons:

• the heavy reliance on a pop-science book that has attracted significant criticism for the extent to which it tries to use DNA sequencing to make inferences (or comments) about human social organization;
• Suspiciously self-assured statements like "The ostensibly undisputed overall conclusion from DNA research among castes is that..."
• Unaddressed inconsistency with other parts of the article (as you said), e.g., how one can supposedly find persistent DNA evidence of jatis if the form and application of the jati system is asserted elsewhere based on historical evidence to be changeable.

Overall it read as too unsophisticated a treatment of genetic research to leave in, and that is even before getting to the issue of whether it is forbidden by previous consensus. Einsof (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

All of that plus David Reich is a known racist, but I suspected making any part of my case, even bringing it up as circumstantial evidence, would invite the ire of white supremacist trolls who misuse 'ad hominem.' I'm glad it was removed with little issue. LovelySwineTraveler (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

how is david reich a known racist? That is a serious accusation LouisBStevenson (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "This class-distinction is still reflected in the fact that the upper castes have a relatively higher steppe ancestry than the lower castes.[103][104][108]" to "Some studies suggest that ancestry patterns later varied across caste groups, but these differences do not explain or legitimize caste hierarchy.” Grsjclass1 (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Day Creature (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no caste system in Islam, there are no caste like practices that occur within India. The whole point of Islam and the hate Muslims get from hindus is because many of the lower caste members escaped the caste system, and the heads of the caste system couldn't control them anymore. ~2026-30678-08 (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)