"

 Attempt at close of old RfC 

That is, the RfC listed on Archive 4 of this talk page, ""RfC: Does the article minimize the centrality of India to the notion of caste?"" That the discussion wasn't closed earlier is of little surprise: it is long, it is technical, and the older it gets the less appetizing it gets: such discussions are very much not like Parmigiano-Reggiano. In fact, the discussion is so long that you'll have to accept the general conclusions I think I was able to draw without my being able to point at each and every individual comment supporting it. What I, as a non-Hundi-Indian currently middle-class college professor, conclude, are the following points:
Scholarly consensus appears to be that the caste system is still of the greatest importance to Hindu India; vice versa, discussions of the caste system in secondary and tertiary scholarly sources note the centrality of Hindu India to the very concept of ""caste"".
Scholarly and especially less scholarly discussions on the concept of caste in other societies, esp. those outside SE Asia, mostly seem to use the term in the ""broader"" sense signaled in various places in the RfCas a convenient shorthand for ""social stratification"" and such. I note also that the application of the term ""caste"" to some other cultures, popular until the 1970s and perhaps after, has now come under (academic) scrutiny and criticism.
Considering those two points, I conclude that it is 
The 1 September 2012 version of the article does suffer from OR and some coatracking; the current version is much better in that respect, though far from perfect. Note, for example, the very loose use of the word ""caste"" in this newspaper article to warrant the inclusion of Cagot. As it turns out, there are sources ""comparing"" their segregation to that of the Indian caste system: such a comparison is perhaps valid, but does not itself warrant calling them a caste.

Allow me a few observations and suggestions.
""Caste"" should (and this is supported in the RfC) include extensive discussion of the situation in India.
Examples from other cultures (some of which well established and verified in the current version of the article and associated main articles) must of course be thoroughly verified; an article from The Independent cannot suffice for what is, after all, an encyclopedic article.
I believe it is imperative (and comments in the RfC and elsewhere in the talk page archives support this) to come to a clarification of terms. The current lead does some of that already, but a separate section is warranted. Etymology should be the least important part of such a section; more important is a history of the usage of the termnot to be able to list every example of its usage, but rather to sketch the attractiveness of the paradigm to scholars of various periods, an attractiveness that has by now lost some of its currency. Parts of the lead of the 1 September 2012 version point to that as well; what's important is to delineate the term and its currency. Fowler&Fowler; cites Balkin in the RfC (""social stratification in the United States does not really match the technical definition of caste ... caste is at best an effective hyperbole"") and it's precisely that kind of research and criticism that need to be used here.
Sourcing should continue to be scrutinizedin Caste system in India, I read ""Caste is neither unique to Hindu religion nor to India; caste systems have been observed in other parts of the world, for example, in the Muslim community of Yemen, Christian colonies of Spain, and Japan"", with one reference possibly very outdated (1972) and another a newspaper article from the New York Times. This is an article in which Wikipedia's crowdsourcing ""hey it's in the paper let's add it"" needs to be held in check.

In all, I believe this was an interesting discussion in which the participants are perhaps closer to consensus than they thought. It is clear that there is no consensus that the article is redundant to Caste system in India etc.; it's clear also that there is consensus that the article should be much more focused than the 1 September 2012 version was, and that India must occupy a position of great(er) importance. In various places various quantified suggestions were made; I cannot comment on those numbers. I sensed some hesitance at perhaps ""borrowing"" material from Caste system in Indiawell, if that's where good content on the concept of caste, its history, and its usage can be found, that's where you go. Good luck.   "