Talk:Newar caste system

message: General copy-edit.  Removed a few instances of editorialization.  The article still has several unsubstantiated claims, now marked as needing citations or clarification.
Macwhiz (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Before performing my copy-edit, I saw that the page had a section apparently for a list of castes, but no such list actually existed.  A subject expert should add a ranked list of castes, from highest to lowest.
Macwhiz (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See http://web.comhem.se/~u18515267/CHAPTERIV.htm. Not sure if that's entirely reliable, but there it is.Flyte35 (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caste list 

message: Newar castes again by Stephen Greenwold. I hope this helps. Komitsuki (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  More resources 

message: I spent quite a bit of time on the table of clan groups, separating different types of data that were combined into the same column (surnames and notes regarding them), as well as correctly using rowspans to group different surnames for each caste (instead of the "hack" of inserting  tags between surname groups). This is the correct way to use a table, correctly showing which data are associated with each other. Additionally, I tried to resolve some confusion that was probably the result of an incorrect edit of the data when it was copied from the source, including two castes that were grouped into one, and mention of castes again in the notes. Also, I took care of some other MOS problems (mis-use of quotes, linking, wording, etc.).
 disagreed, reverting all of it, with the edit summary "sorry the older one was much less clustered; plus the divisions you made gave the implication that some surnames were "higher" despite being of same caste"
If you mean "cluttered", the only differences in the presentation are, first, that the notes are (correctly, IMO) separated from the surnames so it's clear that they are notes. Because of the large number of non-English words in the notes, for non-Newari people, this helps to keep the two from being confused. As far as implication of different position of some surnames within the same caste being higher, I disagree. They are in the same order they were before. The second difference is that there is a horizontal line between them, clearly separating the surname groups, with the notes that refer to them, from other surname groups. There is no implication of seniority (at least none that was not there before).
While I believe this is the correct way to display the data, I would appreciate someone with access to the source verifying that the data correctly matches the source. There was a fair amount of confusion about which formatting differences (i.e. bold, italic) were stylistic, and differences in style that were simply accidental versus those that were intentional with some sort of (non-described) meaning. (Specifics to follow below...) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clan groups section/table 

message: The formatting I used in the table generally follows the MOS (I believe) and is as follows:
* The primary caste name in the Caste column is in bold. Any other caste names, as well as any other non-English words in any other column are in italics.
* Single quotes (') have no use, and there is no reason to use double quotes (") since any proper names are capitalized and any foreign words are italicized.
* Hyphens have no use. Dashes may be useful in some comments, but there are no current uses.
* Multiple castes or surnames are separated by commas (,).
* Multiple notes/comments are separated by semicolons (;).
* Because of confusion over which caste names are just colloquial or language variations for the same caste and which are actually names of different castes, I decided against using parentheses that might have been used for the variations case, and just listed them separated by commas.
Here are some points of confusion I had with the old version:
* The Chhathariya Srēṣṭha (Shivamargi) and Pāñcthariya Srēṣṭha (Shivamargi) castes had no horizontal line between them in the caste column, yet the position and spacing of things in the occupation and surname columns implied a line all the way across the table between the Maskey... and Shrestha surname groups (i.e. Maskey, etc. belonging to Chhathariya Srēṣṭha and Shrestha belonging to Pāñcthariya Srēṣṭha. Is this correct?
—[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table details 

message: also 
I don't think sarma and jha can ever be regarded as Newar.Nor they neither other call them Newar.And also They neither follow newar cultures nor can speak newari then how can it be written that they are newar.Jojolpa (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarma and Jha 

message: CorporateM may I have your attention please?
Sharma and Jha should be removed from this article because they are not newar.They being newar doesn't contain any citation in this article and noone call them newar as well.Mayoj (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I must have missed this ping. Nepalichoro255 what this source says is that the Jha family "still live in the midst of Newari families", not that they are Newar themselves. Also, the book source you provided actually says says explicitly that Jha's are not Newar's: "These are the Bhatta[*] Brahmans and the Misra or previous hit Jha next hit Brahmans. They say they are not Newars, and they are not considered Newars by others" CorporateM (Talk) 18:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see that article does not actually state that they are newar and the sources do in fact include them. Seems fine to me. CorporateM (Talk) 18:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request