User talk:Harishpsubramanian
While I entirely appreciate your contributions, and can understand the sentiments which moved you to write so, permit me to observe that unreferenced and opinionated content is generally not acceptable. I have, consequently, been forced to discard some of the statements you had made, while also making all attempts to incorporate as much of them as possible. I request you, in future, to provide published references to the statements you make, so that your contributions may be accepted immediately.
Secondly, while all that you had written concerning the Vadama of Thoopil may be acceptable once you provide references, it is strictly not advisable to include any statements such as "Then who are vadamas of Kanchipuram? Dont they have any name?", since they engender a bias that is entirely avoidable. I am sure you will understand.
Thirdly, while the fact is that the Vadama were village headmen and landlords primarily in the period after the 14th and 15th centuries roughly co-inciding with the start of the Nayaka Period, their role was not confined to the Nayaka dominions alone, extending into Travancore and the territories of Arcot and Ramnad. Any references you have to this effect would be most welcome.
Fourthly, while Gopi Chandanam is still used, it is rare to come across a supply of it in Tamil Nadu, forcing many Vadama to opt for Vibhuthi.
Fifthly, concerning the speaking of Tamil by the Vadama of Palghat, perhaps you ought to remember that Tamil was the official language of those regions, until the 14th century, when they are presumed to have immigrated, according to their legend. If you were to remember the extensive commerce and cultural relations that existed with the Tamil areas through the subsequent three centuries and the annexation by the British of the areas constituting Palghat and Malabar to the Burramahl and Coimbatore Divisions in the 18th and early 19th century, with which they continued in Madras Presidency, until 1956, when Kerala was constituted, I think you would comprehend why they spoke Tamil, to say nothing of the immigration of numerous other Iyers into the area in the 17th century, from Tanjore, which gave them a further incentive to do so.
Lastly, while I understand your sentiments in terming the legends fabrications, perhaps you ought to consider that what constitutes the identity of a people, also includes the belief they hold of themselves. Voltigeur (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
First, allow me to point out one thing in no indecisive terms - your language is high-handed, to put it mildly. I request you to adopt more civil terms than calling a man a fool and his contributions fantasies. I think they particularly jar when considering the terms I have adopted with you.
Second, I am just as much a Vadadesa Vadama as you are, from Vadiveeswaram, and every whit as proud. If you have fellow-villagers having family trees dating back to the fourteenth century, let me tell you that I personally have a family history going back to the twelfth century, and can trace ancestry on four branches to Andhra and the northern Deccan.
Third, you do not need to go very far to check the linguistic history of Kerala. Check the page on History of Kerala.
Fourth, please note that Appaiah Dikshitar migrated from near Nasik, as I have noted under the section on 'Eminent Vadama', wherein I have also given the source for the information. Also it had already been noted that Ramaujacharya was Vadama. Repeated statements are not particularly helpful.
Fifth, unless you can provide citations, please do not remove referenced content, citations needed tags, or the information they cover. Also, when you introduce references, as you appear to have tried to with Rahul Dravid, you need to provide the details of the publisher and the year of publication, to be included in the references section and not the body of the article.
Lastly, although you mention having read sources with your own eyes, and I have no reason to doubt that, unless you mention them while providing your details, no one would be wrong in presuming them to be a figment of your imagination. What we are trying to achieve is a clear neutral article, that can act as a source of information for people. References are important, and I would suggest that you bear it in mind, since I perceive that you have not given any references, even in your second round of edits today. Voltigeur (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits[edit]
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Vadama[edit]
I rather prefer the tone you take in your last message. What is necessary is a spirit of co-operation not confrontation.
As for the community's beginnings being glamorous, allow me to say that from what I know of my family's history, I hold quite a contrary view since it has been a series of migrations as refugees, due to famines and wars. Some of the Vadama I am descended from are known to have migrated into Nagercoil in the 17th c. and were called the 'ragged crowd', by others. My Vadama forebears settling in the 16th c. in Arcot, came as refugees from the south of Nagpur. I think that I would not be wrong to write that you presume a little too much in assuming that I have a glamorous view of the community's origin.
Concerning the question of the regularity of migration, you need to have a look at the Madras Presidency Gazetters of the 1730s, which indicate a growing depopulation of the Nizam's and Peshwa's territories, with a large number of the migrants moving annually to Fort St. George and its vicinity. You would also see that in the census of the 1740s conducted by the British in the newly acquired territories from the Nizam, there were a lot of Brahmins and merchants who were in the process of migrating to places further south. Right up to the 1770s at least one major migration is indicated as having taken place in each generation.
You may have heard of the Saraswathi Mahal Library in Tanjore. There exist several records from the sixteenth century from the reigns of the Nayaks of Tanjore, that show that several families of Brahmins were relocated from northern Karnataka to Tamil Nadu, in the period of tenure as Dewans of Govinda Deekshitar and his sons, on account of the depredations of the Bahmani Sultans. These Brahmins, in subsequent grants are referred to as Vadama. I do not cite these records since they have not been published, and merely exist as manuscripts. The only published record I have known, I have included, which are the memoirs of Captain Alexander Hamilton. Thus you will observe that I have included quite a verifiable source for the period of the 17th c. and cannot imagine what fault you find with it.
Allow me to say that you are free to include as many of your views as you like, provided you cite your sources for them. Similarly, your deletion of points will not be acceptable unless you can cite your sources. If you doubt any statement that does not have a source tag beside it, please indicate "citations needed", instead of deleting the material. I shall be glad to supply the same, if I have not already. As the saying goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The reason the 10th century is a fair date, is on account of the extremely disturbed nature of conditions in the area prior to that. And as I think you would have noticed, in the history of the world, most migrations occur in times of peace, not in those of war. I do not mean that the situation was better after that. However, the peace brought by the rise of the Cholas as the paramount power in the late 10th century, ensured more peaceful conditions than had prevailed since the invasions of the Gangas in the 5th century, and these conditions lasted till the late 12th century, providing a substantial window for migration.
As far as the question of Dravids and Dravidlu goes, it arises more out of their following the Pancha Dravida system rather than the Pancha Gauda system. It is not related to Tamil Nadu or aught else of the sort.
I am sorry to say that you presume a little too much again, in considering me an unabashed admirer of the north, which I detest, especially more on account of its heterodox views. Similarly, your allegation of sectarianism upon me is also quite overweening. What I aim at is a record of all the data available, organised as best as possible. If that results in an early migration date for the Vadama, I could not be more bothered than could you, were it to result in a late migration date. And as far as the next generation is concerned, all that I wish to do is to present the data, so that they may draw their own conclusions, without a history having to be decided upon by our generation and presented to them, as you appear to suggest. Voltigeur (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Dravid Brahmins of Andhra[edit]
I think this would answer your question concerning the Dravid Brahmins of Andhra: http://www.vepachedu.org/manasanskriti/aaraamadraavida.html Please note, that according to the article they are held to have migrated in the 13th and 14th centuries from Saurashtra to Tamil Nadu and then on to Andhra. If they are Vadama, as you say, it substantiates my statement in that the Vadama migrated in the 14th century. Voltigeur (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I never said that people are entirely clear about their origin, and a blog that sources much of the material from the article I had mentioned, is not necessary to prove that. There are numerous different dates upon which the Vadama claim to have migrated. Within my own family there are some who trace their presence in Tamil Nadu to the 12th century, while others date it no further than the 16th century, and one particular branch restricts itself to the 1700s, prior to which it claims to have come from Srikakulam.
As for the Vadama ancestors' place of origin, though a vast majority of the people did not record them, those in the services of kings and those who were Agraharam chieftains and zamindars did, and that is where those records become important. For instance, some of the Vadama of Mankombu trace their origin very clearly to families from north of the Godavari, in the 13th century, when they fled a famine.
As for a major upheaval in the 13th-14th centuries occurring, it was the period of Khilji and Tughluq oppression in Central India, Gurjara and Saurashtra, and numerous Brahmin groups including the Gauda-Saraswats of the Konkan coast, the Saraswats of Punjab and UP and the Agni-Kulas of Bihar trace their displacement to that event. In that case, I do not see much that is wrong with a group of Brahmins who trace their origin to the same event, but happened to move to the Far South.
Concerning the Nambudris, while a majority of them claim to have settled their from time immemorial, others say that their name originates from nambu (Boat) and thiri (To travel or ply), in other words that they migrated by sea. They also say that they came with the last Chalukya invasion in the 10th century. So what I mean to say is that no Brahmin community can claim one single point of origin. They are a mixture of numerous different migrations.
If you remember, there was a line in the article which said that the community's belief was that its ancestors arrived at various times in the south and proceeded to get assimilated on the basis of similarity in practices. It was sourced from a Cornell University research paper by one Dr. Venkatraman. The reason I put it in was to account for the wide discrepancy in dates. The researcher says that numerous immigrants from the North, in the 10th century, who were Smarthas and who did not compromise on their beliefs upon their arrival in the South, constituted the basis of the Vadama, and accommodated later arrivals.
Given all this, I suggest that we accumulate all the data that is available with us and organise it to give a picture of the all the beliefs held upon its origins, by the community. While being of benefit, it would also help avoid conflict. For instance, I would be glad to have any record of the Vadama Brahacharanam conflicts. If you do not have sources, let me have the details of the conflict on my talk page. Voltigeur (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I must sincerely request you to not do one thing - and that is to change a correct reference. The reason I had put in the 1300s or 1400s is because the source says so, not because I wanted it. Similarly, a summary helps understand why two seemingly unrelated points are put together. As for some of the Dravids believing it and not all, the source is quite universal in its statement.
Second, legends may be true or cooked up, but when a published reference says so, as far as Wikipedia is concerned we have no choice but to believe them. So, although a lot of the material may be legends, once references are found to them that establish them as authoritative, we are dutibound to include them as the sources have them.
Third, migrations were never so simple as up and down. Were you to check the history of the Saurashtra Brahmins who immigrated with the Serfojis in Tanjore, you would encounter a very interesting tale, wherein they say that they were induced to come south by some of their predecessors who had migrated south and then returned to Gujerat. Similarly, the Gauda Saraswats of the Konkan coasts also do not intermarry with the Konkani Brahmins of Tamil Nadu unless the latter had migrated in the twentieth century, because they feel that those of their people who migrated earlier married into other Brahmin groups that had similar yet divergent practices, like pure Smartham and Gopi Chandanam. I guess this last is a fair indication of which group they refer to.
Fourth, I have seen the site you had indicated and wish to point out one thing it says, which is very important in the case at hand. It says the Dravids were divided into Ayyangars and Gurukkals. Now, if you were to remember the situation prevalent then, and some of whose vestiges are still extant, no self-respecting Vadama would consent to be called a Gurukkal, and the reverse is also true. However their personal tastes may have been about appellations, the practices of the Vadama and the Guruakkal are extremely different, right from the Achamanam onwards. Had there been any number of Vadama amongst those Dravid migrants, it is most likely that there would have been a third sub-division called the Aiyers. While Rahul Dravid, the cricketer's, biographer may call him a Vadama, I personally know an elderly lady from near Tanjore who is related to their family quite closely, and she is a follower of the Bodhayana Suthram, her sons and nephews being Gurukkals in various temples of the Tanjore and Madurai Districts.
Fifth, the question of confounding the Dravids or any other Brahmins with the Chitpavans is absurd. The Chitpavans were quite the panchama of the Mahratta Brahmin community until the rise of Peshwa Balaji Vishwanath, and with quite distinctive characteristics, both physical and ritualistic.
Sixth, when you speak about the Brahmin composition of Gujerat, you fail to take into account the histories of the Gujerat temples, such as Somnath and Dwaraka. For instance, the legend of Somnath says that the temple went into decline after Mohammed of Ghuznee's repeated sacking, since the slaughter and massacre drove away both pilgrims and priests. The whole sorry affair is supposed to have been brought to a close by Alauddin Khilji, who demolished the temple. For the Muslim version of what happened you can refer to Firdausi, while the Hindu version is available in the histories of the Gauda Saraswat Brahmins, every last one of whom left Gujerat after the latter event. The vacuum created by their departure may have led to the entry of the Chitpavans in the area, though from what I had known, the Chitpavans are restricted almost entirely to Marathwada.
Lastly, I find your tale of the Vadama's pre-9th century history intriguing. May I request you to provide further details of them and, if possible, of where you got the material from? I would not mind even family sources, if you can tell me which generation they belonged to. Voltigeur (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
First, the fact that it calls them Saivites indicates something very different from a lack of clarity in sub-sect, in my opinion. It would as well mean that the returner who possibly composed the description was perhaps referring only to the 'Kurkals' among them in that line, since in the next line he says that they worship all the Brahmanic Gods. Perhaps this indicated that the Kurkals predominated. But I am speculating, as you do, merely to show that no single interpretation is possible.
Second, as I have already had occasion to remark, when a web-site quotes dates, we have no choice but to blindly believe it. Now as to whether a blog is permissible as a reference, I am entirely unsure and I have therefore left the references to 'Manasatarangini' untouched. However, should Wikipedia policy be against it, they may have to be removed, with the information quoted being retained as requiring citation. On the aside, let me say that I knew about that blog and have the full transcript of it with me. I would refer you to what it says about migrations in the 11th century. Perhaps that needs to be cited as well, if blog references are found to be permissible, in which case your pet theory of the 9th century being the last date of migration of the Vadama is not entirely tenable.
Third, if you were to remember, until you introduced the reference about the Dravidlu, which led me to the fact that they claimed origins from Tamil Nadu and earlier ones from Saurashtra, there was not a single reference to the place of origin, because that is one of the murkiest of fields to enquire into. Further, I have one old music book that says that Sama Sastri's forefathers came to Conjeeveram from Srikakulam, and they in turn came from Vanga Desam or Bengal. This was the reason I had kept mum about the place of origin. Even now, you would not find a single reference to place of origin except at the paragraph on Dravidlu, which originated as I said it did.
Fourth, you err in saying that I push the date up to the 18th c. What I had written was that by all accounts the migration to Andhra was before the 18th century. When a source writes 300 to 600 years ago, I think I might be safe in presuming that a period before '300 years ago' includes '600 years ago'. If that is not the case, I would be most welcome to a verbatim transcript from the source.
Fifth, no published source is one of no consequence, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. And given the paucity of information, I for one would welcome even your 'Attha-Pati Kathaikal', with the tag 'citation needed' attached, since who knows where and how a tale might be corroborated? But I digress. A quotation from web-sites is better than a quotation from blogs and a quotation from books is still better. Except for your single reference to Rahul Dravid, may I request you to tell me how many other sources, significant or insignificant you have provided? Let me make one thing clear. I hold nothing against your views or you, for that matter, but I take it very unkindly indeed when you belittle sources procured at no little difficulty, when you portray a correction of grammar as an attempt to play down a fact and consider the fact that I provided the names to the Vadama saints whom you had merely given a passing reference to, an attempt to overlook them. And this takes the cake: I dont think I can keep up your pace of scanning this link all my life, because I consider time more valuable. And since I have far more important things to do too, may I request you to provide references the next time you decide to edit the page and also to correct your spelling and grammar, which necessitate an entire re-working of the sections you compose? Please remember, no one is doing these things because he is jobless, only because it is something of his interest. Please also keep it in mind in future that it may just be possible that others are motivated by just as high an ideal as yours, to prevent history from being distorted, to keep visiting this page.
Sixth, if you want to really know my pet theory, it is the 11th century or the 17th century; the former on account of the numerous 'mangalam' grants by the Chola and Pandya rajas to the 'sabhaiyars' as recorded at Tanjore Brihadeeswarar Temple, Thiruvaroor Shiva Temple and Mankombu Nataraja Temple, the latter on account of the British and Mysore sources who document the arrival of these Brahmins very well, since they provided them employment. I think this should answer your question of whether I have been to any of the Vadama villages, to test what I know. The Sabhaiyars are a subdivision of the Vadama, I think you would remember.
Seventh, while it would be quite facile for me to request you to start your own page for a first millennium migration theory (and I think I have greater right to do so, on account of no sources about that period, except the blog, being provided by you to date) I will not, since I desire to accommodate your views to the best extent possible.
Last, if you are the Harish P. Subramanian who started the article three years ago, it is I who have expanded it, provided references and maintained the article against vandals, both as a registered user and as an unregistered user under I.P. addresses of the 220.xxx series and I think I have just as much a desire that the article say something definitive, on the basis of information available, instead of saying that it knows nothing about Vadama origins, since there are just too many theories. Voltigeur (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
First, let me observe here that cunning is not a very pleasant term to use. It is generally supposed that a user of Wikipedia, has the capability to visit a reference site, and check the references for himself. He is not considered a babe in the woods, or a professor evaluating a thesis, to whom secondary references need to be provided. Nevertheless, if you entertain such an opinion of the user, I shall be most amenable to such an inclusion as you have made, though in the references section, where it will not seem irrelevant, as it would in the main article. Voltigeur (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
If you had seen the article, you would have seen that what you suggest is exactly what I have done. I am glad for your clarification that there is no edit war between us. It makes things much easier to handle, unlike the case with another user named Vyaghradhataki. Since our edit times vary so widely, it would help if you could keep an eye on the page against an anonymous editor who either blanks the page or introduces derogatory information. That chap is much more anti-Iyer than Hitler was anti-Semite and would go to no end in tarring the community's name without references.
I trust that fresh evidence will come up. In the meantime, I shall try to find out if there is any published ASI reference to the Mankombu inscriptions I had spoken of earlier.
Lastly, I suggest that you sign your talk-page edits with four tildes, for which you will find a tab amongst the other symbols. Otherwise, it is likely that you keep getting warnings from Wikipedia, though you will not be banned from editing. Voltigeur (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Nice work, as far as I can see. I am sorry I am not able to go into greater detail right now. If you can give me till the weekend, I shall provide you with a fair idea of my opinion on the subject. You can rest assured that I agree with your assessment. Another point, please check whether the village, whose sabhaiyar you mentioned, was an agraharam. If not, it would just mean that he was headman of that village. I can also provide another inscription which refers to the sabhaiyar of an agraharam, in c. 850, if the village you mention is not an agraharam. Voltigeur (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits[edit]
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Spam in Brahatcharanam[edit]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Brahatcharanam, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Brahatcharanam is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Brahatcharanam, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Reply[edit]
Hi! Have as look at the definition of "colonizers" from the Free Online Dictionary:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/colonizer
"col·o·nize (kl-nz) v. col·o·nized, col·o·niz·ing, col·o·niz·es v.tr. 1. To form or establish a colony or colonies in. 2. To migrate to and settle in; occupy as a colony. 3. To resettle or confine (persons) in or as if in a colony. 4. To subjugate (a population) to or as if to a colonial government. v.intr. 1. To form or establish a colony. 2. To settle in a colony or colonies. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- colo·nizer n."
Of course, there is nothing objectionable if you are to interpret them in the first three ways. I don't understand how it contitutes WP:NPOV. The usage of the word "colonizers", in fact, appeared more relevant to me because Brahmins who migrated were often provided with grants of land in which they established their own colonies called "agraharams". Nevetheless, how does a single word affect the neutrality of a whole article. As for your other accusations, I have given you my reply in the talk page of the article. Your accusations that I am indulging in "mischief" and that I am "ignorant" etc. give wrong signals. Also see WP:CIVIL. Regards -RavichandarMy coffee shop 17:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Your Recent Edits[edit]
Hi! I observed the work you've done and I wish to commend you for the fine job. :-) Anyway, I feel that you statements about the incident involving the Nataraja temple at Chidambaram and on the promotion of Saivism by the Vadamas do not follow certain Wikipedia rules. I am willing to copy-edit at your request. However, I desist from doing so on my own considering the fact that once accused me of indulging in "mischief" when I previously edited the article.
I've also given my reply to the points you've made in Talk:Iyer -RavichandarMy coffee shop 00:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Reply[edit]
Do read what I've written. I've NOT mentioned that those events are related to one another.
You are welcome to add things you find relevant. But I guess the article is largely over and ready for a higher grade. If we meddle with the article now, then it would require one more round of copy-editing which would result in a depreciation of the quality of the article.
Regarding kanchi seer's arrest, I'll add the relevant information from the Portrayal section which I've moved to a new article. Let us rely on copy-edited stuff than adding new stuff and wasting our time, modifying punctuations, removing POV, etc.
Apart from these couple of issues, I'm convince that the article is largely over. Maybe a couple of references here and there, some capitalizations and italicizations. Apart from that, except for the recommendations that might be given in the peer-review not much is needed.:-)-RavichandarMy coffee shop 10:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Article being finished[edit]
Well I dont want to comment on that right away though you might have observed that I dont modify the article left and right. An article which talks about a modern day community and talks about contemporary issues as well cannot be stable.
Yeah, I have. You don't take enough care about the punctuations, captalizations and WP:MOS issues. Otherwise, your edits are fine :-)
There are lots of gaps and lot of changes which might come in future - take the genetic origin. I have not touched it because somehow I feel its messy. I dont want to touch it unless we have some concrete genetic Information on Iyers. Iyers even though pretend to be a single community these days have lot of genetic differences within themselves. Within Vadama community, I have seen genetic differences between one group and another. I dont want to touch this section but I am hoping to find a more detailed reference to the genetic factors in Iyer community, if that comes I would be among the first to change this section. The statement that Iyers are somewhat different from others seems to be very amateurish. Some? What is that? Who everyone? or are they only some? What about those who come from communities like issai vellar and devadasis- how about affinity to them. The tone of this paragrpah is such that there are two sections - brahmins who are different and non brahmins who are different from them. If we examine the genitic features of each and every community in tamil nad you are likely to find some closer in genetic affinity to some brahmin community than to other non brahmins itself. Do we have that analyzed and presented in the article?
All that I advice you is BE PATIENT. Well, we should be careful about the reliability of the sources we come upon. Till this very date, no geneticist has come to any conclusions on whether Iyers are aryans or dravidians. A detailed analysis of genetical evidence would be unnecessary. You see we aren't writing a book here.
The peer-review team would examine our article and tell us about the changes needed. We may write a separate article on genetical origins and provide the links here.
There needs to be some better focus on the lifestyle of traditional members of Iyers in modern times - I am referring to those people who belong to the vadhiyar community, who have also modernized like others but oddly still different from others and this difference is not captured. They also like the other Iyers no longer follow many of the antiquated customs. Do we capture the exact difference between sandhyandana and other vedic rituals of Iyers and other brahmins including Iyengars?
I don't think there is the need to detail upon the lifestyle of individual subsects. As I have said earlier, we aren't writing a book here.
And then, there are the size considerations. The size of the article is 97KB now, well above average. Have you noticed that whenever you edit the article, you find a warning that the article is too big and needs to be split. So far, no problem. I've moved the bulk of the stuff in portrayals section to another article. But then, there are space considerations to be looked into. We cannot allow it to go far beyond 100 KB.
Starting from abhivadanam there are differences. These differences never get captured.We dont have modern life style of rural brahmins, the gurukkals and all. We mention the sectarian differences in Iyers but do we really give a picture that there is a natural evolution and merging of subsects? Nope. This is not presented either. The life of a typical Iyer boy in a modern day veda pathashala?
The differences have been captured in the article on Iyengars. We need not create a duplicate section here. Of course, Iyers form the parent community. Iyengars evolved from Iyers.
There are lot of gaps and I do agree its just an article which should end somewhere, and thats why I appreciate your job, consolidating stuff,removing things - difficult to do. I knew things would get difficult with a long article. Thats why more than 2 years back I moved the whole list of iyers to a different article altogether called Distinguished Iyers.
Thank you very much :-) Do you know the number of edits I've made to the article? It is 852 now. I've been working with the article for more than a year and the efforts have been highly rewarding. :-) And then, this is the only Tamil Nadu related article in the GA list for "social sciences and society". Look at Mukkulathor or some other article and ull find the difference. The article is heavily ridden with Thevar propaganda apart from edit wars and abuses in the talk page. Our article perfectly confers to WP:NPOV.
Yeah, it becomes difficult with a long article. You did a good job there. And then, it also becomes difficult to download if the article grows bigger and bigger.
The other thing which I wanted to mention is that your book Thurston seems to be considerable but it has its own holes and somebody at a later stage might want to edit references to choose more better source of reference and may change texts as suitable.Being smartha has nothing to do with saivism of some vadamas because there are lot of vadamas who are traditionally saivaite and have even tried to advocate principles different from advaita more trying to prove saivism as the highest goal. I will be removing the term "being smartha" in the context of vadama. Most Iyers are smarthas anyway.
Edgar Thurston's Castes and Tribes of Southern India is one of the most comprehensive books on the various castes of South India. In 6 volumes, he covers nearly every social group in the then Madras Presidency. Even titles assumed by individual community are available in the list. There are 70 pages of the book devoted to Iyers. -RavichandarMy coffee shop 13:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
And by the way, I wish to tell you something. Getting designated as an FA does bring some privileges for the article. The article becomes eligible to be featured on the main page. But more importantly, we can observe that there is one particular individual (whoever he is Vyaghradhataki or Sembian Valavan or whatsoever) who has been vandalizing the article from multiple IPs on a regular basis. If the article is chosen as an FA then we might interest some vandal-fighters to look after the article and prevent people from blanking it -RavichandarMy coffee shop 13:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Featured articles[edit]
Do have a look at this article - Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081).
It is just 25 KB long and yet a featured article. So, it is pretty clear that more than being comprehensive, the coverage should be broad. All topics should be covered, though not necessarily in detail. For details, we may create separate articles and provide links. Let us see. As of now, the size is not of much concern. But if we expand it more, then it will. -RavichandarMy coffee shop 13:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Peer review[edit]
Hi! I've asked for a peer review. Let us see what is to come out of this review - RavichandarMy coffee shop 13:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Do have a look at Mulukanadu article and the number of Iyers in it. Anyway, you could find his name in the List of Iyers. I didn't add his name, though. It was already there when I found it.
Well, it ain't a big deal that his photo is in that image. And then FYKI, the addition of Rahul Dravid and Indra Nooyi, too, is contestible. There are contingencies. We will look into it if someone could establish, with sufficient proof, that Dr. Radhakrishnan or those mentioned aren't Iyers -RavichandarMy coffee shop 10:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- What do you want? Who is this Vedam Jaishankar? What is the guarantee that some claim made in some book cannot be wrong? When someone makes a biography of a prominent sports personality and the like, one is likely to concentrate on his achievements in the sport and statistical details. Due to this reason, often, issues such as ancestry or family background are given less importance. Firstly, Vedam Jaishankar's claim appears questionable. I cannot find any other sources on the web to back this claim. There are articles which claim that Dravid is a Deshasta. But not a single biography of his speaks of his Iyer ancestry. And then, even if the claim is true, then it only means that he has an Iyer ancestry. And that he is not an Iyer himself.
- As for Radhakrishnan, I've already said that I've added his picture only because it was in the List of Iyers. Well, there are more important issues than the preence of his photo in the infobox. And then, I have almost lost interest in contributing to Iyer article. If you wish to remove that picture, you are free to go ahead. -RavichandarMy coffee shop 14:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- The case of Telugu Brahmins being identified as Iyers is entirely different from those of Tanjore Marathi and Patnulkarans. I, personally, have a few friends from the Mulukanadu community who identify themselves as Iyers. (Also, please have a look at this- http://www.narthaki.com/info/articles/art108.html)Whereas, it is never known for a Tanjore Marathi or a Patnulkaran to identify himself/herself as an Iyer -RavichandarMy coffee shop 14:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- I could remember someone telling that Indra Nooyi is an Iyengar-RavichandarMy coffee shop 15:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Reg image[edit]
Do you know that the article is going through a peer-review - Wikipedia:Peer review/Iyer/archive1. The team has given a series of changes and I don't know if it would be possible to finish them. This being the case, you are pointing out trivial issues about the image in the infobox, etc. Well, let me tell you - Images, themselves, do not constitute POV. And by the way, I've made over 900 edits to the article. My average edit per article is as high as 3.45 and I wish to bring it down. I cannot spend all my time with this article. It would be great if you could have a look at the changes they've proposed and implement them. And if you feel that you've messed up something, you could ask the peer-review team for help. I leave it to you to try and improve the article to FA-class. Wish you happy editing :-) -RavichandarMy coffee shop 02:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I just observed your edits to Iyer article. I observed that you have replaced "The first literary work which heaps criticism on Brahmins is Thirumanthiram " with "There are some who feel that.." here:[1]
Let me say something. Phrases such as "There are some who feel..." etc are used only if
- The source used for reference is unreliable
- If contradictory statements or opinions are given by some prominent person.
The claim is referenced from a book written by prominent Dravidologist Kamil V Zvelebil. Hence, the reliability of the statement is assured. and then, you haven't expressed any contradictions. If "some feel that...." are there "some who don't feel...". I leave the matter to your consideration. Do have a look at Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms.
I also advice you to look at WP:MOS. "Tamil Nadu" is a proper noun and needs to be capitalized. However, you have used the small case.Thanks-RavichandarMy coffee shop 03:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Peer review[edit]
I observe that you've been working completely out of sync. Let me specify clearly that I've stopped working with the article and I don't have anything to do with it. Please discuss with the peer-review team and implement changes. Thanks -RavichandarMy coffee shop 11:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
And as for those edits, I am sorry. Initially, I did not want to indulge in edit-warring, but then I had submitted the article for Wikipedia CD selection and the last thing I would want is that non copy-edited stuff should influence the selection team. -RavichandarMy coffee shop 11:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year 2009!![edit]
Happy New Year Harishpsubramanian!!!! I wish for you and your family to have a wonderful 2009!!! Have fun partying and may you make many edits!!!
Hi! How are you? It's good that you are back to editing full-time. But I've just one request to make of you. I just found that you had tried your hand at alphabetically sorting out the sections in Iyer article. While I don't understand the need for such an alignment, I feel that more than doing any good to the article it only harms it by making it difficult for me to keep track of vandal edits and removal of content. Please try to understand that Iyer, Vadama and other articles have been the target of extensive vandalism by anti-Brahmin elements like User:Vyaghradhataki.If you still don't understand the seriousness of the situation please have a look at this. Thanks. Take care.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 16:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Iyer[edit]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Iyer has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)