Talk:Nadar (caste)/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Citation format
Can we agree on a format to be used for citations in this article? At present we are using at least three different styles. There is no great rush about fixing the thing but it will have to be done. Contributors may wish to read up on the subject at WP:CITE before responding. - Sitush (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
OkMayan302 (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
untouchable status of nadars
The valid resources point to nadars being untouchables till the 19th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharma007007 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- The first of those is a compendium & therefore not great. The second has been referred to in the earlier thread & I am still working my way through Hardgrave. It looks valid but please can I have a few more days? - Sitush (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
more references for untouchabe status of nadars.
SITUSH please take you time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharma007007 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
This is obviously a confusion between tamil and kerela nadars.The kerela nadars were not supposed to touch the nairs and the nairs a upper caste were not allowed to touch their superior castes.These rigid rules didn't exist in tamil nadu at all.The untouchables of tamilnadu were castes below vannans and ambattans.The tamil nadars were obviously above the ambattans or the viswakarmas the artisan caste who are either nadar's equal or little lower than the nadars.The Christian missionary related books intentionally made the nadars look inferior to promote Christianity maybe. Because I don't find many books which state that the vishwakarmas were untouchables a similar caste like the nadars who didn't embrace Christianity.Just a suggestion. All this seems weird.Got these infos using Google books — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.236.132.22 (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds entirely plausible, given the "lunatic asylum of castes" that existed in Kerala. Can you provide some examples of the Google Books stuff that you found? - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
according to templeman the nadars were not actually a part of the hindu caste hierarchy to begin with.he also states that the degree of acceptance gained for their claims to higher status would never have been possible if they had been untouchables.templeman's book is anthropological and more relevant to the context of this article.here are the photo copies of the pages frm templeman.Templeman(19-23)Mayan302 (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- That may be so, but was it universally the case? The IP is suggesting that there are sources saying otherwise. They need to be examined, regardless of Templeman's status. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
caldwell,edgar,hardgrave and finally Templeman, people who have exclusively studied the history of the nadars confirm the same thing.kenneth's book speaks abt the nadars of kerala as he compares them with other malayali castes like nairs.the templeman book is no longer available on rapid share.Mayan302 (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I would still consider options. As long as they are not fringe theories, they could have their place. It would all end up being a case of trying to assign the correct weight to the various opinions. Which, frankly, is looking like being the case with the whole source review that was conducted above: I keep going back to stuff and it seems to be clear that there are various opinions from suitably qualified sources. - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
well sometimes u just have to chose the best source.the term socio limbo suits better as their status varied from region to region,oscillating between the middle castes and untouchables.however they were never regarded universally as untouchables.I don't know much about the rules of wiki. but this fitsMayan302 (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
What I said is mostly according to my point of view. It's common sense. I think you're a north indian.You will realise this is all just strange if you are a southie. I just compared the nadars with other tamil castes similar to their social status like sengunthars and viswakarmas using googlebooks.There are not many books that state these castes were untouchables. There are no sources that support my theory. Many books use these Christian missionary books as source maybe.Many nadars also converted to Christianity. So why are there no books that say that vishwakarmas or sengunthars were untouchables. You can go through the warrior merchants book a topic regarding the sengunthars similar caste like nadars and their social status.It may give you some insight on what's going on here. And the untouchables of tamilnadu didn't excel in any field until very recently. That's because they faced a lot of resistance in the past. Hope this gives you some insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.234.175.68 (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- It does not give me any great insight, sorry. You appear to have engaged in original research and synthesis. We cannot accept such statements here. You need to find one or more sources that specifically discuss the differences between the Tamil and Keralite Nadars. I am assuming from your note above that you do not have one, so this part of the thread is effectively closed. - Sitush (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Brewing/distilling caste
This edit removes what appears to me to be a valid category. Whether it was toddy or jaggery, surely this means that they were involved in brewing/distilling. The fact that it may no longer be their primary occupation is completely irrelevant. - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- as far as I know brewing is something relevant to fermentation. U get jaggery by boiling the sap and making it coarse.u get toddy by brewing the same sap.nadars were mostly involved in the production of jaggery sugar(hard grave:24&137).sorry not pg136.
And even if the tag is appropriate in anyway it will fit into nadar climber article rather than the nadar main as toddy tapping is not the traditional occupation of some nadars.Mayan302 (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- As far as jaggery goes, that is my mistake, sorry. However, I've just done a quick GBooks search and there are plenty of refs (at least 1500) to Nadar toddy-tappers. Furthermore, as you say, we have an entire article on Nadar climbers. Therefore, the category is appropriate here: it seems clear that a fair proportion of the community was traditionally involved in toddy tapping. - Sitush (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- yes.there r many books.but few r anthropological as I already said.the climbers who lived as minorities where a few palmrya tree grew had to make toddy due to the unavailability of trees.whereas the climbers of southern tirunelveli had proper resources to manufacture jaggery.jaggery trade actually made the nadars prosperous. So only a minority were involved in toddy trade.similarly u can't group them under land lord caste category just because of the nadan subsect.think it wud be better to add the tag to the climber article.Mayan302 (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- going out now.bye for nowMayan302 (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
omg now we need to listen to caste warriors (there are many on wikipedia).nadars were historically a backward and socially downtrodden community.their social status was low because of their invovlvement with toddy tapping which is taboo in the agama shastras.they were not allowed to worship in the brahmin temples which makes them outcastes (avarnas).Even the socially high Vellalarcaste and the related Thevar caste who worship in brahmin temples could only get the tag of Sat-Shudra(clean shudras) the pretensions of the nadar to higher social status continues even to this day.kaumudi temple case etc are well documented.the nadar who were previously known as shanar changed their name to nadar just to avoid their toddy tapping tag.the word shanar is pretty derogatory in tamil as far as i know.Between i want some comments on the lead why is this person Shiv Nadar(whoever he is ) being singled out as a symbol of the community's progress looks Undue.does he identify with the caste ? being born in it is not enough.i am sure other indian castes and communities will have number of billionaires not one.also this statement in the lead looks absolutely ridiculous to me.The Nadars today are a powerful community.[14] They are financially very strong and are also politically influential in the Southern districts of Tamil Nadu.[15].both the citations are actually related to tamil nad mercantile bank.one even says that the Nadars were predominantly toddy tappers who have became traders..This is selective quoting of citations and some are wrong quoatations.The tone of the article is also something which is not neutral.Ps the category stays i am adding it back as sitush approves.Pernoctator (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
s it is a big deal.ther r are only two billionaires from tamilnadu.n one of them is a nadar. and s it must be in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.153.252 (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Please read WP:DUE and WP:LEAD. Then explain to me how a single billionaire from the community is somehow representative of it. This is not about what your opinion but rather that of the wider community. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Your edits seem biased/baseless for the following reasons
1.In the history page you said everything was already discussed.But no matter how I look at the argument above mayan's explanation seems far more genuine and the discussion is far from complete.Pernocator is obviously whining and has not produced any evidence stating that most of the nadars were actually in the toddy business.
2.As per the pages refered by mayan and myself, it is very evident that only a minor section of climbers were in the toddy business(100 yrs ago) due to the lack of trees in their vicinity.If the Nadars can be inlcuded in that category then they should also be included in the landlords category because of the Nadans of Tiruchendur.And most importantly they should also be included in the business class category because thats what most of the nadars do today.Yes there are many books you can find on gbooks which say that the nadars were in the toddy business.But none of them are thorough and explicit like Hardgrave.This I know for sure.
3.The shiv nadar line is just an example symbolizing their rise after the independence or something.I didnt include that line.I was just updating.Thanks.
- I cannot see where you have provided a single source that supports your position that the brewers/distillers were a tiny minority. We cannot use Mayan's original research and they have agreed that there are hundreds of sources that do mention the traditional role (some of which most definitely are reliable). If you believe that Hardgrave provides the support that you desire then please could you give me the relevant page numbers etc. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Its page number 24 of hardgrave.I was assuming you would actually go through the history log before editing.Perhaps you should look into these 'many sources' they are talking about.I can assure you that none of them is as explicit as hardgrave.Mayn says above that there is something on page no 137.Unfortunately I cant see that page using gbook.I hope you can.The book [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.133.59 (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Good then.Did you go through it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.133.59 (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Jeez, give me chance. I've got to find the thing first, among the 6000-7000 other books that I have lying around a mess of a house that I am renovating, and I have other things to deal with also. It might take several days. - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Image warring
This edit is the third time in the space of an hour or so that an image previously removed from the article has been reinstated. The thing was removed months ago due to doubts about verifiability, and the source now provided makes matters no more clear. That source says that the guy was a member of the Gramani, a "counterpart of the Nadars". The word "counterpart" does not mean "is", regardless of whether our article has correctly referred to the Gramani community or not. Please self-revert. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have removed another. The guy is alive and we expect self-identification of ethnicity in these situations. While the source indicates that he is working with a Nadar advocacy group, it also quotes him as saying that he "clarified that he did not join the alliance on behalf of Nadar organisations". That is not self-identification. There are all sorts of people involved in all sorts of advocacy groups even though they are not themselves affected, for example, by the group's raison d'etre. As an example, various members of the UK royal family are involved in numerous groups - often but not always as a figurehead - despite not suffering from, say, cerebral palsy or being a member of the Jewish community. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is not possible everybody reveal their ethnicity openly particularly when they are in politics in countries like India, when we receive information from reliable source we should take it forward. Also the WP:BLP tells that we should avoid self publishing artcilesIs all ethnicity article pages are based on self made statement or Good faith edits? Also before you remove talk to page. You give different reason for your each revert without going details of the sourced page. seems you obviously stand to remove any additions in the page. -- Jenith (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- WP:BLPCAT, if you want me to be more specific. You are not going to win this one here, sorry. There is a de facto consensus among experienced editors that caste is similar to ethnicity and religion, and that therefore self-identification is necessary. This can be seen in action across scores of articles relating to "List of members of caste X". The issue has also been discussed at WT:INB, where a fair few of the participants are from India or of Indian origin. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- See the WT:INB discussion. - Sitush (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- WP:BLPCAT, if you want me to be more specific. You are not going to win this one here, sorry. There is a de facto consensus among experienced editors that caste is similar to ethnicity and religion, and that therefore self-identification is necessary. This can be seen in action across scores of articles relating to "List of members of caste X". The issue has also been discussed at WT:INB, where a fair few of the participants are from India or of Indian origin. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is not possible everybody reveal their ethnicity openly particularly when they are in politics in countries like India, when we receive information from reliable source we should take it forward. Also the WP:BLP tells that we should avoid self publishing artcilesIs all ethnicity article pages are based on self made statement or Good faith edits? Also before you remove talk to page. You give different reason for your each revert without going details of the sourced page. seems you obviously stand to remove any additions in the page. -- Jenith (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Clarity
There has been some poor writing going on here of late. For example, the following makes no sense:
- "there also existed a small endogamous group of the aristocratic Nadars, known as the Nelamaikarrars or Nadans, who owned ..."
It should be:
- "there also existed a small endogamous subgroup of aristocratic Nadars, known as Nadans or Nelamaikkarars, who owned ...".
More of less every change made by Mayan302 similarly fails to address the issues of poor style and phrasing. - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Mayan, unless you start fixing the issues, I am going to strip this thing right back. You are basically a single-purpose account and you're not getting the hang of this thing at all. For example, citing a paragraph to 20 pages of Hardgrave is simply not good enough - you need to be more specific. - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Sitush. Long time.. How are you? I dont understand what you are saying. The entire article was not based on 20 pages. I have cut shorted all the chapters from hrdgrave and included everything important. You yourself went through all the refs 3 years ago. Mayan302 (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- And one more thing Sitush, the article was also copy edited by you a long time ago.. I have included everything important, if you have doubts please go through the hrdgrave book I gave you. If you find something important in the book I have not included, let me know. It is not based on just 20 pages. The article is the short version of the book. The book also has details about certain nadar individuals. I didnt include all that, because I didnt think it was important or relevant to the article. As far as I know, I have included everything important and am looking for books which has info about the current status of the Nadars. So far I was not able to find anything. Please let me know, where I went wrong. Mayan302 (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Sitush. Long time.. How are you? I dont understand what you are saying. The entire article was not based on 20 pages. I have cut shorted all the chapters from hrdgrave and included everything important. You yourself went through all the refs 3 years ago. Mayan302 (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
False source
Did you go through the source? Because the source doesnt have a line about the Nadar community. I looked it up. Its fake. I would have to revert your edit, Sitush. Why would I remove a line which is properly sourced?Mayan302 (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I've no idea what you are referring to, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- That line which states that the izhavas and nadars are related to srilankan nadars. First of all it makes no sense at all.The source attached to that line looks fake. There is not a single line in that book about the nadars.Mayan302 (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think you are referring to this. I can only see the source in snippet view but can assure that page 62, at least, mentions Nadar and thus your statement that there is no mention of them anywhere in the book is plain wrong. Since you seem to be able to see the entire thing (perhaps even have a copy), please could you provide a transcript of the page that is cited. - Sitush (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I tried the same snippet view, Sitush.I said it looks like fake.However I didnt find any thing about the nadar commnunity. Could you please ask bladesmulti to provide them? More ever I have never come across ANY book which actually relates the ezhavas with the nadars.Even the latest ones.The line makes no sense.It just claims that they are related to the Srilankan nadars. For reasons unknown, bladesmulti is just accusing me with every thing he's got.I was ready to have a discussion about this.But he never tried to reach me.Sitush I dont worship Hardgrave.All the books I know of simply quote the contents of Hardgrave.What can I do?Mayan302 (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes I can see the snippet view now. The line from that book claims that they were connected to Srilanka, not Srilankan nadars.I knew that there was something fishy about this. What should I do now Sitush? I also went through the history of multiblade.He seems like a troublesome editor. And this is not the first time he is doing things like this.Mayan302 (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Mayan302 You've talked so much about me here, but never about the reliability or actual content of the book that you don't like or can't get through.
- It looked like a fake? First you have claimed that it was a fake, and just now you had additional references, you are still not giving up this false accusation? See Society and Circulation. You are one and only disruptive editor as well as a SPA here who can't handle the source because you DONT LIKE IT. In fact you don't even know english, because no where in whole sentence or line we have ever claimed that they were "srilankan nadars", those nadars who went to Sri Lanka and returned because of bad treatment. I don't know when I was troublesome to you! If you are talking about this edit[2] then again, it was you who was being disruptive just like you are being now. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Mayan (and possibly Bladesmulti), we cannot rely on snippet views for sourcing of statements. Thus, you cannot possibly claim that the statement is "fishy" etc when you don't know the context, and the thing should not be there at all unless the entirety of the relevant page(s) are visible. I'm AGF'ing that Bladesmulti can see the thing but it looks like we're going to need a proper quotation etc.
- Yes I can see the snippet view now. The line from that book claims that they were connected to Srilanka, not Srilankan nadars.I knew that there was something fishy about this. What should I do now Sitush? I also went through the history of multiblade.He seems like a troublesome editor. And this is not the first time he is doing things like this.Mayan302 (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I tried the same snippet view, Sitush.I said it looks like fake.However I didnt find any thing about the nadar commnunity. Could you please ask bladesmulti to provide them? More ever I have never come across ANY book which actually relates the ezhavas with the nadars.Even the latest ones.The line makes no sense.It just claims that they are related to the Srilankan nadars. For reasons unknown, bladesmulti is just accusing me with every thing he's got.I was ready to have a discussion about this.But he never tried to reach me.Sitush I dont worship Hardgrave.All the books I know of simply quote the contents of Hardgrave.What can I do?Mayan302 (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think you are referring to this. I can only see the source in snippet view but can assure that page 62, at least, mentions Nadar and thus your statement that there is no mention of them anywhere in the book is plain wrong. Since you seem to be able to see the entire thing (perhaps even have a copy), please could you provide a transcript of the page that is cited. - Sitush (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- That line which states that the izhavas and nadars are related to srilankan nadars. First of all it makes no sense at all.The source attached to that line looks fake. There is not a single line in that book about the nadars.Mayan302 (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Another thing, Mayan, and I'm sure that I've asked you this before. Please don't bring stuff like this to my talk page. The proper place to discuss sourcing issues etc is the article talk page, which everyone with an interest is more likely to see. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- [3] This time you could view? If not then I will obviously post the quote on article' talk. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I can see that one, thanks. I think it might be the one that I checked first time round when reverting Mayan but then when they challenged me here, I got a different url. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- @multi I think you dont understand English. Let me quote the exact contents of the the article: Izhava, Tiyan, Nadar in southern India are also connected with the Nadar of Sri Lanka. And yes you are attitude towards me was always wrong.You could just have come to me if you had probs with my edits. Why go to Sitush and tell him that I am a single purpose account. You even asked himto bring the admins blah,blah.Why dont you go through the history of my edits properly.I have never tried to include anything unwanted or things I LIKE as you claim. I have also taken care of vandals.THis is about whats right. So stop whining like a baby. If you want the line to be included, provide proper refs or quote the contents of the book on the talk page. That line no matter how you look at it makes NO SENSE AT ALL.Sorry to be blunt.It should either be changed or removed completely. Yes Sitush. Sure. See you tomorrow.Mayan302 (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously you still don't know English, my reply was made only after you made frivolous comment like "The line from that book claims that they were connected to Srilanka, not Srilankan nadars". I don't have to explain any of my accusation, especially when you use non existing words like "himto", and lack idea about using dot after sentences. So how we can except sense from you? If you still stick to anything like "I didnt find any thing about the nadar commnunity", I suggest moving this whole to Talk:Nadar (caste). Bladesmulti (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC) (moved from Talk:Sitush#False_source)
- You speak like a two year old. Lets get this over with. Even if you do have some refs to back up your claims, we still need more sentences to add clarity to the sentence you ve added. So please quote the contents of the book here. Sitush what do you say?Mayan302 (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously you still don't know English, my reply was made only after you made frivolous comment like "The line from that book claims that they were connected to Srilanka, not Srilankan nadars". I don't have to explain any of my accusation, especially when you use non existing words like "himto", and lack idea about using dot after sentences. So how we can except sense from you? If you still stick to anything like "I didnt find any thing about the nadar commnunity", I suggest moving this whole to Talk:Nadar (caste). Bladesmulti (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC) (moved from Talk:Sitush#False_source)
- @multi I think you dont understand English. Let me quote the exact contents of the the article: Izhava, Tiyan, Nadar in southern India are also connected with the Nadar of Sri Lanka. And yes you are attitude towards me was always wrong.You could just have come to me if you had probs with my edits. Why go to Sitush and tell him that I am a single purpose account. You even asked himto bring the admins blah,blah.Why dont you go through the history of my edits properly.I have never tried to include anything unwanted or things I LIKE as you claim. I have also taken care of vandals.THis is about whats right. So stop whining like a baby. If you want the line to be included, provide proper refs or quote the contents of the book on the talk page. That line no matter how you look at it makes NO SENSE AT ALL.Sorry to be blunt.It should either be changed or removed completely. Yes Sitush. Sure. See you tomorrow.Mayan302 (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I can see that one, thanks. I think it might be the one that I checked first time round when reverting Mayan but then when they challenged me here, I got a different url. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- [3] This time you could view? If not then I will obviously post the quote on article' talk. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Another thing, Mayan, and I'm sure that I've asked you this before. Please don't bring stuff like this to my talk page. The proper place to discuss sourcing issues etc is the article talk page, which everyone with an interest is more likely to see. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Seems like you hold 2 year old in high esteem. It is probably hard for you to consider, but we have to present both type of arguments. We have to show that origins are also related to Sri Lanka. [4] May provide some more ideas about this group. Caldwell presents a good argument. I am guessing if G. K Ghosh had also acknowledged the same. I am about to see Caldwell's book. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry to butt in. But I noticed this discussion on Sitush's talk page, and hunted down a better online version of the book: [5]. OK? Now I am outa here. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah whatever. Caldwell was a christian missionary and his views are not just unreliable, but also very old. He was not an anthropologist. Caldwell made a claim that they could have come from Srilanka. HOwever this claim was strongly refuted by Hardgrave, a real anthropologist. I am waiting for Sitush to reply. Kautilya I dont see anything. What did you want us to see? Mayan302 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- They may seem outrageous, but Hardgrave also had some similar argument when he talked about the prevalence, he would also consider that the merchants who were born in Sri Lanka would later be found in Madras. Not only Nadars but also Mukkuvars of Kerala have the legends about migrating from Ceylon, like Hardgrave has written. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I really don't have time for this right now but I can say that we should not use Caldwell. I'll try to type up the relevant bit of the book that is being cited and, yes, Bladesmulti is correct in saying that if it is a reliable source then we need to show it. Hardgrave is reliable but not the be-all, end-all of anything. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am not trying to say that we should only use Hardgrave. I am just trying to say that Hardgrave is the only source which explicitly explains the origin of the Nadars. Sorry. But I am familiar with all the books relevant to this topic. G.k.Ghosh's book uses Caldwell's Tirenelveli Shanars as reference. Caldwell tried to link the Shanars with the Shandrar community of Srilanka. However this theory(according to pg no:21 hardgrave) was debunked by Hardgrave. Hardgrave clearly states that their origin must have been the Teri forests of tiruchendhur due to their culture and predominance in the region.He also cites many other reasons to support his theory. His theory is also supported by other anthropologists like Templeman. Even if you do include Caldwell's theory into the article, it would look insignificant in front of the work of other anthropologists. That's why I didn't include it in the article in the first place. If you can provide us with other reliable sources to support your theory,which is highly unlikely, we will surely include it. However some Nadars did migrate to Ceylon. That is a fact.Mayan302 (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hardgrave seems to be supporting my information, but his books were outdated, that's why I wouldn't be using him as source, even if he's reliable. I like using variety of reliable sources, thus I would go for a reference that used its own word, and there we had it. I was not providing any weight to Caldwell, I only said that he presents a good argument that the people originated in Sri Lanka. Hardgrave referred to some ancient and new examples for noting the connection with Sri Lanka. G.K. Ghosh was not mentioning Caldwell, but using his own words.
- There is no issue with that, "rewrite or delete" is just an old fashioned way of diverting mind from sourced content. Mayan302 probably expected for permanent Tamilization of this article, his edits(e.g. [6]) confirms. That's why any relation or connection of this group to Sri Lanka has been ignored for a long time. But not anymore. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Do you always insult people like this? Hardgrave supports your claims? Dude I have the Hardgrave book. I also have Templeman's NOrthern Nadars and many other books. None of these books dont even have a sentnce about what you are talking about! Hardgrave is ancient? Maybe. But it's the only valid source which records the nadar history until 1969. All the books I know of just uses his book as reference. Even Templeman acknowledges this by saying that his book covers everything correctly. So you are only good at throwing random claims. If Hardgrave supports your claims, tell me the exact page numbers. I ll post it here right away. G.K.Ghosh was as far as I remember used Caldwell as reference. We can post the contents of G.k.Ghosh. However it will seem very brief and in explicit when compared to the works of other anthropologists. I still have not seen the contents of the book you mentioned. So until Sitush quotes the contents of the book, please be calm. The origin of the nadar community is completely unknown. There are no literary evidences or inscriptions that speak about their origin. We just have a handful of hypotheses. We don't even know if they are true for sure. We cant include sentences based on WP:NOR. So accusing every one around you for no reason at all is really not going to do you a favor. Please be patient.Mayan302 (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- I wrote "Hardgrave referred to some ancient and new examples", not "hardgrave is ancient", so you can rework there. It has been confirmed by 2 people already that the source exists and supports the provided sentence. Just because you want to pretend that source doesn't exist, it is your personal issue. Your original research and inability to understand things has been annoying others as seen in above sections. I am not targeting "everyone", but only you. Origins are uncertain, I never pointed that, but when you refer to the stories of only Tamil Nadu, a editor tends to think that it all originated only in Tamil Nadu. Hardgrave' 1969 include:-
- "One group of these Nadar entered Tirunclveli by way of Ramanathapuram, bringing with them the seednuts of the Jaffna palmyra regarded as the best in the east, while a second group of emigrants, considerd a lower division of the caste considerd a lower division of the caste, came by sea from Ceylon to the south of Travancore." Bladesmulti (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Do you always insult people like this? Hardgrave supports your claims? Dude I have the Hardgrave book. I also have Templeman's NOrthern Nadars and many other books. None of these books dont even have a sentnce about what you are talking about! Hardgrave is ancient? Maybe. But it's the only valid source which records the nadar history until 1969. All the books I know of just uses his book as reference. Even Templeman acknowledges this by saying that his book covers everything correctly. So you are only good at throwing random claims. If Hardgrave supports your claims, tell me the exact page numbers. I ll post it here right away. G.K.Ghosh was as far as I remember used Caldwell as reference. We can post the contents of G.k.Ghosh. However it will seem very brief and in explicit when compared to the works of other anthropologists. I still have not seen the contents of the book you mentioned. So until Sitush quotes the contents of the book, please be calm. The origin of the nadar community is completely unknown. There are no literary evidences or inscriptions that speak about their origin. We just have a handful of hypotheses. We don't even know if they are true for sure. We cant include sentences based on WP:NOR. So accusing every one around you for no reason at all is really not going to do you a favor. Please be patient.Mayan302 (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am not trying to say that we should only use Hardgrave. I am just trying to say that Hardgrave is the only source which explicitly explains the origin of the Nadars. Sorry. But I am familiar with all the books relevant to this topic. G.k.Ghosh's book uses Caldwell's Tirenelveli Shanars as reference. Caldwell tried to link the Shanars with the Shandrar community of Srilanka. However this theory(according to pg no:21 hardgrave) was debunked by Hardgrave. Hardgrave clearly states that their origin must have been the Teri forests of tiruchendhur due to their culture and predominance in the region.He also cites many other reasons to support his theory. His theory is also supported by other anthropologists like Templeman. Even if you do include Caldwell's theory into the article, it would look insignificant in front of the work of other anthropologists. That's why I didn't include it in the article in the first place. If you can provide us with other reliable sources to support your theory,which is highly unlikely, we will surely include it. However some Nadars did migrate to Ceylon. That is a fact.Mayan302 (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- I really don't have time for this right now but I can say that we should not use Caldwell. I'll try to type up the relevant bit of the book that is being cited and, yes, Bladesmulti is correct in saying that if it is a reliable source then we need to show it. Hardgrave is reliable but not the be-all, end-all of anything. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- They may seem outrageous, but Hardgrave also had some similar argument when he talked about the prevalence, he would also consider that the merchants who were born in Sri Lanka would later be found in Madras. Not only Nadars but also Mukkuvars of Kerala have the legends about migrating from Ceylon, like Hardgrave has written. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah whatever. Caldwell was a christian missionary and his views are not just unreliable, but also very old. He was not an anthropologist. Caldwell made a claim that they could have come from Srilanka. HOwever this claim was strongly refuted by Hardgrave, a real anthropologist. I am waiting for Sitush to reply. Kautilya I dont see anything. What did you want us to see? Mayan302 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
If a reliable modern source chooses to cite an older source that we generally consider to be unreliable, the modern source "wins" for the specific point. It is not for us to pass judgement on the skills etc of the writer of the modern source but we should cite that rather than the older one. - Sitush (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- This quote is from Hardgrave's book. However it is Caldwell's theory. In page no 20(hardgrave), the author quotes Caldwell's theory and debunks it in page no 21. I am assumming you dont have access to Hardgrave and never went through the page I asked you to go through. I am definitively not against this Srilakan origin thing. I once tried to relate the nadars with the fulani tribe of Africa by using a genetic study as ref. I dont have any issues what so ever to include this in the article. But you are just repeatedly accusing me instead of providing the required refs.Mayan302 (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
This is the paragraph from the source
Another category of skilled workers in increasing demand, who commuted between South India and Sri Lanka, was that of the coconut and palmyrah toddy tappers. These communities have not received the same attention as the two above-mentioned groups, but their case is extremely interesting because Indian and Sri Lankan myths of origin mirror each other. Those of the Nalavar in the north and the Durava in the south of the island connect them with Madurai princesses who would have brought them to the island when marrying Sri Lankan kings. Those of the Izhava in southern Kerala, of the Tiyan/Tevan in northern Kerala and of the Shanar/Nadar in southern Tamilnadu connect them with Sri Lanka in a similar way, adding that these migrants were disappointed with the treatment they received on the island and returned to India, bringing with them the first coconut trees. The very names of Izhava and of Tiyan are supposed to be derived respectively from Ilam, that is Ceylon, and from tivu, island. The same corpus of legends includes episodes relating to five artisan castes who deserted the land of the Chera king Cheraman Perumal to seek asylum in Sri Lanka, and were forcibly brought back. Among Sri Lankan craftsmen, many families of blacksmiths used to claim a South Indian origin dating from the fifteenth century. So did washermen and other service groups. Most of them have more recently dropped these claims in favour of a nondescript Sinhala origin 'from time immemorial'.
Sorry for the delay. - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Sitush. This is oral tradition. And its is not very clear. But its evident that the line added by multi (Izhava, Tiyan, Nadar in southern India are also connected with the Nadar of Sri Lanka) is not according to the source. This is a myth and we should also mention that. What do you suggest Sitush? Is it ok to include mythical origins in the article. Because there are many mythical origins regarding the nadars. And I am not sure how to add them all? Mayan302 (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Myths reported by reliable sources are fine. They tend to demonstrate just how vain these castes are but, hey, that's life. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- :) Ok. I ll include it then.Mayan302 (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Where you read about "oral tradition", it says "legend". Bladesmulti (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Please stop vandalizing the article. If you want to connect the nadars of tamilnad with Srilanka provide valid reference. Dont try to forcefully include your own point of view(original research). As per our above discussion there is not a single line in the source you have provided to support your claims. Please refrain from editing this article or provide valid refs. Mayan302 (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Confirmed by Sitush, Kautilya3. There is already a verifiable citation added to the article, you are trying to claim them to be oral tradition, though it isn't. I am sending you formal warning for claiming these edits to be vandalism, because they aren't. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Mayan302: This is NOT vandalism and do not label it as such. NQ talk 13:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- How can this not be vandalism. This was not confirmed by Sitush! Since Sitush is away, Bladesmulti is back to play his usual games. NQ go through the above quotation provided by Sitush and argument to decide. He is using false ref to connect the nadars of tamilnad with the srilankan nadars. None of this is in the source he has provided. please check all this before judging me. Just because I am a single purpose account doesnt mean I am wrong!Mayan302 (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is merely a content dispute, not vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND. NQ talk 13:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- How can this not be vandalism. This was not confirmed by Sitush! Since Sitush is away, Bladesmulti is back to play his usual games. NQ go through the above quotation provided by Sitush and argument to decide. He is using false ref to connect the nadars of tamilnad with the srilankan nadars. None of this is in the source he has provided. please check all this before judging me. Just because I am a single purpose account doesnt mean I am wrong!Mayan302 (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please stop vandalizing the article. If you want to connect the nadars of tamilnad with Srilanka provide valid reference. Dont try to forcefully include your own point of view(original research). As per our above discussion there is not a single line in the source you have provided to support your claims. Please refrain from editing this article or provide valid refs. Mayan302 (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Myths reported by reliable sources are fine. They tend to demonstrate just how vain these castes are but, hey, that's life. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Sitush. This is oral tradition. And its is not very clear. But its evident that the line added by multi (Izhava, Tiyan, Nadar in southern India are also connected with the Nadar of Sri Lanka) is not according to the source. This is a myth and we should also mention that. What do you suggest Sitush? Is it ok to include mythical origins in the article. Because there are many mythical origins regarding the nadars. And I am not sure how to add them all? Mayan302 (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
[7]? It is in the source. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- OMG. The contents from this same book was posted above by Sitush. And no. It doesnt even have a sentence to slightly support your theory. You just included a line which claims that the nadars of tamilnad and izhavas are connected to the srilankan nadars. This is not in the source! Do you always fool people by posting something irrelevant? How many times do we have to argue about this? If its not in the source, we cant include it in the article. This is the most basic wikipedia rule. Mayan302 (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sitush didn't copied it from the book, because it could be copyright infringement, if the information was incorrect, he would have removed it first himself, but he didn't.
- Sitush only told that how each of them have been connected with each other. And you assumed it as oral tradition because you lack competence, you cannot even understand what has been written. If it was copied from the book, then why you don't copy it yourself? You will find no results. Here is the citation[8] and if you are going to claim anything like I cannot see anything, it is fake reference you are just being disruptive. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- You are obviously trying to include your own original research. One of the admins must check the source and the sentence he just tried to add. You will automatically figure out where the problem is coming from. And also go through the above discussion. Thank youMayan302 (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- OMG. The contents from this same book was posted above by Sitush. And no. It doesnt even have a sentence to slightly support your theory. You just included a line which claims that the nadars of tamilnad and izhavas are connected to the srilankan nadars. This is not in the source! Do you always fool people by posting something irrelevant? How many times do we have to argue about this? If its not in the source, we cant include it in the article. This is the most basic wikipedia rule. Mayan302 (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It is not an original research. You claim it to be oral tradition when it is not. After I told you that it is not oral tradition, you are claiming that whole thing to be incorrect, that means you were also involved with original research before? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- I really dont understand what you are trying to say! The source clearly states that its a myth which coincides with the myths of some similar srilankan castes. Thats all. It surely doesnt mention anything about what you have included in the article. You re trying to hide your original research behind some vague source. I cant believe this. When Sitush was around, you didnt try to do anything. I am through speaking with you. I have enough problems with my life. I am waitng for some admin to intervene. Farewell.Mayan302 (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Connected to - connected with don't really create controversy. Sitush agreed with the change I was making, we thought that you would reply to this question[9], but you are only doing when you found that your edit has been removed. If Kautilya3 is still available, he can confirm that this[10] citation supports this edit[11], Kautilya3, will you do it again? Bladesmulti (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Look dude. I asked Sitush specifically to quote the contents of the book. And he did. The quotation above is according to Sitush from the book. I trust him more than anyone else. I ll repeat what I said again. I have no objection what so ever to include that line in this article, provided if it has a proper source. I am quite busy now. I am waiting for an admin to intervene. Let them decide. If they say it is proper, then it is fine by me. Bye for now. Mayan302 (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes and the citation is properly cited for that information. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- The source says 'connected themselves with Srilanka'. Not 'connected to Srilankan nadars'. Thats what you included. And the source says that its a myth. You didnt mention that point too. Let the admins decide. Mayan302 (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- 'connect them with Sri lanka in similar way', you would know if you read the whole paragraph from here[12](I changed above link). We are talking about the myths and traditions already, why you think think that it requires specific mention? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- According to a similar legend, some Nadars of southern India had migrated to Sri Lanka, but they had to return to India as they didn't receive proper treatment in Sri Lanka. - Better? It is not really oral tradition, and for what they had went to Sri Lanka is not clear either. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Seems ok. Similar legend? I think 'According to legendary accounts' would be even more appropriate. Mayan302 (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes its virtually same thing. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Seems ok. Similar legend? I think 'According to legendary accounts' would be even more appropriate. Mayan302 (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- According to a similar legend, some Nadars of southern India had migrated to Sri Lanka, but they had to return to India as they didn't receive proper treatment in Sri Lanka. - Better? It is not really oral tradition, and for what they had went to Sri Lanka is not clear either. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- 'connect them with Sri lanka in similar way', you would know if you read the whole paragraph from here[12](I changed above link). We are talking about the myths and traditions already, why you think think that it requires specific mention? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- The source says 'connected themselves with Srilanka'. Not 'connected to Srilankan nadars'. Thats what you included. And the source says that its a myth. You didnt mention that point too. Let the admins decide. Mayan302 (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes and the citation is properly cited for that information. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- I really dont understand what you are trying to say! The source clearly states that its a myth which coincides with the myths of some similar srilankan castes. Thats all. It surely doesnt mention anything about what you have included in the article. You re trying to hide your original research behind some vague source. I cant believe this. When Sitush was around, you didnt try to do anything. I am through speaking with you. I have enough problems with my life. I am waitng for some admin to intervene. Farewell.Mayan302 (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Upper cloth controversy
The Upper cloth controversy is a important part of shanar history.
Till 19th century shanar women were not allowed to cover their upper body. with support from missionaries they revolted against this practice.
https://books.google.com/books?id=J-gHBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&dq=shanar+riot+women+cloth&hl=en&sa=X&ei=scGLVJCFNoezogStloGwDQ&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=shanar%20riot%20women%20cloth&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaturvedi sharma1961 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
History section needs correction
History section needs correction. The sentences have sources which cannot be verified. Also Samuel Sarugunar was himself a shanar. None of the sources link work.
Samuel Sarugunar claimed that they are the descendants of those who ruled the Cheran, Cholan and Pandyan kingdoms and that when Nayak rulers captured the Pandya country, it was divided into several Palayams (divisions) for each of which Palaiyakkars were appointed as rulers. Sarugunar believes that the Nayak rulers of Tamil Nadu imposed Deshaprashtam (ostracism) on the ancient Pandyas (Nadars) to ensure that they would not rise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaturvedi sharma1961 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Shanars were originally slaves and were not allowed to cover their upper body with clothes. These need to be mentioned. we need to have a section on shanar slaves. Lets not forget the truth.
https://books.google.com/books?id=7dgYjLCSa0wC&pg=PA241&dq=shanar+slaves&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Bb-LVNn-LJHroASxjoLoAQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=shanar%20slaves&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaturvedi sharma1961 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please go through the sections properly. The end of that para clearly states that it was a dogma believed by the nadars. These lines are supported by authors like rajni kothari and robert.l.hardgrave. And the sources you have mentioned describes the southern travancore nadars(not the the nadars of tamil nad). There is a separate section which speaks about the southern travancore nadars. The book you have mentioned was written by a nadar politician and published by an unknown publisher. I dont understand what you meant by slaves? But there are numerous lines in the article which speak about their former status. Mayan302 (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The history section needs to be rewritten.
Samuel Sarugunar is a nadar and was part of nadar sangam. There is no evidence for Nadars being connected to chera, chola and pandya. Samuel Sarugunar cannot be used as reference. Also the shanar being slaves of upper caste should be mentioned.
Any quote made by Samuel sargunar should be removed. Sitush please help here.
They are attempting to construct a false history. The chera, chola and pandya are solar race.
please update the article
- I dont know who you are. But I am assuming you are using multiple user accounts. We cant remove lines which have refs. The article states that the nadars "could" have been the descendants of the pandyas. It doesnt confirm that they were indeed the rulers. The last line of the para mentions that this was the dogmatic point of view of the nadars. Do you know what dogma is? Sargunar was a nadar. No one is denying that. The article states that Sargunar "claimed". Please find out the definition of these words. The theory that they could have been the descendants of the early pandyas due to their predominance in the region is hardgrave's. not sargunar's. So go through the article properly and also go through the nadar climber article. Thank you. Mayan302 (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
This article looks like a caste propaganda by Nadars. Please remove quotes by Samuel Sargunar since he is a nadar himself and was leader of nadar caste organization. There is no proof for link of nadars with chera, chola and panyda. It needs to be removed.
The status of shanar/nadar till the 19th century is cleared explained by this article in New York times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/world/asia/11caste.html?pagewanted=all
History section should only mention this.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyengar 1960 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I was expecting you to return. For your kind information, most of these points are already there in Nadars were not allowed to enter Hindu temples, or even to stand too close to upper-caste people, and women of Nadar caste, who stood one notch above untouchables in India’s ancient caste hierarchy, were once forced to bare their breasts before upper caste men as a reminder of their low station.the article. These lines are from a NY time article. The article was based on the interview of a nadar businessman. So it’s definitely not a thorough anthropological work. You should first understand that the nadar community was not a single caste in the 19th century. The community had many subsects and each subsect was treated differently from the other. For instance, the nadans were respected by upper castes, whereas the nadar climbers were not. We had all these discussions a long time ago. So this is most probably the fourth time I have to explain all this. The way you write and do things(posting irrelevant links) reminds me of an editor I had trouble with. So if you are just here to irritate me, get a life. Your argument is not really constructive. Sorry to be blunt.Mayan302 (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
All this is already there in the article.This kind of non sense has been going on since time immemorial. These people just want the article to contain the negatives and don't even want to consider their current status. You can't win this non sense argument just by posting random messages using multiple accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.6.110 (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
A article in new York times is a reliable source. Also please be respectfull. I am trying to add some facts here. No caste bias at all. Samuel sargunar is a Nadar himself. Please correct the history section.
Please add this in history section
Nadars were not allowed to enter Hindu temples, or even to stand too close to upper-caste people, and women of Nadar caste, who stood one notch above untouchables in India’s ancient caste hierarchy, were once forced to bare their breasts before upper caste men as a reminder of their low station.
Please read this link
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/17924/8/08_chapter%202.pdf page 33.
clearly mentions shanars as slaves. Kindly edit this article. No caste propaganda here. Sitush please be a moderator here and let us know what I am missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyengar 1960 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- The link you just posted states that the nadars occupied a middle position in the hierarchy. And it is a reference which uses Caldwells's point of view. If you are just trying to irritate me, I would like you to know that this is not irritating me at all. As I already said your argument is not constructive. The ny article fails to explain many things(the various subsects of the community in the 19th century) and it is not a thorough anthropological work. It is based on the interview of a nadar businessman. The current article however explains everything about the various subsects of the community in the 19th century and it is far more thorough that ny article. So you are just here to make the article worse. Mayan302 (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Even a baby would understand that you are not here for justice.Just look at the words you have used to describe the community.This is text book caste propaganda.The article has enough derogatory lines.But that's just not enough for you is it.You want it look as derogatory as possible.Trust me you are not the first person to write non sense. If the nadars were slaves how did they own lands or excel in business during the 19th century?! There are many proofs to confirm that they excelled in business during the late 19 th century(see the article). I am not rude. You are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.6.110 (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Please be respectfull. what ever I have requested I am providing proper references. My only concern is " How can you put something which was said by Samuel sargunar who was a nadir leader". Even a baby will tell that this article has false informations in history section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyengar 1960 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- You are just repeating the same thing over and over again. No, the things your references state are already in the article(nadars of Travancore section)and the NY article is not thorough.It is very abstract and fails to explain many things. Moreever it is based on an interview.That samuel sargunar line has a proper ref and its just a 'claim'.I dont understand what you are trying to accomplish here.But repeating something again and again by using irrelevant refs is not the best way to make a point.Please dont make this a fight. Mayan302 (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Even a baby would understand the sentence the identity of the pandyas remains a mysteryand realize that the history section is a hypothesis and not a fact.You are claiming that the nadars are slaves(someone who can't own lands) with some random links.How can they be slaves and own lands.The nadans and nattathis owned lands.Climbers had the rights to do business.Your proofs do not even have a sentence to support your really wild claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.6.110 (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation
Copyright violation? This is the second time you are removing these lines. Could you please explain this to me? Contradict with each other? How? I dont understand why a forbes ref can be bad? As a matter of fact you removed two sentences which had refs.Mayan302 (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Nadars of the 19th century section needs correction with genuine information
- This article has lot of false information. The article needs a lot of editing and cleanup and somebody should check the references. Do not remove the tag.
- Which section of the article is actually false according to you. All the sentences have reliable refs. Please mention the exact line or section which needs to be rectified. I dont think you are willing to do that.The Nadars' migration to travancore is supported by the Robert Hardgrave's book(refer:The Nadars of TamilNad by Robert.L.Hardgrave pgno:56). This article was checked by a reliable user(Sitush) before. If you feel that this not right, please provide reliable refs to support your theories. Also explain why. The section you are talking about is supported by reference no35(Hardgrave) of this article. In other words you cant remove a sentence which has a proper ref. So if you are looking forward to remove the line, its not gonna happen no matter what. Lot of false statements? Like? I know of a sock-warrior, who tried to add irrelevant sentences by using false refs. You sound just like him. Any admin is welcome to check the references of this article. I have no objection.Mayan302 (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Explanation
Multiple lines were removed without explanation. Rabtman claims that they do not have refs. The Nadans of travancore line is supported by ref no 35 (refer:The Nadars of TamilNad by Robert.L.Hardgrave pgno:56) and the line about nadar kalari is supported by ref no 9(Thomas A. Green (2001). Martial arts of the world: en encyclopedia. A – Q, Volume 1. page no. 177). Either rabtman didnt go through these refs at all or is just trying to push his POV statements. The Nadars didnt entirely rely on the backward class commission for educational advancement(refer:The Nadars of TamilNad by Robert.L.Hardgrave pgno:145). So the line included by rabtmat (that the Nadars relied on backward class commision) is baseless. We dont know for sure if the Nadars used their backward class quota for advancement. If he wanted to add sentences, then he should include refs which actually support his theories. He also removed most of the lines(which had refs) from the intro section just like that. I dont understand what he is trying to accomplish here. Mayan302 (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Ref links:
1.Thomas A. Green (2001). Martial arts of the world: en encyclopedia. A – Q, Volume 1. page no. 177
2. The Nadars of TamilNad by Robert.L.Hardgrave
- I did not see the refs earlier. I will go and re-revert what I had said so we could discuss it before any changes are made. Rabt man (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- In fact, I could not find the particular section in the reference. If you could send me a link that would be good. Why did you revert the edits regarding the structure of the article?
"Regarding this: So the line included by rabtmat (that the Nadars relied on backward class commision) is baseless. We dont know for sure if the Nadars used their backward class quota for advancement." Thats what the caste-based reservation system is for, and that is what OBC classification does, its not a theory. I did not remove the referenced sections from the intro lines, I had simply moved them into the article where it would be more prominent (in other words, I had restructured, I didnt remove anything). The lines that were removed did not have explicitly found refs, anyone could just give a book without a page number and say it says so. Please actually read the edit summaries before you make such accusations. Rabt man (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- I would like to repeat that the statements which I removed could not be found in the source when I checked. I ask you to send me a link to where it explicitly says so. Also, please check your own edit history before accusing others of POV. Hold on, check the comparisons of revisions. I provided a link to what reservation quotas actually were, and there was already a ref saying Nadars were part of OBC, which to my memory, I did not add. I added that they were an 'advanced community' as well into the part before the OBC classification from the intro. What are you trying to say?Rabt man (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- You removed most of the introduction section. The introduction section and info box are essential for readers who are not looking for the big picture. I dont understand why you did that. You removed a sentence and also an entire section(Martial Arts). Now you claim that you didnt see the refs. How convenient? I am a software writer, a law student and an aspiring politician. Thats why I dont edit many wiki articles. I literally dont have any time for wiki now. I have reverted countless POV edits fyi. If I wanted to expand this article, I would have done it a long time ago. Writers are only interested in the nadar's past. I am actually looking for an admin, to finish the job. But I am quite sure that it is difficult to expand the article due to the lack of refs. I didn't properly go through the line about backward class quota yesterday. This line was already in the article. I will include the line about Backward class quota to the Nadars today section as soon as possible. Mayan302 (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please read what the true definition of POV, vandalism, etc are and be careful with the accusations. I did not remove the introduction, I moved parts of it into the actual article itself, and fixed the grammar as well. The infobox is pointless for reasons I have explained to you on your talk page. The section of the martial arts could not be found in the text, but you have provided a page number which supposedly says the statement. It is irrelevant to the discussion what you aspire to be etc, but I wish you all the best. Rabt man (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- You removed most of the introduction section. The introduction section and info box are essential for readers who are not looking for the big picture. I dont understand why you did that. You removed a sentence and also an entire section(Martial Arts). Now you claim that you didnt see the refs. How convenient? I am a software writer, a law student and an aspiring politician. Thats why I dont edit many wiki articles. I literally dont have any time for wiki now. I have reverted countless POV edits fyi. If I wanted to expand this article, I would have done it a long time ago. Writers are only interested in the nadar's past. I am actually looking for an admin, to finish the job. But I am quite sure that it is difficult to expand the article due to the lack of refs. I didn't properly go through the line about backward class quota yesterday. This line was already in the article. I will include the line about Backward class quota to the Nadars today section as soon as possible. Mayan302 (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Nadar Mahajana Sagham source
@Nanjil01:Sorry to be blunt. But you dont know anything about WP:RS. Nadar Mahajana Sagham is not Oxford University. Only books that are published by reliable publishers(for instance, Oxford University press) can be used here. The lines from NMS were actually written by a local author called Immanuel. Which is from time immemorial an unreliable source and the admins here will never allow you to use Immanuel's book as a reference. Please also go through the WP:3RR rule. Go through the rules properly before you edit articles like Nadar(caste). Thank you.Mayan302 (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Nadar population
@Bishonen:According to this newspaper article,[13], the Nadars constitute 12% of Tamil-Nadu's population. I am not sure if this is accurate. But the sentence is supported by the above newspaper article. Please look into this issue when you find time. Thank you.Mayan302 (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)