Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:45, 17 January 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iyengar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): ], ] For help fixing these links, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page. Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem

Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers Links from this article with broken #section links : (2x) ], ] You can remove this template after fixing the problems | FAQ | Report a problem

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ethnic groups This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Karnataka / Tamil Nadu Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Karnataka (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Tamil Nadu (assessed as Mid-importance). Tamil civilization (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tamil civilization, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Tamil civilizationWikipedia:WikiProject Tamil civilizationTemplate:WikiProject Tamil civilizationTamil civilization

Template:Castewarningtalk

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

Inaccuracies and Spam on this page

It appears that this page is being spammed to reflect someone's biases---and this someone seems to have a lot of time on their hands. There are several problems, starting with the very beginning. Perhaps the biggest of them is the insistence on ethnicity being the distinguishing feature between Vadakalais and Thenkalais, while ignoring every philosophical distinction between the two. First, it is unclear if there is an ethnic difference (the study cited would make the proponets of eugenics under Nazis proud---who "proved that aryans were superior"). This is disingenious, and perhaps even legally actionable.

Secondly, iyengars themselves see themselves as proponents of the azhwar-ramanuja tradition with a rich history of philosophy. By harping on a narrow caste perspective to the exclusion of everything else, the author is not writing a balanced article. There are also a lot of historical inaccuracies, as well as history (particularly re: iyengars outside Tamil Nadu) that is deliberately left out. Examples below:

>>the native tongue of the Iyengar Brahmins is Tamil. But nowadays there are Iyengars who speak other languages, mainly Telugu and Kannada. Vaishnavites have been living in the Tamil Nadu state of the India even prior to the time of Ramanuja. However, Iyengars as a community trace their origin from the times of Ramanuja.

"Nowadays" there are iyengars who speak Kannada and Telugu is a ridiculous statement. There have been communities of iyengars speaking kannada and telugu since Ramanuja was chased out of the Chola empire into the Hoysala empire. I am not sure if there is some kind of agenda here, but the statement above would be false.

>>is a caste given to Hindu Brahmins of Tamil origin who follow the Visishtadvaita philosophy propounded by Sri Ramanujacharya. They are found mostly in Tamil Nadu as they are generally native to the Tamil Nadu state of India. But they are also found in large numbers in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh..

The history of iyengars indicates conflict between being in the caste system and being out of it, as the author himself acknowledges (though in a location no one would see). Rather than show the complexities, the author wants the world to fit in his agenda. Secondly, the thiruman is not a caste mark, it is a mark to show devotion. I think someone wants key phrases to appear here, rather than accuracies.

>> The word "Iyengar" is a relatively new name and was not used in any medieval works or scriptures. The word "Sri Vaishnava" would therefore be the right word to describe them, though all of them could be called as Sri Vaishnava Brahmins. The word Iyengar is derived from Ayya a Prakrit version of the Sanskrit word Arya along with the Telugu honorific plural suffix garu. Some others believe that the word "Iyengar" means one who is characterised by five attributes(Aindu angangal). Lester, Robert C. claims that the word “Ayyangaar” was first used by Kandhaadai Ramanuja Ayyangaar of Tirupathi around 1450 AD.

The second sentence is a logical fallacy. Just because Iyengar is a new word does not make its usage wrong. I suggest the author go to Pakistan and tell them they should actually be called Hindustan since pakistan is a new word.

Secondly, the author implicitly claims that Iyengar=Ayya+garu as the true etymology (since it is asserted without qualifications), and that other etymologies are not yet substantiated. This requires a citation, or else the author should place all theories on an equal footing.

Thirdly, why does only Lester get a citation by name while the others do not? It isn't as if Lester is someone an average person would care to know about, while the others actually seem better known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.61.47 (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

A "citation needed" tag is not appropriate for lead content that merely summarizes sourced material from the body of the article VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

For Dispute Mediation

The following content is being added for Dispute Mediation as filed here.

I do not know if this whole issue comes under Wiki:Arbitration. While the problem is with some wiki editors given to misquoting continuously, and pushing their own POVs by fictitiously attributing it to published data, the actual need is Mediation to resolve content and sources used in a particular section of the article titled Ethnicity, genetics and origin.

This pertains to a long standing dispute and is in continuation with the points discussed on this Talk:Iyengar page. There has been a deliberate attempt by some users to push their own fabricated conclusions of an ethnic–genetic difference between the peoples of Thengalai and Vadagalai. Examples are edits by Svr014 ] and Hari7478 ]

From 2009 to date this has not been resolved. The origin of this dispute is predominantly casteism. It is believed by some that Thengalais are Tamil-Speakers and absorbed Non-Brahmins into their fold. Thus, some Vadagalais seek separatism from them, in terms of ethnic / racial / caste purity. The source of the seemingly casteist stand is their religious notions of caste purity. However, genetic studies are being misused and misquoted by some such wiki editors to portray an ethnic-genetic difference between the two sects. To that end, general sources are also being misquoted. Hari7478 posits linguistic groups to indicate ethnicity / race and confuses between ethnicity and genetics.

This issue requires one to take into account the term "vada" which in Tamil means "north". This is taken by some to mean "North of the Tamil Country", which is current day Andhra and was known as Vadugavalli in the past; while others take "vada" to mean Northern India. Unless explicitly stated by a source, one cannot take "vada" to mean "Northern India" by default, or claim to be aryans or indo-aryan people "who once migrated from North India".

The current issue started on 07 June 2012 when I objected to the Sources. Hari7478 first reinstated the sources and the content, then removed one source on cleft chin studies, possibly because he realized the utter falsity in using the paper to project a vadagalai - thengalai differentiation. But Hari7478 then added a source "Aryans in South India" by PP Narayana Nambudiri as a reference for his statement in the main article that “The Vadakalai Iyengars are believed to be an Indo-Aryan people who once migrated from North India.”

Giving the PP Narayana Namboodiri source, Hari stated under references in the main article, that “The page classifies Vadagalai & Madhwas as aryans of south india, under the "Vaisnava" section”. So I went went thru p.72 which Hari7478 provided as reference. However, it turned out yet another falsification. While the author PP Nambudiri posits all Brahmins to be Aryan in his book, he states nothing on Vadagalais as Aryans or Indo-Aryans “who once migrated from North India”. I reproduce p.72 of the PP Nambudiri source as below:

"A detailed classification of the Tamil brahmins under the major heads smarta and vaishnava with many sub-sections under each major head is given below :-209
1. Vadama 2. Kesigal 3. Brahacharanam 4. Vathima Madhama 5. Ashtasahasram 6. Dikshitar /.

Smarta
7. Sholiar 8. Mukkani 9. Kaniyalar 10. Sanketi 11. Prathamasaki 12. Gurukkal //.
Vaisnava
A. Vadagali (Northerners) 1. Sri Vaisnava 2. Vaikhanasa 3. Pancaratra 4.Hebbar
B. Thengalai (Southerners) 1. Sri Vaisnava 4. Hebbar 2. Vaikhanasa 5. Mandya 3. Pancaratra

The Smartas: They are divided into 12 sub-divisions. The Vadamas claim to be superior to all other classes of Tamil speaking brahmins. The term Vadama signifies northerners.210 They are again divided into five sub-divisions, namely Coladesa, Vadadisa, Savayar, Inji and Thummagunta Dravida. All the above divisions and sub-divisions are endogamous except the Tambala brahmins who correspond to Gurukkal among the Tamil brahmins. The Vaidikis are superior to the Niyogis."

I request Hari7478 to quote exact sentences from the book where it says Vadagalais and Madhwas "once migrated from north india".

Since this is a long-standing dispute with no end to misquoting, tending towards an edit war, and apparent stand by Hari7478 to even misquote Cavalli-Sforza as i found from this talk page, I seek mediation to resolve the following issues:
Issue # 1:
1) Misleading subheading titled Ethnicity, genetics and origin:
This heading has been used to differentiate between Vadagalai and Thengalai, by mentioning specific genetic studies in one section, while omitting the other, in such manner, that it portrays an ethnic-genetic difference between Vadagalais and Thengalais. I suggest removing this section. Alternatively, i suggest removing the term “Ethnicity” in this title. Before Max Weber, Race and Ethnicity were considered one and the same. Though intellectual circles came to differentiate between the two terms, till date however, a layman understands ethnicity and race to mean the same thing. The deliberate attempt to portray Vadagalais of Indo-Aryan ethnicity and Thengalais of Non-Indo-Aryan Tamil ethnicity, by demarcating and misquoting genetic studies and general sources to that effect, carries racial connotations with the intention of supplanting ethnicity with linguistic association.

Issue # 2:
2) The introductory line under Ethnicity, genetics and origin states:

"It is widely believed that the two sects are distinctly different in origin."

The sources and say no such thing nor support ethnic, genetic, and origin differences between Vadagalais and Thengalais. On the contrary source (The changing Indian civilization, by Oroon K. Ghosh, 1976) support mergers of deshaja (indigenous) priests into the Indo-Aryan ritual fold, before the ascendency of Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhawa. I am reproducing the entire page 283 of source :

"Formerly, the priests of these regions were suspect. Thus, Hemadri in his Chatur-varga-chintamani quotes from the Saura Purana: "The Brahmans of Anga, Vanga, Kalinga, Saurashtra, Gurjara, Abhira, Konkana, Dravida, Dakshinapatha, Avanti and Magadha should be avoided". Now these deshaja (indigenous) and foreign-origin priests were absorbed in the North- Indian priestly tradition in the Age of Syncretism. This is particularly true in the South, where four stages may be postulated -

(i) Matrilineal Indusian priests over the whole of South, coming from South Iran and Baluchistan with the Iron Age groups, as brought out in Chapter 9. They were Dravidian-speaking and and echoes of their universality and supremacy in the South still survive, in spite of many incrustations, in the temple of the Mother Goddess Meenakshi at Madurai, where she is clearly superior to and more important than her consort, Sundareswarar.
(ii) In the post-Maurya Time of Troubles many Brahmans must have fled from the North West and infiltrated to the South, loaded with gifts and favours by rulers like the greatly "Sanskritising" Pallavas of Kanchi (300-880 AD). These Vadamars or Vadagalai, ie "Northerners" as distinct from the Tongalai or "Southerners"" must have introduced Sanskrit and Patriarchal Aryo-Indian rites.
(iii) In the Age of Syncretism all the deshaja or "native South Indian deities like Murugan, Subrahmanya, Ayappan, Sastha, the great Meenakshi herself, and others were grouped, and merged with Shiva, Shakti and Vishnu, and their priests admitted into the Aryo-Indian fold.

(iv) Finally, the South Indian brahmans became ascendant with Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhava on the intellectual side ; and with the creators of the Bhakti religion, the Shaiva Nayanars and the Vaishnava Alwars on the emotional side.”

Source provided is "Pg.132 Human Heredity, Karger., 1976. Google Books. 22 November 2006. Retrieved 15 November 2011".
It is a paper titled "Inbreeding among Some Brahman Populations of Tamil Nadu, by S.Srinivasan and D.P.Mukherjee.
Contrary to Hari7478's claim, the quoted page 132 does not support that statement that "the two sects are distinctly different in origin". Source mentions nothing about Vadagalai-Thengalai origin differences, migration of Vadagalai from Northern India, or exclusivity of Vadagalais. On the contrary, the stated page 132 mentions a regional influence as follows:

"The Vadama and the Vadagalai who belong to different sects, but have northern origin in common as indicated by the Tamil prefix Vada, and show the closest agreement in the frequencies of different types of earlobe and hand clasping among the Tamil Brahmans , are characterized by lower incidence of first cousin marriages and higher incidence of marriages between more distant relatives. There is a level of agreement in the levels of inbreeding among Tamil Brahmans, Ayyars and Ayyangars from different states (table II). But a regional influence is also indicated by the higher value of F in the Vadagalai sample from Andhra Pradesh and the lower value of F in the Ayyar sample from Kerala. The matrilineal tradition restricting maternal uncle-niece marriages in Kerala might, of course, have influenced the local Tamil Brahmans."

Issue # 3:
A statement under Vadakalai Iyengar:

"The Vadakalai Iyengars are believed to be an Indo-Aryan people who once migrated from North India."

Source is given as "The changing Indian civilization: a perspective on India. Minerva Associates. 1976. pp. 283, 160". This is exactly the same as source , which is "The changing Indian civilization: a perspective on India", by Oroon K. Ghosh, 1976. I have reproduced the entire page 283 of this source above. I request Hari7478 to quote exact sentences from pages 283, 160 or any other part of the book where it says Vadakalais are Indo-Aryan people who once migrated from North India.
Source is given as "Pg.72, Aryans in South India – by P. P. Nārāyanan Nambūdiri, Inter-India Publications."
I have reproduced p.72 of this book above. As mentioned earlier, the author PP Nambudiri posits all Brahmins to be Aryan in his book, but states nothing on Vadagalais as Aryans or Indo-Aryans “who once migrated from North India”.

Issue # 4:
A statement under Vadakalai Iyengar:

"In a genetic study in Andhra Pradesh all individuals examined among Vadakalai Iyengars showed a high similarity of rhesus(d) gene frequency with the people of Faislabad in the Punjab province of Pakistan. All the individuals examined among Vadakalai Iyengars showed Rhesus(D) positive with a high frequency of the D allele while the other castes from Andhra showed a low frequency of the D allele."

The source quoted is "Hameed, Amjad; Hussain, Wajahat; et al. (2002). "Prevalence of Phenotypes and Genes of ABO and Rhesus (Rh) Blood Groups in Faisalabad, Pakistan". Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences (Asian Network for Scientific Information) 5 (6): 722–724. Retrieved 17 February 2012".

Hameed's paper quotes a 1980 study by Reddy et al to draw a commonality between Indian and Pakistani populations as follows:

""In a study in Andhra Pradesh,India, all individuals examined among the Vadagalai Ayangar Brahmins were Rh(D)-positive while other populations showed a low frequency of D allele (Reddy et al.,1980). This similarity in frequency of Rhesus(D) genes in India and Pakistan can be attributed to the common history of these populations."

This paper has been placed under Vadagalai section in continuation of the portrayal of Vadgalai - Thenkalai difference. This paper was formerly used by Hari7478 to mention that "the above mentioned genetic similarity between the vadakalai and the punjabis of pakistan portrays the Indo-aryan origin of the Vadakalai iyengars". However, now the direct mention has been omitted out, but the placement and usage of this paper to cater to the Vadagalai - Thengalai differentiation remains the same. Since this paper does not support that (1) Vadagalais are of Aryan North-Indian origin, or (2) Genetically different from Tengalais; i suggest that this paper should not be used or mentioned under this section which seeks to superimpose genetics on preconceived notions of ethnicity, especially with a heading as Ethnicity, genetics and origin

Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

New Source

I do not know what is the outcome of the Formal Wiki:Dispute Mediation. Would like to know if i can add the following source to the article:
Asiatic Society of Bombay (1917). Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay, Volume 24, p.109,
which traces the life of Sri Varadacharya, developments though which Vadagalai identified with sanskritic lore and Tengalai with prabandhic lore, the distinct cleavage that came to take place between these two in the 14th and 15th centuries; and states the following (both from p.109):

"From these facts it will be understood that the terms Vadagalai and Tengalai are both linguistic and geographical in origin. Linguistically they mean the followers of the Sanskrit and Tamil lores, and geographically the followers of the Conjeeveram and Srirangam Schools. Varadacharya's Acharyaship was thus a most momentous epoch in the history of Vaishnavism....."

and

""As a matter of fact, Vedantacharya never asserted any such thing, - he never pitted the north against the south. The terms Vadagalai and Tengalai refer to the relative importance attached to Sanskrit (northern lore) and Tamil (southern lore) and not to any doctrines of North India as distinct from South India. There is indeed a geographical significance in these terms ; but the North refers to Conjeevaram and South to Srirangam at first, later on Alvar Tirunagari further south,-and not to North and South Indias. (See J.R.A.S., iota, p.714.)"

--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

No, not really. It is pretty old and this issue is contentious enough without relying on an old source that itself appears to be citing even older sources. - Sitush (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: there was a lot of rubbish written by amateurs and people who held very peculiar views regarding society (eg: scientific racism) around this time. We are not in a position to evaluate such things and so unless you can find a more modern source that does, they are rather dodgy. - Sitush (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright Sitush, will look for latest sources. Please clarify regarding sources that can be used:

1) Cud not find english sources stating vadagalais came from north india. If there is a tamil source (and am sure there will be), will that be acceptable?

2) For historical publications, what time period can be considered too old? I mean just as we accept technology change from Windows 98 to Windows XP, so also we accept new technology proven to yield results with genetic tests and such like. So in such fields we depend on better technology and latest results. As a matter of fact, such technology did not exist in the past. But with history, and historical sources, its just tracing stuff based on old-old texts, inscriptions, archaeological evidence, etc. So not sure how old can be considered too old for historical publications? Guidelines to follow in this will be helpful. How latest should a source be? Hope others (Qwyrxian, SpacemanSpiff, etc) also pitch in with their views (dunno perhaps this needs common consensus(?)). Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Sitush, i intend to work on Sattada Srivaishnava also. Looking forward to your involvement there. Deciding on guidelines here is a good idea so that we can follow the same in other articles too. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

As far as Tamil sources are concerned, they will have to comply with WP:RS just like any others. Additionally, you should probably take a look at WP:NOENG for details regarding how we should deal with non-English sources. Regarding the rest of your query, well, there can be no fixed rule: much depends on the circumstances but please, please do not hold the opinion that the study of history does not advance and that it is somehow a mere repetition of prior studies and/or "just" using the same old primary sources time and again. I understand why you might think that but it is quite wide of the mark. Otherwise, for example, we'd still all be using the misguided James Tod or Macaulay. Finally, I've found that searching to prove a point is often not the best way to approach a subject: in trying to verify what you know, you often miss huge chunks of stuff that, for example, say differently. If you have the time then read around it, rather than target a particular point of view. - Sitush (talk) 10:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush. I agree its not a good idea to search for info to prove a point, maybe this whole issue got to my head. My history knowledge is lacking so wud appreciate guidance on that from time to time. I suppose its better i stay away from this article for a while, until others start making edits here, so i can see what the flow is like. Am away for a month from next week so will catch up on return. Best wishes.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

The double residence of Ramanuja is one reason for the vertical division. Both Mysore and Trichinopoly claimed to have personal knowledge of his teaching. Consequenly ideological differences arose centering these cities with southern school (the Tengalai) inclined to regard the Tamil Naalaayiram over Sanskrit scriptures, and Northern school (Vadagalais) insisting on the authority of the Vedas (though not rejecting the Naalayiram). For those of you who may know sanskrit- the two doctrines are called markaṭa-nyaya (monkey theory) and marjara-nyaya (cat theory). Hence north-south refers to Mysore-Trichonopoly based difference in doctrines. The Project Gutenberg released in August 2005 an EBook of Hinduism And Buddhism, Volume II. (of 3) by Charles Eliot. You can find this there as a reliable english source for the above statements. VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't bother: Eliot is not a particularly good source and the work of both him and Dowson is often abused here. You need a much more modern source, which surely there must be. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

We may then have to specifically "define" what is MODERN (recent times). (1) Are there any specific guidelines in wikipedia about interpretation of "modern source" in terms of exact years (2) Can individual users set "the year" that decides what comprises modern ? or has it to be negotiated through consensus ? (3) In case of no subsequent "work" on that topic say after year-X then can the last available work in that topic be considered modern or should we keep waiting for the apple to fall down from the tree ? (4) Definition of modern literature for "caste" may be different from that of say "computer" can we apply the same year parameter for both ? I think we need a consensus on all this before saying 40 years is modern or 70 years is antiquitated.VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not getting involved in more of this semantics crap. I have a lot of experience of Misplaced Pages and you have very little, but there is a limit to how many articles I can handle when you challenge every little thing. Try some AGF. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am going to overlook that comment as a goodwill towards you. But careful: “I have a lot of experience of Misplaced Pages and you have very little” is inappropriate. Misplaced Pages clearly states that comments from editors in a manner implying some kind of inappropriate right or status exists because of any factor is inappropriate (I know more-you know little is one such).

I think you may have identified the problem rightly - you may be handling more than you can.Take a break or narrow your watchlist. Quality not quantity is more important in such matters - We are all human. Think about what i said carefully with a calm mind. VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Telling me that will ignore it is an acknowledgement of not ignoring it. Childish. I am well aware of the guidelines etc but you have to use some common sense here: And do not give me life adviceyou patronising so-and-so.

Since you are so good at researching policies etc, go research WP:RSN and other such pages, or check Q's usual opinion regarding older sources. Can you find a more modern source, please. Others have already appreciated that this is the way to go here. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I realize that the article is a source of contention, but remind all editors to maintain a civil tone and abstain from ad hominem arguments. Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 00:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The tone is a spill-over from some rather tendentious stuff at Talk:Nair. I am sure that we will all calm down, given a few hours and a bit of common sense on all sides. Sorting out this article is no big deal, really. That it has been such a mess for so long is because of COI etc. I have no possible COI wrt it ... and I have a lot of experience of dealing with these things, including the inevitably resultant (always unsuccessful) reportings of me to WP:ANI. Tomorrow is anoher day! - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I donot understand why we should not contain the “spill-over” if we acknowledge that it is the “content” of the dispute that should take eminence over “who” is having the dispute. For me a talk in Page X of an IR-Topic is independent of a talk in Page-Y of IRT. Presently assuming WP:AGF I shall overlook the “spill-over”. You are a good editor and I respect you for that, but “spill-overs” can be counter-productive to the greater benefit of consensus-building aimed at improving the respective article in question.

Let us therefore continue our focus and discuss on Vadagalai- Tengalai differences and what can be considered a "modern" citation for the same.Kindly re-consider the 4 points that i have addressed earlier on what is "modern". Thanks in advance. VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There is not definition of modern, nor do we require modern sources. However, we know that most earlier sources (especially those from the early twentieth century) were terribly biased and do not meet the requirements of WP:RS. And that is what this really comes down to, in Misplaced Pages terms: a source must be reliable to be used. We have strong evidence that much earlier documentation (though not all) is unreliable except for basic facts (and even then, we have to look at exactly how the facts were gathered; for example, a lot of the colonizers simply took whatever their local informants told them as historical fact, and never bothered to actually do any research). So, no, we don't need to, nor will we even consider, defining a hard and fast rule. But that doesn't prevent us from having discussions and coming to consensus decisions that a certain category of sources are likely to be unreliable. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding a reference if it does not meet WP:RS and avoiding a refernce by throwing around the word "not modern enough" are two different things. Whether "modern" needs to be defined because it is constantly being used to discredit suggestion of citations from other users is something everybody has to decide. I or you are not the important factor in this but what the "collective-opinion" is that what matters. I donot want to think "nor will we even consider" is a spill-over, in any case I am willing to overlook it.Yes, I agree with you that "having discussions and coming to consensus decisions that a certain category of sources are likely to be unreliable" is the important thing. But if discrediting the source was done on grounds of not being "modern" - the onus of defining "modern" becomes imminent. VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It simply is not possible to define "modern" because it depends on the context, as WP:RS explains. Judging which sources are ok for Misplaced Pages and which are not is something that can be tricky and (sorry to harp back to this) experience can be important. The Misplaced Pages "way" is in some respects idiosyncratic. However, if Eliot is sound then he will have been cited by more recent sources for the point that you make. It is the nature of historians/anthropologists etc to revisit, recap and often rebuild what their predecessors said, and for an academic to do that requires that they cite the precedessors. The issue in question is clearly complex and clearly a cause of controversy, which makes it all the more likely that Eliot's research etc has been used/accepted/rejected by people writing in, say, the last 30 years or so. Note: I am not setting a rule disbarring sources that are older than 30 years but in this instance it seems reasonable that we can find something suitable. Can you imagine what we would look like if we cited Risley's theories of racial origins as if they were current academic consensus? Or James Tod on pretty much anything to do with Rajasthani history before his own era? Stupid, racist, ignorant and sloppy, that's what. - Sitush (talk)

You pretty much re-affirmed my point yourself . “It simply is not possible to define "modern" because it depends on the context”. Therefore one has to exercise caution when on discredits reference suggested by other Users by throwing around the word "not modern enough" repeatedly. Hence, Say 30, Say 40 etc at the end of the day are arbitrary and has to be a “collective editor-opinion”.

Streamlining on the core-issue. Have we seen any instances where Vadagalai-Tengalai origin (not just the apparent differences) was attributed to another author other than Elliot in the last 30 years ? If so what was the alternate author that took eminence over Elliot on referencing Vadagalai-Tengalai origin ? Without one such - how can we hypothesize/ speculate that Eliot may not be the preferred citation for his academic-successors on Vadagalai-Tengalai origin ? The present Iyengar article only summarizes the differences between Vadagalai and Thengalai in their practices, beliefs, theological outlook etc but does not adequately give the reason why/how these differences came about in the first place (namely its origin). It is within this context that – Geographical genesis-nodes of these schools and their relationship to Ramanuja’s residence gains significance. VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Iyers

This article contain a fair few asides concerning the Iyers. That community has its own article and I can see no reason for us to engage in a "compare and contrast" of the two here. I guess, however, that there may be a reason that is lost in the textual morass. Can anyone spot it? - Sitush (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Vadakalai and Thenkalai

It is a well known fact that Vadakalai=Northerners, and thenkalai are southerners. It is a mere translation and everyone knows this. Above all, the fact is supported by sources. But recently, a user had changed it as "Vad=south, and then'=north", which is too mischievous. It's like saying "arctic is south pole while the antarctic is in the north" - laughable indeed. It makes the whole article unstable. But, it is a silly and laughable piece of contrib' which has to be reverted right away. Above all, the reference provided(the particular inline citation) has it all. Making a small change like that might go unnoticed, but it is too big(figuratively), as it changes the whole interpretation. I can't believe this is happening. Too silly!! Anyhow, i'm posting the refs here with explanation.

• - It goes as - "These vadamars or vadagalai ie northerners" as distinct from tongalai or southerners. - The changing Indian civilization: a perspective on India - Oroon K. Ghosh
  
  
• - "They were divided into Vadakalai(northern) and thenkalai(southern) castes". - Rural society in southeast india by Kathleen Gough, published by Cambridge university press
  
  
• - Vadakalai(Northerners) - Pg.72, Aryans in South India – by P. P. Nārāyanan Nambūdiri, Inter-India Publications.
  
  
• - Vadagalai(Northerners) & Thengalai(Southerners) - Linguistic Culture and Language Policy By Harol Schiffman (published by Routledge-London, Taylor & Francis e library, Routledge-New York)
  
  

Thank You!! Hari7478 (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hari, my brain flipped. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's alright. Actually, the first edit was made by a one "user:Hayagreevadasa". Hari7478 (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Religious observances

A lot of details are missing in this section. I tried to make changes and provided citations for all. But the page has been reverted to old version

Edgar Thurston as a source

The works of Edgar Thurston are of very dubious reliability and I intend to remove them. Do we have any more recent sources for the information currently attributed to him? - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Vadakalai Vs Tenkalai (again)

Sitush, I refer to the Vadakalai vs Tenkalai section, which i intend to fix as per the objections raised earlier on, with the Wiki Dispute Mediation. I suppose you are aware of Robert Lester, who was a professor with the Dept of Religious Studies at the U of Colorado; and did extensive research on the Srivaishnava religion. I refer to his paper, Rāmānuja and Śrī-Vaiṣṇavism: The Concept of Prapatti or Śaraṇāgati, published in the History of Religions, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Winter, 1966), pp. 266-282. Kindly note the following reproduced from the paper:

Less than 150 years after Ramanuja's death his followers split into two well-defined groups: Tengalai ("Southern") and Vadagalai ("Northern"). The split had practical as well as theological bases, but it centered on the question of human effort versus divine grace in effecting the highest goal. Both of these schools of thought affirm bhagavadprapatti ("resorting to the Lord") to be the supreme means to moksa, the Tengalai defining prapatti as mere receptivity or lack of opposition to divine grace, the Vadagalai insisting that prapatti must involve a positive act on the part of one desirous of moksa before divine grace can effect such an end. The latter school, defined by Vedanta Desika, makes prapatti a six-member (shadanga) ritual act involving the recitation of certain mantras. Both schools claim Ramanuja as the central authority for such affirmations, the Tengalai appealing to Gitabhasya 18.66 and the Vadagalai to the Gadyatraya.

During the time of Ramanuja himself, there was nothing called Vadagalai and Thengalai. But after Ramanuja passed on, his followers divided themselves on the basis of philosophy, into Vadagalai and Tengalai; such that the prapatti ritual itself differs somewhat between these two sects. Thereafter the followers created geographical locations as their base, such that vadagalai followers centered in Kanchipuram and Tengalai followers in Srirangam. As noted in J.R.A.S. source above, "...North refers to Conjeevaram and South to Srirangam at first, later on Alvar Tirunagari further south,- and not to North and South Indias".

I believe Robert Lester is an acceptable source (all his publications are recent; not old). Can i proceed to make appropriate changes to the article? Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

@ all - Just because there are theological differences between the two sects doesn't mean "there's no ethnic difference". If Thurston is removed, it makes Mumme & Lester sources even less reliable. But Thurston's source has a peer review(Article, The Hindu, 1992) to back it up. Additionally, an author's description on "theological differences" are indeed assumptions and theories based on "deductive reasoning", acceptable though. However, you can't counter a "genetic/anthropological/museological" study with "theoretical reasoning". Nevertheless, the possibility of a "split/common origin" has also been mentioned in the opening line of the corresponding section. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. If there was a "split/common origin"; how can Vadakalai and Thenkalai be ethnicaly different communities? Please provide full reference (date, page number) of 'The Hindu' peer review on Thurston. I suspect you are misquoting sources again. Btw, Thurston did not research into religion. He merely recorded claims made by individuals, no matter how inflated they may be (including descent from Brahma). His job was to aid census and ethnography survey. Robert Lester on the other hand has been a standing professor of religion with extensive research into Srivaishnavism, origins of the Srivaishnava community and their sampradayas. As for the genetic/anthropological/blah blah assumptions you make; each of them (including misquoting sources to support your half-baked assumptions of racism) have been addressed in the section For Dispute Mediation; from which you chickened out, instead of agreeing for mediation. So either you agree for mediation this time around; or keep away from edits based on your assumptions. Make your choice and let me know. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

another source

Agree with Mayasutra's reliability of source. Another source attributing the same reason

Patricia Y. Mumme, The Srivaisnava Theological Dispute: Manavalamamuni and Vedanta Desika, 1988 "it developed a theological dispute and sectarian schism over whether that grace is given in cooperation with human effort" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastnfurios (talk • contribs) 02:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Ethnic groups articles
• Unknown-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
• Start-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• Start-Class India articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class Karnataka articles
• Low-importance Karnataka articles
• Start-Class Karnataka articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject Karnataka articles
• Start-Class Tamil Nadu articles
• Mid-importance Tamil Nadu articles
• Start-Class Tamil Nadu articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject Tamil Nadu articles
• WikiProject India articles