|WikiProject India / Kerala / History||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 Headline text
- 2 Periyar role
- 3 Vandalism reverted
- 4 Please do ot revert at it is cited
- 5 Wikipedia needs to consult an authority
- 6 Please do not revert
- 7 Page protection and dispute resolution
- 8 Please do not revert
- 9 Trying protection one more time
- 10 EVR periyar and Vaikom Satyagraha
- 11 Poor citation
- 12 Is this okay
- 13 Can I move forward?Waited for response for more than a month
- 14 Rambling, discoursive article
Please do not delete cited information regarding Vaikom Struggle.184.108.40.206 19:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add the blog to the article not allowed in wikipedia.Ple ase do not delete content which is cited.220.127.116.11 16:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do ot revert at it is cited
Please refer to talk page 18.104.22.168 03:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Asked for a India expert.22.214.171.124 14:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Please do not revert
Asked for a India expert126.96.36.199 08:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Page protection and dispute resolution
I have protected this page due to revert-warring by two users. Please resolve your disputes here, and review Wikipedia's policies of WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Please keep this discussion civil and remember, protection is not an endorsement of the version. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not revert
The role of EVR is cited.Please do not revert asked for a India Expert.188.8.131.52 14:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Trying protection one more time
Going to try protecting this for a week. If the edit wars and corresponding lack of discussion continue here, everyone involved in edit-warring is likely to face blocks. Please talk out the issue or seek dispute resolution if you can't resolve it between yourselves. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
EVR periyar and Vaikom Satyagraha
Thank you for your prompt action and response Seraphimblade. Ezhava
- 1: http://pib.nic.in/feature/feyr98/fe0798/PIBF0707983.html (from the Same Press Information Bureau, Govt of India)
- 2:He was arrested there.
- 3:He had been invited to Vaikom as he was president of the Madras Presidency Congress (now Tamil Nadu)
- 4:A resolution was passed by the Madras Presidency Congress (now Tamil Nadu) in Kanchipuram in 1925 which hailed
Periyar as Vaikom Hero hence his kwown so. http://snphilosophers2005.tripod.com/louis.pdf
- 5:Madras Presidency had Tamil nadu,Parts of Andhra and Karnataka and also parts of kerala in particular Malabar and congress had members from all these parts.There were Malayalam speakers when the resolution was passed
- 6:Even in 1952 elections parts of Kerala(Malabar) were in the Madras State .Only after that was Kerala formed.
To all if there is a content dispute(with citations or no citations) Please raise first in the discussion page or put the NPOV tag .But please do not start revert wars .If after the tags have been put or raised in the discusiion if there is no response after some time one can change it.Please see Wikipedia's policies ofWikipedia's policies of WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:NPOV.
Ezhava i had added why he is called Vaikom hero.If anyone wants any further or has point please raise it.Harlowraman 00:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear administrator, I am responding to User 184.108.40.206's assertion that there is a citation about the role of EVR in the Vaikom Satyagraha. However, what he is referring to is a single citation from The Hindu newspaper, by one Krishna Ananth who is a journalist, not a historian. The Hindu newspaper is considered to be heavily biased and not neutral. Besides, Krishna Ananth is a Tamilian and it is usually better to use local Kerala sources to get a nPOV. Otherwise, it will be like using a French source to assert things about Britain.
On the contrary, to show that EVR's role was minor, I have cited a scholarly book written by Dr. K. Kusuman, Professor of History at the University of Kerala. This is not available on the web.
Besides, a google search will show the following citations, from researchers in Kerala:
1. http://www.keralahistory.ac.in/radicalpolitical.htm (Kerala Council for Historial Research, Govt of Kerala)
2. http://pib.nic.in/feature/feyr98/fe0798/PIBF0707981.html (Press Information Bureau, Govt of India)
3. http://www.geocities.com/guruforum/vaikom3.htm (Famous cartoonist and political commentator Abu Abraham)
4. http://www.sivagiri.org/vaikkom.htm (Official publication of the Sivagiri Matham; the head of the Matham was Sree Narayana Guru, the person who inspired the satyagrahis, and the person who most influenced Gandhiji in his thinking about casteism)
None of these neutral sources give much importance to Ramasami Naicker. Travancore kingdom, where the struggle took place, was not under the Madras Presidency, which was EVR's territory. He had neither visibility nor influence in Travancore/Kerala. To claim otherwise is to deny credit to those who actually fought and died for their rights in Kerala. The claim that EVR was the 'hero of Vaikom' is purely Tamilian hagiography. Nobody in Travancore/Kerala has ever accepted the claim that EVR was 'hero of Vaikom'. He may have performed various deeds that are claimed to be heroic, but they were all in Tamil lands.
I request the IP address cited to not vandalize history just for hero-worship. It is unfair to the true leaders of this movement, namely T K Madhavan, K P Kesava Menon, and Kelappan, all of whom were beaten and jailed.
It is true that EVR did go to Vaikom, and that statement of fact is acceptable to everybody. However, the impression that he was the leader of the struggle and that he was a 'hero' there is false and malicious. It is practically colonial: As though he was the natural leader of not only Tamil Nadu but of its 'vassals' like neighboring kingdoms and states. Anybody who knows Kerala society and history knows this is not true: Tamilians are not held up as role models in Kerala, and have not been in recent history.
Making up statements based on minimal sources cited is considered vandalism, and I request that people avoid it. Ezhava 12:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this okay
Is the compromise okay .Is there any changes anyone wants?Waiting for your response.I want to improve the article.But I want your feedback.Got no response for a long time.Please let me know Harlowraman 05:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Can I move forward?Waited for response for more than a month
I want to improve the article.The discussion seems to be dead no one is responding .Please let me know if you have any objections .We can discuss it and move forward.I will wait for a day or two and start assuming no one has an objection.Harlowraman 02:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Rambling, discoursive article
There was evidently an edit war on this page a number of years ago, although I have trouble understanding exactly what it was about. As a result, the article reads very poorly now. There is, for instance, no clear summary of the timeline, e.g., how many months did the Satyagraha last? Another criticism is that the article spends much too long defending defending the mention of Sree Narayana Guru. If there's controversy about whether or not to mention him, that's fine to mention, but the article goes on at much too great length on this. I'm not in a position to sort out what happened (knowing very little of the history), but I hope someone can step up and tidy this up. Dylan Thurston (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)