Talk:Iyengar

Template:Castewarningtalk

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.[citation needed] 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.[1] 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.[1] The word Iyengar is derived from Ayya a Prakrit version of the Sanskrit word Arya along with the Telugu honorific plural suffix garu.[7] Some others believe that the word "Iyengar" means one who is characterised by five attributes(Aindu angangal).[8] Lester, Robert C.[9] 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)

needs to be completely rewritten

Dear Editor, I echo the previous notes in the talk page. There is really not much information in this article except for emphasizing on vadakalai thenkalai differences and even citing random and quite misleading references on DNA studies to apparently show the other community in (what they perceive to be) poor light. I suggest taking the vadakalai thenkalai differences to the end of the page rather in the beginning. There are so many common things that will be useful and interesting to know for the general public. The common things can start from Alwar Acharyas who gave life to hinduism that was threatened by Budhism and Jainism, the acharyas that endured persecution of Saivite Chola Kings, the so called vadakalai and thenkalai acharyas who together saved Srirangam and hence vaishanvism from Muslim invaders. The 108 great temples and other temples of historic significance. The current Acharyas and Mathas. Then we can capture multiple views on Vadakalai and Thenkalai..how the split happened etc.

I am new to Wiki editing. If someone can guide me about the process, I can take more responsibilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.116.64 (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The prime policy of wiki editing is Verifiability, not truth. Details on "src's and its authors"(neutral party/non-iyengar src's) had been extensively discussed in the talk page about a year ago, which have been archived. The info' had also been reviewed and modified by some other experienced users(both Indian & non-Indian editors). Suspecting the "User-IP" to be a troll from the past, as the page had previously encountered similar edits from a "Santa Clara resident of Indian origin". The user is just echoing the claims of the above Ips in the talk page, one of whom have been banned for sockpuppetry while another was given a temporary ban for harrasment/personal attack. Most of them had indulged in edit warring simply due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons due to which the page was given full protection on several occassions in the past. The new users/Ips seem to be no different, but simply one tick ponies who intend to make edits in the sensitve areas based on the "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" reasons which is evident from the above comments, especially the "section needs to be moved to the last" one. This page has seen some extreme edit warring incidents but the edits have stayed. Don't want to feed the troll(suspected to be from the past) again. Hari7478 (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Authentic sources such as govt articles &/or books authored by foreign/non-Indian/non-Iyengars are the most trustworthy for wiki' editing as per wiki' norms, in case there multiple issues. Also, additional refs for cross checking are certainly deemed more authentic, especially when they are cited from government websites. Read wiki' editing policies as to what counts as a reliable source, before making edits. By the way, Monier Monier-Williams and Kathleen Gough are highly renowned authors, as believed by wiki's senior editors, who make edits in articles relating to Hinduism & hindu castes. Hari7478 (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

grossly inaccurate statements on ethnicity that defies logic

Statement 1 "The Vadakalai Iyengars (Uttara Kalārya,Sanskrit: उत्तर कलार्य)[17] are believed to be an Indo-Aryan people who once migrated from North India" I couldn't verify this statement in the cited links. This is not verifiable and needs to be removed.

Statement 2 "According to genetic studies, the Thenkalai gene frequencies are distinctly different from that of the Vadakalais."

I looked at the cited work and here is the abstract of it

"The data on cleft chin were collected on 380 unrelated individuals belonging to two endogamous of Sri Vaishnava Brahmans of Tirupati Andhra Pradesh" First, any statistician will agree that making a sweeping claim on the entire population (which is in the order of millions) based on a sample size of 380 people is bad statistics (guess what, the error margin here >50%). Second, the people in the study is not from Tamilnadu where most (>95%) Thenkalais live and therefore the study cannot be qualified with any degree of error. Third, the purpose of this study is not even remotely connected to the subject matter in discussion and cannot be used as a reliable proof for this wild claim.

If this statement must be included, it should be represented as follows:

"According to genetic studies conducted in Andhra with a sample size of 380, the Thenkalai gene frequencies are distinctly different from that of the Vadakalais."

I encourage the Wiki administrators and Wiki readers to understand this issue and help in achieving a fair and balanced view. I will continue to edit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastnfurios (talk • contribs) 09:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Fist of all, all of these sources weren't provided by me, nor did i make "all" of the first edits in the section. By the way, it doesn't matter if the genetic samples are collected from Tamil Nadu or Andhra Pradesh, unless somebody has sources to prove that either Vadakalai iyengars of "TN & AP" show differences in genetics. Until then, they'll always be termed as one.

While i have reasons to believe that the Ip-"8.19.13.19", here are a list of edits & comments that given by the IP, and the reason as to why i had to revert them, and why i had kept the existing version:

• . [1] - Here the user had mentioned that "7 out of 12 alvars were non-brahmins". This data has no relevance in the Vadakalai or Thenkalai sections, "unless the user has sources to prove that the alvars belonged to either of these sects or were Iyengars by origin". Also, only the front page cover of the src is available for viewing and not the actual contents. Unless the user is within the "wiki' trusted list of senior editors, or huggle whitelist(in which i am) or any other trusted list", the offline sources cannot be accepted from that user as it could still be a lie. And, please learn what "relevance" means in wikipedia. the Hindu god Krishna was born a "kshatriya" but all indian brahmins do worship him. Now should this be added in the "BRAHMIN" wiki' page, under the genetics section that too. Give me a break.
  
  

• . [2] - Here the user had provided some info' along with a source which goes as "Thenkalai give equal importance to vedas and prabandhams". His source was an online book(authored by an indian author never heard of) and the contents could indeed be viewed under a snippet view. But I had provided two sources, one from Monier Monier-Williams(a famous british writer & a professor @ oxford univ'), and another from a website maintained by the "government of Tamil Nadu, India" to support my claim that "Thenkalais follow the tamil prabandhams". Regardless of how trustworthy these sources are to the other user, the src's are the most trustworthy as per wiki' verifiability norms(two highly reliable sources for cross checking). So, i had obviously deleted the other user's contributions by giving the same edit comments for my reverts. This, by all means, is a valid revert in wikipedia.
  
  

• . In one of the Ips edit comments he had mentioned "If he wants to put vadakalai first, no problem. But with my text edits retained." I'm sorry. That's not the way how we make dits in wiki'. This is no place to strike a deal.
  
  

• . All of the other sources provided by that user, including the one authored by "Patricia Mumme"(who doesn't even have a wiki' page on her) & another "Govt of India" survey, weren't available for online viewing, and all i could see was the front page cover of the online book. Unless the user is within the "wiki' trusted list of senior editors, or huggle whitelist or any other trusted list", the offline sources cannot be accepted from that user as it could still be a lie.
  
  

• . [3] - According to the book "Aryans in South India" Vadagalais are listed as an aryan ethnic group. But someone had previously deleted the source. I'll re-add it once the protection expires. And this one here - [[4]] says that "these vadakalais or vadamars must have introduced the sanskrit and patriarchal system of north india" under the chapter "THE ARYO INDIAN THEO ARISTOCRATIC" , and this was contributed by another senior editor in the vadakalai page. This src was also deleted, which will be re-added once the protection expires. Additionally, the online book "History of Madras" by James Talboys Wheeler speaks of "Brahmins being aryans and their timeline of migration to Southern India". The only two brahmin communities in "Madras" are Iyengars & Iyers, and this could be cited as a source to all sub-sects of madras brahmins. But there are adequate sources to prove that thenkalais have incorporated non-brahmin castes into their fold. Unless the user can provide similar sources for the vadakalai sect, the "James Talboys Wheeler book - "History of Madras", can be used to additionally support the other sources about vadakalai ancestry. Also, reg' the info' on genetic diff' between the two sects, every particular data needn't exactly adhere to the subject given in the extract. It is the exact words that rather matter, and it was provided by another senior user in another page.

So, if the user continues to make the same edits, i must make the same reverts, as all of my reverts are very much in line with wiki' editing policies and i've explained them in my above comments. And, please stop finding silly reasons to delete a content. I don't intend to feed a troll. I've repeatedly posted these comments over years, and the edits have stayed. Hari7478 (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The user-IP's comments have been deleted as he had modified my comments by posting his reply in between my lines. Please post it below my comments. Donot insert your views in between my statements and confuse the other users. Post it below. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Rebuttal:

[user]:Fist of all, all of these sources weren't provided by me, nor did i make "all" of the first edits in the section. By the way, it doesn't matter if the genetic samples are collected from Tamil Nadu or Andhra Pradesh, unless somebody has sources to prove that either Vadakalai iyengars of "TN & AP" show differences in genetics. Until then, they'll always be termed as one.

[FnF]: Very convenient, illogical answer. It is important because of the lingusitic diversity. Vadakalai/Thenkalai iyengars are not homogeneous among themselves as evident by classification such as hebbar, mandyam and chozhiar. By extending your logic, all muslims are ethnically and racially the same. Even if they are indeed the same, the science of statistics on methods of polling and sampling doesn't agree with your view. And you have conveniently avoided the small sample size. And the article needs to mention Andhra everytime the work is cited.

[user]: [1] - Here the user had mentioned that "7 out of 12 alvars were non-brahmins". This data has no relevance in the Vadakalai or Thenkalai sections, "unless the user has sources to prove that the alvars belonged to either of these sects or were Iyengars by origin". Also, only the front page cover of the src is available for viewing and not the actual contents. Unless the user is within the "wiki' trusted list of senior editors, or huggle whitelist(in which i am) or any other trusted list", the offline sources cannot be accepted from that user as it could still be a lie. And, please learn what "relevance" means in wikipedia. the Hindu god Krishna was born a "kshatriya" but all indian brahmins do worship him. Now should this be added in the "BRAHMIN" wiki' page, under the genetics section that too. Give me a break.

[FnF] I am not going to try and prove that 7 alwars were nonbrahmins. This must be known to this user who is a great expert in this area.

[user]: [2] - Here the user had provided some info' along with a source which goes as "Thenkalai give equal importance to vedas and prabandhams". His source was an online book(authored by an indian author never heard of) and the contents could indeed be viewed under a snippet view. But I had provided two sources, one from Monier Monier-Williams(a famous british writer & a professor @ oxford univ'), and another from a website maintained by the "government of Tamil Nadu, India" to support my claim that "Thenkalais follow the tamil prabandhams". Regardless of how trustworthy these sources are to the other user, the src's are the most trustworthy as per wiki' verifiability norms(two highly reliable sources for cross checking). So, i had obviously deleted the other user's contributions by giving the same edit comments for my reverts. This, by all means, is a valid revert in wikipedia.

[FnF]: Thenkalais following tamil prabandhams doesn't negate the fact that they follow vedas too. If the so called world renowned authors are comparing these issues, they surely must have mentioned that thenkalais don't follow vedas. Can you provide source for this statement? I have provided sources that they follow both. By logic, this doesn't negate the statement of the "world renowned" authors.

[user]:In one of the Ips edit comments he had mentioned "If he wants to put vadakalai first, no problem. But with my text edits retained." I'm sorry. That's not the way how we make dits in wiki'. This is no place to strike a deal.

[FnF]] This process is called building a consensus. The purpose is not to strike any deal but to make a progress on removing the inaccurate statements. This is also to prevent you from removing completely sourced information under the guise of this issue. And please do not patronize me.

[user]:All of the other sources provided by that user, including the one authored by "Patricia Mumme"(who doesn't even have a wiki' page on her) & another "Govt of India" survey, weren't available for online viewing, and all i could see was the front page cover of the online book. Unless the user is within the "wiki' trusted list of senior editors, or huggle whitelist or any other trusted list", the offline sources cannot be accepted from that user as it could still be a lie.

[FnF] Popularity doesn't mean accuracy. By using the same logic, the content on genetics should be removed because the author is not popular "who deosnt even have a wiki page". Laughable indeed!! ---

[user]: [3] - According to the book "Aryans in South India" Vadagalais are listed as an aryan ethnic group. But someone had previously deleted the source. I'll re-add it once the protection expires. And this one here - 4 says that "these vadakalais or vadamars must have introduced the sanskrit and patriarchal system of north india" under the chapter "THE ARYO INDIAN THEO ARISTOCRATIC" , and this was contributed by another senior editor in the vadakalai page. This src was also deleted, which will be re-added once the protection expires. Additionally, the online book "History of Madras" by James Talboys Wheeler speaks of "Brahmins being aryans and their timeline of migration to Southern India". The only two brahmin communities in "Madras" are Iyengars & Iyers, and this could be cited as a source to all sub-sects of madras brahmins. But there are adequate sources to prove that thenkalais have incorporated non-brahmin castes into their fold. Unless the user can provide similar sources for the vadakalai sect, the "James Talboys Wheeler book - "History of Madras", can be used to additionally support the other sources about vadakalai ancestry. Also, reg' the info' on genetic diff' between the two sects, every particular data needn't exactly adhere to the subject given in the extract. It is the exact words that rather matter, and it was provided by another senior user in another page.

[FnF] Again random facts to digress form the issue. Where is the work of these so called "world renowned" authors stating these facts. ---

[user]: So, if the user continues to make the same edits, i must make the same reverts, as all of my reverts are very much in line with wiki' editing policies and i've explained them in my above comments. And, please stop finding silly reasons to delete a content. I don't intend to feed a troll. I've repeatedly posted these comments over years, and the edits have stayed.

[FnF] I am not threatened by this user's bullying and I will continue to edit this page until truth is captured. If you are indeed not run by any hidden agenda, take a scientific and dispassionate view and let the valid arguments begin. It is not your article and if it has stayed for a while, it doesn't mean it is valid.

Reply to the above comments: This be my last comment under this post. There are still artciles with refs that state that hebbar iyengars are indeed mainstream TN iyengars who migrated into Karnataka, during ramanuja's visit to Mysore. So, again, unless there are sources to prove that Vad' and/or Ten' Iyengar sects of TN are different from those of the other states one shouldn't assume them to be different - It is called "original research" in wiki' which should be avoided. Again, there are sources from which it can be said that the two sub-sects are ethnic groups like this one[5]. If someone simply believes the two to be religious groups(only), i can't help it. So, the very comparison with muslims(inc' Turks, persians & arabs - indeed 3 diff' ethnic groups) is not agreeable. By the way, linguistic diversity doesn't mean "ethnic differences" unless you have a source that would comprehensively list out "ethnolinguistic" differences. Again, original research, with one's own knowledge is not allowed here.

Reg' thenkalai following prabandhams/both - You said "your claim doesn't negate the statement of the world renowned authors". Are you trying to say something like this - "according to article 1 & 2= X follows A; according to article 3= X follows A & B; since articles 1 & 2 don't say X doesn't follow B, there is no contradiction". Is that what you are trying to say? I'm sorry, as it's a violation of "WP:No original reasearch" and I suppose it even violates "WP:SYNTH".

The section is about ethnicity & genetics, and the worship of alwars is completely irrelevant in that section. Especially terms like "ironically & ...as contrary to the vedas" are certainly "original research". And, there is no question about "my knowledge on alvars". It is just hearsay. There is nothing to prove that they had existed, as there are some foreign authors who even believe that it was "Nathamuni" who composed all the 4000 verses(i could provide the sources), although there are sufficient sources to counter them. Once again, i request you to speak with regard to sources, and not on one's own knowledge.

While i can provide diffs of some edits of yours(in various pages) which might be "POV edits"- in my opinion, this calls for additionally verifiable online sources for cross checking with the offline ones already provided by you, when the data is challenged. However, we have other users who are trying to moderate, and so i'm planning to list out my refs here in the talk page, if asked for.

There is no need to remove the contents of genetics, as they are always published by genealogists and not by popular authors.

Regarding authors - popularity indeed doesn't mean accuracy. If this is to be taken as a valid point, apparently every genuine wiki' article content would always be challenged. There are certain norms about "Verifiability in wiki'" and that is all that matters here. By the way, statistical data such as population count/no. of temples managed, need to be supported with recent gov't surveys, as they are always changing, and not by a census that was taken 50+ years ago. Even this is mentioned in wiki'. Nevertheless, nothing could be verified from the source as there is no preview. Finally, sources that are unagreeable to a few should not be called "random fact". Hari7478 (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's break things down a little

Etymology

SpacemanSpiff has asked me to take a look at this article. I've read the visible talk page and the recent history, leading up to the imposition of full protection. It seems clear to me that there are widely differing opinions being expressed regarding a broad swathe of the content. Many of the comments are far too long for a newcomer to the debate, so why don't we split things down and just concentrate on one issue at a time.

I propose that we ignore the lead section for now because the purpose of that is to summarise the article & therefore we need to get the body of the article into shape before we have anything worth summarising. So, the first point that seems to be causing some grief is

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.[1]

Could those who believe this statement to be correct (just this statement, nothing else at the moment) please explain their rationale. Equally, could those who think that it is incorrect, incomplete or whatever do the same. Bear in mind two things: firstly, your opinion counts for nothing unless you can back it up with sources; secondly, your opinion counts for nothings if it trangresses any other of the Wikipedia policies, eg: neutrality, original research etc. And no name-calling or threats, please. This article is subject to general sanctions and untoward behaviour is likely to cause administrative action against the offending individual. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just added the caste warning template to the top of this page, which has a little more info about the sanctions issue that Sitush mentions. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, did you actually take on board what I said?

• Quibbling about "trusted editors" etc is a failure to assume good faith, unless you have concrete reasons for it. And it seems that you do not.
• My proposal was to concentrate on that single statement and then to move on to others. All your comments regarding the need for genetic/statistical sources etc appear to be irrelevant to that statement, as are most of your comments regarding the IP. Just about the only thing that agrees with my proposed methodology is your opinion that the statement needs additional sources. I have my own opinion regarding the thing but will hang off voicing it.

I suggest that you strike your message above and start again. Life will be much easier for everyone if we go through the issues with some semblance of order. - Sitush (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, i've indeed removed my message, and i'm re-posting some of it, regarding that single statement. First of all the source provided isn't available for online viewing. In that case, an additional source for cross-checking would be helpful. Or, if there is a secondary source(an article) that has reviewed the contents of the primary source(the book - "An Universal History"), it could be considered trustworthy, as i've never heard of this book. For example, the book "Castes and Tribes of Southern India - by Edgar Thurston" has been reviewed by "THE HINDU"(Daily newspaper). And, I can't find the ISBN numbers for the offline source, under the Reference section. There wouldn't even be a need for such a thorough verification, if this single statement hadn't been challenged, although the source is a book published by a renowned university. The anglo-saxons(english people) are a germanic tribe who had originally migrated from "Angli & Saxony, in Germany" to England; later, they were joined by the Normans. So, would you still call them Germans? Nope. Today they are called English people; while the "english,scottish,northern irish & welsh" are collectively known as British. Similarly, just because the term "Iyengar" is a relatively new name, it cannot be replaced with "Srivaishnava". I don't intend to bring logic here. But since we know nothing about the contents of the source, i thought it would be helpful to quote the "anglo-saxon" example. Hari7478 (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be online in order to be reliable or provide verifiability. Equally, just because a source is online does not mean that it is reliable. Thurston certainly is dodgy, for example. The source in question was apparently first published from around 1759 (see here) and as such predates the ISBN system by around 200 years: it is no surprise that an ISBN is not listed, since that would require a fairly recent reprint. It is possible that the source was quoted by a more recent authority but the citation does not say this. Since this is a source of some antiquity, unless the issue is discussed in a publication of, say, the last 40 years or so, the statement should be deleted. And if it is so discussed, we do not need the old source anyway. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not look into the year of publication. S'ry. Ofcourse, Thurston is dodgy. But when a data is challenged, and if there are editors in future, who might find reasons to delete a "statement ie unagreeable to them", the secondary source factor should be considered. I agree with your comments on online/offline source authenticity. And, one reason why i'm stressing about the use of online sources(for additional verification) is because vandal users(new users & IPs in most cases) might find it really comfortable to "contribute a controversial/false data by citing an offline source which actually might not have any of the claims made". Such vandal edits in caste related articles such as this one, are a real possibility. Additional sources for verification are required in such cases. Getting back to the topic, as you said, unless the issue is discussed in a recent publication, the statement should be deleted. I don't think there is any other factor for consideration regarding that source. Hari7478 (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Since nobody has objected etc, I have now removed citations/statements relying on the 18th century source. - Sitush (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if any further comments relating to the above discussion are keep above the {{od}} (outdent), thanks.

The Etymology section continues with the statement

The word Iyengar is derived from Ayya a Prakrit version of the Sanskrit word Arya along with the Telugu honorific plural suffix garu.[7]

The source is Ancestry.com, which is not a reliable source. We will needed something better than this, otherwise the statement should be removed. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

[6], [7]. These two sources could be cited. Hari7478 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

We do not use snippet views because they lack context, nor do we generally like to use tertiary sources. - Sitush (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Any update on this? Or are we going to have to remove those statements? - Sitush (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Another part of the etymology section says

Lester, Robert C claims that the word “Ayyangaar” was first used by Kandhaadai Ramanuja Ayyangaar of Tirupathi around 1450 AD.

This relies on Lester, Robert C. (1 January 1994). "The Sattada Srivaisnavas". The Journal of the American Oriental Society., a transcribed version of which appears to exist here. Lester's first mention of Ayyangaar is here on that website, but I am struggling to find where Lester actually says that KRA was the first to use the title. Can anyone spot it? - Sitush (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request, per RfC at WT:INB

The opening sentence contains various Indic scripts - Tamil, Kannada and Telugu - as well as IPA guidance. The latter is fine, but the three Indic scripts should be removed in accordance with a RfC at WT:INB earlier this year that determined no such scripts should appear in lead sections. The RfC details can be found here and here. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 01:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Citekill issue

1. "Vedanta Desika, the Vaishnavite Acharya and philosopher, founded the Vadakalai sampradaya[16] based on the Sanskritic tradition".[12][17][18][19][20]

Do we need six sources to establish this point. --AshLey ^Msg 08:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No. - Sitush (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you pls rm some of it, fixing the least priority. --AshLey ^Msg 09:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Priorities, the general rule, in this order until you have a result:

• Remove fakes
• Remove unreliable
• Remove tertiary
• Remove non-English if there are English ones available
• Of the remainder, keep those that appear to be most reliable and most relevant. For example, Oxford University Press or SUNY Press would usually trump something published by Concept, Popular Prakashan or APH.

  If the point is not contentious then it only needs a single source. This passage only needs one of the latter five citations, and it may not even need the first citation. If there may be any doubt (and there could well be on an article as contentious as this) then explain every step in your edit summary or refer it to the talk page for pre-removal discussion. You've seen me do this at Talk:Saint Thomas Christians, for example. I know that you did remove some of the above citations earlier, but if you look again then perhaps you will see a more reasonable solution than what appeared to be a rather random cut. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources

I object to two parts in the article. One is the statement:

"According to genetic studies, the Thenkalai gene frequencies are distinctly different from that of the Vadakalais.[21] "

The source [21] quoted is a 1978 publication which says the following:

"Abstract : The data on cleft chin were collected on 380 unrelated individuals belonging to two endogamous groups of Srivaishnava Brahmans of Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh. The highest frequency of cleft chin was found to occur among the males in both the endogamous groups, Vadagalai and Tengalai. Significant sex differences were noticed in both the groups. The Vadagalai and Tengalai male series reveal statistically significant differences with the Manipuri male Brahmans. However, the female series of Vadagalai and Tengalai show statistically insignificant differences with the Manipuri female Brahmans."

The 1978 study simply looked at cleft chin occurrence among Vadagalais and Tengalis and that too in just one place, Tirupati. The study found statistically significant difference between SriVaishnava brahmins and Manipuri male brahmins NOT between Vadagalai and Tengalai. To use this statement to differentiate between Vadagalai and Tengalai is an absolute falsification. Therefore, the said statement needs to be removed.

The second part i object to is the following paragraph quoting a blood group rhesus study to differentiate between Vadagalai and Tengalai:

"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.[15] 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.[15]"

The source [15] quoted is by Hameed et al., from the Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 2002. However, Hameed's paper simply 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."

Kindly note Reddy et al, studied Rh(D) occurrence in 1980 when technologies in comparative studies were minimal. Moreover the paper compares blood groups of just four populations of Andhra -- Mala, Yerukula, Kapu and Vadagalai Ayangar; and found incidence of Rh(D) higher in Vadagalai than the other 3 groups. Based on this paper one cannot conclude that (1) Vadagalais are of Aryan North-Indian origin, or (2) Genetically different from Tengalais. Both these conclusions are not supported by the aforesaid paper. Again, to use this source to differentiate between Vadagalai and Tengalai is falsification. Therefore the said paragraph needs to be removed.

There is an unfortunate deliberate attempt in this article to show Vadagalais are of North Indian Aryan origin whereas Tengalai are of South Indian native origin. Please note Vadadesa in Tamil sources refer to Andhra and MelNadu refers to Karnataka. Vadadesa, Vadama, Vadagalai can merely indicate northern part of Tamilakam, that is Vadadesa Andhra. Unless there is a source attesting specifically to "Aryan North-Indian origin" of Vadagalai, such an origin claim is unacceptable. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Another point -- please do not try to draw broad-based conclusions due to similarity with Pakistani populations. I am one of the earliest indians who got a full sequencing done. I have matches with Iyengars in a high range; as also with Kallars, Vanniyars and Lambadis (all these 4 in the top 20 matches). My highest matches are however with Sinhalese, Pakistanis, Gujaratis and Telugu speakers. This wud merely mean various tribes were localized in certain geographic areas in a long gone time period, very possibly at a time when there was little or no differentiation of tribes into 'castes', and probably they were just cattle herding martial tribes (probably gujjars (?)) , who found their way from around Kutch into Warangal. Since Egypt and Iran figure as the last two in the top 20 matches, this may even indicate an ancient migratory route, subject to further studies. Let me also add that i have matches with Khonds (in the top 20 matches) and with Parayars (though not in the top 20). So Pakistani connections between all these groups / castes / tribes, can mean anything or nothing. There is no need to over-interpret data, and worse, absolutely no need to falsify statements just to cater to vadagalai-tengalai differentiation. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

All genetic stuff should be removed on sight, in practically every Indian caste article. The samples are small, the conclusions vary, the cited papers tend to be old (in the context of a fast-developing science), the researchers rely on self-identification by their subject matter, the cites are usually based on the synopsis (not acceptable) etc. Just bin the lot. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

To Sitush

Am not in favor of removing genetic studies. In this article, utter falsity (absolute lies) have been written, quoting sources which do not mention such things at all. To support Vadagalai- Tengalai differentiation, not just misquoting genetic studies, other sources have also been misquoted / misused. A line in this article says "The Vadakalai Iyengars are believed to be an Indo-Aryan people who once migrated from North India.[14]". I went thru the whole page 283 of the quoted source [14] -- it says nothing about Srivaishnava brahmins. It merely uses the term Vadagalai to mean 'north' and Tengalai to mean 'south' as follows (page 283) :

"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 "Sanskriti- sing" 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."

The author goes on to explain stuff about "deshaja (native) priests" elsewhere; but on page 283 itself he says this (page 282 is incidentally quoted as a reference in this article):

"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..."

There are some enthusiastic vadagalais propagating falsities, like racists, here. They want to differentiate themselves from Tengalais 'genetically'; and have misquoted everything to that end. Reminds me of some people who also claim to 'genetically' inherit good qualities and such like. Heights of misuse of genetic studies to serve petty-minded falsities. It is shameful to think some of these may elsewhere blame non-brahmins and DK of labeling them aryans; and yet here go to great lengths to propagate an "Aryan North-Indian" origin for themselves. If they have appropriate references / sources, let them provide it. They need not falsify, misuse, misquote everything, just to portray themselves 'racially' different from tengalais or to serve their aryan origin claims.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

But, alas, it is the same on all the Indian caste articles that I have edited and which use such studies. And that is a lot of articles. In any event, they should be removed in this one, and your points support that. - Sitush (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should restrict the use of such studies to review works only; that is, we essentially follow a WP:MEDRS standard (noting that this is borderline medical information), and not consider primary studies as acceptable references for this type of info. Only larger, meta-studies would be allowed. If that means that there aren't very many, then, not very sadly, we remove the stuff that's there. From what I've seen, many of these studies draw fairly questionable conclusions (or, Wikipedia editors use them to draw questionable conclusions) based on very small, badly chosen data sets. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, applying MEDRS seems entirely reasonable to me in situations such as this. - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks to Sitush and Qwyrxian for considering WP:MEDRS. Deleting or overlooking results from genetic tests is not a good idea considering the implications involved, both medical as well historical. Please note technologies used in comparative studies are recent inventions / creations and therefore studies before the 1990s may not be helpful. IMO, there is nothing called badly chosen data sets, there are just regional or localized samples being researched for a specific point. Small samples are not as much a problem as some make them out to be; esp when speaking of large variation. If wiki editors falsify claims, then the problem is with wiki editors not with the paper itself. To review, we need to check: (1) Does the quoted source really mention the point stated in the article, or has a wiki contributor made falsified claims misquoting a paper (2) What type of data was used in the study? If it is a blood group study, please mention so. If it is a specific study examining SNPs, or STRs or allele frequencies, then mention that point along with the sample size studied in a given region (3) Mention which population groups were compared in the study. (4) Mention exactly what the paper says. That is, does the paper suggest a hypothetical similarity pending further study; or does it state a proper conclusion from various data researched? Wiki editors cannot be allowed to make their own falsified claims and representations misquoting a paper. No matter what we discuss on the talk page, the actual article must only represent data "as is" mentioned by the paper itself. Hope these guidelines are OK. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

First of all, the info' regarding genetics is found in the last page eleventh line to the left - of the pdf article which is indeed published by a reliable neutral party(Pakistan journal of biological sciences) and this info' is presented here in wiki' without any exaggeration. Well, i'm thorough with MEDRS policies. I'm sorry to say that the above reply of the user significantly differs from his/her edit comments. I request users not to keep chaning their complaints in order to get their end - atleast that is how i feel ab't this. Secondly, i've provided another src which supports the data regarding vadakalai being indo-aryan, even if anybody has different ways of interpreting the first src(authored by oroon k ghosh). Finally, attacking other editors(which is obvious from the user's comments such as "There are some enthusiastic vadagalais propagating falsities like racists here") should be avoided as the WP community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor, making edits in this page, who fails to adhere to the expected standards of behavior(indulging in attacks, edit wars, etc). How do you know that the other editors(such as myself or aybody else here) belong to the Vadakalai community? By the way, the other user should've held this discussion before making those edits/reverts, especially when the page has seen a lot of inconsistencies, recently. Also, the user's contribution, which goes as "Vadakalai purport themselves to be indo-aryan" is clearly a POV edit, as that user didn't provide any source to support his/her claim that "it is self-proclaimed by Vadakalais" - Inserting polemics in the main article? Give me a break. Once again, I request users not to keep chaning their complaints in order to get their end, as the other user's reply right above my comments here, significantly differs from his/her edit comments in the main article. I think i've explained everything adequately. This should put all doubts to rest, if "wp:editing/verifiabilty/ and other policies" are adhered to, that is. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Mayatsura, you're missing the point a little bit. The thing is, first run research results are, arguably, primary sources by Wikipedia's definition. Yes, they are vetted by journal reviewers, but that's not quite enough, especially for subjects related to medicine (which genetics may or may not fall under). We have to be extremely careful when making claims based upon individual studies. Small samples, are in fact, a real problem, because people end up taking them to mean something definitively true. I do like your point, though, that we need to be extremely cautious about older studies; the ones just re-added to the article are from the 1970s, and I know that there has been a lot of improvement and changes to genetic analysis since then. To be honest, I'm extremely troubled by all of these claims that say "Genetic Study X proves that Group Y is a part of Race Z", given that everything I've read says that concepts like "Race Z" are simply social, not biological, fabrications. But, I will admit, I'm not a molecular biologist, and maybe there's something I don't know. I do know that these studies seem to be used an awful lot in articles abotu India and Pakistan, and not so much in other articles, and that definitely worries me.

(post-ec) Hari7478, I'm inclined to believe the whole section should be removed. A few random genetics studies from the 1970s are not really sufficient to support that section. As I say to Mayatsura, my understanding is that studies of this type are highly questionable in principle, especially when they attempt to connect race/ethnicity and genetics. Do you have any more modern sources, preferably some that meet WP:MEDRS? If not, I'm inclined to re-remove the whole section. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, well! But yes, i do have some modern sources(1994) which classifies them as "Indo-European" under the "Hittite" sub-division, giving an Anatolian origin, present day's Turkey - Published by Italian genealogists Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza. But right now, i've provided one more source(not genetic but anthropological) - a book authored by P.P.Nambudiri, published by inter-india publications, under the vadakalai iyengar section(citation no 14); year:1992. But a detailed discussion needs to be held before making any changes. W.r.t the sources under the thenkalai iyengar sub-section, they are mostly historical events that are explained, and so i don't find any reason as to why that sub-section should be removed. The src reg' cleft chin study and the corresponding contrib' has been removed by me, as the data was misinterpreted. Other than that, the only other src that deals with genetic study is "Pakistan journal of biological sciences"(The data is from a 1980 study). I suppose you could just remove that but not all of it, although i would want to keep that genetic study, otherwise every wiki' article on South Asian castes will be reduced to a minuscule stub. That genetic study is still a valuable piece of information. However, its up to you.

But, i do have a few doubts regarding the ones that i'm going to contribute in the near future. Let me list them:

1. Aryans in South India by P.P.Nambudiri(not a genetic study; but deals with anthropology & museology;year-1992) - According to this source "Vadakalai Iyengars" are classified as "Aryan" and not "Indo-Aryan". So, should we change it to "Aryan" or just stick to "Indo-Aryan"? although only the latter is logically apt for indians.

2. According to a genetic study in the year 1996, Italian genealogists Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza have classified them as "Indo-European of the hittite sub-division", giving them an Anatolian origin(present day's Turkey) - based on DNA sequences in allele patterns, which in my opinion, is highly reliable.

As you could see, in both cases, they are classified as "Aryan" of the greater "Indo-European"(Indo-European is synonymous to aryan) family, and not "Indo-Aryan". I'll provide the source of the modern genetic study very soon. But how are we supposed to make these contributions? I mean, how to interpret them? Such a data needs to be adequately supported by additional refs. For example, if an anthropological study says "Vadakalai Iyengars are aryan ppl", it should be supported by a recent genetic study(dep't of genealogy) to cross check with the study made in the dep't of anthropology. That would certainly make it a reliable piece of info'. Unless there is support from such multiple departments, i guess it would be safe to stop adding sensisitve data. However the two sources mentioned above are relatively modern and reliable. I'll make the contribution soon. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hari, am flabbergasted. Hope you realize whom you are misquoting. Cavalli-Sforza is a HUGE name in the field of population genetics. Please quote where does Cavalli-Sforza say Vadagalais are Aryan or Indo-Aryan of the Hittite sub-division of Anatolia origin. Please, there is a limit to lying, so blatantly, please, am totally amazed.. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

(edit conflict) Q, one reason for the prevalence of these studies in Indic articles is the caste system itself. India is seen as being a useful laboratory for testing developments in techniques of genetic analysis because it was, and to a large extent still is, an endogamous society. The endogamy is thought to preserve the bloodlines and thus makes the place a useful scientific control. However, the points that I raised earlier still apply and, in addition, the very fact that India is used as a test bed for new techniques of varying quality etc means that we cannot rely on the outcomes: it would be akin to using engine test reports conducted by, say, Ferrari while they are attempting to produce some radically new type of car. Furthermore, a fair amount of the genetic work in India is performed for socio-political reasons and is privately funded for that end: distinguishing which analyses are performed with the intent of discovery and which are performed with the intent of proving an a priori hypothesis is tricky.

An aside: the practice of hypergamy etc has not prevented genetic studies of the Nairs, for example. However, such studies often treat them as being "pure" Nair when, of course, their bloodline is inevitably mixed up because of the Nambudiri connections. Similar issues arise elsewhere and I do worry that the geneticists take the self-identification of their subject at face value. I have yet to see a genetic study that raises these very obvious concerns that dilute the endogamy theory, although some must surely exist because it is a major epidemiological sticking point. - Sitush (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, i presume you are not at all aware of stuff going on in genetics field. Kindly provide references where genetic studies in India are performed for socio-political reasons, privately funded for that end, and are performed with the intent of proving an a priori hypothesis. As for diluting the endogamy theory, you may wish to read contributions by various authors put together in the book, "The History and Geography of Human Genes", by Cavalli-Sforza, available for free on google books. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

To Hari, Sitush and Qwyrxian

I have no problem with Aryan, Indo-Aryan, or other claims the article wishes to make. But wiki editors need to provide correct sources. The current sources do NOT mention any of the stuff claimed by wiki editors. Sitush and Qwyrxian, as admins, you need to take a call here. Not just genetic studies, other sources too have been misquoted. Am making a list below for your easy referencing. The prob here is with the sources. Not the content. If Hari provides correct sources to support his claims, then fine. Otherwise the sentences have to be deleted.

1) Source [10] is a google book link to "The changing Indian civilization: a perspective on India" by Oroon K. Ghosh, 1976. The book does not mention anything about Vaishnava brahmins. It merely uses the term Vadagalai to mean 'north' and Tengalai to mean 'south', to mention mergers in the Age of Syncretism. Hari should provide exact sentences from this book mentioning Vadagalai Vaishnava brahmins and Thengalai Vaishnava brahmins are genetically, ethnically, origin-wise, racially, distinct from one another. Merely mentioning northern cultural dissension (vada = northern, kalai = dissension) and southern cultural dissension (then = southern, kalai = dissension) does not support Hari's theory of aryan, indo-aryan, or racial, ethnic, genetic differentiation between Vadagalai and Thengalai.

2) Source [11] is a google link to the journal, Human Heredity which mentions the article by Hameed et al.,2002 and Reddy et al.,1980. Hari should provide the exact sentences from this journal where it has been mentioned Vadagalai is distinct from Thengalai racially, genetically, etc. As explained above, both Hameed's article and Reddy's article do not mention or support the claim that (1) Vadagalais are of Aryan North-Indian origin, or (2) Genetically different from Tengalais.

3) Source [13] is exactly the same as source [10]. Both the quoted pages 283 and 160 do not mention Vaishanava brahmins. Again, Hari should provide exact sentences from this publication mentioning Vadagalai Vaishnava brahmins are genetically, origin-wise, ethnically, racially, distinct from Thengalai.

4) Source [14] refers to Pg.72, Aryans in South India – by P. P. Nārāyanan Nambūdiri, Inter-India Publications. Please provide exact sentences from this book which classifies Vadagalai and Madhwas genetically and racially separate from Thengalais; with the supposed aryan and non-aryan origins for Vadagalai and Thengalai respectively.

5) Source [15] is exactly the same as source [11]. It refers to an article by Hameed et al., from the Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 2002. As explained above, Hameed's paper merely quotes a 1980 study by Reddy et al. Reddy's article was published in the journal, Human Heredity, as mentioned in point 2 here. Again, neither Hameed's article nor Reddy's article mention or support the claim that (1) Vadagalais are of Aryan North-Indian origin, or (2) Genetically different from Tengalais. So, Hari needs to provide exact sentences from either or both the articles where such points have been mentioned / supported.

Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

I agree that the article is a mess. This is not uncommon of caste articles and those relating to Brahmin communities have tended to fly below the radar because I and some others have been concentrating on cleaning up articles concerning alleged kshatriya groups etc. However, none of this prevents anyone else from fixing articles. There are over 4000 ethnic communities in India, many of which have articles here. It would be a tough job for a handful of people to sort them all out, so we do what we can. I am not an admin, btw. - Sitush (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, you are very right. All caste articles follow a pattern, where somehow mixed origins are anathema. Everyone wants "pure" origins (whatever that means). As for brahmin claims, i cud very well put forth content with proper references, but am aware of the fracas it will lead to, which based on past experiences am sure wiki cannot handle. On the other hand, its a better idea to have individuals claiming to be brahmins, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras, to self-examine themselves. Personally i think, eventually this 'age and time' will force them to do so anyways. Maybe its a good idea to give people that space to think, feel, ponder over, and come around to accepting stuff; instead of living in denial or behaving like insecure kids when it comes to religious identities. Btw, genetics is driving a massive dent in caste claims. I sincerely wish and hope you wud someday read the book "History and Geography of Human Genes". Best wishes. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

I've removed the "genetically different from Tengalai" part myself(earlier today), as the src on cleft chin study doesn't seem to portray any genetic difference between the two sub-sects. Remember that all of these src's were not contributed by me. Now the article just states "Vadakalai are distinct from tengalai, by origin". The karger src states that the distance between vadakalai & tengalai reg' earlobe and frequency distribution is higher while minimum distance is obtained between vadakalai & vadama. Are you asking for an exact copy paste/plagiarism? OMG. Now, Mayasutra is trying to portray "Vadagalai(Vada/northern+kalai/descension)" to be different from "Vadagalai Vaishnava brahmins" which is laughable indeed. The term "Vadakalai/Vadagalai" is always explicitly used to refer to the Iyengar brahmins of northern descension, and is definitely not used in any other context, or to address any other Indian sub-community.

First of all, this section "Ethnicity and genetics" is not about difference between Vadakalai & Thenkalai. If that is how you are interpreting it, i can't help it.

• First of all, the Pakistani src is used to show the genetic similarities between Vadakalai & Pakistanis, and it has nothing to do with Thenkalai. Why are you unnecessarily relating it to Vadakalai vs Thenkalai comparison?
• The book authored by P.P.Nambudiri is to support that claim that Vadakalais are considered to be aryan ppl, and this is not used for the "Vadakalai Thenkalai comparison".
• User:Mayasutra thinks that the whole section is about Vadakalais' genetic differences with Thenkalais. If this is how you've been seeing it, i can't help but pity. Let me tell you again:This section presents some facts about genetic & anthropological origins of Vadakalai & Thenkalai, seperately in most cases, and is not a "Vadakalai & Thenkalai comparison" section. You are unnecessarily relating every src in that section to "Vadakalai Thenkalai comparison". Again, this is not a section of "comparison between the two subsects", but to present the corresponding facts about the two, regardless of comparison of one with the other subsect. I suppose you are deliberately portraying it as a "Vadakalai thenkalai comparison" section, and you are falsely relating every single ref' in that section to that kind of a portrayal. Oops!! How many times am i going to repeat this?

Population genetics is the study of "allele frequency distribution" and each allele has a certain DNA sequence. Mention on both "Vadakalai & Tenkalai" are found in the book(History and Geography of Human Genes) where vadakalai is mispelled as Vadahalai, and thenkalai as Tengalai. Both are classified under "Indo-Hittie"(which means indo-european of the hittite sub-division; pg472). I guess the other users could take a look into the book on population genetics even now/or anytime as i've mentioned the page numbers. However, there are other anthropological sources to support vadakalai's aryan origin, while i'm still searching for similar studies on thenkalais, and that's why i haven't made the contributions yet(not just based on one src after all the conflicts and brawl). The book authored by "P.P.Nambudiri" has been used to cite the "indo-aryan" origin of vadakalais, and not for the genetic difference bet' the two subsects. I've indeed removed that part(cleft chin src), as mentioned before. Also, regarding the "tengalai incorporating non-brahmins into its fold" data, i've been trying to find sources which state "the tengalai non-brahmins/sattadas, etc are different from the core thenkalai brahmin group", but i couldn't find sources. Although i found one which was authored by K.Rangachari alone(not castes and tribes), it was dismissed as a "possible pov src"(by another user about 2 years ago) as Rangachari is an Iyengar himself. There might be some areas in the article where i might agree with you(Mayasutra), while at the same time there are such wiki' policies that we're supposed to adhere to. Again, i request Mayasutra not to make false allegations on me such as "lies", as i've provided the exact pg number(472) of the Sforza book in which both subsects have been mentioned.

@ Sitush: I guess we could remove any challenged data that is supported by "Srivaishnava/Iyengar/Vadakalai/Tenkalai" source as they are most likely to be in violation of "NPOV", and it is by citing these sources that some users are trying to portray it as "philosophical differences only, and not ethnic". Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Action against misquoting / fabricating references

Sitush and Qwyrxian, Is there a wiki policy where action can be taken against a person who misquoted, fictitiously attributed, and fabricated references and sources, to push his POVs? If this is allowed, anyone can write anything and can fictitiously attribute it to any source that pleases them. So i hope wiki has a policy to take action against such editors. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

See my previous comment/reply to your previous post. I've explained it all. Hari7478 (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the specifics of this case -- and I'm neither endorsing nor rejecting your point Mayasutra and I'm not even sure who you're alluding to as this page has been in a slow motion edit war for years now, but if you do have evidence you'll need to bring that up specifically and not mention it in abstract like this -- this page has been put on notice under WP:GS/Caste (see the {{Castewarningtalk}} banner at the top), general sanctions enacted by the community allow administrators to impose sanctions on individual editors violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines on articles related to social groups, castes etc within South Asia specifically. —SpacemanSpiff 17:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Section on criticism

The whole(almost) section on criticism is a very generic one and can be included in the article Anti-Brahminism. It has nothing much to do with Iyengars in particular. Let me know your thoughts sarvajna (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I've been doing some reading around since copyediting some of it a few hours ago & I really cannot see the need for such a broad brush in this article. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

To Hari7478

You stated:
1) But yes, i do have some modern sources(1994) which classifies them as "Indo-European" under the "Hittite" sub-division, giving an Anatolian origin, present day's Turkey - Published by Italian genealogists Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza.
Now that you find objection to your differentiation between Vadagalai and Tengalai, you have changed your tune. Yet, you misquote as follows:
2) Mention on both "Vadakalai & Tenkalai" are found in the book(History and Geography of Human Genes) where vadakalai is mispelled as Vadahalai, and thenkalai as Tengalai. Both are classified under "Indo-Hittie"(which means indo-european of the hittite sub-division; pg472).

---

In Appendix 3 of the book "The History and Geography of Human Genes", a reference list for allele frequencies has been provided for various linguistic families. Under Asia (p.472 to 475) several social groups / communities of the sub-continent have been mentioned under Indo-Hittite linguistic family. That simply means ALL communities are mixed, and in one community you can find individuals having alleles associated with various linguistic origins.

Nowhere does the book say, imply, convey, or support an idea that the entire Vadagalai Iyengar community is of Indo-Hittite origin. Now you state Tengalai also. Do note the book does not say any such thing about the Tengalai community also. Unless validated by published scientific data, you cannot misquote content to propagate your own illogical fallacies.

As you can note from that list, allelic frequencies of Indo-Hittite linguistic family are found in a range of communities, like Dhangar, Lambada, Gujjar, Rajbanshi, Sinhalese, Rajputs, Pustu Pathan (afghan), specific Maratha groups, Jats, Gurkhas, Chamars, Gupta Banias, Bhils, Ahir, and in the general populations of Punjab-India and Pakistan. They are also widespread all across Europe.

The book dwells on some historical information about the Hittites, (stating records from 20th century BC, mentioning Hittites ending Hammurabi’s dynasty in Babylonia, fighting with Egyptians and Hurrians for trade control, and finally falling under the control of Indo-European speaking tribes, founding the kingdom of Mittani between 1500 BC to 1350 BC, etc). The book is explicit in stating great majority of European languages belong to IE or Indo-Hittite family infact. And that the Anatolian branch of the Indo-Hittite phylum consists of EXTINCT groups Luwian, Lycian, Hittite, Lydian and Palaic.

There is no way you can conclude that ALL individuals of the Iyengar community will show up the Indo-Hittite association. You cannot conclude they were of the Anatolian branch. I object to such fabricated conclusions, your misuse of genetic data which you fictitiously attribute to Cavalli-Sforza. You cannot misquote authors to fabricate your own conclusions. I wish that Wiki takes action against editors like you.

The next time you misquote geneticists like Cavalli-Sforza, or misuse genetic data to push your POVs, i will have to ask administrators to take action against you. This is your last warning. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

• Here, i'm helping you. Try this link-[8]. Go ahead and make a report. I couldn't care less, as i know what i'm doing. I haven't made the contributions yet, but i'm thinking about it. After discussing it with others here, i'll think about including it.
  
• You said: "...several social groups / communities of the sub-continent have been mentioned under Indo-Hittite linguistic family. That simply means ALL communities are mixed, and in one community you can find individuals having alleles associated with various linguistic origins". Aint that your own research? First of all, who said only brahmins are aryan? All northies(except sc/st, but including the ones who later got an SC status after certain demands) and most southie brahmins are generally believed to be of the "vedic aryan diaspora". I couldn't find one non-brahmin south indian caste mentioned under indo-hittite. So, there is no contradiction at all. The above message is simply too much own work from your part. By the way, the name "Brahman Tengalai" is mentioned in the appendix in the same line where vadakalai/vadahalai are mentioned, under the "Brahman:Indo-Hittite" section, so take a good look. These things have a lot to do with the past and not the present lingo. You are unncecessarily relating present linguistics with past ones. How do you know what the southie brahmins(aryan-most of them) spoke before migrating to south? Also, the term indo-hittite is used to refer to most southie brahmins and most other north indians castes who speak indo-aryan languages. The author has used the term hittite to refer to many "Indo-european ppls"(including today's indo-iranian, indo-aryan, etc). Again, there is not one southie non-brahmin caste mentioned under hittite. Marathas are not south indian, for your kind information.
  
• I suppose this is what you are trying to say: "All southie brahmins today speak tamil/telugu, etc but are mentioned under indo-hittite, which means there is admixture". My god, if you have such weird ways of portraying things, i can't help it. It simply means "these brahmins are ethnically indo-hittite' ppl who started speaking south languages after the (aryan) migration to south". Regardless of any of these views(either yours or mine) i'm just trying to put it up as it's found in the src. But you are the one who is making research with your own knowledge, which is prohibited in wikipedia. Your above comment is too much own work and you know it.
  
• Since when did i change my tune? Except for the part "The thenkalai gene frequency is significantly different from that of vadakalais", which has been removed by me, the rest of the section simply presents some information about the ethnic & genetic origins of the two subsects individually. Remember, i didn't contribute all the src'es that are found here. Also, just because the section starts as "Vadakalai & Thenkalai are different", it doesn't mean the whole section speaks of the diff' between the two. You sound like this- "Even if the genre of a movie is thriller; but if it starts with a romantic scene, i'll consider the whole movie to be a romantic drama". Is this how you see things? If you are too young to understand things properly with the right interpretation, i can't help it. The only reason as to why i haven't made the contributions yet is because - I'm trying to find sources which say "Tengalai non-brahmins/sattadas are different from the core tengalai brahmin group", and hopefully i'll find it pretty soon. Secondly, i'm looking for anthropological studies that classifies tengalai along with aryan ppl. Once i find these sources, i'll make the contributions(reg' both vadakalai & tengalai being hittite - which is a sub-class within the wider indo-european class- this part too is mentioned in the same book). If i'm not able to find such data on tengalai, then i might have to go with vadakalai alone. But hopefully i'll find them. Hari7478 (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Hari7478

You are absolutely ignorant in genetics. You can blabber whatever you like here. But if you go ahead and make an edit in the main article to push your illogical POVs and attribute it to Cavalli-Sforza, as you have done here, then yes, I will report you for vandalism. Regarding the sources you and others have used, am waiting to hear from Sitush. As the admin, Qwyrxian needs to take a call here about the section "Ethnicity, genetics and origin", the sources used there, and the way it is written to portray a genetic difference between Thengalais and Vadagalais. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

You keep saying that i have my own way of interpreting it. Regarding the contrib' that i'm gonna make soon(Cavalli-Sforza), i'm not interpreting anything, although i gave my views. I was speaking of a direct copy-paste, but in such a way that it aint plagiarism. It was you who gave your own views, such as "extinct groups, linking today's linguistics with past regardless of migration factors, etc". I'm neither going to think of your interpretation nor mine. Going by blind "copy-pasting", but in a way such that it wouldn't be termed as "plagiarism", it would still be valid. However i don't agree with your judgement on my knowledge about genetics. Again, please try to concentrate on the contents and not on people/editors/other users. Hari7478 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Stupidity regarding genetics is a dangerous thing. It is even more dumb to misquote, allege, fabricate stuff, fictitiously attribute own POVs to established geneticists like Cavalli-Sforza, and try to get away with it. Btw, Cavalli-Sforza mentions extinct anatolian branches, linguistic groups and migration factors. I do not believe in giving my own views regarding Cavalli-Sforza's work. I have addressed my concerns to admin below. Let them follow up. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

To Sitush

The paper by Hameed, et al., quoting Reddy, et al.,(Karger) has been used in Vadagalai section as if to portray there is an ethnic and genetic difference between Thengalai and Vadagalai. My objection is to the way the section "Ethnicity, genetics and origin" is written to portray as though there is an ethnic and genetic difference between Vadagalai and Thengalai. A philosophical difference between these two dissensions does not imply or support the kind of statements made in this article.

Hari7478 does not seem to have a background in the genetic sciences. It is useless to reason out any data with him. Yet, I have provided some details (abt Indo-Hittite stuff), before warning him. Beyond this if he goes on misquoting, I think action should be taken against him. If he provides sources like P.P.Namboodiri claiming Aryan origin for Vadagalais and Madhawas, I have no problem with that, although it is advisable to double-check the source he quotes. But with all other sources, I have stated my objection under the section [[9]]

As of now, either the following sentences have to be reconstructed to convey the right meaning with appropriate references, or they must be removed:
1) The Vadakalai Iyengars are believed to be an Indo-Aryan people who once migrated from North India.
2) 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.[13] 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.[13]

Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

To Qwyrxian

I request you to take a call about
1) The objections on the sources here -- [[10]]
2) The objection raised with Sitush above, on the way the section "Ethnicity, genetics and origin" is written to portray as though there is an ethnic and genetic difference between Vadagalai and Thengalai
3) The objection to the following sentences which either need to be reconstructed supported by appropriate references or need deletion:
a) The Vadakalai Iyengars are believed to be an Indo-Aryan people who once migrated from North India.
b) 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.[13] 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.[13]

Additionally, I hope there is a wiki policy of disallowing personal ideas on genetic studies. If i were to come out with my personal ideas (very contrary to Hari's ideas), things can get painful. This being a talk page, Hari's blabbering is ok. But if Hari brings on any of it on the main article, action needs to be taken against him. Wiki cannot allow POV-pushing, misquoting or fictitiously attributing personal ideas to established geneticists. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

User:Mayasutra keeps saying that i have my own way of interpreting things. Regarding the contrib' that i'm gonna make soon(Cavalli-Sforza), i'm not interpreting anything, although i gave my views. I was speaking of a direct copy-paste, but in such a way that it aint plagiarism. It was this user who gave his/her own views, such as "extinct groups, linking today's linguistics with past regardless of migration factors, etc". I'm neither going to consider that user's interpretation nor mine. Going by blind "copy-pasting", but in a way such that it wouldn't be termed as "plagiarism", it would still be valid. However i don't agree with Mayasutra's judgement on my knowledge about genetics. I wouldn't have used names here, but i'm doing so while replying to his/her posts. The user is repeatedly using my "username" here in a way that maligns me, and this is seriously apalling. The user also keeps posting the same message repeatedly, although i've already given answers. This is evident trolling. And i have to repeatedly post the same reply, unfortunately, in such cases. I wouldn't have posted my reply here if that user hadn't used my name. I guess i'm being too patient here. And i've given a complete reply here:[11]. For one last time, i request user:mayasutra to try & concentrate on the contents and not on people/editors/other users. I won't say it again. Hari7478 (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There are many variables and possibilities why some certain individuals of stated communities turn up certain associations. Am not interested in starting a discussion on my own interpretations regarding such possibilities. Wiki talk page is not the place for that. I went thru your edit log. You were the first to start the aryan genetics point here. You have been pushing the aryan ethnicity genetics issue here since Oct 2009. Personal interpretations regarding published scientific data cannot be allowed unless the publication itself states the point. What you are indulging in is racism and misquoting scientific data to that end. Obviously those who blabber a lot without any background in genetics, have a free run here. You don't even seem to know a thing about linguistic families, to be associating it with caste, aryan ethnicity / race / genetics issue. Go ahead and make changes in the main article. I can assure you I will take up the issue of misquoting Cavalli-Sforza, or any other source, to push your POV seriously. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Qwyrxian, Regarding the two points stated above on Vadagalai iyengars, either Hari should come up some other sources to support those sentences, or reconstruct them. If not, i expect them to be deleted. Considering Hari has been so active on this talk page, am giving him 48 hours time. If Hari does not make the required changes, or if i do not hear from you or Spacemanspiff, or any other admin, i am going to delete the sentences. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

As you may be aware, this article has been a subject of disagreement for some time. It is unlikely that invoking administrator(s) on its discussion page will give any results. Rather, you may consider raising the contentious points with one of the projects mentioned on top of this page, such as WikiProject India. Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 11:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

To Asav

Thank you Asav.

Way back in 1950, a UNESCO statement was signed to state linguistic groups are not races; because the world after Max Weber realized so. Later creations were NHGRI sponsored activities on Genetics, Race and Ethnicity within the framework of Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) Program Funded Projects. I do not know what policy Wiki has regarding this issue. We find abuse of genetic studies on wiki to push POVs on race, ethnicity, caste-exclusivity, socio-religious notions of purity, and cultural-religious ideas of origin and traits.

People with half-baked or no knowledge on genetics, like Hari7478, push the idea of Aryan or Indo-Aryan, as an ethnic genetic marker / difference, based on genetic similarities of some Vadagalai individuals with Pakistanis; and association of some iyengar individuals with certain linguistic families. And worse, attribute their own ethnicity/racism POVs to the likes of Cavalli-Sforza.

I believe wiki needs to create a set of guidelines on this issue. I do not know if this can be decided under WikiProject India. Please guide me where on wiki can i seek advice on framing guidelines on a topic titled "Ethnicity, Race, Caste and Genetics".

Until the time Wiki creates guidelines, i suggest deletion of the entire section of Ethnicity, genetics and origin, or rewriting it to mention differences in vadagalai-thengalai dissensions without mention of ethnicity/genetics. That heading itself is misleading and is designed in such a way with its contents as if to portray an ethnic-genetic difference between Vadagalai and Thengalai. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra