Talk:Nadar (caste)

Brewing/distilling caste

This edit removes what appears to me to be a valid category. Whether it was toddy or jaggery, surely this means that they were involved in brewing/distilling. The fact that it may no longer be their primary occupation is completely irrelevant. - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

as far as I know brewing is something relevant to fermentation. U get jaggery by boiling the sap and making it coarse.u get toddy by brewing the same sap.nadars were mostly involved in the production of jaggery sugar(hard grave:24&137).sorry not pg136.

And even if the tag is appropriate in anyway it will fit into nadar climber article rather than the nadar main as toddy tapping is not the traditional occupation of some nadars.Mayan302 (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as jaggery goes, that is my mistake, sorry. However, I've just done a quick GBooks search and there are plenty of refs (at least 1500) to Nadar toddy-tappers. Furthermore, as you say, we have an entire article on Nadar climbers. Therefore, the category is appropriate here: it seems clear that a fair proportion of the community was traditionally involved in toddy tapping. - Sitush (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

yes.there r many books.but few r anthropological as I already said.the climbers who lived as minorities where a few palmrya tree grew had to make toddy due to the unavailability of trees.whereas the climbers of southern tirunelveli had proper resources to manufacture jaggery.jaggery trade actually made the nadars prosperous. So only a minority were involved in toddy trade.similarly u can't group them under land lord caste category just because of the nadan subsect.think it wud be better to add the tag to the climber article.Mayan302 (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

going out now.bye for nowMayan302 (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Partying again? <g> Let's see what others think. - Sitush (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

omg now we need to listen to caste warriors (there are many on wikipedia).nadars were historically a backward and socially downtrodden community.their social status was low because of their invovlvement with toddy tapping which is taboo in the agama shastras.they were not allowed to worship in the brahmin temples which makes them outcastes (avarnas).Even the socially high Vellalarcaste and the related Thevar caste who worship in brahmin temples could only get the tag of Sat-Shudra(clean shudras) the pretensions of the nadar to higher social status continues even to this day.kaumudi temple case etc are well documented.the nadar who were previously known as shanar changed their name to nadar just to avoid their toddy tapping tag.the word shanar is pretty derogatory in tamil as far as i know.Between i want some comments on the lead why is this person Shiv Nadar(whoever he is ) being singled out as a symbol of the community's progress looks Undue.does he identify with the caste ? being born in it is not enough.i am sure other indian castes and communities will have number of billionaires not one.also this statement in the lead looks absolutely ridiculous to me.The Nadars today are a powerful community.[14] They are financially very strong and are also politically influential in the Southern districts of Tamil Nadu.[15].both the citations are actually related to tamil nad mercantile bank.one even says that the Nadars were predominantly toddy tappers who have became traders..This is selective quoting of citations and some are wrong quoatations.The tone of the article is also something which is not neutral.Ps the category stays i am adding it back as sitush approves.Pernoctator (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

s it is a big deal.ther r are only two billionaires from tamilnadu.n one of them is a nadar. and s it must be in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.153.252 (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:DUE and WP:LEAD. Then explain to me how a single billionaire from the community is somehow representative of it. This is not about what your opinion but rather that of the wider community. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Your edits seem biased/baseless for the following reasons

1.In the history page you said everything was already discussed.But no matter how I look at the argument above mayan's explanation seems far more genuine and the discussion is far from complete.Pernocator is obviously whining and has not produced any evidence stating that most of the nadars were actually in the toddy business.

2.As per the pages refered by mayan and myself, it is very evident that only a minor section of climbers were in the toddy business(100 yrs ago) due to the lack of trees in their vicinity.If the Nadars can be inlcuded in that category then they should also be included in the landlords category because of the Nadans of Tiruchendur.And most importantly they should also be included in the business class category because thats what most of the nadars do today.Yes there are many books you can find on gbooks which say that the nadars were in the toddy business.But none of them are thorough and explicit like Hardgrave.This I know for sure.

3.The shiv nadar line is just an example symbolizing their rise after the independence or something.I didnt include that line.I was just updating.Thanks.

I cannot see where you have provided a single source that supports your position that the brewers/distillers were a tiny minority. We cannot use Mayan's original research and they have agreed that there are hundreds of sources that do mention the traditional role (some of which most definitely are reliable). If you believe that Hardgrave provides the support that you desire then please could you give me the relevant page numbers etc. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Its page number 24 of hardgrave.I was assuming you would actually go through the history log before editing.Perhaps you should look into these 'many sources' they are talking about.I can assure you that none of them is as explicit as hardgrave.Mayn says above that there is something on page no 137.Unfortunately I cant see that page using gbook.I hope you can.The book [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.133.59 (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a copy of the book. - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Good then.Did you go through it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.133.59 (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, give me chance. I've got to find the thing first, among the 6000-7000 other books that I have lying around a mess of a house that I am renovating, and I have other things to deal with also. It might take several days. - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Image warring

This edit is the third time in the space of an hour or so that an image previously removed from the article has been reinstated. The thing was removed months ago due to doubts about verifiability, and the source now provided makes matters no more clear. That source says that the guy was a member of the Gramani, a "counterpart of the Nadars". The word "counterpart" does not mean "is", regardless of whether our article has correctly referred to the Gramani community or not. Please self-revert. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have removed another. The guy is alive and we expect self-identification of ethnicity in these situations. While the source indicates that he is working with a Nadar advocacy group, it also quotes him as saying that he "clarified that he did not join the alliance on behalf of Nadar organisations". That is not self-identification. There are all sorts of people involved in all sorts of advocacy groups even though they are not themselves affected, for example, by the group's raison d'etre. As an example, various members of the UK royal family are involved in numerous groups - often but not always as a figurehead - despite not suffering from, say, cerebral palsy or being a member of the Jewish community. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not possible everybody reveal their ethnicity openly particularly when they are in politics in countries like India, when we receive information from reliable source we should take it forward. Also the WP:BLP tells that we should avoid self publishing artcilesIs all ethnicity article pages are based on self made statement or Good faith edits? Also before you remove talk to page. You give different reason for your each revert without going details of the sourced page. seems you obviously stand to remove any additions in the page. -- Jenith (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT, if you want me to be more specific. You are not going to win this one here, sorry. There is a de facto consensus among experienced editors that caste is similar to ethnicity and religion, and that therefore self-identification is necessary. This can be seen in action across scores of articles relating to "List of members of caste X". The issue has also been discussed at WT:INB, where a fair few of the participants are from India or of Indian origin. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

See the WT:INB discussion. - Sitush (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarity

There has been some poor writing going on here of late. For example, the following makes no sense:

• "there also existed a small endogamous group of the aristocratic Nadars, known as the Nelamaikarrars or Nadans, who owned ..."

It should be:

• "there also existed a small endogamous subgroup of aristocratic Nadars, known as Nadans or Nelamaikkarars, who owned ...".

More of less every change made by Mayan302 similarly fails to address the issues of poor style and phrasing. - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Mayan, unless you start fixing the issues, I am going to strip this thing right back. You are basically a single-purpose account and you're not getting the hang of this thing at all. For example, citing a paragraph to 20 pages of Hardgrave is simply not good enough - you need to be more specific. - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sitush. Long time.. How are you? I dont understand what you are saying. The entire article was not based on 20 pages. I have cut shorted all the chapters from hrdgrave and included everything important. You yourself went through all the refs 3 years ago. Mayan302 (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

And one more thing Sitush, the article was also copy edited by you a long time ago.. I have included everything important, if you have doubts please go through the hrdgrave book I gave you. If you find something important in the book I have not included, let me know. It is not based on just 20 pages. The article is the short version of the book. The book also has details about certain nadar individuals. I didnt include all that, because I didnt think it was important or relevant to the article. As far as I know, I have included everything important and am looking for books which has info about the current status of the Nadars. So far I was not able to find anything. Please let me know, where I went wrong. Mayan302 (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

False source

Did you go through the source? Because the source doesnt have a line about the Nadar community. I looked it up. Its fake. I would have to revert your edit, Sitush. Why would I remove a line which is properly sourced?Mayan302 (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea what you are referring to, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That line which states that the izhavas and nadars are related to srilankan nadars. First of all it makes no sense at all.The source attached to that line looks fake. There is not a single line in that book about the nadars.Mayan302 (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you are referring to this. I can only see the source in snippet view but can assure that page 62, at least, mentions Nadar and thus your statement that there is no mention of them anywhere in the book is plain wrong. Since you seem to be able to see the entire thing (perhaps even have a copy), please could you provide a transcript of the page that is cited. - Sitush (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I tried the same snippet view, Sitush.I said it looks like fake.However I didnt find any thing about the nadar commnunity. Could you please ask bladesmulti to provide them? More ever I have never come across ANY book which actually relates the ezhavas with the nadars.Even the latest ones.The line makes no sense.It just claims that they are related to the Srilankan nadars. For reasons unknown, bladesmulti is just accusing me with every thing he's got.I was ready to have a discussion about this.But he never tried to reach me.Sitush I dont worship Hardgrave.All the books I know of simply quote the contents of Hardgrave.What can I do?Mayan302 (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes I can see the snippet view now. The line from that book claims that they were connected to Srilanka, not Srilankan nadars.I knew that there was something fishy about this. What should I do now Sitush? I also went through the history of multiblade.He seems like a troublesome editor. And this is not the first time he is doing things like this.Mayan302 (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Mayan302 You've talked so much about me here, but never about the reliability or actual content of the book that you don't like or can't get through.

It looked like a fake? First you have claimed that it was a fake, and just now you had additional references, you are still not giving up this false accusation? See Society and Circulation. You are one and only disruptive editor as well as a SPA here who can't handle the source because you DONT LIKE IT. In fact you don't even know english, because no where in whole sentence or line we have ever claimed that they were "srilankan nadars", those nadars who went to Sri Lanka and returned because of bad treatment. I don't know when I was troublesome to you! If you are talking about this edit[2] then again, it was you who was being disruptive just like you are being now. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Mayan (and possibly Bladesmulti), we cannot rely on snippet views for sourcing of statements. Thus, you cannot possibly claim that the statement is "fishy" etc when you don't know the context, and the thing should not be there at all unless the entirety of the relevant page(s) are visible. I'm AGF'ing that Bladesmulti can see the thing but it looks like we're going to need a proper quotation etc.

Another thing, Mayan, and I'm sure that I've asked you this before. Please don't bring stuff like this to my talk page. The proper place to discuss sourcing issues etc is the article talk page, which everyone with an interest is more likely to see. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

[3] This time you could view? If not then I will obviously post the quote on article' talk. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that one, thanks. I think it might be the one that I checked first time round when reverting Mayan but then when they challenged me here, I got a different url. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@multi I think you dont understand English. Let me quote the exact contents of the the article: Izhava, Tiyan, Nadar in southern India are also connected with the Nadar of Sri Lanka. And yes you are attitude towards me was always wrong.You could just have come to me if you had probs with my edits. Why go to Sitush and tell him that I am a single purpose account. You even asked himto bring the admins blah,blah.Why dont you go through the history of my edits properly.I have never tried to include anything unwanted or things I LIKE as you claim. I have also taken care of vandals.THis is about whats right. So stop whining like a baby. If you want the line to be included, provide proper refs or quote the contents of the book on the talk page. That line no matter how you look at it makes NO SENSE AT ALL.Sorry to be blunt.It should either be changed or removed completely. Yes Sitush. Sure. See you tomorrow.Mayan302 (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you still don't know English, my reply was made only after you made frivolous comment like "The line from that book claims that they were connected to Srilanka, not Srilankan nadars". I don't have to explain any of my accusation, especially when you use non existing words like "himto", and lack idea about using dot after sentences. So how we can except sense from you? If you still stick to anything like "I didnt find any thing about the nadar commnunity", I suggest moving this whole to Talk:Nadar (caste). Bladesmulti (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC) (moved from Talk:Sitush#False_source)

You speak like a two year old. Lets get this over with. Even if you do have some refs to back up your claims, we still need more sentences to add clarity to the sentence you ve added. So please quote the contents of the book here. Sitush what do you say?Mayan302 (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems like you hold 2 year old in high esteem. It is probably hard for you to consider, but we have to present both type of arguments. We have to show that origins are also related to Sri Lanka. [4] May provide some more ideas about this group. Caldwell presents a good argument. I am guessing if G. K Ghosh had also acknowledged the same. I am about to see Caldwell's book. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry to butt in. But I noticed this discussion on Sitush's talk page, and hunted down a better online version of the book: [5]. OK? Now I am outa here. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah whatever. Caldwell was a christian missionary and his views are not just unreliable, but also very old. He was not an anthropologist. Caldwell made a claim that they could have come from Srilanka. HOwever this claim was strongly refuted by Hardgrave, a real anthropologist. I am waiting for Sitush to reply. Kautilya I dont see anything. What did you want us to see? Mayan302 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

They may seem outrageous, but Hardgrave also had some similar argument when he talked about the prevalence, he would also consider that the merchants who were born in Sri Lanka would later be found in Madras. Not only Nadars but also Mukkuvars of Kerala have the legends about migrating from Ceylon, like Hardgrave has written. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I really don't have time for this right now but I can say that we should not use Caldwell. I'll try to type up the relevant bit of the book that is being cited and, yes, Bladesmulti is correct in saying that if it is a reliable source then we need to show it. Hardgrave is reliable but not the be-all, end-all of anything. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to say that we should only use Hardgrave. I am just trying to say that Hardgrave is the only source which explicitly explains the origin of the Nadars. Sorry. But I am familiar with all the books relevant to this topic. G.k.Ghosh's book uses Caldwell's Tirenelveli Shanars as reference. Caldwell tried to link the Shanars with the Shandrar community of Srilanka. However this theory(according to pg no:21 hardgrave) was debunked by Hardgrave. Hardgrave clearly states that their origin must have been the Teri forests of tiruchendhur due to their culture and predominance in the region.He also cites many other reasons to support his theory. His theory is also supported by other anthropologists like Templeman. Even if you do include Caldwell's theory into the article, it would look insignificant in front of the work of other anthropologists. That's why I didn't include it in the article in the first place. If you can provide us with other reliable sources to support your theory,which is highly unlikely, we will surely include it. However some Nadars did migrate to Ceylon. That is a fact.Mayan302 (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hardgrave seems to be supporting my information, but his books were outdated, that's why I wouldn't be using him as source, even if he's reliable. I like using variety of reliable sources, thus I would go for a reference that used its own word, and there we had it. I was not providing any weight to Caldwell, I only said that he presents a good argument that the people originated in Sri Lanka. Hardgrave referred to some ancient and new examples for noting the connection with Sri Lanka. G.K. Ghosh was not mentioning Caldwell, but using his own words.

There is no issue with that, "rewrite or delete" is just an old fashioned way of diverting mind from sourced content. Mayan302 probably expected for permanent Tamilization of this article, his edits(e.g. [6]) confirms. That's why any relation or connection of this group to Sri Lanka has been ignored for a long time. But not anymore. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you always insult people like this? Hardgrave supports your claims? Dude I have the Hardgrave book. I also have Templeman's NOrthern Nadars and many other books. None of these books dont even have a sentnce about what you are talking about! Hardgrave is ancient? Maybe. But it's the only valid source which records the nadar history until 1969. All the books I know of just uses his book as reference. Even Templeman acknowledges this by saying that his book covers everything correctly. So you are only good at throwing random claims. If Hardgrave supports your claims, tell me the exact page numbers. I ll post it here right away. G.K.Ghosh was as far as I remember used Caldwell as reference. We can post the contents of G.k.Ghosh. However it will seem very brief and in explicit when compared to the works of other anthropologists. I still have not seen the contents of the book you mentioned. So until Sitush quotes the contents of the book, please be calm. The origin of the nadar community is completely unknown. There are no literary evidences or inscriptions that speak about their origin. We just have a handful of hypotheses. We don't even know if they are true for sure. We cant include sentences based on WP:NOR. So accusing every one around you for no reason at all is really not going to do you a favor. Please be patient.Mayan302 (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I wrote "Hardgrave referred to some ancient and new examples", not "hardgrave is ancient", so you can rework there. It has been confirmed by 2 people already that the source exists and supports the provided sentence. Just because you want to pretend that source doesn't exist, it is your personal issue. Your original research and inability to understand things has been annoying others as seen in above sections. I am not targeting "everyone", but only you. Origins are uncertain, I never pointed that, but when you refer to the stories of only Tamil Nadu, a editor tends to think that it all originated only in Tamil Nadu. Hardgrave' 1969 include:-

"One group of these Nadar entered Tirunclveli by way of Ramanathapuram, bringing with them the seednuts of the Jaffna palmyra regarded as the best in the east, while a second group of emigrants, considerd a lower division of the caste considerd a lower division of the caste, came by sea from Ceylon to the south of Travancore." Bladesmulti (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

If a reliable modern source chooses to cite an older source that we generally consider to be unreliable, the modern source "wins" for the specific point. It is not for us to pass judgement on the skills etc of the writer of the modern source but we should cite that rather than the older one. - Sitush (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This quote is from Hardgrave's book. However it is Caldwell's theory. In page no 20(hardgrave), the author quotes Caldwell's theory and debunks it in page no 21. I am assumming you dont have access to Hardgrave and never went through the page I asked you to go through. I am definitively not against this Srilakan origin thing. I once tried to relate the nadars with the fulani tribe of Africa by using a genetic study as ref. I dont have any issues what so ever to include this in the article. But you are just repeatedly accusing me instead of providing the required refs.Mayan302 (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the paragraph from the source

Another category of skilled workers in increasing demand, who commuted between South India and Sri Lanka, was that of the coconut and palmyrah toddy tappers. These communities have not received the same attention as the two above-mentioned groups, but their case is extremely interesting because Indian and Sri Lankan myths of origin mirror each other. Those of the Nalavar in the north and the Durava in the south of the island connect them with Madurai princesses who would have brought them to the island when marrying Sri Lankan kings. Those of the Izhava in southern Kerala, of the Tiyan/Tevan in northern Kerala and of the Shanar/Nadar in southern Tamilnadu connect them with Sri Lanka in a similar way, adding that these migrants were disappointed with the treatment they received on the island and returned to India, bringing with them the first coconut trees. The very names of Izhava and of Tiyan are supposed to be derived respectively from Ilam, that is Ceylon, and from tivu, island. The same corpus of legends includes episodes relating to five artisan castes who deserted the land of the Chera king Cheraman Perumal to seek asylum in Sri Lanka, and were forcibly brought back. Among Sri Lankan craftsmen, many families of blacksmiths used to claim a South Indian origin dating from the fifteenth century. So did washermen and other service groups. Most of them have more recently dropped these claims in favour of a nondescript Sinhala origin 'from time immemorial'.

Sorry for the delay. - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush. This is oral tradition. And its is not very clear. But its evident that the line added by multi (Izhava, Tiyan, Nadar in southern India are also connected with the Nadar of Sri Lanka) is not according to the source. This is a myth and we should also mention that. What do you suggest Sitush? Is it ok to include mythical origins in the article. Because there are many mythical origins regarding the nadars. And I am not sure how to add them all? Mayan302 (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Myths reported by reliable sources are fine. They tend to demonstrate just how vain these castes are but, hey, that's life. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

:) Ok. I ll include it then.Mayan302 (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Where you read about "oral tradition", it says "legend". Bladesmulti (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the article. If you want to connect the nadars of tamilnad with Srilanka provide valid reference. Dont try to forcefully include your own point of view(original research). As per our above discussion there is not a single line in the source you have provided to support your claims. Please refrain from editing this article or provide valid refs. Mayan302 (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)