Jump to content

User talk:Ravichandar84: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 244: Line 244:
== Vanakkam Friend ==
== Vanakkam Friend ==
Hi,Ravichandar, I got your message,Thanks for suggestions and appreciation ,I will definitely get back to you in couple of days with detail discussion,OK,also I will let you know if we can share some work on interesting topics,Keep writing for help and suggestions,Thanking you once again,Dhanyawaadh,Nanri,Regards,[[User:Prasannakumar|Prasannakumar]] ([[User talk:Prasannakumar|talk]]) 05:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi,Ravichandar, I got your message,Thanks for suggestions and appreciation ,I will definitely get back to you in couple of days with detail discussion,OK,also I will let you know if we can share some work on interesting topics,Keep writing for help and suggestions,Thanking you once again,Dhanyawaadh,Nanri,Regards,[[User:Prasannakumar|Prasannakumar]] ([[User talk:Prasannakumar|talk]]) 05:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
* Also, please feel free to address me as '''Prasannakumar''' or PK :)

Revision as of 05:23, 6 September 2010


The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

VPC

— raekyT 00:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Districts of Madras Presidency

Since some of the districts and taluks of the present day states of Tamil Nadu,Andhra Pradesh,Karnataka and Orissa were carved out of existing districts of Madras Presidency and some princely states were merged into the Presidency at some or the other time,I thought of starting an article on this.I need your help on references though.-Raghavan(Talk) 16:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of C. Rajagopalachari

The article C. Rajagopalachari you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:C. Rajagopalachari for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
wow, you are awesome. cant help but appreciate your endurance. Thanks for all your work and specifically your ongoing effort to changing the names in this article to blue. --CarTick 18:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Onam to you too. --CarTick 03:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Districts of Madras Presidency

I started this article a few days back and have added some information about a few districts till date.Help me to develop this article and give some better sources.-Raghavan(Talk) 06:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding census reports,I myself am hunting for sources.The current source I quoted has 1862 figures.Will do a search for the 1931 census figures.Also some information about the merger of Arcot and Tanjavur as districts will be needed since these were princely states.Ramnad and Sivaganga are available in wiki articles itself.Regarding the Telugu districts,I will ask some Telugu editors.-Raghavan(Talk) 06:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ravichandar84. You have new messages at Raj6644's talk page.
Message added 07:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Sorry, its my mistake. Raj 6644(தமிழன்) 07:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Iyer & Vadama Pages.

The book "Castes & Tribes in Southern India" does not have any free or limited preview in the internet.

No ISBN numbers have been provided in any of the iyengar or iyer wiki pages. The Isbn number ie provided in the edgar thurston page ,specifically for "Volumes 1-a,b" and "volume-2" is ISBN 978-8120602885. Wiki editors claim references for some controversial statements such as "all iyengars were once iyers, who later converted to vaishnavism", etc etc from these volumes.

Actually, the isbn number leads to a complete collection of all seven volumes. As you already know, clicking on the isbn number leads to the "wiki book search result page", which in turn gives many links as to where the book might be available for any "free or limited preview".

But here, there is no such online preview for these volumes(1-a,b & 2) anywhere. Hence the contents are not verifiable by any mean. The only verifiable mean would be to buy the book directly.

The book is written by both Thurston and "K.Rangachari". But here "K.Rangachari" himself is an Iyengar. Such "non-online references" alone, atleast need be written by 3rd parties.

I can cite all the above reasons to delete all claims made from these "non-existent references".

I'm a Vadakalai Iyengar myself & my stand is this :- I hold that the terms "iyer" ,"smartha" ,"vadama" etc were once applicable to all brahmins & not just for the present days' iyers. But today they are only applied to the current iyer community & hence Thurston misinterpreted all iyengars to have come from iyers.

Anyhow, none of the references are valid under any wiki' rule or regulation ,& hence should be deleted as they are used for controversial statements. Now give ur opinion on this.

If someone's going to indicate the "primary source" factor, that they've witnessed the contents of the article, then i suppose they are to provide a valid secondary source for support.

All contoversial claims made from castes & tribes should be deleted.

But u had mentioned i was toying around with the article!!!... If the allegations made from some non existent reference is called valid , then certainly my changes in the iyer pages were acceptable. Explain ur stand here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari7478 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only changes i made in the iyer page was that , i had included a statement from kathleen gough's book with reference , that shows that the "iyengars were ranked above iyers" . This was not to show the superiority of iyengars , but rather to imply that this fact contradicts thurston's allegations.

In the vadama page , i had only stated the contoversial claims to be "Thurston & Rangachari's own views" ...but u r callin' it POV pushing?!!

I was not toying around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari7478 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave ur comments on the iyer & vadama discussion page too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari7478 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Adi Shankara's caste be included here??? If u can mention an unsourced claim of "Iyengars having converted from iyers", why not mention adi sankara's caste??? It rather helps one assume as to "what the iyers were before converting to Sankara sampradayam". Also one cannot rule out the Namboodari admixture in iyers. BTW adi sankara's nambudiri origin is a fact & not an allegation made by any author.

It is sad to see that even some good wiki' editors are partial towards their tradition & allow dubious claims made from non existent sources.

Remove all claims made from "Caste & tribes" immediately . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari7478 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Gough's observation that "Iyengars ranked above Smarthas" or "Vadakalais ranked above the Thenkalais" was made while describing the conditions prevailing among the Brahmins of the village of Kumbapettai and not in a general context as you might yourself observe from the book.
As for your following statement: I'm a Vadakalai Iyengar myself & my stand is this :-
I hold that the terms "iyer" ,"smartha" ,"vadama" etc were once applicable to all brahmins &

not just for the present days' iyers. But today they are only applied to the current iyer community & hence Thurston misinterpreted all iyengars to have come from iyers., I have nothing to say except that Wikipedia relies on the strength of published sources and not on opinions. If you have certain theories on the origins of Iyers and Iyengars, you are free to write a blog on the same.

Castes and Tribes of Southern India is a recognized classic. It is one of the most widely prescribed reference books used by anthropologists. The possiblity that its insignificant co-author could have been an Iyengar does not diminish its usefulness or reliability.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 12:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know that the foreign authors are known to publish some howlers without a proper interpretation. BTW it is only famous amongst anthropologists and tamil people. How can a north indian looking into the iyer page, verify the controversial statements? & how many commoners referring to wiki articles can ever look for verifiability??
One specific author's(also an ethnographer) theory can rather be put up on wiki' articles as "According to Thurston...- & the following claim". But why put it in the iyer page as an authentic statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari7478 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also why not put up Adi Sankara's caste in the iyer page?? It rather helps one assume as to "what the iyers were, before converting to Sankara sampradayam". Also one cannot rule out the Namboodari admixture in iyers. BTW adi sankara's nambudiri origin is a fact & not an allegation made by any author. Why did you delete that?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari7478 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for "my ignorance with regard to the other complaints i made(isbn num, etc)". But i, seriousely, was not toying around with the article.

It's okay! :) Things like these do happen when you are new to Wikipedia.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 14:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the changes u made on the Vadakalai page.

The Katheen Gough article clearly states that "Vadakalai are ranked above Thenkalais". http://books.google.co.in/books?id=GZwD7EqLcAUC&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false All i did was "copy paste" from the authentic source.

You cannot term somethin' to be npov violation jus' because it's not agreeable for a specific group. The book itself was written by a third party & cannot be called dubious.

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

A few doubts on the Vadakalai & Vadama pages.

Please clarify these doubts.

1. In the Vadama page, I feel that the "vadama converting to vadakalai" statement need not be mentioned in the introductory note of the page itself. It is a Vadama page & not a Vadakalai article. There is a section below, in the page - "relation with iyengar communities". The vadamas adopting vaishnavism is mentioned in that section, in detail. I think that is already good enough. So, what is the need to mention that in the beginning of the page itself? Can i delete that section alone, where the statement is made in the introduction itself?? I feel that it is unneccessary to mention it in the lead.

2. I'm planning to upload a brief overview of "Nityakarmas & other ritualistic anushthanams of Vadakalais" in the Vadakalai page. These are usually found in all "Vadakalai Nithyanushthana kramam" books. But it is hard to find online references for them. Can i upload them from such offline book sources, by stating the name & publication of these books? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari7478 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section summarizes the article. And the fact that a lot of Vadamas had converted to Vaishnavism is too big to be omitted. After all, Ramanuja himself is believed to have been born a Vadama. Anyway, there is nothing controversial or objectionable like "X is superior to Y" or anything of that sort.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 14:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'X' country participating in the Common Wealth Games

A wikipedian (User:Rahulchoudhary003) has created more than 30 individual articles for all the participating nations in the CWG,2010 with this template as basis. But all such article is having only one single line as content without any reference. What i have felt is, its better to create a list of 72 nations participating in the CWG instead of creating individual articles with single line of content. Pls advice / express your view on the subject. Thank you. ----Raj 6644(தமிழன்) 11:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Semmangudi-young.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Semmangudi-young.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Vssun (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please do not remove the deletion note until the discussion is over. Hekerui (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Requesting to reconsider some controversial statements from thurston's book

Although it is agreed that the iyengars were all once smarthas, but still the thummagunta-vadama origin is not authentic at all. Although Thurston had stated it in his book, i plz request you to reconsider the "thummagunta vadama" factor alone. Edgar Thurston is never subsect specific while making such controversial statements.

The facts are: 1. Majority of the Vadakalais & Iyers believe that Vadakalai are of a pure "Vadadesa Vadama" origin. You may consult any scholary/elderly vadakalais or vadadesa vadamas regarding this fact. As you know, the vadadesa vadamas are considered higher than other vadamas ,not jus' becoz of their origin, but also becoz of their strictness. It is these strict ones who later ripened into a vaishnava. Although, i believe that iyengars had co-existed along with iyers & are not a derivative from them. A majority among both vadakalais & vadamas believe that vadakalai are of vadadesa vad' origin. The term "thummagunta" is completely unheard & unknown among vadakalais.

2. But among thenkalais the term "Thummagunta" is a little familiar , especially among the mandyas & chozhiars (Chozhiars are exclusively thenkalai only)

The "vadadesa vadama" origin of vadakalais is also often mentioned by "Sri Muralidhara Swami", a smartha(vadadesa vadama) sanyasi, from a place called manimangalam (near tambaram).

Can anything be done abt the mention on "thummagunta-vadama" converting to vaishnavism??...For sure that statement from thurston is baseless & utterly dubious (although thurston had stated it).

Edgar Thurston is no different from max meuller, as all these foreign authors see things in their own way only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari7478 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ravichandar84. You have new messages at Talk:List_of_state_highways_in_Tamil_Nadu.
Message added 10:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pls participate in the discussion and provide your suggestions. ----Raj 6644(தமிழன்) 10:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Raj 6644(தமிழன்) 10:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tanjore Marathas

If you get some information on this dynasty,then let me know.I finished adding the Tamil Districts to the Districts of Madras Presidency article and need to add information about Tanjore District since it was a princely state for sometime before merging into the Presidency.-Raghavan(Talk) 15:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanakkam Friend

Hi,Ravichandar, I got your message,Thanks for suggestions and appreciation ,I will definitely get back to you in couple of days with detail discussion,OK,also I will let you know if we can share some work on interesting topics,Keep writing for help and suggestions,Thanking you once again,Dhanyawaadh,Nanri,Regards,Prasannakumar (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, please feel free to address me as Prasannakumar or PK :)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ravichandar84&oldid=383195514"