Talk:Devasahayam Pillai

Untitled

its been contributed by an annonymous user on another page [1]. With some work it can be made an historical article. I recommend leaving it until someone comes along to clean it up, rather than deleting it. Btw it certainly isnt patent nonsense -- ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 08:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I am deprodding for now. Thorough cleanup and investigation is needed, but a skim-through indicates that the page seeks to relate an incident in good faith. Let me work on it and see what it is about. ImpuMozhi 15:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

I have noted that there are some sections in this article which are not neutral in language. Here are some examples:

later to be martyred by the high caste Hindus in the Kingdom

The Brahmins and the other high caste Hindus plotted to do away with Devasahayam Pillai, once and forever

Other phrases require proper citations to back up the "facts" being presented, such as:

On the advice of the Hindu high priests, the king and his Dewan agreed to his banishment

As was customary in those days, his body was painted with red and black spots, something reserved for very cruel criminals and was intentionally marched through populated areas, both as if it were a punishment to him and also to discourage future conversions among the high caste Hindus

De Lennoy’s Christian faith interested Devasahayam and De Lenoy enlightened him on the faith and that it was the answer to all of Devasahayam’s woes and family problems

The basis of the claims may indeed be true, but citations are a must in this case. I also sense a slightly anti-Hindu tilt in the article, as I have noted the relevant passages in bold, where non-neutral terms have been used, such as "martyr" and picturing the Brahmins as "plotting to do away with" Devasahayam Pillai. People may view Devasahayam as a "martyr", but if this is the case then it must be stated many/some view him as a martyr

This is the reason why I have placed a POV tag on this article, and it will remain there until these problems have been corrected. Kshatriya Grandmaster 10:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I ma add that the name itself indicates that this fellow was a Shaiva vellala Pilla and not a Nair Pillai at all. The story is like all stories where every christian has to claim to descend from "High Caste" people. the truth is that 99% of the christians are descended from low caste people and the 1% are people who were banished from High caste. Whenever the talk of high caste omes in in a christian propaganda story be rest assured that it is all falsehood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.1.52.48 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 2 May 2007.

I have indented the previous biography under the heading "Catholic account of his life", and added a section about the controversy over his beatification, with other points of view. Other editors and I have toned down or removed a lot of the previous POV language. I think the POV tag can now be removed, but I am proposing it here first hoping for prior consensus or further improvements. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The story of Devasahayam Pillai has no historical evidence. It is rather a myth propagated among the Roman Catholic followers of the Latin Rite in the Kanyakumari District and adjoining areas in Southern India. So to render an article on Devasahayam Pillai as a historial person in Wikipedia is not at all to be encouraged. -Som123

Do you have any WP:Reliable sources about this Latin Rite involvement? I note that you have systematically removed inline citations from an article in The Hindu. This newspaper appears to be a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, and I am therefore reverting those changes that you made.

Please also use the Edit summary to explain the reasoning for the edits that you make. If you leave them blank, they appear all the more unjustified. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Source removed

I have removed all subpages of cs.nyu.edu/kandathi/ ([2]) listed as source. The page is a userpage of someone specialized in computation and mathematical logic. such a person's is in no way qualified to be sourced here. Arjun^codename024 16:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Also removed is martyrdevasagayam.org ([3]) a highly partisan unreliable website. Arjun^codename024 16:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by abusing the npov

Vandalism by abusing the npov & Distortion of page by addition of filth against Devasahayam Pillai by anti-christian fanatic elements.

It is indeed painful to note that a scrutiny of past-edits of this page reveals a lot of correct material is being continuously, but systematically, removed by a particular miscreant radical group with malicious intentions for reasons better known to them only. For example, one such recent revision 13:54 on 3 May 2011 under the heading `Controversy` does not give any reference/link which is either reliable or relevant quote/source, instead it simply tells the names of certain individuals without any proof to support. However it promptly blames others as biased (forgetting they themselves are the ones biased against) and ensures character-assassination for the Christian martyr! Is it not unfair as well as unethical? Kindly take necessary steps to discourage such corrupt-souls!--Kumaripriya (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for adding a citation for some of the material that you have added. Please do the same for the other new material. However, your have also deleted material with edit summaries that do not appear to follow WP:NPOV, e.g. these two, and as an independent general editor I have reverted some of them.

Please discuss proposed deletions here before radically changing the balance of the article. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

As stated on your talk page, the source for the reactions of various Hindus is stated to be The Pioneer (Indian newspaper), which I understand is a sufficiently reputable journal. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

At least two of the books added as sources by User:Kumaripriya appear to be named "Martyr Devasahayam Pillai", etc. I wonder if such sources can ever be neutral. Besides, Kumaripriya's personal attacks on all non-Christian Wikipedian editors is another source of concern.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 05:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Places of interest

This newspaper article refers to "Muttidichan Parai near Kumarakovil, where there is a memorial to a martyr, Devasahayam Pillai". Is this another name for a place mentioned in the encyclopedia article, or should it be added? - Fayenatic (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV & Truth

How writing the truth, without fear of any vested interest group, can invoke the provisions of POV? Refer RW on 06 September 2011 of Canonization efforts by contributor Sitush. Isn't it against NPOV and truth? -Kumaripriya (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Be honest, "vehemently refutes all these vainglorious interpretations" is in no way an objective or NPOV expression. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unofortunately, but as so often with your edits, your choice of source is questionable (140 years old) and your choice of language is appalling ("vainglorious", "vehemently" etc). You have been warned, taken to WP:ANI and even blocked for this type of contribution before now. I only wish that I or someone else could get the message of WP:NPOV etc across to you in a manner which you can understand. What bit of it are you having difficulties with (apart from the word "neutral", obviously)? - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you say my edits are untrue and a figment of my imagination? Absolutely not! My point of view is nothing but that religious persecution in Travancore had a long history right from the days of St.Francis Xavier in 16th century AD (Eg: "The Life of St.Francis Xavier of the Society of Jesus, Apostle of India" by Dominic Bouhours,1841, Page:92-93 wherein persecution by Brahmins, contrary to popular belief, against him in South Travancore was being explained in detail) alongwith my citations from "The Land of Charity" by Samuel Mateer indeed 'vehemently' refutes the 'character-assassinating-statements' and the 'opinions' given in the WP article as 'expressed' by Prof. Sreedhara Menon,etc. are indeed false. How those statements not vainglorious to any neutral mind? You are entitled to have your own opinion based on your data, but I am only bothered about furnishing the facts, supported by hard evidence in WP. I am sure you both also equally share the same anguish, then why not both the view point and the counter view point be included in the article for the sake of maintaining the neutrality?Kumaripriya (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

I've tagged this article wrt unreliable sources - something that I haven't done in my previous 70-odd thousand edits. Too many of the sources appear to be from minor publishers and to have connections to the church. It is entirely possible that they are not presenting an accurate account. We need sources that are independent of the church and of the devotees. - Sitush (talk) 11:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism suspected

SITUS seems to be doing changes to this article which appear to me as strongly biased. I had included sources attesting to the martyrdom of Devasahayam on account of his religious faith. SITUS has removed that without even mentioning why he wanted it removed. If he thinks that the source is unreliable he should SHOW with other sources why the earliest sources are unreliable. Instead, he has REMOVED the text and details I entered, and THEN has tagged "unreliable". So, what is unreliable? Is the article as it stands now is unreliable? Why does SITUS question the ENTIRE article? Again, he has removed the dates I entered after A. Sridharanan. I wanted to show that Sridharan's view was expressed some three hundred years AFTER Devasahayam Pillai's death, whereas the sources I had adduced go back to the time of the martyr. Again, SITUS has redone the details of Devasahayam, like making his birth year 1713 instead of 1712, and inserting "Palace Soldier" where as Devasahayam was not a soldier but an OFFICIAL at Martanda Varma's court.

Considering all of the above, I conclude that the action of may SITUS amount to vandalism, calling for appropriate action in the interest of neutrality and objectivity of Wikipedia Thanks.--பவுல்-Paul (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)