Talk:Iyengar

Template:Castewarningtalk

Vadakalai and Thenkalai

It is a well known fact that Vadakalai=Northerners, and thenkalai are southerners. It is a mere translation and everyone knows this. Above all, the fact is supported by sources. But recently, a user had changed it as "Vad=south, and then'=north", which is too mischievous. It's like saying "arctic is south pole while the antarctic is in the north" - laughable indeed. It makes the whole article unstable. But, it is a silly and laughable piece of contrib' which has to be reverted right away. Above all, the reference provided(the particular inline citation) has it all. Making a small change like that might go unnoticed, but it is too big(figuratively), as it changes the whole interpretation. I can't believe this is happening. Too silly!! Anyhow, i'm posting the refs here with explanation.

• [1] - It goes as - "These vadamars or vadagalai ie northerners" as distinct from tongalai or southerners. - The changing Indian civilization: a perspective on India - Oroon K. Ghosh
  
  
• [2] - "They were divided into Vadakalai(northern) and thenkalai(southern) castes". - Rural society in southeast india by Kathleen Gough, published by Cambridge university press
  
  
• [3] - Vadakalai(Northerners) - Pg.72, Aryans in South India – by P. P. Nārāyanan Nambūdiri, Inter-India Publications.
  
  
• [4] - Vadagalai(Northerners) & Thengalai(Southerners) - Linguistic Culture and Language Policy By Harol Schiffman (published by Routledge-London, Taylor & Francis e library, Routledge-New York)
  
  

Thank You!! Hari7478 (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hari, my brain flipped. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's alright. Actually, the first edit was made by a one "user:Hayagreevadasa". Hari7478 (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Religious observances

A lot of details are missing in this section. I tried to make changes and provided citations for all. But the page has been reverted to old version

Edgar Thurston as a source

The works of Edgar Thurston are of very dubious reliability and I intend to remove them. Do we have any more recent sources for the information currently attributed to him? - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Vadakalai Vs Tenkalai (again)

Sitush, I refer to the Vadakalai vs Tenkalai section, which i intend to fix as per the objections raised earlier on, with the Wiki Dispute Mediation. I suppose you are aware of Robert Lester, who was a professor with the Dept of Religious Studies at the U of Colorado; and did extensive research on the Srivaishnava religion. I refer to his paper, Rāmānuja and Śrī-Vaiṣṇavism: The Concept of Prapatti or Śaraṇāgati, published in the History of Religions, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Winter, 1966), pp. 266-282. Kindly note the following reproduced from the paper:

Less than 150 years after Ramanuja's death his followers split into two well-defined groups: Tengalai ("Southern") and Vadagalai ("Northern"). The split had practical as well as theological bases, but it centered on the question of human effort versus divine grace in effecting the highest goal. Both of these schools of thought affirm bhagavadprapatti ("resorting to the Lord") to be the supreme means to moksa, the Tengalai defining prapatti as mere receptivity or lack of opposition to divine grace, the Vadagalai insisting that prapatti must involve a positive act on the part of one desirous of moksa before divine grace can effect such an end. The latter school, defined by Vedanta Desika, makes prapatti a six-member (shadanga) ritual act involving the recitation of certain mantras. Both schools claim Ramanuja as the central authority for such affirmations, the Tengalai appealing to Gitabhasya 18.66 and the Vadagalai to the Gadyatraya.

During the time of Ramanuja himself, there was nothing called Vadagalai and Thengalai. But after Ramanuja passed on, his followers divided themselves on the basis of philosophy, into Vadagalai and Tengalai; such that the prapatti ritual itself differs somewhat between these two sects. Thereafter the followers created geographical locations as their base, such that vadagalai followers centered in Kanchipuram and Tengalai followers in Srirangam. As noted in J.R.A.S. source above, "...North refers to Conjeevaram and South to Srirangam at first, later on Alvar Tirunagari further south,- and not to North and South Indias".

I believe Robert Lester is an acceptable source (all his publications are recent; not old). Can i proceed to make appropriate changes to the article? Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

@ all - Just because there are theological differences between the two sects doesn't mean "there's no ethnic difference". If Thurston is removed, it makes Mumme & Lester sources even less reliable. But Thurston's source has a peer review(Article, The Hindu, 1992) to back it up. Additionally, an author's description on "theological differences" are indeed assumptions and theories based on "deductive reasoning", acceptable though. However, you can't counter a "genetic/anthropological/museological" study with "theoretical reasoning". Nevertheless, the possibility of a "split/common origin" has also been mentioned in the opening line of the corresponding section. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Re to Hari7478

You are contradicting yourself. If there was a "split/common origin" to begin with; how can Vadakalai and Thenkalai be ethnically different communities? Please provide full reference (date, page number) of 'The Hindu' peer review on Thurston. I suspect you are misquoting sources again. Btw, Thurston did not research into religion. He merely recorded claims made by individuals, no matter how inflated they may be (including descent from Brahma). His job was to aid census and ethnography survey. Robert Lester on the other hand has been a standing professor of religion with extensive research into Srivaishnavism, origins of the Srivaishnava community and their sampradayas. As for the genetic/anthropological/blah blah assumptions you make; each of them (including misquoting sources to support your half-baked assumptions of racism) have been addressed in the section For Dispute Mediation; from which you chickened out, instead of agreeing for mediation. So either you agree for mediation this time around; or keep away from edits based on your assumptions. Make your choice and let me know. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Re from Hari7478

Though i couldn't find the '92 article after an exhaustive online search, i came across a new and a better review by the same Daily(The Hindu) which praises Thurston's 7 volume work as "an extraordinary input to the understanding of the diversity in Indian society." See here: http://www.hindu.com/mag/2010/01/24/stories/2010012450180400.htm . When a primary source is reviewed by a reliable "daily newspaper" you cannot dispute its authenticity(according to wiki' policies/norms), however you may opine. It's not a question of what you're saying, it's a question of what Wikipedia policy is saying. You have no right to give options, for me to make my choice. Since your conduct here isn't even close to being in the same vicinity of wp:talkpage guidelines, you leave me no choice but to request for wikiquette assistance. I suppose you already got a warning from another user for this behavior of yours in the past, and this response of yours is even more flaming.
I'm hereby listing a few reasons why i didn't agree to the mediation -

• More than focussing on article content, you were simply busy pointing out the other editor's(my) contribs by using names in discussions. Your talk page comments(the one above) are again examples of "incivility & stubbornness". The first thing ab't dispute mediation that you need to realize is "what is to be learned from this?". Your opinion ab't Lester being a "a standing professor of religion with extensive research into Srivaishnavism" is not even a valid counter arguement. Wikipedia is not about winning. I repeat - it's not a question of what you're saying, it's a question of what Wikipedia policy is saying.
  

• Regarding your comments on Lester's expertise on religion - you're again relating religion to a caste/ethnicity/community related article. Just because most Indian brahmin castes are closely tied up to religion doesn't mean it requires citations from religious experts. Thurston is a renowned expert in the field of museology & ethnology, and his works have been given a positive review by a renowned Daily. That's all that matters here in wiki. By the way Lester's books are from the 1970s and i hope you remember Sitush & Qwyrxian discussing the validity of these sources, sometime back in the same talk page.
  

Honestly, any other experienced user/admin would have done the same that i did. Hari7478 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Re to Hari7478 (contd)

You do not even seem to know what peer reviewed articles are (Thurston produced a vast output of writings, and is deserving of the glowing tributes paid to him. However, there has been no peer review for his articles on Iyengars, or on any other community for that matter). Just because some people claim fanciful origins for themselves, does not make it correct. Anyways, am not against Thurston as a source. The article can very well mention "In colonial period, Vadakalais claimed to be northerners, etc, etc" and attribute the sentence to Thurston as a source. However, all your other points on genetics / ethnicity, etc, are merely your own assumptions. You have blatantly misquoted sources. Time and again, you have passed off your falsified claims and half-baked theories of racism; by attributing them to sources which convey no such thing. In such a case, there is no choice but to apply for mediation again.

Unfortunately, Sitush made alterations to the disputed section. Nevertheless, since you were the main author, and there is back-up with your meandering empty arguments, and ignorance, on display; the wiki mediation will be on (or against) you. Apparently, you do not want your ignorance, and devious attribution of (your) racist ideas to sources (which you misquote), to be questioned on a formal mediation platform, hence you do not agree to mediation. Nevertheless, you are answerable.

I request Sitush or any other admin to lock this article to protect against any changes. After the lock is put in place, will write out the mediation request. Otherwise, am afraid the sources and reference numbers may be altered; and mediation will become a cumbersome process on that account.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

"Castes and Tribes" is a 7 volume work by Thurston, and no one's going to give a "Chapter/unit specific" review. I never made-up things and i've explained my contribs to a few other experienced users in the past(reg sensitive contribs). I'll post the link to the '92 review soon. Finally, regarding the mediation - you badmouthed me even before your first mediation request, but then you apologized only when you wanted to get things done. This time your comments are not even in the same standard as the "least civil talk page comment". For example "meandering...half-baked...etc" are evident of your abusive behavior here. Being abusive won't get you anywhere - I won't be intimidated by such behaviour and i've been too patient, but not anymore. This will only serve to alienate people from such(abusive) users in a discussion. And, i'm not the one who's making changes to this article now. This article is already under the watchlist of a a few admins and they know what's best. Hari7478 (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

So, apparently you think 'The Hindu' newspaper article is a 'peer review' on Thurston. Ah well...no point talking to your likes. Anyways, this is a case of scientific racism (just as Sitush mentioned earlier). You have constantly fabricated, falsified and misquoted sources to pass off your theories (yes, half-baked and meandering) on genetics as well as general sources to that effect. All your allegations of me being uncivil, abusive, is simply an escape route for you to evade answering issues raised for mediation. So what am going to do is delete all the trash you put into the article. If this goes into an edit war, there is nothing you can do except agree for mediation. Good luck. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

JUst to follow up on this, I've removed Thurston from the article. As Mayasutra says, the fact that a newspaper commented favorably upon his book does not make him a reliable source for historical information, particularly that which is embedded in the scientific racism for which Thurston is known. The question is not whether a newspaper likes him, but whether historians find his accounts to be reliable and accurate--and they very much do not. Let me say that again, but more carefully: if we wanted to provide a source that demonstrated scientific racism, or the colonizers view of Indian caste in the 19th century, then we could cite Thurston. But we cannot cite Thurston for what was actually "true" about the groups, castes, or history of the time. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

another source

Agree with Mayasutra's reliability of source. Another source attributing the same reason

Patricia Y. Mumme, The Srivaisnava Theological Dispute: Manavalamamuni and Vedanta Desika, 1988 "it developed a theological dispute and sectarian schism over whether that grace is given in cooperation with human effort" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastnfurios (talk • contribs) 02:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahobila Mutt 5the Jeeyar Thenkalai

According to Ahobila Mutt, 5the Jeeyar is thenkalai http://www.ahobilamutt.org/us/acharya/bio/as2-7.asp

This is not a sensitive information when both parties agree to this. hari7478 not allowing to add this in Thenkalai or Vadakalai page.

hari7478 agree to mediation with Wiki.

(the above portion was written by Fastnfurious)

Re from Hari7478

As mentioned previously, Ahobila mutt(a srivaishnava source) is not a neutral party source for a challenged data. Even if both parties agree to this, it's not a valid wiki' src. It is possible that the agreement by both parties is intended to avoid conflicts in the future, as it has happened in the past. By the way, this is not be included in this talk page. It doesn't matter what you say. All that matters is what wiki policy says. Challenged data needs neutral party ref. Hari7478 (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Re to FastnFurious

Fastnfurious, am not inclined to get into mutt issues. Am only concerned about Hari7478 repeatedly misquoting sources to pass off his falsified claims on racism / ethnicity. Thanks, --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

I don't see when/where this was added to the article, but if anyone was trying to use [5] as a source, they can't, because it's not a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Both of you (Mayasutra and Hari7478) should be blocked for edit warring--Mayasutra especially because you specifically indicated in an edit summary that you knew you were edit warring. The two of you should hope that a more lenient admin than myself takes a look at this and decides to protect the page rather than block you two. I'm WP:INVOLVED (having commented in discussions above), and as such, cannot use my administrative tools here. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, When i edited the disputed content, user Hari7478 did not do anything. But after rearranging text and making the whole article somewhat proper, Hari7478 decided to revert. So i expected this to end in edit warring. I sincerely expect admin intervention. So long there has been no admin intervention (did not know Sitush was unwell). Anyways, since Hari7478 is not agreeing for mediation, have brought the issue to the ANI page. At least there he needs to explain why he is misquoting sources to pass off his half-baked ethnic/race origin theories of Vadakalai and Thenkalai. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Mayasutra

Ethnicity, genetics and origin

Nothing in this section talked about either ethnicity or genetics. I have changed the title to "subgroups". I know that Mayasutra prefers "subsects", but I think that term is unnecessarily technical, and "subgroups" will be more accessible to most readers. Now, if someone wants to make a section that actually talks about ethnicity or genetics, fine, do so...but this isn't it. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, there were two sentences on genetics. However, I'm removing them. This is because there has been a dispute about exactly what the papers say. I'm of the opinion that any genetic studies need to be used with extreme care, because it is extraordinarily easy to misrepresent them, usually to say more than they actually say. Most results that I have seen (though I will admit I haven't read very many) are quite tentative, and limited to a small group that may or may not be representative of a larger population. I will attempt to read the article, but that kind of reading is..well..not so fun, so give me time. I'll put the disputed sentence here:

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. 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.

Until such time as we can come to a consensus about exactly what we should say from this paper we should say nothing. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sentence removed

I have removed the following sentence from the article:

These sects may be of distinctly different in origin, but it is possible that they emerged in the 14th century AD following a split in the community.

After looking at the quotations from the books provided by Mayasutra in the last ANI discussion (now archived, can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Hari7478 and Mayasutra, round 2, Mayasutra kindly provided texts of the first two sources, and neither supports the claim there. I don't know what the third source says, but if it is helpful, we'll need to rephrase it so that it stands on its own. I recommend that before you do so, given the sourcing problems we've had so far, that a full and complete quotation for context is provided here on the talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Info with sources

• Qwyrxian, whatever be the claims made here(along with sources), please be here to moderate and analyze them, before we could add them to the main article. That is all i ask. I want to be on the safer side this time and am not willing to risk a block again. So we'll post our sources with explanations, but please go through them and validate. Some obvious copy-pastes of data evidently found in the source could be done right away, by you. I'm posting links with explanations. It could be understood by anybody. I hope you looked into my recent message in my talk page, about the other user's version. I'm posting links to a few of my sources. See below:
  
• [6] - According to this source, P.P.Narayanan Nambudiri mentions the names of most Southern Indian brahmin castes, including both Vadakalai and Thenkalai, as aryans of south india(discussing these castes alone), while in the introductory note he says - "the Aryans of North India during their exploratory travels down south of the Vindhyas decided to settle in the area known today as South India." Although the Thenkalai are mentioned as aryans too, there are some other contradicting sources according to which "Thenakalais incorporated a sizable proportion of non-brahmins into their fold". Hence, i wanted to discuss more before mentioning thenkalais as aryan. This is exactly why i mentioned Vadakalai as Aryan.
  
• [7] - Last page, 11th line to the left - according to which "all individuals examined among Vadagalai(alternative spelling) ayangar brahmins were rhd positive while other populations showed a low frequency of the D allele. The similarity in the frequency of rhesus-d genes in india and pakistan can be attrubuted to the common history of the people". Here it specifically refers to Vadakalai(with high rhd+) as the people of India who have similar gene frequencies with those of Faislabad, Pakistan. By the way, it's a secondary source and from a neutral party.
  
• [8] - According to this, both Vadakalais(alternatively spelled as as vadahalai) & Thenkalais(mispelled as tengalai) are mentioned as Indo-Hittite(List of allele frequencies). However not all brahmins are mentioned as hittite. Some telugu brahmins are mentioned under elamo-dravidian. According to this page of the same source[9] Indo-hittite is synonymous with Indo-European --which could be mentioned, because "Hittite" is an unfamiliar term with commoners/viewers.
  
• However, there are other sources that say that Thenkalais have "incorporated a sizable proportion of non-brahmins(of south india) into their fold". See Thenkalai section. This is exactly why i was hesitant to mention Thenkalai as aryan. However, there are adequate sources(new ones/secondary sources) that prove beyond doubt the Aryan/Indo-European genes/origins of Vadakalai.
  
• Please analyze them as the data mentioned here are evidently found in the sources, and adding them to the article would just be a direct copy paste. Such obvious ones could be done by you yourself. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It would be far easier for us simply to ignore all this genetics mess. The science is relatively new and rapidly changing, while the sources are often contradictory, of small sample size and highly technical in nature. Practically every scientific paper written on the subject has the appearance of being a primary source.

I did once enquire at WP:DNA for assistance in assessment of this type of thing and I got nowhere - even people who presumably have an interest in how genetics are dealt with on Wikipedia seemingly do not want to get involved when it comes to Indian castes and communities. Perhaps it is different on hi-WP or ml-WP etc, but we are at English WP and all genetics in the Indic context seem to do here is cause horrendous problems and make our articles incredibly difficult to understand.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sitush. I'm not asking anyone to interpret them. All i asked for is a direct copy-paste so that it is coherent with the other brahmin-caste related articles(such as Iyer). Otherwise, such issues need to be taken to the WT:INB noticeboard where a decision could be reached, regarding all caste related articles(on genetics). Until then, I suppose we could add them to the article, and i don't think it would lead to any edit-warring if it is a direct copy-paste from the source, along with the corresponding inline citations. And i really hope to see your comments here, even though you may not be involved in active editing in the main article. Atleast I hope you guys could understand that i didn't misrepresent them in the past. The rh+ source and Cavali-sforza ref are too big to be omitted. Even, according to Cavali-Sforza source, both Vadakalai & Pakistani castes are mentioned under Indo-Hittite/Indo-European. They are too big to be omitted. Atleast for now, especially when it would just be a direct copy-paste, we could include them. Hari7478 (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless we copy/pasted the entire source, we'd never be representing it fairly and would run the risk of cherry-picking. And we cannot copy/paste the entirety because it would contravene our policies relating to copyright. I'm not even making an attempt to understand the terminology: I am not a stupid person, I've tried previously and I came to the conclusion that in this sphere, genetics-based sources can be twisted to suit the purpose of any person's POV. If people involved in the WP genetics project can't sort it out, I certainly cannot.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see source 6; all I see is the word "A. Vadagali (Northerners)"; the rest does not appear. I'll need to see the full page at least. Also, note that that is not one of the sources that was in that sentence. The genetics stuff is for the other sentence; you cannot combine two sources together to draw a conclusion that neither draws. Please discuss the 2 parts separately (and don't put a subheading for your response). Source 8 doesn't seem to have anything to do with this sentence at all. So, in short, you seem to be basically taking 3-5 different sources, throwing them all together in a blender, even though they all use different spellings, different methodologies, and different paradigms, and drawing a singular conclusion from them. That is WP:SYNTH, a type of original research. We need to say explicitly and exactly what the sources say, using our own words. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Indian caste names, even the same ones, often come in a variety of alternative spellings while translating them(Vadakalai/Vadagalai/Vadagali/Vadahalai and Thenkalai/Tenkalai/Tengalai/Tengali). There are pages with most of these alternative spellings that are redirected to Vadakalai & Thenkalai wiki pages, respectively. Secondly, i'm not asking for /or giving a cognitive interpretation. The various data could be mentioned as different sentences along with the corresponding inline ciations in the main article, although i tried to explain the similarity between them in the talk page(merely intended to keep the sources, and not remove them citing the complexity of genetic science related discoveries). I'm not "asking anyone/intending" to club them in the main article. Rearding source 6, reproducing the page won't be enough for your verification as you need to see the whole book(atleast the introductory pages) for a better understanding. The book is about Aryans who settled in South India, and the author discusses the various aryan communities of Southern India with specific sub-headings. Hari7478 (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hari, this debate has gone on for so long and across so many different pages that I'm finding it difficult to follow. Am I at least correct in thinking that you are proposing to include as statements of fact the opinions of people who support the Aryan Brahmin/Aryan Invasion Theory and to do so without noting the equally vast literature that disputes the theory?--2.219.218.79 (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I simply wanted to make it coherent as in the Iyer page, especially when the Iyengar sub-communities are mentioned in the sources. Although the three sources mentioned above are disconnected, and though i intended to include them as seperate/disjoint information under separate lines, i was just explaining a similarity here in the talk page for our understanding so that we need not entirely remove the sources based on their complexity and controversiality. Otherwise the article will be reduced to a minuscule. By the way, under the section "History", there are no reliable sources and the ones cited are from pro-Iyengar websites(srivaishnavam.org), which is also the case with "language and dialect". I don't think nilacharal(cited under "dialect with kannada substrate") is a reliable source while the rest of the section is unsourced. "Brahmin tamil" is used to describe both the "Iyengar & Iyer" dialects, however the section describes brahmin tamil as an exclusive Iyer dialect - unsourced & controversial. Hari7478 (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Iyer article is far from being coherent. In common with most Brahmin-related articles, it needs a lot of work but changes meet with a lot of resistance from people with conflicts of interest etc. In fact, Fowler&fowler - who knows his stuff - has said on a few occasions that the Brahmin content hosted on Wikipedia is arguably more POV-y and worse-written than even those articles that have made spurious claims to kshatriya status. One day, I'll be taking a hatchet to them and the Iyer article is right near the top of my list. As far as this article goes, even without fiddling around with sources there is much that can be done to improve the coherence - it is truly dreadful and I've just made a start at fixing phrasing, linking etc. I await your response to my query: am I right in thinking that you want to introduce the controversial Invasion Theory without noting that it is indeed very controversial? You seem to be side-stepping this query.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I don't intend to introduce it as it is. However if there are some other studies(genetics) like the ones mentioned above, relating them to indo-aryan peoples & europeans, i don't mind adding it as an additional piece of informaiton. However, i'll make the contributions(if allowed) as a set of disjoint information under separate lines and not merge them alltogether, in a blender. The part where i related the various studies was for our own understanding and to keep the sources and not to remove them alltogether. However i won't blend them in the main article, but mention them as separate sentences/a set of disjoint sentences.
By the way, the whole page on Iyengar tamil is about the Karnataka dialects, and there is no source regarding the mainstream Iyengar dialect of TN. There are some minor differences in the dialect between the two Iyengar sub-divisions too. Brahmin tamil is a common terminology used to describe both the "Iyengar & Iyer" brahmin dialects. However, in the brahmin tamil page, under the section usage(the tabulation containing the srivaishnava variant), please note that the headings are "smartha brahmin variant & srivaishnava brahmin variant". Both "Smartha brahmin variant" & "Srivaishnava brahmin variant" are two different variants within brahmin tamil. The Iyer variant alone is not brahmin tamil by default. Both the variants are sub-dialects within brahmin tamil. The tabulation under vocabulary of the brahmin tamil page is common to both communities. Hari7478 (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

To Sitush

Sitush, this guy Hari7478 is utterly ignorant about genetics. High Rh(d) frequency is found in other populations across the world too, including Ibadan, Nigeria (see PMID:10734795). Does it mean Faisalabad Pakistanis and Vadakalai Iyengars are originally Africans from Nigeria? On what basis can Hari478 claim "Aryan" or "Indo-European" origin for Vadakalais using such studies? What does he mean by Vadakalai and Pakistani castes? Please, you have to ask this guy to talk to you either by email or some other means; and find out why he is so bent on using (misquoting) genetic data (plus general sources) for his ethnic / racial theories. The moot point is Thenkalais absorbed non-brahmin castes into their fold (as Hari7478 himself says). Hence, this whole fiasco of Hari7478 seeking an ethnic separation from Thenkalais (as he himself says that is the reason why he quoted Vadakalai as Aryan and not Thenkalai). How much more absurd can this get? Please Sitush and Qwyrxian, i appeal to both of you -- please make a call on this and put into implementation that conjuring up own theories cannot be allowed. Or am afraid Hari7478 will go reinstate all the deleted sentences. Many thanks to both of you for addressing all these issues again. And Qwyrxian, am very sorry i was harsh to you. Got totally fed up of handling all the misquoting in this article.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Stop, please. You are not helping. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Disputed Sentence

Sitush and Qwyrxian, kindly note the sentence: The Vadakalai Iyengars are believed to have migrated from North India[7][8]. Neither of the 2 sources quoted say any such thing. Please refer to Issue #3 here. Until Hari7478 provides a source mentioning migration of Vadakalai Iyengars from North India, I request the sentence to be deleted. I also request you both to take a call on Oroon Ghosh's Postulations as described in Issue #2 (same hyperlink) if it can be used as a valid source. If yes, then all 4 stages on the elevation of native priests into the Indo-Aryan fold may also need to be mentioned. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Sitush, Thankyou for the edit. Had left a message for you earlier. Is it ok to mention Lester's account in the article? The JRAS source says nothing different from what Lester said. So kindly clarify if it can be used as an additional reference? Another source is the Indo-British Review which details the schism and formation of sects after Ramanuja passed on (snippet view available here). Additionally, please consider having a section on the scriptures (Pancharatra Agamas and other texts) adhered to by Iyengars. Thank you.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Utility of the Orissa Historical Research Journal

I've had some doubts about the Orissa Historical Research Journal for a while because it appears to be yet another "official publication" (it is published by the Orissa State Museum) that has poor academic standards because of plagiarism. I've just found another possible example of this, with the statement that "... and this is distinctly seen in the doctrines of the Vadakalai while the Tenkalai or southern learning is more liberal and so shapes the doctrine of the system as to make them applicable to Sudras also." This statement appears on p. 58 of vols 42-43, published 1998 and can be contrasted with the words of Muhammad Hedayetullah in 1977 - "... and this is distinctly seen in the doctrines of the Vadakalai, while the Tenkalai (to these schools we will return soon) is more liberal and so shapes the doctrines of the bhakti as to make them applicable to the Sudras also." MH's writing is on p. 107 of Kabir: the apostle of Hindu-Muslim unity, published in 1977 by Motilal Banarsidass.

Can anyone confirm my impression that OHRJ does not acknowledge it is pretty much quoting Hedayetullah's words? Or are both OHRJ and MH quoting without attribution some even older source, perhaps in the public domain? This is by no means the first time that I have noticed this and if I am correct then it probably would be best not to use OHRJ as a source: plagiarists are not usually considered worthy in academia, regardless of whom they plagiarise.-2.219.218.79 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well...we may need to offer some deference to differing cultural norms. I don't know about Indian scholarship, but in other Asian communities I am familiar with, it's not only acceptable, but recommended to build academic texts this way. Often times it's done under the assumption that the reader will even recognize the original because they're "supposed" to be familiar with the general body of older scholarship. However, I don't know if that is what is happening here, or if this is just crappy (per Western academic standards) work. Perhaps a way to answer this would be to see if the OHRJ is itself regularly cited by its peers. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It is cited quite a bit, but often as self-reference or by sources that I would consider not to be reliable. Having said that, I cannot pass judgement on all of the "peers", eg: some are German language. However, we seem only to be using it for one statement in this article and I'm sure we can find a way round that - I'll have to take the rest of it to RSN or WT:INB at some point.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Provided other sources in the place: same info+ additional data with sources

S.M. Srinivasa Chari is not a neutral party, but an Iyengar, hence there's a possibility of POV content. I've removed the source along with the contributions, and have re-added the same data with some additional info, with the help of other sources that are easily accessible.

• First of all, Kathleen Gough(Cambridge University Press) and Harold F. Schiffman(Routledge publishers) have defined the two sects as northerners and southerners, either as synonyms or in the form of one line definitions. Hence i've put it up that way. Technically "Kalai(Kala in sanskrit)", in this regard, means branch. While there are other translations such as Northern/Southern- school/culture/branch/tradition/sect, synonyms and one line definitions given by these authors(their works published by renowned publishers) would be the most apt.
  
• Secondly, it is important to give a brief description about the two sects, separately, rather than going into the differences right away, so that the viewer gets a brief outline about the two, and thereafter we could go into the differences. Mentioning the differences right from the start might confuse any non-Iyengar viewer/user.
  
• Harold Coward seems to give a clear and precise picture of a principle doctrinal difference, by going a little deeper into the finer aspects, yet keeping it brief, and explains the reason behind the nicknames of the schools, in a better way ie easier to understand than the rest, as you can evidently see. Hence replaced it in the place of King and Eraly srcs, as Coward's work covers both.
  
• On the whole, the same contribs have been retained and put up in a slightly different format, with "some new sources + the existing srcs" along with a few additional details(sourced). Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• There are dozens of sources that refer to them as "northern school", "northern culture" etc and the short-form "northerners" is just that, a short form. Whether Chari is an Iyengar or not has little relevance because his book is widely accepted and has been postively reviewed by academic journals
• Schiffman does not mention "ideology".
• Your new paragraph on the Vadalakai makes no sense because it is internally dependent for its explanation. Iyengars are Brahmins and thus that they depend on the Brahmanical traditions, legal system etc - well, d'uh.
• Your stuff about the 18 differences, monkey school etc is much more difficult to understand than was my version - it is garbled and yet also (for example) a partial copyright violation of what Coward says.
• Because of the copyvio, I am reverting you for now.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have begun to reintroduce your sources etc in a non-copyvio manner and also by mining them for additional information. I have to take a break for health reasons - an hour or so of WP effort is about my limit at the moment - but will develop the section further later today. I'd be grateful if you could avoid huge changes until then, although obviously I cannot stop you from doing whatever you see fit. I've taken the liberty of shortening your heading also because it consumes almost the entire edit summary space. Hope you do not mind.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It didn't really happen today, sorry - too tired. Hari, can you perhaps expand on your second point above? We have articles for the two sects and while, sure, they are dreadful, I am not yet convinced that your couple of paragraphs really added anything to this article that is/could not be incorporated into a more general overview of what you call the differences. In fact, much of the stuff is already noted and there is a bit more to come. Basically, I'm not sure how your paragraphs assisted in avoiding confusion "for the non-Iyengar viewer/user": they seemed to me merely to add yet more confusion via linked names and uncommon (to most non-Indian readers, at least) terms. I accept that this is a tricky article when it comes to terminology and there is almost certainly going to be some systemic bias in it regardless of how hard we try.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying. Perhaps a little later but i'll do it. Would like to have some time off(atleast from this article). Hari7478 (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed the data on "all 3 men" being tamilians. According to some other sources, Nathamuni was North Indian - See here:[10], [11]. Here's a source on Ramanuja's father's name, which goes as Keshava Somayaji - [12]. Although the source(on Ramanujua) doesn't say much about his ethnic origins, i doubt if that last name could be a tamil one or even south indian. Removed the controversial data. Hari7478 (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, you have misread your own sources. For example, one of them say he was from a "North Indian family of the Chola country". That is, he was from the Tamil region. Another is not going to trump the decent academic sources already in place. You really do have to stop doing this because I am becoming increasingly concerned regarding your competence in understanding the English language sources that you use.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Pages 65 & 84 of your source do not say anything about them being tamils, while pg.80 is not available for viewing. Could you be a little more specific as to where their "tamil origin" is mentioned? According to this source [13], "Nathamuni, belonging to a domiciled North Indian family of the Chola country....", while this one here [14] says "there were affiliations between south indian shaivism and vaishnavism and the forms of these two sects are practiced in Kashmir and other parts of North. Saints and scholars like Tirumular & Nathamuni belonged to the North". Evidently, Nathamuni had North indian origin but his family was domiciled in the region. However, "Tamils" would mean "people who have ethnic origins in Tamil Nadu". Please do explain. Also, most southern brahmins including "Adi Shankara" composed works in sanskrit. But, mentioning "although he's(shankara is) malayali, his works were in sanskrit" could be misleading. In this case it's about Ramanuja. Hari7478 (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've had enough of this, sorry. Stop or explain what appears to be POV-pushing (although I cannot for the life of me work out why you might be doing it). stop the distortion, stop the original research and synthesis and the pedantry. Ping me on my talk page if you still want page 80 - I'll most likely forget otherwise. You appear to have some sort of obsession with proving a North India/South India basis for something or another to do with the Iyengars and I am at a loss to understand it. I do not dispute that, for example. the Nambudiri Brahmins are though to have their origins in the north but I simply cannot work out what your point is in this instance, other than perhaps to push the Aryan/Brahmin invasion theory. If that is your point, then you need to do better than merely provide bowdlerised references to poor sources etc. This contentiousness between you and Mayasutra is precisely why I initially refused to get involved when the pair of you asked me to do so: I am better than I was but still unwell and I really can do without the aggravation. Hopefully, I've improved this article at least a little bit. There is more in the tank but, well, I'm not sure that I care when faced with this sort of stuff.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Second thoughts: I am prepared to add something to the effect that Nathamuni's family came from the north, using some sort of decent source. And probably as a footnote. I consider it to be trivial given that the primary point is the Tamil base for Sri Vaishnavism but, well, if it will hut you up satisfy you then I can live with it. You are on very thin ice here and if I were you then I would accept the compromise.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And my third thought would be to just remove the "Tamil" sentence that offends Hari. Honestly, I'm past caring.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hari asked me for the relevant bit of Carman's page 80. Please note that my ability to view this source is decreasing due to the number of times I've looked at it - I could see more or less the entire thing a few days ago but am now getting "you have reached your viewing limit" messages for some pages. Please also note that the content of the article as discussed above has been superseded. The relevant bit of p. 80 says

While Nammalvar came from a landowning caste in a town near the southern tip of India, Ramanuja was born in a Brahmin family in Sriperumbudur, a small town twenty-six miles west of Madras, made notorious in recent years by the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi at a political rally just outside the town. Later Ramajuna moved to the nearby city of Kanchipuram, which had been a stronghold of Jains and Buddhists as well as worshippers of Siva, Vishnu, and various goddesses. Ramanuja's traditional dates are 1017 to 1137 C.E.

Hari, unless you can find a source saying that any or all of Nammalvar, Nathamuni and Ramanuja were born and lived for more than a brief time in the North, nothing is going to change here. Carman says what he does for a reason. It is not sufficient that their parents were from the North, for example: you would be inferring something in a manner similar to original research because you have no idea whether the parents adopted southern ways or maintained their northern ways (assuming the two are different and assuming that you cannot find a source that says that). Let this be the end of it, please: I'd rather keep what little chance I retain of viewing Carman's stuff for development of the article. He is a Harvard professor of religion, after all.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been reviewing this thread in the light of Mayastura's suggestion regarding rephrasing to state "Tamilnadu" as their place of birth. I still think that Hari is synthesising to some degree: their second source is phrased very ambiguously because the word "belonged" is pretty vague in the context of the preceding words and I took it to mean the "Northern school", which Hari has for a long time preferred to call "the North". I still think that mentioning the North Indian origins of Nathamuni's family might be ok, if others agree, although I'm not quite sure what the point of it all is apart from some kind of sub-national nationalism/racism (in the non-derogatory sense) type of thing. As I said elsewhere on this talk page a few minutes ago, the principle protagonists in this palaver - who appealed to me for assistance in sorting out their differences - really need to explain why all this matters so much to them.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion brought from my talk page

I'm moving this discussion here because it's specifically about article content and thus should be available for all editors (current and future) to see. Feel free to continue the conversation here if you like. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Begin copied messages

Qwyrxian, not sure if can talk here. Just hoping to put 2 things for folks in the right perspective:

(1) Rhesus factor:
RHD gene has several alleles on it and the region continues to be explored. If there is one or two copies of RHD gene intact, then it results in D positive (D+) phenotype. Deletion of entire RHD causes D negative (D-) phenotype. Since D- is common in Europeans and rarely, if ever, found in Asians, hence it is dubbed European D negative phenotype. There are also partial D alleles and weak D alleles; often again associated with Europeans but also found in China and other places. As more populations get tested in future, we'll know better.

D+ antigen is very common across all populations; as you can see here; and across all clines (or 'ethnic groups' if you may so call them), for example: this one. Linking D+ to only Europeans or to European origin is a very wild speculative job with absolutely no scientific basis. If all Vadakalai samples (in the said paper) and some Faisalabad residents are D+ it cannot mean they are European / Aryan / Indo-Aryan. On the contrary D+ is commonest in Asians and Blacks. Some feel as a population gets closer to Caucasian, RHD gene deletion (i.e., D- phenotype) may get frequent (see for example this). However, since alleles on RHD keep getting explored, we never know what may be found tomorrow. Even the european partial D alleles were found/described as recently as 2002.

2) Indo-Hittite:
This pertains to linguistics but will try. It is generally thought the Indo-Hittite (aka Indo-Anatolian) branch broke off from the Proto-Indo-European (PIE). What constitutes PIE is complex. If you can note from this chart the Hittite branch is not associated with the Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan and Vedic Sanskrit. Instead, the Hittite branch separated out much earlier. There are no clues yet if Indo-Hittite can be associated, if at all, with the Indo-Aryan.

In the said book above, Cavalli-Sforza also mentions the Indo-Anatolian branch got extinct. But not many things in linguistics are resolved yet. The book explores the origin of Indo-Europeans and Anatolia is suggested by many linguists . Anyways, Cavalli-Sforza accepts the hypotheses of Renfrew (p.265); i.e., agricultural expansion resulted in diffusion of 3 linguistic families (from Anatolia region) -- Dravidian towards Pakistan and India, Indo-European towards Europe, and Afro-Asiatic towards North Africa and Arabia.

Now a lot depends on when did Indo-Anatolian branch off. IMO it also remains open to investigation where did proto-dravidian linguistic group originate or come from. Until these things are resolved, am seriously not sure how Indo-hittite can be linked to whatever is considered 'Aryan'; especially since Hittite is not associated with Indo-Aryan and Vedic Sanskrit. Since Hittite broke off earlier, it could mean something else too (IMO there are links to altaic shamanism / shramanism and whatever is considered zoarashtrian, agamic and non-vedic; but that's only a wild personal speculation though). Also, from a linguistic POV, what is considered only Aryan but not Dravidian can get contentious.

However, i leave this to the admin to discuss and decide. I can only say, since these issues are not resolved yet, it is not right to make conclusions as yet.

Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Msg

Found a theory by S.S Mishra linking Indo-Hittite to Middle-Indo-Aryan (MIA). Mishra proposes Sanskrit is older than Hittite. Additionally, Mishra's work (edited by Bryant and Patton) proposes India as the original home of Indo-Aryans, with an outbound theory (of Indo-Aryans going to Anatolia). Not sure if any of Mishra's theories are acceptable to linguists. At least for now the reverse of Mishra's theory, i.e., movement from Anatolia region into India is supported by genetic evidence.

Then again, if Indo-Hittie is linked to Middle-Indo-Aryan (prakrits), it leads to contentious issues. It is questionable why Indo-Hittie is not linked to Old Indo-Aryan (OIA). Could it mean a situation (war like or otherwise), where 'native' speakers of other languages were absorbed into the Indo-Aryan fold by the OIA (?) and/or their 'intermingling' gave rise to MIA? Then again, MIA is associated with Jain religion (and agamic religions are not explored properly yet). So possibilities are galore.

Kindly note, am not a linguist and am wholly ignorant about the subject. Just mentioned what I found (in the book), and my doubts -- I cud be entirely wrong in my understanding though.

Anyways, since linguistic theories (including the dravidian origin conundrum) are not resolved yet, I'd say it is hasty to link any group with a tag (Aryan or otherwise) just bcoz they belong to a particular 'caste' in present time. Maybe a good idea to skip mentioning such tags on wiki articles. However, the admin is in a better position to decide based on other possible evidence. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Don't tell me, tell the talk page of the article. Sitush (he's the one editing as an IP, becuase he's not using his normal computer) is doing much more of the content work right now, plus Hari should have the chance to chime in, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'd say better to have Sitush and someone knowledgeable in linguistics chiming in. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

The description on Indo-Hittite varies across sources, hence linking one study to another and arriving at a conclusion is WP:SYNTH. We have to just stick to what that source says about these nomenclatures. Here are a few examples.

• The people of Turkey are linguistically Altaic. The Turkish culture & the language were established in Anatoila(present day's Turkey) by the Gokturks who emigrated from Central Asia(Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan). However, genetic studies indicate that Turkish people(people of Turkey) are rather "Turkized Anatolians" with hardly any "Central Asian/Turkic/altaic" admixture. The altaic classification is just linguistic, while ethnically "the people of Turkey" are of the European diaspora, sharing a common ancestry with their neighbours, Greeks. So, the Turkish(of Turkey) and the Turkic(central asian - turkmen,Uzbeks,etc) are not ethnically related to another.
  
• Today's African-Americans in the U.S. are English speakers and most of them don't speak another tongue. Ethnically, they're the farthest from Caucasians(U.S. census classification of whites).
  

All i'm trying to say is, the two(genetics & linguistics) are not always related, unless the source explicitly mentions "ethno-linguistics". According to that source, the authors equate Indo-Hittite to Indo-European. Under the "list of allele frequencies" most(but not all) southern-indian brahmins are mentioned under Indo-Hittite. This could possibly mean their ethnic origins(while their ancestors' tongue during the migratory periods could have been different, like the examples mentioned above, as we all are aware of the popularly held belief ab't brahmins.) - Again, some pages are not available for viewing, hence I may not know what exactly has been discussed by the authors. Because the terminology "Indo-European" has been used in different fields(ethnic origins alone, linguistics alone, ethno-linguistics). Whatever it may be, we simply stick to the source contents and not come up with our own conclusions. So we need to involve a few admins with subject knowledge as it's possible we could be totally wrong. However, arriving at a conclusion by merging/blending different sources or using "own research" can't be the way. Whatever it may be, i'm resting myself from these discussions for some time and focussing on the other sections of the article, since most of them are unsourced, and on the other artices.

About the studies on rhesus antigens - you may be right, but when the authors of a secondary source arrive at a conclusion(although that specific study on rhesus antigens need not necessarily indicate a thing regarding their ancestries, like you said) any user may still include it based on "reliable verifiabilty"(a secondary source that combines two studies, and its authors arriving at a conclusion). However, i'm not including it in the article considering the reasons mentioned by Qwyrxian. I guess we can put it to rest, as i won't be bringing it up again. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said to Mayasutra, please discuss this on the article's talk page. While I know that all three of you (Hari7478, Mayasutra, and Sitush) are watching this page, it's better to have the discussion there so that it's stored in the article's talk page archives for future reference. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, Am consulting a linguist and will be able to add more on this. Please advise how to move this discussion to Iyengar talk page? To Hari7478 -- as regards rhesus antigen, i am right -- go ask any geneticist. What Reddy et al said in the paper and what i said is exactly the same. But you do not seem to understand. It is apparent you just do not know the basics and hence do not understand the paper. Anyways, You cannot use the paper to claim Vadakalai Iyengars are Indo-Aryans, Europeans or whatever else you please, or those who migrated from North India or different from Thenkalais or any other blah blah, which the paper neither says, conveys nor implies. Period. You are able to get away on wiki because Reddy et al is not going to sue you for misquoting them on wiki (coz many ppl pass off BS here). --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Hari7478, Indo-European does not automatically mean Indo-Aryan. The term Indo-Aryan refers to a very specific linguistic group. Whether Indo-Hittie can be associated with Indo-Aryan is the key point. AFAIK it is currently under investigation. As regards Cavalli-Sforza, you are completely off the track. If you cannot make sense of his book, i have a suggestion for you. Think of days when humans roamed jungles and lived in caves. The first brahmin was a non-brahmin. Hope that helps. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

End copied message

Just adding a close tag so it's clear what was copied and what was posted here. Add further discussion from this point, please. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hari and Mayasutra, why don't we we just avoid mentioning putative ethnic, linguistic and even ethno-linguistic matters? We cannot be wrong if we say nothing, it doesn't look like you two are going to agree and I find it boring, esoteric and worryingly liable to POV. In fact, some sort of unfathomable POV rationale seems to be the only likely reason why the two of you are going at this like hammer and tong. For all I care, the Iyengars could be of Martian origin and speak Vulcan: it really doesn't seem to make much odds to the article.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, that's what am saying too. Since Indo-Hittite (IH) is not associated (as yet) with Indo-Aryan and Vedic Sanskrit how can we mention such things in the article? Yes, there is a theory of linking IH with Middle-Indo-Aryan (prakrits) which is not yet accepted by mainstream linguists afaik (in the indian context if that is true, in fact, it leads to more contentious issues). I agree 100% with you on avoiding ethnic, linguistic and ethno-linguistic matters. Instead it would be nice to mention something about texts (like vaishnava agamas) which shape the culture of a community. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

I'm not asking anyone to associate that source to any specific study. We'll simply stick to the source and its contents. I'm aware that Indo-Hittite is not necessarily related to Indo-Aryan but the wider/greater Indo-European one. If the article doesn't have any mention on Indo-Aryan/Euro-Aryan/or simply Aryan, i suppose we drop the Aryan oriented discussion as the terminology seems to have several varying definitions across the globe, all of them being equally controversial. We should just stick to the nomenclatures used in that specific source. Secondly, i did not cite the "Pakistan journal" source to differentiate between the two sects. It was to add some details on the similarity in rhesus genes, between Vadakalai and some Pakistanis. And i've decided not to bring it up considering the reasons mentioned by Qwyrxian. When a new discussion is going on, the other user trying to bring in old matters with the same allegations isn't constructive. I did not mention a word on differentiating between the two sects in the above message. Hari7478 (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that I've already expressed an opinion on this issue of randomly throwing disconnected statements into articles. It is a subtle way to push a POV and it is not going to happen.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just saying that i'm not adding that source(on rhesus similarities) anymore, but was just explaining as to why i did so, before. Regarding the other (Cavali-Sforza) src, i'm simply asking users to stick to that source without bringing in other studies for comparison. Please read through my message above, with patience. Hari7478 (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

My proposal, which appears to have the support of Mayasutra, is simply to ignore the issue due to the degree of uncertainty and the lack of significance.You, on the other hand, seem to be insisting on pushing some weird/trivial point about North Indian ethnicity etc. I have no idea why you are doing this nor am I 100% certain, but that is how it seems to be and my gut is starting to hurt with concern about why this might be so.--2.219.218.79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hari7478, Whatever you claimed using the study on rhesus factor was wrong. Period. That chapter is closed. Now, wrt Cavalli-Sforza, what do you want to state from the book? That Iyengars belong to Indo-Hittite linguistic group? If yes, you must also mention difficulties as written in the book in reconstructing linguistic groups. Must provide details on Indo-Hittie group, the background info, the investigative techniques, and the inconclusive analysis on it. When studies from the linguistic POV themselves aren't able to conclude anything yet, what is the need or necessity to mention such a thing in the article? As you can note in the book, the group involving Iyengars also involves Gujjars. Indo-Hittite involves not just brahmins as you seem to think (and say repeatedly), but also Bhils, Koli, Lambada, Gurkha (Nepalese), Jat, Dhangar, Sinhalese, etc. These are not separate groups by themselves. Take a look at this dendrogram; and take a look at the languages under Central Indic and Insular Indic. There are a range of castes belonging to those groups. Cavalli-Sforza's book did not test all castes across those groups. As various studies in the field proceed, it will be possible to say exactly from which tribes/castes were certain classes derived; and/or, to which tribes/castes certain classes belong. By then, the possible links of Indo-Hittite (if at all it exists) with Indo-Aryan and other linguistic groups, and the dravidian origin conundrum will hopefully be much more clear. Is there a need to represent stuff still being investigated in wiki articles? I think Sitush needs to take a firm call on this and decide. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Well, you've already had my opinion and I vaguely recall that you both asked for it at some point recently. This is becoming silly.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Sitush, when i was posting the msg above there was an edit conflict, coz i think you were also posting at the same time. Now that you have said your opinion and i have said mine (and we both agree on it), lets move forward. Can we next work on the "Religious Observences" section? The portion on Samasrayanam has no citations. Its an important ritual and must be mentioned. Hope Hari7478 will also help us with references for it. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

You can work on what ever you wan: you do not need my permission. However, we have to be careful not to stray too far from the subject matter of the article. I am conscious that some of my stuff may do so and will be working on it further.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Mayasutra, i hope the other two possibilities have occurred to you and i wonder why you haven't mentioned them. As you said, it is evident that the authors of the source have introduced "Indo-Hittite" as a linguistic group, somewhere in the beginning. However the cited page mentions Iyengar communitites under Indo-Hittite, while telugu brahmins have been listed under "elamo-dravidian", though both Iyengars and telugu brahmins are, today, speakers of south indian languages. Even amongst the telugu speaking groups, Vaidiki & Niyogi brahmins are mentioned under Indo-Hittite while other "telugu brahmins" are listed under elamo-dravidian. Now, do you still think it is a language based classification in pg.472? Isn't it possible that it could be based on their ethnicity & their language before a possible migration(like the examples mentioned in one of my previous messages)? Or, isn't it possible that it could be based on ethnicity alone? Certain pages of the online book are not available for our viewing. So, are we missing something there? If your standpoint is right, we can drop the idea of citing the work. If there's something else to it, it wouldn't hurt to consult admins working on WP:Genetics, and WP:linguistics or whatever, although i'm not planning on this discussion any sooner. Hari7478 (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I read that book in 2007 (and photocopied the entire book). I have a copy with me. Let me know on what you need info. Yes, its a linguistic classification. The book discussed origin and migration of peoples (across the globe) from a multi-disciplinary approach; and hence included linguistic classification in their attempt. The book was published in 1994 and was based on a set of samples available to them at that point of time. I think you are very confused with the word 'ethnicity'. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

(EC) You've answered your own question Hari7478, particularly in the context fo what was said before. If you, who've read this source very carefully, can't tell whether they're referring to an ethnic or linguistic group, then we shouldn't include the information here. And while I haven't read the source, I might even go so far as to say that if the source is that confused, we might even want to question it's reliability (for Wikipedia purposes, on this particular point; no general claims about the source). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Mayasutra, you still haven't explained why Vaidiki/Niyogi, and other Telugu brahmins are mentioned under two different linguistic groups while all of them are telugu speaking communities. Are you suggesting that it's a poor source, as Qwyrxian says, or is there something else? Your response is pretty vague.

Qwyrxian, i haven't read every page of this source as some of them can't be viewed. I don't intend to discuss this here anymore. I could seek the help of admins who are working on the corresponding wiki projects, and accept the outcome of the discussion. Hari7478 (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

OMG, Cavalli-Sforza is a Pioneer and many would consider him father of population genetics and gene-culture coevolution. No way poor source. His book is one of the pioneer attempts to link genetic differences amongst populations on linguistic basis. In no way is the work complete as of now. If some samples are classified under Indo-Hittie and some under Elamo-dravidian (known by and large as dravidian, with the understanding they possibly migrated from southwest iran called elam); it is because the work found allelic distribution (of samples available to them around 1994) to be so. Feel free to seek help of admin from other wiki projects to understand whatever is being said here. Best wishes. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

There is no additional weight attached to the opinions of any admin from any project in any content dispute.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Robert Lester

Robert Lester's name keeps cropping in relation to this article up but I am struggling to find out much about him or his writings. I know that he was/is an academic and wrote some papers on the subject but he seems rarely to be cited by his peers and so tracking down his stuff is awkward. Can anyone give me a brief bibliography?--2.219.218.79 (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Not able to find a bibliography. He is still professor emeritus at Univ of Colorado. He published a lot more work on Buddhism than SriVaishnavism. JSTOR has part of his work. Hope this helps. Some details are here. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

OK, thanks. I have JSTOR access but my password is at home. Won't be long now.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Good to know that Sitush. Means you are healing well. Take care. Best wishes. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Common Origins Section

Sitush, please consider changing the sentence "All three men were Tamils, although Ramanuja documented his thoughts in Sanskrit" to "All three men were born in Tamilnadu. Ramanuja documented his thoughts in Sanskrit". --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Why?--2.219.218.79 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Because it is perhaps more accurate to say they were born in Tamilnadu? Just a suggestion though. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Hm. I think "Tamilnadu" could cause problems because of confusion with the modern state of the same name but different geographical scope. Tamilnadu was not a formal region as far as I am aware but was recognised to include bits of what is now Kerala - the word means something like "place where the Tamils live". Do we have an article for the old region? I'm working off my general knowledge here from wide reading here, not specific sources. Is this yet another seemingly rather pointless issue that really relates to the ethnic squabbles between you and Hari? Is someone worried that "Tamils" will be construed as "people of Tamil ethnicity"? I wish I could understand why it is you both lay so much stress on that issue, which is a completely nebulous subject at the best of times. It comes across as POV pushing of some sort but precisely why and what underlies the POVs is beyond me, I'm afraid. People have been topic banned for less and if I cannot understand it then I'm pretty sure most people without a specific interest in Indic subjects will not.

I think that perhaps you and Hari need both to lay your cards on the table regarding whatever the underlying dispute may be.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course, if all three birthplaces are in modern TN then we could say "... were born in the present-day state of Tamil Nadu". As I said when I added the footnote listing the various places, I've not been able to locate one of them.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)