|The Wikipedia community has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to South Asian social groups, including this page. Please familiarize yourself with the sanctions authorized for this topic area before making further edits.|
Provided the awareness criteria are met, discretionary sanctions may be used against editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
|WikiProject Christianity / India||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject India / Tamil Nadu||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|Threads older than 2 months may be archived by.|
"The historical reliability is in doubt." in the fifth line of Pandyan empire section could be better written. i am not able to access the source, or i would correct it myself. --CarTick (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Can you see this ? It's the first full para on the page. The entire article paragraph is an accumulation of points, so by the time it gets to that sentence I just made it very short & sweet. The source is actually discussing one particular aspect of the literature, but the cumulative effect of the other sources ... - Sitush (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear All.. I dont know why all are trying to put down all the points which favour paravar claims and only just searching ways to put down the claims in name of neutrality. We have given an inscriptions verse stating PARAVARS are VELIRS...Velirs are cheiftains as per tamil language.Also,Tamil dictionaries provide meaning as rulers of south country.But all these points are not given importance and all are searching for reliability ... While you are discussing and writing about a tamil caste kindly consider tamil sources and the chronological factor.Also,removing of notables from paravar community has been removed.Should we have to add the caste certificates of the people in wikipedia.The editors of this article jus want to put down paravar claims.No English man or a foreigner can write this article better.It is just like expecting a foreign girl to understand about acham,madam,nanam (3 qualities of a tamil girl)...A tamil person should come forward to write the article by throwing out his own caste feelings.Dont try to create a false image by destroying history.Open the minds,come out of caste feel,as tamilian read tamil books,find what was tamil's identity,find who has it..Read tamil texts to know more..Then come and edit.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
This is Raj,I am new user from India.I wish to speak regarding the edit works of you in the paravar page. The "Velir" term has been removed despite providing the apt source.The article says "Ilanji Vel,Son of Mapparavan",here "Vel" means Velir,Velir is a Cheiftain position and Vel is the possessor of the position.I think you are not a tamil native,hence I would like to help you in this.
Actually,lot of tamil works speak about the history of paravars in a good manner.Unfortunately,those who were proficient in tamil language are not good at history,and those who know both lack in english skill and those who are good at the three are not into the work of constructive editing.I am really worried about the caste warring at wiki.To be frank and true,I wish to help you in the constructive editing of caste pages.Being a south Indian,a tamil native,interested in history and a better language,i hope...I would like to join you in the constructive editing of few caste pages like paravar,mukkulathor,nadar,vanniyar,pallar etc,as i know the history from tamil literature and works.May be they cant be a source to be supported with english wiki,but i can support you with few correct translations of certain tamil works.
Await your reply in talk page.
- The sources refer to them as subordinate chieftains. Although you are correct that I was unaware of "Vel" being shorthand for "velir", the status of a single person cannot reasonably be used in the manner that you did in the lead section. It is undue weight.
Dear Sitush The term Vel is the shorthand of Velir,it doesn't refer to one single person."Ilanji Vel,son of Maaparavan",Here Ilanji is the name of a place,Vel refers to the Chieftain ie)the chieftain of Ilanji,and Velir is an equivalent word for Chieftain in tamil."Son of Maaparavan",you have to read as, Son of Maa + Paravan,Maa-Great or Big (some superlative degree) Paravan-is none other than our topic of discussion.The cave inscription clearly says,The Chief (Velir) of Ilanji,who is the son of a great paravan has given this cave (Nalmazhukkai).I hope this helps you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry but the source is unclear and the evidence of a single inscription does not define a community. Let's just stick to what a clear source says, please. Especially since that source does make the point that they were velirs of some type. - Sitush (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why a single inscription can't convince you.Most of the articles have just one proof to each point.Moreover,Any good tamil linguist can pick the word Velir means a chieftain,you accept the word cheiftain and why not its tamil translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're confused why a single inscription can't serve as identification for a whole community? If someone spray-paints "New Yorkers Rule!!!" on the side of a building, and scholars find it 400 years from now, would they be right to assume therefrom that the people of New York were the ruling class of the United States? Further, an inscription is a WP:Primary source. If you can't come to understand WP:Sourcing, you're not going to get any further on this issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
so,if that is the case you cant rely on any inscription.How can you validate a century old inscription.And how can we rely on this wikipedia article which is written by a very few people who do not know anything about the content basically,coming to conclusion by few books written by few people.Is there any compulsion that whatever written in wiki and the supporting reference book should be written based on the very fact itself?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly, we cannot rely on inscriptions. We must rely on analysis of inscriptions done by trained, expert, peer-reviewed archaeologists and historians. These experts write books, we read these books to understand the topic, and we summarise their arguments and footnote them here in the articles. If we non-experts write the article from our own opinions, indeed it can't be relied on. If it is properly cited, it is as good as any other encyclopedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Lost tribes of Israel
The Paravar belief of being the Paravaims of the biblical scriptures and the lost tribes of Israel added to the differences with the Arabs, which is acknowledged by Fr.Henrique Henriques by his claim of kinship but I think that might be based on a snippet view of the source. Henrique Henriques is certainly not reliable himself and I can find no other mention of his theory except in the snippet view of the Roche book, which tantalisingly stops (in my version) just as the sentence begins to express doubt about the claim.
- I have reverted you for now. What sources were "non suitable"? Why? And why change a citation style without consensus? Also, see my comment in the next section below regarding Sri Lanka. - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- That is an essay. Some essays are useful and often mentioned, others are not. In 10 or more years here, I've never seen that particular one before and I stand by what I did. You need to explain better which sources (many of them, apparently) you think are unsuitable and why. - Sitush (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I only followed WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. I agree that I formulated my comment "many non suitable sources" wrong. However I did not remove any suitable sources either (besides the source by Subramaniam which I shouldn't have done). Before adding any content did I restore it to the best version i.e. the version that is currently, because someone's edit  made it look like written in a non proper way. I think including this
...as well as according to at least one modern writer, described as "ferocious soldiers"
is not WP:NPOV and shouldn't be included in the lead, thus I removed it from there (including its source). Should perhaps included it in the history section instead. Xenani (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- For what it is worth, I see that WP:MASSR was created around 13 years ago and has been linked in total slightly over 500 times, including redirects and all sorts of other irrelevancies. I'm not saying that it is useless but it certainly hasn't gained the sort of traction of essays such as WP:BRD. - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Sitush. It might be an old essay but I think there is some significants in there. It is very distressing when you revert the whole edit and reverting it solely based on the earlier consensus isn't improving the article either. Therefore I ask you to add back that which was reverted or let me add it back and explain in more detail which content added by me shouldn't be included in the talk page so that I can edit it or discuss with you. In that way, there should be achieved more consensus.Xenani (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Until my big revert of a minute or so ago, this article had recently-inserted information about the Paravar in Sri Lanka. But it said that they were Bharathas. So why the heck include them here in any detail? They have their own article and a simple single sentence or See also entry would suffice, surely? - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I did not add any great detail about the Bharathas, they were included in the lead with only one sentence,
The Paravars found on the western coast of Sri Lanka are known as Bharathas who migrated to the island under the Portuguese rule."
- Which content is related to Sri Lanka? Which is related to the Bharathas? And why shouldn't there be "A whole chunk of stuff relating to Sri Lanka" exist in the article? There aren't any major difference between Paravars of India or Sri Lanka and the Bharathas are the same group who just have been "officialy" been renamed as the mainstream academic sources claim. And what are the stuff related to Sri Lanka that you mean should not be included? You need to be much more specific and clarify better your revert. Xenani (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- So propose a merge of the articles if they're the same community. Stop spamming Sri Lanka stuff here just because of some Tamil nationalist POV or whatever it may be. - Sitush (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- To clarify, if they are the same community then we should have one article, not two. If they are not the same community or there are significant differences then there should be two articles, each with a pointer to each other either via See also or an in-text link and brief explanation as to why. - Sitush (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Sitush:, if there is only not consensus regarding the Bharathas being included in the article, is there at least consensus regarding the etymology section (and mythology section) which has also been removed with your revert? I think also that in the lead, the names "Bharathakula Pandyar" and "Bharathakula Kshatriyas" should be removed as they are not mentioned in the source or put on a tag for needed quotation as I couldn't find the terms in any sources. Xenani (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)