Talk:Arumuka Navalar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The 'Counter-narrative' section[edit]

This section, as it is presently structured, contains a primary source article, in its entirety, along with the personal interpretations of the editor who created the section. This clearly violates the Wikipedia guidelines on using sources and the prohibition of original research:

Relevant passages from the Wikipedia guidelines:

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources."

"Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

First, I think we need to consider the prudence of quoting a lengthy primary source article (2030 words) in its entirety, rather than using published secondary sources for description or summary of the information contained in the article. Second, it is clearly a violation of Wikipedia policy for an editor to include his own interpretations (which, in this case, were bolded) of primary source material. As is stated in the guidelines, any interpretation of primary source material must provide "a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Lklusener (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Much of it has appeared in journals and conferences. The sources on which these journal and conference articles rely, being in newspapers and libraries, under strict definitions may be interpreted to be as primary as they are secondary.Erbear (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC).
Danger of Vandalism : A lot of information is being added which has no academic value. we need to discuss anything in Talk page before adding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swvk (talkcontribs) 08:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Erbear, you seem to be also editing under an anon address, please be aware that what you doing can be viewed as vandalism although that is what you are not trying to do. If it is published in journal articles or academic books please refer to them rather than really messing a lot of articles all at once.Kanatonian (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Some Clarifications on Arumuga Navalar[edit]

Even by Church Records (Methodist Archives), Percival refers to Arumuga Navalar as a Pundit. No school Principal refers to a ordinary student as a Pundit. Arumuga Navalar learnt Tamil under traditional Guru-Sishya tradition that is an ancient Hindu way. His Guru's include Saravanamuttu Pulavar who has many written works to his credit. Tamil Literary tradition is matured and at least 2000 years. Navalar combined the modern with the ancient. His position in Literature and scholarship is independently attested to by Scholars of repute. Whether one likes it or not, Bhakthi literature forms a key component in Tamil Literature and Society. Navalar's mastery in that and Grammar is confirmed by Indian counterparts. Let us not compromise/confuse facts with religious beliefs/dogma.

Kindly stop vandalizing this page and don't make this into a religious issue. Finally, this article quotes respected/distinguished academics like Dennis Hudson, Kamal Zvelebil (who are neither Hindus or Tamils). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swvk (talkcontribs) 12:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That I have to agree with. Let's do it properly. We are open for an expanded critisism section Kanatonian (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arumuka Navalar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)