Talk:Paravar/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Regarding removal of warrior tag

The Parathavar are presently a middle class people,but historically they were rich at ancient times. One more proof from Tamil Literature By M. S. Purnalingam Pillai, Maravars,Eyiners and Parathavar belong to naga,which means a defence tribe , Again,Edgar Thurston describe the plight of paravars,Paravars were armed with bows and their hordes terrified their enemies,,one more text supporting the claim,Census of India,1971,Parathavar are the pandyas, Proof stating the greatest among Pandyas,NedunchezianIII has his army with majority of Paravars,hence there was a Parathavar Padai. Journal of the Sri Venkatesvara Oriental Institute,Volumes 14-15 Proof stating Parathavar as seafarers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.51.7 (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look at this lot but please can you give me some time. - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

well, I asked to be given a chance and within five minutes User:Dharani_Maran had tried to remove all doubt from the article. This is not on and I have reverted it. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay.Take your time.Kindly read the statements used by Iyengar in P.139,also susan bayley from P.336,Census of India, 1971 P.43, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.51.7 (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Rich in ancient times: the WP article does say that some were rich at some times. The source you provide is only available (to me, at least) in snippet view and appears to be talking of one particular place at (possibly) one particular time. Unless someone can find the entire article, nothing should be changed as a consequence of this source because there is an issue of context. Sorry, but much as I would like to assume good faith I find myself incapable of doing so after recent discussions here. Someone else might think differently. More comments to follow, but got to do a bit of bricklaying first. BTW, can you please sign your posts as I keep getting edit conflicts with SineBot on this page. - Sitush (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Pillai: regardless of the translation of Naga, the article already says they had defensive capability. When they had it is not really important to the debate about whether they were warriors or not: the capacity to defend territory is quite different from the capacity/desire to make war and it would be undue weight, in my opinion, to base any claims of being warriors on a defensive force. Looks like an interesting book, though it is old (not as old as Thurston!). I'll read more of it when I have some time. I'd be wary of using one old source when several new ones say something differently but right now I've only looked at the pages around the one you cite. - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Sadasivan is already quoted in the article. The point I made at 2 above applies but I'll add that I found it a very difficult book to read because it is written in the typical "bleurgh" of an academic sociologist. Probably the most difficult of all the texts on this subject that I have read. However, Sadasivan makes it clear that the ancient texts cannot be relied upon, as the article already says. - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Kanakasabhai - this book was quoted in the article for some point or another but I removed it because the citation did not support whatever the statement was. Again, the author is writing of the ancient texts and this is a subject I'm not really wanting to go over again - it was discussed at length only recently. I note that, like Pillai, the term Naga seems to be used in the sense of "aboriginal"/"indigenous" - and that Nagas fought to defend the land from the Tamils. As before, defenders are not warriors in the sense that would emerge if we used the "warrior" word in the article. Furthermore, of the various Naga tribes, his only mention of the Paravars in this context has nothing to do with war or defence. He says that the Maravars were the "most powerful and warlike [of the Naga tribes]" (p. 42) but of the Paravars merely says what we already have in the article: they were fishermen etc and predominated in the area around Korkai. The quote he uses from Mathuraikkanchi is not to my mind reliable (and I think this may be what I removed previously). There is also no indication that he believes it to be true - he merely quotes, in a very ambiguous way. It is not reliable precisely because it comes from the ancient literature that has been challenged so much. Who wrote that ancient work? Were they supporters of the Paravars? Enemies of them? Who was paying them/supporting their academies etc. With the weight of modern evidence saying "ignore those old texts", I'm not keen on basing something so contentious as the warrior claim on an old book. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Thurston - the guy says nothing of the sort. As the article makes clear, Thurston merely compiled the thoughts of others as part of a government survey exercise, which is why when I've used him I have more often than not specified the person he was quoting. In the particular case you mention, he is actually quoting exactly the same line that Kanakasabhai quotes, from the same ancient text. Using him as a source for the warrior point would entail admitting the ancient texts. Same old, same old. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
6. Kuppuram - I can only see this in snippet view but I note that the bit I can see appears to be quoting the same sentence from the Mathuraikkanchi I've already commented on above. You have now cited at least three people who have quoted the same one or two lines from a body of ancient literature that runs into many tens of thousands of lines, and at least two of those people do not actually comment on the quote they make whilst the third one is not fully visible to me. - Sitush (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Census of India,1971 - snippet view only, but yet again it seems just to be quoting the same ancient text
8. Nanditha Krishna, V. K. Rajamani - snippet view & this one really needs context as on the face of it the thing does not support your argument that Nagas were defensive! Sorry, I'll need to see more than two sentences to be able to form a view about this source. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
9. R. Leela Devi - snippet view only here. Never heard of the publisher & don't know if it is an academic book etc. The bit you cite does not support any argument for them being called warriors. It appears to say that the Paravars were only sometimes called up into an army (don't know which one, or why) that usually comprised Maravars and a couple of other tribes. Although it does mention ferocity, that statement is in connection with the Mazhavars, not the Paravars. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
10. N. Subrahmanian - this exact cite is already in the article. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
11. Reddy - I have no idea what statement/argument this cite is supposed to support. It seems only to refer to PAravars as fishermen which is a fact already scattered widely throughout the article - Sitush (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
12. Iyengar - I assume that p. 139 is the important bit, as mentioned in your follow-up msg above. I'm not even looking at it because that exact page is already cited three times in the article. - Sitush (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
13. Aiyangar - this one just says that the Paravars were subjugated/beaten by the Cholas. How does that make them warriors? It's the defence/offence argument again. Most people when threatened will try to protect themselves, which is not the same as going out there and grabbing stuff. - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
14. J. M. Somasundaram Pillai, Te. Po Mīn̲āṭcicuntaran̲ār (Parathavar are the pandyas) - snippet view. I assume that you are referring to p. 394. There is a tantalising asterisk there next to the statement about Pandyas but I cannot see the note. However, watch this space - I think one of the sources you cite above specifically says they were not Pandyas, so you may be painting yourself into a corner here. I am sure that you are also aware that paradavar used to mean both "coastal people" and the tribe of that name (ie: it was an interchangeable term), so this source is ambiguous. - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
15. [17] - duplicated cite, dealt with at [12] above. - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
16. Parathavar Padai.Journal of the Sri Venkatesvara Oriental Institute,Volumes 14-15 - snippet view & no context - Sitush (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
17. Proof stating Parathavar as seafarers - snippet view to the point of banality. However, the article already refers to them as being seafarers. Aside from the obvious (fishermen using boats), the discussion on boats talks about them trading up and down the coast etc. They sometimes went further afield also. - Sitush (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
18. Sarat Chandra Roy (Ral Bahadur) - snippet view but I can't see your point anyway - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
19. Census p. 43 - cannot see it - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
20. Bayly p. 336 - what is your point? I know this book inside out and guarantee you that p 336 says nothing about warriors or Pandyas. It is right in the middle of a section discussing wealth creation etc, which is already in the article - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Do you really want me to actually state my conclusions? I should think that they are fairly obvious from the above. Sorting out the snippets etc might change my mind, but I doubt it. Honestly, I may be an Englishman who has never been to India but I have read widely on this in a very short space of time & have an absolutely silly IQ. That does not make me always right and I'm willing to be corrected, but I don't relish having to wade through a list like this again for what seems to amount to no purpose what so ever. I will go through the earlier entries for the Pandya point I mention at [14] above if you want, but have a strong feeling that it was [1] in the list. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is [2] above which makes the distinction between Pandya and Paravar. It says that the Paravars were one of the aboriginal tribes which were subdued by the Tamils and that the Tamils were the Pandyas. I don't reckon much to this book as a source but, for what it is worth, you cannot have your cake and eat it. If you think it is a good source then you cannot start turning it on its head without good reason.

Look, if you want to prove your point then the only way I can think of that would do it would be to find some archaeological evidence. It was this that swayed me to retain the distinction of velirs, which otherwise relied primarily on Sangam sources & interpretations of them. To repeat something I said a few weeks ago, I would not base a Wikipedia historical article on, say, Shakespeare's Henry V and nor would I base it on Sangam literature. They are not reliable sources, entertaining although they may be. - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work as always, Sitush. If I may, I want to try to summarize your points, of which I see three main ones:

1. When reading sources, all editors need to be very careful to stick very close to the source. For instance, as Sitush notes, a text which says that a group once served in an army or once defended themselves from an attack is not sufficient to classify them as "warriors", as the former refers to a single event, while the latter refers to the groups regular, daily occupation/status/way of living. We may not re-interpret sources to give them more "meaning" than they already contain.
2. Context is critical. Lifting a single sentence from a source, without regards to the context it is found is, is a recipe for disaster. Doing so almost always violates either the policy requiring a neutral point of view or the policy requiring that information be verified. We need to consider whether the author is reporting a widely agreed upon fact, is introducing an unproven theory, or is even providing a counter example that xe disagrees with. Similarly, if a sentence is embedded in a section about "ancient myths", we cannot treat it as if the author is reporting "scientific facts". This is why it is often difficult for us to evaluate sources based only on a single page view from Google Books, because we often need to see more than that to be able to fully evaluate the source.
3. We must be especially careful in dealing with discussion of the "ancient texts". We may include information about what those ancient texts say, although when doing so we should rely not on the primary texts themselves, but on secondary commentary from critical, modern scholars of those texts. A good example for me is Troy, which clearly distinguishes between Homeric Troy (i.e., the Troy of legend) and Troy#Archeological Troy#Archeological Troy (i.e., the Troy of scientific analysis). So, I could imagine a compromise in that we somewhere mention that Mathuraikkanchi calls the Paravar warriors, but I would like to see a good scholarly analysis of that, not just a direct quote or even a modern text mentioning it in passing.

I hope that this breakdown helps. I know that this is a difficult and likely intensely personal issue for some editors, but we need to be sure that we are reading and using sources in a way consistent with WP editing policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

References

revert of British control Trade and Industry

I reverted the new addition to "British control Trade and Industry" section for three reasons. First, it removed valid, sourced text, and didn't explain why. Unless that text is wrong for some reason, or the source isn't reliable, it shouldn't be removed. Second, the information that was added was not well sourced--neither meets WP:RS. The first source is a corporate history, and thus is valid only for simple factual information about the company, which would not include a claim that they were one of the first traders under British colonial rule (that would need verification in an independent source). The second source appears to be a self-published website, and thus falls under WP:SPS. We need reliable sources for everything added; much of this article is already badly sourced, so we shouldn't add more problematic info. Third, that information is badly undue. WP:UNDUE, a part of WP:NPOV, says that we can't give more prominence to a subject or topic than it deserves. Since this is the entire history of the Paravars, the history of one specific company, and especially info about the offspring of that company's founder is undue, especially when it was so long. If we could get a reliable source to verify the claim that the Paravar were one of the first to establish trade under British Colonial rule, then we could include a sentence or two verifying that, but not the extra data about the children. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

minor corrections

"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)

is paravar claiming they are from lunar dynasty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zazscholar (talk • contribs) 04:46, 26 February 2012 (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 122.164.188.181 (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

To Sitush

Dear Sitush,

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.

Raj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.88.0 (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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.

For guidance regarding non-English sources please see WP:NOENG. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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 223.190.229.63 (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 223.177.236.224 (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 223.235.200.5 (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)