Talk:Periyar/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Periyar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Question on Dalits section

Was wondering what to do with this section since throughout the article, Periyar talked about the Untouchables and Panchamas which refer to Dalits. Also, that Thirumavalavan is also a follower of Periyar. Furthermore, the sources of this section contain deadlinks here, here, and here. Wiki Raja (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It really adds nothing to the article. It was added upon the insistence of Ravichandar. Docku: What up? 00:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added the book. As for the Outlook article, login is required. I have a login and have verified the ref. I don't care if the section is removed. But the removal of te section might be detrimental to your interests if you are planning to go beyond the B-class level. There are chances that POV concerns might be raised during peer-review or FA-nom. Thanks-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 14:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about the detrimental part. I am aware that there is an effort by a group of people to rewrite history to make periyar a villain for the interests of Dalits (for conceivable intentions). We will not let wikipedia a propaganda medium for such unsubstantiated claims by citing half-baked unreliable vendetta-publications and websites. Docku: What up? 15:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate? Do you mean to say that Thirumavalavan is anti-Periyar? Well, how about the other sources in that case? How about unreliable biographies from Dravidar Kazhagam sites being used as citations in this article? -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 16:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying Thirumavalavan is anti-periyar, i just dont find any anti-periyarism in his comments and thus unsuitable at the controversy section. I will keep removing controversial material which is not well established by reliabale secondary sources and you are welcome to do so too. Docku: What up? 16:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, one of the references is from an issue of the Outlook magazine while two others are from books published by Thirumavalavan himself. Well, all I want to tell people here is that the size of the article alone is not enough to take the article beyond this stage. POV-balancing too needs to be done. I do find some issues here and I will return to this article in a short while-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 16:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the size comment. I am not sure if anyone is aiming for featured status here. that isnt a bad idea though. If they do, the article does need a lot of balanicing work. Docku: What up? 16:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether anyone is aiming for FA-status or not, all I can say that some of the sections are awfully mixed up. I would recommend separation of "Ideals" and "criticisms" into two separate sections. I cannot find any relation between the two. Also, I have concerns about claims that Periyar was only against Brahminism and not against Brahmins. Such claims have been echoed from time to time by some DK-activists. But could you please include sources to establish that such claims have been made by notable neutral individuals?-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 02:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue was raised, because, Ravichandar, the sources you have provided are deadlinks, with one of them requiring the reader to submit a username and password. As you can see, the info you have provided on that page have not been deleted. If you can give me the proper locations for easy access for readers and the source or name of the book it can be properly added in. Thanks. Wiki Raja (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've said that I've already verified the link. If you have doubts on my intentions, you can very well create an account yourself and verify. Else, you can also remove the references or even the paragraph if you wish to. I have no qualms over it. :-) -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 02:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Overall article

Ravichandar, the question is, if links that require the user to create an account in order to read an article are allowed to be used for referencing on Wikipedia or not. As for the paragraph on what Thirumavalavan said, if he did actually mention it then it would not be necessary to remove it if there are verifiable sources. The book you mentioned would be a good source to use, especially since it was written by Thirumavalavan himself.

When you mention of "unreliable" DK sites, remember that, there are anti-Periyar sites listed and used amongst them too. Would these also be considered unreliable? As for books, there are anti-Periyar authors such as Maria Misra and Shankar Dasgupta that were used. There was also another author who goes by Anita Diehl who was also critical on Periyar. Other anti-Periyar sources used were from sites such as V. Sundaram's The boy who gives a truer story of Periyar, B.S. Raghavan's Thanthai Periyar, and Cho S. Ramasamy's E.V. Ramaswami Naicker and C.N. Annadurai. As for the section on "Ideals and Criticisms" it can be said that one man's garbage is another man's treasure. Likewise, one man's ideals can be another's criticism. For example, Periyar was praised for the upliftment of the Tamil language, while criticized for calling it "barbaric" for not having "feminine verbal forms" for certain words. Another example, was that where one group sees Periyar as against the "actions" of Brahmins, others may see it as actions against the Brahmin person itself.

We have been bending over backwards for you, so that you can be happy. It is hard to see what you want out of this article. So far, it can be said that there have been no contributions from your end other than templating the page once in a great while or sticking in links to anti-Periyar sites. Please do not take this as an offense, but if you are interested, why don't you create a separate page called "Periyar's other side" or "Brahmin's view on Periyar"? If you want, I can show you how to get a page started. Smile. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Ha! Ha! Well, if at all you feel that an article on "Brahmin's views on Periyar" are permissible, then why not have such a section in the same article. Just joking, eh. :-) I am extremely sorry about this. Since you pointed this out to me after such a long time, I had forgotten the book and added "Uproot Hindutva" thinking that cite id="Thirumavalavan" in Rettamalai Srinivasan was the same here too. The reference supporting this statement is actually taken from "Talisman, Extreme Emotions of Dalit Liberation" Pg 17 & 18 and not Uproot Hindutva. This quote by Thirumavalavan is not mentioned in the book (it is only mentioned in the Outlook article) but on reading the page of the book, it becomes clear to every person that Thirumavalavan felt that Periyar had not succeeded to a certain extent though. I've provided the URL along with the ref. Thanks for pointing it outIf you aren't satisfied, feel free to remove the quotes. All I can do is suggest that you have a look at the Outlook article.

As I said earlier, this is an editable enecylopedia and you could remove anything which you feel I have introduce with an intention to malign Periyar. And lastly, it has nothing to do with me being pleased. I've already stated this before-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 09:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If this qoute is not mentioned in the book, then why use it? Anyways, until a hard copy becomes available to verify, the ref. link to Thirumavalavan's Talisman, Extreme Emotions of Dalit Liberation will be left on the page out of good faith. Lastly, nothing is removed, whether it is agreeable or not, without discussing it first on the talk page.Wiki Raja (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, let me tell you one thing. The question isn't about pleasing me or you. This article does not belong to anybody. While I appreciate the effort you've put forth in the article and recognize that you act in good faith, you should also realize that I am not acting in bad faith either. I did not remove any of the existing refs or content.

I felt that the article needs some balancing and provided my suggestions. I also feel that there is a chance that some onlooker might dispute the neutrality of the article. There are atleast three more reviews before the article could be judged as FA. And lastly, I would not have got involved had you not invited me to give my comments :-) -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 04:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the reply. It is agreeable that there needed to be some balancing in the article which has been happening possitively, as compared to in the past. Views from both sides on Periyar have been shown in the article, which makes the article pretty neutral now. Further, from my end, there shall be a couple more items (critical of Periyar) that will be added in with regards to furthering the neutrality of the article. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thirumavalavan's statements not in text provided

Ravichandar, out of good faith, the text you have provided claiming that Thirumavalavan stated that Periyar was not concerned about the Dalits was going to be properly referenced. However, having looked at both the hard copy and online copy of Uproot Hindutva: The fiery voice of the Liberation Panthers, it shows that the pages 17 & 18 you have provided here do not utter a word about this matter. You can see for yourself on page 17 here and page 18 here. Furthermore, there is not where in the book whatsoever where it shows that Thirumavalavan made these statements on Periyar. What's questionable is whether you have actually looked at the book. Thus, these ref. links have been removed. Wiki Raja (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Out of good faith, the section on Thirumaavalavan's supposed statement on Periyar has been left on the page, until a hard copy of the book was received. Having received the following title "Talisman: Extreme emotions of Dalit Liberation", there is no where in the book where he said that. Further, pp. 17 & 18 says nothing against Periyar on Dalits. Instead, there is s sentence which looks similar to what was posted earlier. It is not directed against Periyar, but against the political bickering between the DMK and ADMK parties. Here is an excerpt from p. 17:

“

No one can deny that the Tamil people and the Tamil land will be affected because of this attitude and enmity aongst the Dravidian parties. That is why, during MGR's lifetime, K.A.P. Vishwanatham initiated efforts to unify the DMK and the ADMK. That didn't take place. Now we can understand as to why the expectation and effort was meaningless."

”

Also, there is no where in the book which states that Periyar had no separate agenda for Dalits (Shudras, Harijans), when in fact throughout this article and the book itself, he has done so. As a matter of fact, Thirumaavalavan has praised Periyar throughout the text. Here is an excerpt from pp. 17 & 18 which talks about Periyar's impact on later Dravidian parties (who broke away from his group):

“

"It is an undeniable truth that the consequent formation of a political upsurge among the backward and the most backward castes has further increased the oppression against people living in the cheris! This is a negative reaction caused because of the DMK and the ADMK not standing steadfast in the basic doctrines of Peiryar! It can be said that these parties have changed to a direction against Periyarism, particularly because the oppressive forces that commit casteist atrocities against the Dalit people exert power over both these parties.

In this situation, the faith on the Dravidian parties has been removed and it has become an inevitable necessity for the Dalit people to independently raise and dare to assert themselves as a political force! Because of Periyar's impact, the democracy and power locked in the palaces of the elite, has reached the middle level castes."

”

Lastly, sites used on wikipedia that require the reader to register their personal information is not safe, unlike recognized sites such as the New York Times and the BBC. Regardless, of recognized or unrecognized web pages, sites that require registration are Links normally to be avoided as per Wikipedia guidelines. Wiki Raja (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about this quote added by Ravichandar?

“

Periyar had no separate agenda for Dalits. The enthusiasm Periyarites have even today for sanctum entry and in challenging Shankaracharyas is not shown in leading Dalits into temples controlled by non-Brahmins. Periyar’s only success was in displacing Brahmin hegemony. On all other fronts—the battle against superstitions, for equality, atheism, rational humanism—he has failed^[1]^[2]^[3]

”

I assume you checked all the three following references.

^ Anand, S. (September 20, 2004). "Iconoclast, Or Lost Idol?". The Outlook. Retrieved 2008-10-27. (Requires username and password)
^ Thirumavalavan, Pg 17
^ Thirumavalavan, Pg 18

Docku: What up? 04:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is about the quote added by Ravichandar. As explained right in this section, both books by Thirumaavalavan with both the pages provided and throughout the book have been checked. They're both sitting in front of me right now. As for the Outlook website, it requires the reader to register with the site. As stated here, sites that require registration are not to be used. Please read what has been posted within this section. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for making you repeat. I also dont have access to Outlook to confirm it. It is sort of weird. I want to assume that it was just a careless mistake we all tend to make occasionally and leave it there. ThanksDocku: What up? 06:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Wiki Raja (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that Thirumavalavan's statement appears in the Outlook article. As for the guideline you're citing, note the first point in the first section:

"This guideline does not apply to inline citations, which appear in the "References" or "Notes" section."

which is precisely what this use is - an inline citation which appears in the "Notes" section. In other words, Wikipedia's guidelines do not stop us from using the Outlook article as a source for that quote. That having been said, the quote does seem quite uncharacteristic for Thirumavalavan, as his writings generally tend to take a much more favourable view of Periyar. -- Arvind (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand how this quote, if accurate, does take a non-favourable view of periyar. Isnt he just talking about the status of periyar policies now and the modern day Periyarites? How would that be a criticism of periyar himself? In any case, it appears Periyar's words are misinterpreted in Outlook. If at all we are going to include any, it is better to include the correct quote from his book and let the readers interpret.

By the way, Reliable sources are not considered reliable always and for all information. Every information should be evaluated on an individual basis and that is why we dont have such a list in WP:RS. Docku: What up? 13:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Outlook is usually a reliable source but that even reliable sources need to be taken with a pinch of salt - that's why I intervened to say both that Outlook could definitely be relied upon for the quote, and that it seemed uncharacteristic. The manner in which the article presents the quote suggests it is a criticism of Periyar, but you're right - the quote doesn't necessarily have to be read that way. It'd be interesting to see the original context to the quote. -- Arvind (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed link requiring user to register

The link requiring the user has been removed here as per Links normally to be avoided. Wiki Raja (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Put it for Peer review

Thanks all for all the good work and for resolving the disputes in the talk page .Sorry I could not contribute more recently.I am puting it for Peer review.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

website in infobox

looks awkward. Should either remove it or define. Docku: What up? 18:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As per request, the website has been removed. It is already listed in the External links section. Wiki Raja (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed sentence in intro.

The second sentence in the intro has been removed:

He is considered an icon of rationalism, and is most famous for his Self-Respect Movement in Tamil Nadu.

The reason was that it is already stated in the first and third sentences. Wiki Raja (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)