Talk:Periyar E. V. Ramasamy/GA2

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

GA Reassessment[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I am basing this reassessment around the Neutrality of the Principles and legacy section. I started editing it for neutrality,[1] but I fear it is too big a job for someone unfamiliar with the subject and it is not just one or two sentences that need changing. Some examples include, but are not limited to:

  • It was not an easy task for Periyar to create this awakening among the people who had, for generations, gotten used to a subordinate position. Most of them did not know that their subordinate position had been brought about by the cunning schemes of self-seekers.
  • Consequently rationalism, which has to lead the way for peaceful life to all, had resulted in causing poverty and worries to the people because of dominating forces.
  • Periyar and his movement have achieved a better status for women in Tamil society.

Others are less of a concern in that they attribute the views to Ramasamy, but the do go into a lot of detail ad seem to be slanted in a very POV way (e.g. Periyar's foremost appeal to people was to develop self-respect. He preached that the Brahmins have monopolised and cheated other communities for decades and deprived them of self-respect. He continued to remind them that most Brahmins claimed to belong to a "superior" community with the reserved privilege of being in charge of temples and performing archanas. He felt that they were trying to reassert their control over religion by using their superior caste status to claim the exclusive privilege to touch idols or enter the sanctum sanctorum. He claimed that in certain places the scheduled caste people were not allowed to use the tanks, wells and at times even the streets used by Brahmins. Though sporadic caste-violence and atrocities continue to occur in Tamil Nadu, discrimination has largely been eliminated due to Periyar's agitations against these unjust restrictions.)

I feel the whole section needs to a lot of work and don't know how to fix this myself. I am hoping someone with the knowledge, time and access to sources can. Otherwise I fear it should be delisted as a Good article. As an aside there is also a clarification needed and a citation needed tag.AIRcorn (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns. I'm not very knowledgeable here myself, but willing to see what I can do in the coming days to improve this one. Thanks for flagging it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for trying to fix it. AIRcorn (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks much better. I am not familiar enough with the topic to accurately judge undue, but it appears to meet the standards at the moment. I will leave it open for a little bit longer in case anyone else wants to chime in. AIRcorn (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep Happy with the changes and no one has offered any new problems. AIRcorn (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)