Talk:Iyengar/Archive 2

Edit request, per RfC at WT:INB

The opening sentence contains various Indic scripts - Tamil, Kannada and Telugu - as well as IPA guidance. The latter is fine, but the three Indic scripts should be removed in accordance with a RfC at WT:INB earlier this year that determined no such scripts should appear in lead sections. The RfC details can be found here and here. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 01:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's break things down a little

Etymology

SpacemanSpiff has asked me to take a look at this article. I've read the visible talk page and the recent history, leading up to the imposition of full protection. It seems clear to me that there are widely differing opinions being expressed regarding a broad swathe of the content. Many of the comments are far too long for a newcomer to the debate, so why don't we split things down and just concentrate on one issue at a time.

I propose that we ignore the lead section for now because the purpose of that is to summarise the article & therefore we need to get the body of the article into shape before we have anything worth summarising. So, the first point that seems to be causing some grief is

The word "Iyengar" is a relatively new name and was not used in any medieval works or scriptures. The word "Sri Vaishnava" would therefore be the right word to describe them, though all of them could be called as Sri Vaishnava Brahmins.[1]

Could those who believe this statement to be correct (just this statement, nothing else at the moment) please explain their rationale. Equally, could those who think that it is incorrect, incomplete or whatever do the same. Bear in mind two things: firstly, your opinion counts for nothing unless you can back it up with sources; secondly, your opinion counts for nothings if it trangresses any other of the Wikipedia policies, eg: neutrality, original research etc. And no name-calling or threats, please. This article is subject to general sanctions and untoward behaviour is likely to cause administrative action against the offending individual. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just added the caste warning template to the top of this page, which has a little more info about the sanctions issue that Sitush mentions. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, did you actually take on board what I said?

• Quibbling about "trusted editors" etc is a failure to assume good faith, unless you have concrete reasons for it. And it seems that you do not.
• My proposal was to concentrate on that single statement and then to move on to others. All your comments regarding the need for genetic/statistical sources etc appear to be irrelevant to that statement, as are most of your comments regarding the IP. Just about the only thing that agrees with my proposed methodology is your opinion that the statement needs additional sources. I have my own opinion regarding the thing but will hang off voicing it.

I suggest that you strike your message above and start again. Life will be much easier for everyone if we go through the issues with some semblance of order. - Sitush (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, i've indeed removed my message, and i'm re-posting some of it, regarding that single statement. First of all the source provided isn't available for online viewing. In that case, an additional source for cross-checking would be helpful. Or, if there is a secondary source(an article) that has reviewed the contents of the primary source(the book - "An Universal History"), it could be considered trustworthy, as i've never heard of this book. For example, the book "Castes and Tribes of Southern India - by Edgar Thurston" has been reviewed by "THE HINDU"(Daily newspaper). And, I can't find the ISBN numbers for the offline source, under the Reference section. There wouldn't even be a need for such a thorough verification, if this single statement hadn't been challenged, although the source is a book published by a renowned university. The anglo-saxons(english people) are a germanic tribe who had originally migrated from "Angli & Saxony, in Germany" to England; later, they were joined by the Normans. So, would you still call them Germans? Nope. Today they are called English people; while the "english,scottish,northern irish & welsh" are collectively known as British. Similarly, just because the term "Iyengar" is a relatively new name, it cannot be replaced with "Srivaishnava". I don't intend to bring logic here. But since we know nothing about the contents of the source, i thought it would be helpful to quote the "anglo-saxon" example. Hari7478 (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be online in order to be reliable or provide verifiability. Equally, just because a source is online does not mean that it is reliable. Thurston certainly is dodgy, for example. The source in question was apparently first published from around 1759 (see here) and as such predates the ISBN system by around 200 years: it is no surprise that an ISBN is not listed, since that would require a fairly recent reprint. It is possible that the source was quoted by a more recent authority but the citation does not say this. Since this is a source of some antiquity, unless the issue is discussed in a publication of, say, the last 40 years or so, the statement should be deleted. And if it is so discussed, we do not need the old source anyway. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not look into the year of publication. S'ry. Ofcourse, Thurston is dodgy. But when a data is challenged, and if there are editors in future, who might find reasons to delete a "statement ie unagreeable to them", the secondary source factor should be considered. I agree with your comments on online/offline source authenticity. And, one reason why i'm stressing about the use of online sources(for additional verification) is because vandal users(new users & IPs in most cases) might find it really comfortable to "contribute a controversial/false data by citing an offline source which actually might not have any of the claims made". Such vandal edits in caste related articles such as this one, are a real possibility. Additional sources for verification are required in such cases. Getting back to the topic, as you said, unless the issue is discussed in a recent publication, the statement should be deleted. I don't think there is any other factor for consideration regarding that source. Hari7478 (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Since nobody has objected etc, I have now removed citations/statements relying on the 18th century source. - Sitush (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if any further comments relating to the above discussion are keep above the {{od}} (outdent), thanks.

The Etymology section continues with the statement

The word Iyengar is derived from Ayya a Prakrit version of the Sanskrit word Arya along with the Telugu honorific plural suffix garu.[7]

The source is Ancestry.com, which is not a reliable source. We will needed something better than this, otherwise the statement should be removed. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

[1], [2]. These two sources could be cited. Hari7478 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

We do not use snippet views because they lack context, nor do we generally like to use tertiary sources. - Sitush (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Any update on this? Or are we going to have to remove those statements? - Sitush (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Another part of the etymology section says

Lester, Robert C claims that the word “Ayyangaar” was first used by Kandhaadai Ramanuja Ayyangaar of Tirupathi around 1450 AD.

This relies on Lester, Robert C. (1 January 1994). "The Sattada Srivaisnavas". The Journal of the American Oriental Society., a transcribed version of which appears to exist here. Lester's first mention of Ayyangaar is here on that website, but I am struggling to find where Lester actually says that KRA was the first to use the title. Can anyone spot it? - Sitush (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Citekill issue

1. "Vedanta Desika, the Vaishnavite Acharya and philosopher, founded the Vadakalai sampradaya[16] based on the Sanskritic tradition".[12][17][18][19][20]

Do we need six sources to establish this point. --AshLey ^Msg 08:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No. - Sitush (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you pls rm some of it, fixing the least priority. --AshLey ^Msg 09:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Priorities, the general rule, in this order until you have a result:

• Remove fakes
• Remove unreliable
• Remove tertiary
• Remove non-English if there are English ones available
• Of the remainder, keep those that appear to be most reliable and most relevant. For example, Oxford University Press or SUNY Press would usually trump something published by Concept, Popular Prakashan or APH.

  If the point is not contentious then it only needs a single source. This passage only needs one of the latter five citations, and it may not even need the first citation. If there may be any doubt (and there could well be on an article as contentious as this) then explain every step in your edit summary or refer it to the talk page for pre-removal discussion. You've seen me do this at Talk:Saint Thomas Christians, for example. I know that you did remove some of the above citations earlier, but if you look again then perhaps you will see a more reasonable solution than what appeared to be a rather random cut. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources

I object to two parts in the article. One is the statement:

"According to genetic studies, the Thenkalai gene frequencies are distinctly different from that of the Vadakalais.[21] "

The source [21] quoted is a 1978 publication which says the following:

"Abstract : The data on cleft chin were collected on 380 unrelated individuals belonging to two endogamous groups of Srivaishnava Brahmans of Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh. The highest frequency of cleft chin was found to occur among the males in both the endogamous groups, Vadagalai and Tengalai. Significant sex differences were noticed in both the groups. The Vadagalai and Tengalai male series reveal statistically significant differences with the Manipuri male Brahmans. However, the female series of Vadagalai and Tengalai show statistically insignificant differences with the Manipuri female Brahmans."

The 1978 study simply looked at cleft chin occurrence among Vadagalais and Tengalis and that too in just one place, Tirupati. The study found statistically significant difference between SriVaishnava brahmins and Manipuri male brahmins NOT between Vadagalai and Tengalai. To use this statement to differentiate between Vadagalai and Tengalai is an absolute falsification. Therefore, the said statement needs to be removed.

The second part i object to is the following paragraph quoting a blood group rhesus study to differentiate between Vadagalai and Tengalai:

"In a genetic study in Andhra Pradesh all individuals examined among Vadakalai Iyengars showed a high similarity of rhesus(d) gene frequency with the people of Faislabad in the Punjab province of Pakistan.[15] All the individuals examined among Vadakalai Iyengars showed Rhesus(D) positive with a high frequency of the D allele while the other castes from Andhra showed a low frequency of the D allele.[15]"

The source [15] quoted is by Hameed et al., from the Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 2002. However, Hameed's paper simply quotes a 1980 study by Reddy et al to draw a commonality between Indian and Pakistani populations as follows:

"In a study in Andhra Pradesh,India, all individuals examined among the Vadagalai Ayangar Brahmins were Rh(D)-positive while other populations showed a low frequency of D allele (Reddy et al.,1980). This similarity in frequency of Rhesus(D) genes in India and Pakistan can be attributed to the common history of these populations."

Kindly note Reddy et al, studied Rh(D) occurrence in 1980 when technologies in comparative studies were minimal. Moreover the paper compares blood groups of just four populations of Andhra -- Mala, Yerukula, Kapu and Vadagalai Ayangar; and found incidence of Rh(D) higher in Vadagalai than the other 3 groups. Based on this paper one cannot conclude that (1) Vadagalais are of Aryan North-Indian origin, or (2) Genetically different from Tengalais. Both these conclusions are not supported by the aforesaid paper. Again, to use this source to differentiate between Vadagalai and Tengalai is falsification. Therefore the said paragraph needs to be removed.

There is an unfortunate deliberate attempt in this article to show Vadagalais are of North Indian Aryan origin whereas Tengalai are of South Indian native origin. Please note Vadadesa in Tamil sources refer to Andhra and MelNadu refers to Karnataka. Vadadesa, Vadama, Vadagalai can merely indicate northern part of Tamilakam, that is Vadadesa Andhra. Unless there is a source attesting specifically to "Aryan North-Indian origin" of Vadagalai, such an origin claim is unacceptable. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Another point -- please do not try to draw broad-based conclusions due to similarity with Pakistani populations. I am one of the earliest indians who got a full sequencing done. I have matches with Iyengars in a high range; as also with Kallars, Vanniyars and Lambadis (all these 4 in the top 20 matches). My highest matches are however with Sinhalese, Pakistanis, Gujaratis and Telugu speakers. This wud merely mean various tribes were localized in certain geographic areas in a long gone time period, very possibly at a time when there was little or no differentiation of tribes into 'castes', and probably they were just cattle herding martial tribes (probably gujjars (?)) , who found their way from around Kutch into Warangal. Since Egypt and Iran figure as the last two in the top 20 matches, this may even indicate an ancient migratory route, subject to further studies. Let me also add that i have matches with Khonds (in the top 20 matches) and with Parayars (though not in the top 20). So Pakistani connections between all these groups / castes / tribes, can mean anything or nothing. There is no need to over-interpret data, and worse, absolutely no need to falsify statements just to cater to vadagalai-tengalai differentiation. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

All genetic stuff should be removed on sight, in practically every Indian caste article. The samples are small, the conclusions vary, the cited papers tend to be old (in the context of a fast-developing science), the researchers rely on self-identification by their subject matter, the cites are usually based on the synopsis (not acceptable) etc. Just bin the lot. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

To Sitush

Am not in favor of removing genetic studies. In this article, utter falsity (absolute lies) have been written, quoting sources which do not mention such things at all. To support Vadagalai- Tengalai differentiation, not just misquoting genetic studies, other sources have also been misquoted / misused. A line in this article says "The Vadakalai Iyengars are believed to be an Indo-Aryan people who once migrated from North India.[14]". I went thru the whole page 283 of the quoted source [14] -- it says nothing about Srivaishnava brahmins. It merely uses the term Vadagalai to mean 'north' and Tengalai to mean 'south' as follows (page 283) :

"In the post-Maurya Time of Troubles many Brahmans must have fled from the North West and infiltrated to the South, loaded with gifts and favours by rulers like the greatly "Sanskriti- sing" Pallavas of Kanchi (300-880 AD). These Vadamars or Vadagalai, ie "Northerners" as distinct from the Tongalai or "Southerners"" must have introduced Sanskrit and Patriarchal Aryo-Indian rites."

The author goes on to explain stuff about "deshaja (native) priests" elsewhere; but on page 283 itself he says this (page 282 is incidentally quoted as a reference in this article):

"Now these deshaja (indigenous) and foreign-origin priests were absorbed in the North- Indian priestly tradition in the Age of Syncretism. This is particularly true in the South, where four stages may be postulated..."

There are some enthusiastic vadagalais propagating falsities, like racists, here. They want to differentiate themselves from Tengalais 'genetically'; and have misquoted everything to that end. Reminds me of some people who also claim to 'genetically' inherit good qualities and such like. Heights of misuse of genetic studies to serve petty-minded falsities. It is shameful to think some of these may elsewhere blame non-brahmins and DK of labeling them aryans; and yet here go to great lengths to propagate an "Aryan North-Indian" origin for themselves. If they have appropriate references / sources, let them provide it. They need not falsify, misuse, misquote everything, just to portray themselves 'racially' different from tengalais or to serve their aryan origin claims.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

But, alas, it is the same on all the Indian caste articles that I have edited and which use such studies. And that is a lot of articles. In any event, they should be removed in this one, and your points support that. - Sitush (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should restrict the use of such studies to review works only; that is, we essentially follow a WP:MEDRS standard (noting that this is borderline medical information), and not consider primary studies as acceptable references for this type of info. Only larger, meta-studies would be allowed. If that means that there aren't very many, then, not very sadly, we remove the stuff that's there. From what I've seen, many of these studies draw fairly questionable conclusions (or, Wikipedia editors use them to draw questionable conclusions) based on very small, badly chosen data sets. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, applying MEDRS seems entirely reasonable to me in situations such as this. - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks to Sitush and Qwyrxian for considering WP:MEDRS. Deleting or overlooking results from genetic tests is not a good idea considering the implications involved, both medical as well historical. Please note technologies used in comparative studies are recent inventions / creations and therefore studies before the 1990s may not be helpful. IMO, there is nothing called badly chosen data sets, there are just regional or localized samples being researched for a specific point. Small samples are not as much a problem as some make them out to be; esp when speaking of large variation. If wiki editors falsify claims, then the problem is with wiki editors not with the paper itself. To review, we need to check: (1) Does the quoted source really mention the point stated in the article, or has a wiki contributor made falsified claims misquoting a paper (2) What type of data was used in the study? If it is a blood group study, please mention so. If it is a specific study examining SNPs, or STRs or allele frequencies, then mention that point along with the sample size studied in a given region (3) Mention which population groups were compared in the study. (4) Mention exactly what the paper says. That is, does the paper suggest a hypothetical similarity pending further study; or does it state a proper conclusion from various data researched? Wiki editors cannot be allowed to make their own falsified claims and representations misquoting a paper. No matter what we discuss on the talk page, the actual article must only represent data "as is" mentioned by the paper itself. Hope these guidelines are OK. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

First of all, the info' regarding genetics is found in the last page eleventh line to the left - of the pdf article which is indeed published by a reliable neutral party(Pakistan journal of biological sciences) and this info' is presented here in wiki' without any exaggeration. Well, i'm thorough with MEDRS policies. I'm sorry to say that the above reply of the user significantly differs from his/her edit comments. I request users not to keep chaning their complaints in order to get their end - atleast that is how i feel ab't this. Secondly, i've provided another src which supports the data regarding vadakalai being indo-aryan, even if anybody has different ways of interpreting the first src(authored by oroon k ghosh). Finally, attacking other editors(which is obvious from the user's comments such as "There are some enthusiastic vadagalais propagating falsities like racists here") should be avoided as the WP community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor, making edits in this page, who fails to adhere to the expected standards of behavior(indulging in attacks, edit wars, etc). How do you know that the other editors(such as myself or aybody else here) belong to the Vadakalai community? By the way, the other user should've held this discussion before making those edits/reverts, especially when the page has seen a lot of inconsistencies, recently. Also, the user's contribution, which goes as "Vadakalai purport themselves to be indo-aryan" is clearly a POV edit, as that user didn't provide any source to support his/her claim that "it is self-proclaimed by Vadakalais" - Inserting polemics in the main article? Give me a break. Once again, I request users not to keep chaning their complaints in order to get their end, as the other user's reply right above my comments here, significantly differs from his/her edit comments in the main article. I think i've explained everything adequately. This should put all doubts to rest, if "wp:editing/verifiabilty/ and other policies" are adhered to, that is. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Mayatsura, you're missing the point a little bit. The thing is, first run research results are, arguably, primary sources by Wikipedia's definition. Yes, they are vetted by journal reviewers, but that's not quite enough, especially for subjects related to medicine (which genetics may or may not fall under). We have to be extremely careful when making claims based upon individual studies. Small samples, are in fact, a real problem, because people end up taking them to mean something definitively true. I do like your point, though, that we need to be extremely cautious about older studies; the ones just re-added to the article are from the 1970s, and I know that there has been a lot of improvement and changes to genetic analysis since then. To be honest, I'm extremely troubled by all of these claims that say "Genetic Study X proves that Group Y is a part of Race Z", given that everything I've read says that concepts like "Race Z" are simply social, not biological, fabrications. But, I will admit, I'm not a molecular biologist, and maybe there's something I don't know. I do know that these studies seem to be used an awful lot in articles abotu India and Pakistan, and not so much in other articles, and that definitely worries me.

(post-ec) Hari7478, I'm inclined to believe the whole section should be removed. A few random genetics studies from the 1970s are not really sufficient to support that section. As I say to Mayatsura, my understanding is that studies of this type are highly questionable in principle, especially when they attempt to connect race/ethnicity and genetics. Do you have any more modern sources, preferably some that meet WP:MEDRS? If not, I'm inclined to re-remove the whole section. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, well! But yes, i do have some modern sources(1994) which classifies them as "Indo-European" under the "Hittite" sub-division, giving an Anatolian origin, present day's Turkey - Published by Italian genealogists Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza. But right now, i've provided one more source(not genetic but anthropological) - a book authored by P.P.Nambudiri, published by inter-india publications, under the vadakalai iyengar section(citation no 14); year:1992. But a detailed discussion needs to be held before making any changes. W.r.t the sources under the thenkalai iyengar sub-section, they are mostly historical events that are explained, and so i don't find any reason as to why that sub-section should be removed. The src reg' cleft chin study and the corresponding contrib' has been removed by me, as the data was misinterpreted. Other than that, the only other src that deals with genetic study is "Pakistan journal of biological sciences"(The data is from a 1980 study). I suppose you could just remove that but not all of it, although i would want to keep that genetic study, otherwise every wiki' article on South Asian castes will be reduced to a minuscule stub. That genetic study is still a valuable piece of information. However, its up to you.

But, i do have a few doubts regarding the ones that i'm going to contribute in the near future. Let me list them:

1. Aryans in South India by P.P.Nambudiri(not a genetic study; but deals with anthropology & museology;year-1992) - According to this source "Vadakalai Iyengars" are classified as "Aryan" and not "Indo-Aryan". So, should we change it to "Aryan" or just stick to "Indo-Aryan"? although only the latter is logically apt for indians.

2. According to a genetic study in the year 1996, Italian genealogists Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza have classified them as "Indo-European of the hittite sub-division", giving them an Anatolian origin(present day's Turkey) - based on DNA sequences in allele patterns, which in my opinion, is highly reliable.

As you could see, in both cases, they are classified as "Aryan" of the greater "Indo-European"(Indo-European is synonymous to aryan) family, and not "Indo-Aryan". I'll provide the source of the modern genetic study very soon. But how are we supposed to make these contributions? I mean, how to interpret them? Such a data needs to be adequately supported by additional refs. For example, if an anthropological study says "Vadakalai Iyengars are aryan ppl", it should be supported by a recent genetic study(dep't of genealogy) to cross check with the study made in the dep't of anthropology. That would certainly make it a reliable piece of info'. Unless there is support from such multiple departments, i guess it would be safe to stop adding sensisitve data. However the two sources mentioned above are relatively modern and reliable. I'll make the contribution soon. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hari, am flabbergasted. Hope you realize whom you are misquoting. Cavalli-Sforza is a HUGE name in the field of population genetics. Please quote where does Cavalli-Sforza say Vadagalais are Aryan or Indo-Aryan of the Hittite sub-division of Anatolia origin. Please, there is a limit to lying, so blatantly, please, am totally amazed.. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

(edit conflict) Q, one reason for the prevalence of these studies in Indic articles is the caste system itself. India is seen as being a useful laboratory for testing developments in techniques of genetic analysis because it was, and to a large extent still is, an endogamous society. The endogamy is thought to preserve the bloodlines and thus makes the place a useful scientific control. However, the points that I raised earlier still apply and, in addition, the very fact that India is used as a test bed for new techniques of varying quality etc means that we cannot rely on the outcomes: it would be akin to using engine test reports conducted by, say, Ferrari while they are attempting to produce some radically new type of car. Furthermore, a fair amount of the genetic work in India is performed for socio-political reasons and is privately funded for that end: distinguishing which analyses are performed with the intent of discovery and which are performed with the intent of proving an a priori hypothesis is tricky.

An aside: the practice of hypergamy etc has not prevented genetic studies of the Nairs, for example. However, such studies often treat them as being "pure" Nair when, of course, their bloodline is inevitably mixed up because of the Nambudiri connections. Similar issues arise elsewhere and I do worry that the geneticists take the self-identification of their subject at face value. I have yet to see a genetic study that raises these very obvious concerns that dilute the endogamy theory, although some must surely exist because it is a major epidemiological sticking point. - Sitush (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, i presume you are not at all aware of stuff going on in genetics field. Kindly provide references where genetic studies in India are performed for socio-political reasons, privately funded for that end, and are performed with the intent of proving an a priori hypothesis. As for diluting the endogamy theory, you may wish to read contributions by various authors put together in the book, "The History and Geography of Human Genes", by Cavalli-Sforza, available for free on google books. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

To Hari, Sitush and Qwyrxian

I have no problem with Aryan, Indo-Aryan, or other claims the article wishes to make. But wiki editors need to provide correct sources. The current sources do NOT mention any of the stuff claimed by wiki editors. Sitush and Qwyrxian, as admins, you need to take a call here. Not just genetic studies, other sources too have been misquoted. Am making a list below for your easy referencing. The prob here is with the sources. Not the content. If Hari provides correct sources to support his claims, then fine. Otherwise the sentences have to be deleted.

1) Source [10] is a google book link to "The changing Indian civilization: a perspective on India" by Oroon K. Ghosh, 1976. The book does not mention anything about Vaishnava brahmins. It merely uses the term Vadagalai to mean 'north' and Tengalai to mean 'south', to mention mergers in the Age of Syncretism. Hari should provide exact sentences from this book mentioning Vadagalai Vaishnava brahmins and Thengalai Vaishnava brahmins are genetically, ethnically, origin-wise, racially, distinct from one another. Merely mentioning northern cultural dissension (vada = northern, kalai = dissension) and southern cultural dissension (then = southern, kalai = dissension) does not support Hari's theory of aryan, indo-aryan, or racial, ethnic, genetic differentiation between Vadagalai and Thengalai.

2) Source [11] is a google link to the journal, Human Heredity which mentions the article by Hameed et al.,2002 and Reddy et al.,1980. Hari should provide the exact sentences from this journal where it has been mentioned Vadagalai is distinct from Thengalai racially, genetically, etc. As explained above, both Hameed's article and Reddy's article do not mention or support the claim that (1) Vadagalais are of Aryan North-Indian origin, or (2) Genetically different from Tengalais.

3) Source [13] is exactly the same as source [10]. Both the quoted pages 283 and 160 do not mention Vaishanava brahmins. Again, Hari should provide exact sentences from this publication mentioning Vadagalai Vaishnava brahmins are genetically, origin-wise, ethnically, racially, distinct from Thengalai.

4) Source [14] refers to Pg.72, Aryans in South India – by P. P. Nārāyanan Nambūdiri, Inter-India Publications. Please provide exact sentences from this book which classifies Vadagalai and Madhwas genetically and racially separate from Thengalais; with the supposed aryan and non-aryan origins for Vadagalai and Thengalai respectively.

5) Source [15] is exactly the same as source [11]. It refers to an article by Hameed et al., from the Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 2002. As explained above, Hameed's paper merely quotes a 1980 study by Reddy et al. Reddy's article was published in the journal, Human Heredity, as mentioned in point 2 here. Again, neither Hameed's article nor Reddy's article mention or support the claim that (1) Vadagalais are of Aryan North-Indian origin, or (2) Genetically different from Tengalais. So, Hari needs to provide exact sentences from either or both the articles where such points have been mentioned / supported.

Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

I agree that the article is a mess. This is not uncommon of caste articles and those relating to Brahmin communities have tended to fly below the radar because I and some others have been concentrating on cleaning up articles concerning alleged kshatriya groups etc. However, none of this prevents anyone else from fixing articles. There are over 4000 ethnic communities in India, many of which have articles here. It would be a tough job for a handful of people to sort them all out, so we do what we can. I am not an admin, btw. - Sitush (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, you are very right. All caste articles follow a pattern, where somehow mixed origins are anathema. Everyone wants "pure" origins (whatever that means). As for brahmin claims, i cud very well put forth content with proper references, but am aware of the fracas it will lead to, which based on past experiences am sure wiki cannot handle. On the other hand, its a better idea to have individuals claiming to be brahmins, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras, to self-examine themselves. Personally i think, eventually this 'age and time' will force them to do so anyways. Maybe its a good idea to give people that space to think, feel, ponder over, and come around to accepting stuff; instead of living in denial or behaving like insecure kids when it comes to religious identities. Btw, genetics is driving a massive dent in caste claims. I sincerely wish and hope you wud someday read the book "History and Geography of Human Genes". Best wishes. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

I've removed the "genetically different from Tengalai" part myself(earlier today), as the src on cleft chin study doesn't seem to portray any genetic difference between the two sub-sects. Remember that all of these src's were not contributed by me. Now the article just states "Vadakalai are distinct from tengalai, by origin". The karger src states that the distance between vadakalai & tengalai reg' earlobe and frequency distribution is higher while minimum distance is obtained between vadakalai & vadama. Are you asking for an exact copy paste/plagiarism? OMG. Now, Mayasutra is trying to portray "Vadagalai(Vada/northern+kalai/descension)" to be different from "Vadagalai Vaishnava brahmins" which is laughable indeed. The term "Vadakalai/Vadagalai" is always explicitly used to refer to the Iyengar brahmins of northern descension, and is definitely not used in any other context, or to address any other Indian sub-community.

First of all, this section "Ethnicity and genetics" is not about difference between Vadakalai & Thenkalai. If that is how you are interpreting it, i can't help it.

• First of all, the Pakistani src is used to show the genetic similarities between Vadakalai & Pakistanis, and it has nothing to do with Thenkalai. Why are you unnecessarily relating it to Vadakalai vs Thenkalai comparison?
• The book authored by P.P.Nambudiri is to support that claim that Vadakalais are considered to be aryan ppl, and this is not used for the "Vadakalai Thenkalai comparison".
• User:Mayasutra thinks that the whole section is about Vadakalais' genetic differences with Thenkalais. If this is how you've been seeing it, i can't help but pity. Let me tell you again:This section presents some facts about genetic & anthropological origins of Vadakalai & Thenkalai, seperately in most cases, and is not a "Vadakalai & Thenkalai comparison" section. You are unnecessarily relating every src in that section to "Vadakalai Thenkalai comparison". Again, this is not a section of "comparison between the two subsects", but to present the corresponding facts about the two, regardless of comparison of one with the other subsect. I suppose you are deliberately portraying it as a "Vadakalai thenkalai comparison" section, and you are falsely relating every single ref' in that section to that kind of a portrayal. Oops!! How many times am i going to repeat this?

Population genetics is the study of "allele frequency distribution" and each allele has a certain DNA sequence. Mention on both "Vadakalai & Tenkalai" are found in the book(History and Geography of Human Genes) where vadakalai is mispelled as Vadahalai, and thenkalai as Tengalai. Both are classified under "Indo-Hittie"(which means indo-european of the hittite sub-division; pg472). I guess the other users could take a look into the book on population genetics even now/or anytime as i've mentioned the page numbers. However, there are other anthropological sources to support vadakalai's aryan origin, while i'm still searching for similar studies on thenkalais, and that's why i haven't made the contributions yet(not just based on one src after all the conflicts and brawl). The book authored by "P.P.Nambudiri" has been used to cite the "indo-aryan" origin of vadakalais, and not for the genetic difference bet' the two subsects. I've indeed removed that part(cleft chin src), as mentioned before. Also, regarding the "tengalai incorporating non-brahmins into its fold" data, i've been trying to find sources which state "the tengalai non-brahmins/sattadas, etc are different from the core thenkalai brahmin group", but i couldn't find sources. Although i found one which was authored by K.Rangachari alone(not castes and tribes), it was dismissed as a "possible pov src"(by another user about 2 years ago) as Rangachari is an Iyengar himself. There might be some areas in the article where i might agree with you(Mayasutra), while at the same time there are such wiki' policies that we're supposed to adhere to. Again, i request Mayasutra not to make false allegations on me such as "lies", as i've provided the exact pg number(472) of the Sforza book in which both subsects have been mentioned.

@ Sitush: I guess we could remove any challenged data that is supported by "Srivaishnava/Iyengar/Vadakalai/Tenkalai" source as they are most likely to be in violation of "NPOV", and it is by citing these sources that some users are trying to portray it as "philosophical differences only, and not ethnic". Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Action against misquoting / fabricating references

Sitush and Qwyrxian, Is there a wiki policy where action can be taken against a person who misquoted, fictitiously attributed, and fabricated references and sources, to push his POVs? If this is allowed, anyone can write anything and can fictitiously attribute it to any source that pleases them. So i hope wiki has a policy to take action against such editors. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

See my previous comment/reply to your previous post. I've explained it all. Hari7478 (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the specifics of this case -- and I'm neither endorsing nor rejecting your point Mayasutra and I'm not even sure who you're alluding to as this page has been in a slow motion edit war for years now, but if you do have evidence you'll need to bring that up specifically and not mention it in abstract like this -- this page has been put on notice under WP:GS/Caste (see the {{Castewarningtalk}} banner at the top), general sanctions enacted by the community allow administrators to impose sanctions on individual editors violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines on articles related to social groups, castes etc within South Asia specifically. —SpacemanSpiff 17:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Section on criticism

The whole(almost) section on criticism is a very generic one and can be included in the article Anti-Brahminism. It has nothing much to do with Iyengars in particular. Let me know your thoughts sarvajna (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I've been doing some reading around since copyediting some of it a few hours ago & I really cannot see the need for such a broad brush in this article. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

To Hari7478

You stated:
1) But yes, i do have some modern sources(1994) which classifies them as "Indo-European" under the "Hittite" sub-division, giving an Anatolian origin, present day's Turkey - Published by Italian genealogists Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza.
Now that you find objection to your differentiation between Vadagalai and Tengalai, you have changed your tune. Yet, you misquote as follows:
2) Mention on both "Vadakalai & Tenkalai" are found in the book(History and Geography of Human Genes) where vadakalai is mispelled as Vadahalai, and thenkalai as Tengalai. Both are classified under "Indo-Hittie"(which means indo-european of the hittite sub-division; pg472).

---

In Appendix 3 of the book "The History and Geography of Human Genes", a reference list for allele frequencies has been provided for various linguistic families. Under Asia (p.472 to 475) several social groups / communities of the sub-continent have been mentioned under Indo-Hittite linguistic family. That simply means ALL communities are mixed, and in one community you can find individuals having alleles associated with various linguistic origins.

Nowhere does the book say, imply, convey, or support an idea that the entire Vadagalai Iyengar community is of Indo-Hittite origin. Now you state Tengalai also. Do note the book does not say any such thing about the Tengalai community also. Unless validated by published scientific data, you cannot misquote content to propagate your own illogical fallacies.

As you can note from that list, allelic frequencies of Indo-Hittite linguistic family are found in a range of communities, like Dhangar, Lambada, Gujjar, Rajbanshi, Sinhalese, Rajputs, Pustu Pathan (afghan), specific Maratha groups, Jats, Gurkhas, Chamars, Gupta Banias, Bhils, Ahir, and in the general populations of Punjab-India and Pakistan. They are also widespread all across Europe.

The book dwells on some historical information about the Hittites, (stating records from 20th century BC, mentioning Hittites ending Hammurabi’s dynasty in Babylonia, fighting with Egyptians and Hurrians for trade control, and finally falling under the control of Indo-European speaking tribes, founding the kingdom of Mittani between 1500 BC to 1350 BC, etc). The book is explicit in stating great majority of European languages belong to IE or Indo-Hittite family infact. And that the Anatolian branch of the Indo-Hittite phylum consists of EXTINCT groups Luwian, Lycian, Hittite, Lydian and Palaic.

There is no way you can conclude that ALL individuals of the Iyengar community will show up the Indo-Hittite association. You cannot conclude they were of the Anatolian branch. I object to such fabricated conclusions, your misuse of genetic data which you fictitiously attribute to Cavalli-Sforza. You cannot misquote authors to fabricate your own conclusions. I wish that Wiki takes action against editors like you.

The next time you misquote geneticists like Cavalli-Sforza, or misuse genetic data to push your POVs, i will have to ask administrators to take action against you. This is your last warning. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

• Here, i'm helping you. Try this link-[3]. Go ahead and make a report. I couldn't care less, as i know what i'm doing. I haven't made the contributions yet, but i'm thinking about it. After discussing it with others here, i'll think about including it.
  
• You said: "...several social groups / communities of the sub-continent have been mentioned under Indo-Hittite linguistic family. That simply means ALL communities are mixed, and in one community you can find individuals having alleles associated with various linguistic origins". Aint that your own research? First of all, who said only brahmins are aryan? All northies(except sc/st, but including the ones who later got an SC status after certain demands) and most southie brahmins are generally believed to be of the "vedic aryan diaspora". I couldn't find one non-brahmin south indian caste mentioned under indo-hittite. So, there is no contradiction at all. The above message is simply too much own work from your part. By the way, the name "Brahman Tengalai" is mentioned in the appendix in the same line where vadakalai/vadahalai are mentioned, under the "Brahman:Indo-Hittite" section, so take a good look. These things have a lot to do with the past and not the present lingo. You are unncecessarily relating present linguistics with past ones. How do you know what the southie brahmins(aryan-most of them) spoke before migrating to south? Also, the term indo-hittite is used to refer to most southie brahmins and most other north indians castes who speak indo-aryan languages. The author has used the term hittite to refer to many "Indo-european ppls"(including today's indo-iranian, indo-aryan, etc). Again, there is not one southie non-brahmin caste mentioned under hittite. Marathas are not south indian, for your kind information.
  
• I suppose this is what you are trying to say: "All southie brahmins today speak tamil/telugu, etc but are mentioned under indo-hittite, which means there is admixture". My god, if you have such weird ways of portraying things, i can't help it. It simply means "these brahmins are ethnically indo-hittite' ppl who started speaking south languages after the (aryan) migration to south". Regardless of any of these views(either yours or mine) i'm just trying to put it up as it's found in the src. But you are the one who is making research with your own knowledge, which is prohibited in wikipedia. Your above comment is too much own work and you know it.
  
• Since when did i change my tune? Except for the part "The thenkalai gene frequency is significantly different from that of vadakalais", which has been removed by me, the rest of the section simply presents some information about the ethnic & genetic origins of the two subsects individually. Remember, i didn't contribute all the src'es that are found here. Also, just because the section starts as "Vadakalai & Thenkalai are different", it doesn't mean the whole section speaks of the diff' between the two. You sound like this- "Even if the genre of a movie is thriller; but if it starts with a romantic scene, i'll consider the whole movie to be a romantic drama". Is this how you see things? If you are too young to understand things properly with the right interpretation, i can't help it. The only reason as to why i haven't made the contributions yet is because - I'm trying to find sources which say "Tengalai non-brahmins/sattadas are different from the core tengalai brahmin group", and hopefully i'll find it pretty soon. Secondly, i'm looking for anthropological studies that classifies tengalai along with aryan ppl. Once i find these sources, i'll make the contributions(reg' both vadakalai & tengalai being hittite - which is a sub-class within the wider indo-european class- this part too is mentioned in the same book). If i'm not able to find such data on tengalai, then i might have to go with vadakalai alone. But hopefully i'll find them. Hari7478 (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Hari7478

You are absolutely ignorant in genetics. You can blabber whatever you like here. But if you go ahead and make an edit in the main article to push your illogical POVs and attribute it to Cavalli-Sforza, as you have done here, then yes, I will report you for vandalism. Regarding the sources you and others have used, am waiting to hear from Sitush. As the admin, Qwyrxian needs to take a call here about the section "Ethnicity, genetics and origin", the sources used there, and the way it is written to portray a genetic difference between Thengalais and Vadagalais. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

You keep saying that i have my own way of interpreting it. Regarding the contrib' that i'm gonna make soon(Cavalli-Sforza), i'm not interpreting anything, although i gave my views. I was speaking of a direct copy-paste, but in such a way that it aint plagiarism. It was you who gave your own views, such as "extinct groups, linking today's linguistics with past regardless of migration factors, etc". I'm neither going to think of your interpretation nor mine. Going by blind "copy-pasting", but in a way such that it wouldn't be termed as "plagiarism", it would still be valid. However i don't agree with your judgement on my knowledge about genetics. Again, please try to concentrate on the contents and not on people/editors/other users. Hari7478 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Stupidity regarding genetics is a dangerous thing. It is even more dumb to misquote, allege, fabricate stuff, fictitiously attribute own POVs to established geneticists like Cavalli-Sforza, and try to get away with it. Btw, Cavalli-Sforza mentions extinct anatolian branches, linguistic groups and migration factors. I do not believe in giving my own views regarding Cavalli-Sforza's work. I have addressed my concerns to admin below. Let them follow up. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

To Sitush

The paper by Hameed, et al., quoting Reddy, et al.,(Karger) has been used in Vadagalai section as if to portray there is an ethnic and genetic difference between Thengalai and Vadagalai. My objection is to the way the section "Ethnicity, genetics and origin" is written to portray as though there is an ethnic and genetic difference between Vadagalai and Thengalai. A philosophical difference between these two dissensions does not imply or support the kind of statements made in this article.

Hari7478 does not seem to have a background in the genetic sciences. It is useless to reason out any data with him. Yet, I have provided some details (abt Indo-Hittite stuff), before warning him. Beyond this if he goes on misquoting, I think action should be taken against him. If he provides sources like P.P.Namboodiri claiming Aryan origin for Vadagalais and Madhawas, I have no problem with that, although it is advisable to double-check the source he quotes. But with all other sources, I have stated my objection under the section [[4]]

As of now, either the following sentences have to be reconstructed to convey the right meaning with appropriate references, or they must be removed:
1) The Vadakalai Iyengars are believed to be an Indo-Aryan people who once migrated from North India.
2) In a genetic study in Andhra Pradesh all individuals examined among Vadakalai Iyengars showed a high similarity of rhesus(d) gene frequency with the people of Faislabad in the Punjab province of Pakistan.[13] All the individuals examined among Vadakalai Iyengars showed Rhesus(D) positive with a high frequency of the D allele while the other castes from Andhra showed a low frequency of the D allele.[13]

Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

To Qwyrxian

I request you to take a call about
1) The objections on the sources here -- [[5]]
2) The objection raised with Sitush above, on the way the section "Ethnicity, genetics and origin" is written to portray as though there is an ethnic and genetic difference between Vadagalai and Thengalai
3) The objection to the following sentences which either need to be reconstructed supported by appropriate references or need deletion:
a) The Vadakalai Iyengars are believed to be an Indo-Aryan people who once migrated from North India.
b) In a genetic study in Andhra Pradesh all individuals examined among Vadakalai Iyengars showed a high similarity of rhesus(d) gene frequency with the people of Faislabad in the Punjab province of Pakistan.[13] All the individuals examined among Vadakalai Iyengars showed Rhesus(D) positive with a high frequency of the D allele while the other castes from Andhra showed a low frequency of the D allele.[13]

Additionally, I hope there is a wiki policy of disallowing personal ideas on genetic studies. If i were to come out with my personal ideas (very contrary to Hari's ideas), things can get painful. This being a talk page, Hari's blabbering is ok. But if Hari brings on any of it on the main article, action needs to be taken against him. Wiki cannot allow POV-pushing, misquoting or fictitiously attributing personal ideas to established geneticists. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

User:Mayasutra keeps saying that i have my own way of interpreting things. Regarding the contrib' that i'm gonna make soon(Cavalli-Sforza), i'm not interpreting anything, although i gave my views. I was speaking of a direct copy-paste, but in such a way that it aint plagiarism. It was this user who gave his/her own views, such as "extinct groups, linking today's linguistics with past regardless of migration factors, etc". I'm neither going to consider that user's interpretation nor mine. Going by blind "copy-pasting", but in a way such that it wouldn't be termed as "plagiarism", it would still be valid. However i don't agree with Mayasutra's judgement on my knowledge about genetics. I wouldn't have used names here, but i'm doing so while replying to his/her posts. The user is repeatedly using my "username" here in a way that maligns me, and this is seriously apalling. The user also keeps posting the same message repeatedly, although i've already given answers. This is evident trolling. And i have to repeatedly post the same reply, unfortunately, in such cases. I wouldn't have posted my reply here if that user hadn't used my name. I guess i'm being too patient here. And i've given a complete reply here:[6]. For one last time, i request user:mayasutra to try & concentrate on the contents and not on people/editors/other users. I won't say it again. Hari7478 (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There are many variables and possibilities why some certain individuals of stated communities turn up certain associations. Am not interested in starting a discussion on my own interpretations regarding such possibilities. Wiki talk page is not the place for that. I went thru your edit log. You were the first to start the aryan genetics point here. You have been pushing the aryan ethnicity genetics issue here since Oct 2009. Personal interpretations regarding published scientific data cannot be allowed unless the publication itself states the point. What you are indulging in is racism and misquoting scientific data to that end. Obviously those who blabber a lot without any background in genetics, have a free run here. You don't even seem to know a thing about linguistic families, to be associating it with caste, aryan ethnicity / race / genetics issue. Go ahead and make changes in the main article. I can assure you I will take up the issue of misquoting Cavalli-Sforza, or any other source, to push your POV seriously. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Qwyrxian, Regarding the two points stated above on Vadagalai iyengars, either Hari should come up some other sources to support those sentences, or reconstruct them. If not, i expect them to be deleted. Considering Hari has been so active on this talk page, am giving him 48 hours time. If Hari does not make the required changes, or if i do not hear from you or Spacemanspiff, or any other admin, i am going to delete the sentences. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

As you may be aware, this article has been a subject of disagreement for some time. It is unlikely that invoking administrator(s) on its discussion page will give any results. Rather, you may consider raising the contentious points with one of the projects mentioned on top of this page, such as WikiProject India. Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 11:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

To Asav

Thank you Asav.

Way back in 1950, a UNESCO statement was signed to state linguistic groups are not races; because the world after Max Weber realized so. Later creations were NHGRI sponsored activities on Genetics, Race and Ethnicity within the framework of Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) Program Funded Projects. I do not know what policy Wiki has regarding this issue. We find abuse of genetic studies on wiki to push POVs on race, ethnicity, caste-exclusivity, socio-religious notions of purity, and cultural-religious ideas of origin and traits.

People with half-baked or no knowledge on genetics, like Hari7478, push the idea of Aryan or Indo-Aryan, as an ethnic genetic marker / difference, based on genetic similarities of some Vadagalai individuals with Pakistanis; and association of some iyengar individuals with certain linguistic families. And worse, attribute their own ethnicity/racism POVs to the likes of Cavalli-Sforza.

I believe wiki needs to create a set of guidelines on this issue. I do not know if this can be decided under WikiProject India. Please guide me where on wiki can i request / seek advice on framing guidelines / common consensus on a topic titled "Ethnicity, Race, Caste and Genetics".

Until the time Wiki creates guidelines, i suggest deletion of the entire section of Ethnicity, genetics and origin, or rewriting it to mention differences in vadagalai-thengalai dissensions without mentioning ethnicity/genetics. That heading itself is misleading and is designed in such a way with its contents as if to portray an ethnic-genetic difference between Vadagalai and Thengalai. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

I'm afraid I'm entirely unqualified to make any judgments regarding the facts in this article. I can only advise you to seek assistance from one of the project groups I mentioned above, such as WikiProject Ethnic groups. They are listed on top of this page. Alternatively, you can seek dispute resolution. Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 16:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

General comment

Wow! This talk page has become messy. Right now, I am beyond working through all of the various and (probably) unnecessary subsections that have been created - the "To X", "To Y" stuff. If you cannot resolve matters over the next day or two then please do leave me a note and I will try to make sense of what has gone on since my last comment here & respond accordingly. My gut feeling is that this is the usual barney regarding the viability etc of genetic studies and that is as good a reason as any simply to exclude such things ... but I am more than happy to review the situation if there is some sort of coherent discussion going on. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, this page has outlived its purpose. So you may wish to leave this page alone. As suggested by Asav, am taking this to Wiki:dispute resolution. Will be posting there shortly. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Inaccuracies and Spam on this page

It appears that this page is being spammed to reflect someone's biases---and this someone seems to have a lot of time on their hands. There are several problems, starting with the very beginning. Perhaps the biggest of them is the insistence on ethnicity being the distinguishing feature between Vadakalais and Thenkalais, while ignoring every philosophical distinction between the two. First, it is unclear if there is an ethnic difference (the study cited would make the proponets of eugenics under Nazis proud---who "proved that aryans were superior"). This is disingenious, and perhaps even legally actionable.

Secondly, iyengars themselves see themselves as proponents of the azhwar-ramanuja tradition with a rich history of philosophy. By harping on a narrow caste perspective to the exclusion of everything else, the author is not writing a balanced article. There are also a lot of historical inaccuracies, as well as history (particularly re: iyengars outside Tamil Nadu) that is deliberately left out. Examples below:

>>the native tongue of the Iyengar Brahmins is Tamil. But nowadays there are Iyengars who speak other languages, mainly Telugu and Kannada. Vaishnavites have been living in the Tamil Nadu state of the India even prior to the time of Ramanuja.[citation needed] However, Iyengars as a community trace their origin from the times of Ramanuja.

"Nowadays" there are iyengars who speak Kannada and Telugu is a ridiculous statement. There have been communities of iyengars speaking kannada and telugu since Ramanuja was chased out of the Chola empire into the Hoysala empire. I am not sure if there is some kind of agenda here, but the statement above would be false.

>>is a caste given to Hindu Brahmins of Tamil origin who follow the Visishtadvaita philosophy propounded by Sri Ramanujacharya.[1] They are found mostly in Tamil Nadu as they are generally native to the Tamil Nadu state of India. But they are also found in large numbers in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh..

The history of iyengars indicates conflict between being in the caste system and being out of it, as the author himself acknowledges (though in a location no one would see). Rather than show the complexities, the author wants the world to fit in his agenda. Secondly, the thiruman is not a caste mark, it is a mark to show devotion. I think someone wants key phrases to appear here, rather than accuracies.

>> The word "Iyengar" is a relatively new name and was not used in any medieval works or scriptures. The word "Sri Vaishnava" would therefore be the right word to describe them, though all of them could be called as Sri Vaishnava Brahmins.[1] The word Iyengar is derived from Ayya a Prakrit version of the Sanskrit word Arya along with the Telugu honorific plural suffix garu.[7] Some others believe that the word "Iyengar" means one who is characterised by five attributes(Aindu angangal).[8] Lester, Robert C.[9] claims that the word “Ayyangaar” was first used by Kandhaadai Ramanuja Ayyangaar of Tirupathi around 1450 AD.

The second sentence is a logical fallacy. Just because Iyengar is a new word does not make its usage wrong. I suggest the author go to Pakistan and tell them they should actually be called Hindustan since pakistan is a new word.

Secondly, the author implicitly claims that Iyengar=Ayya+garu as the true etymology (since it is asserted without qualifications), and that other etymologies are not yet substantiated. This requires a citation, or else the author should place all theories on an equal footing.

Thirdly, why does only Lester get a citation by name while the others do not? It isn't as if Lester is someone an average person would care to know about, while the others actually seem better known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.61.47 (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

A "citation needed" tag is not appropriate for lead content that merely summarizes sourced material from the body of the article VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

For Dispute Mediation

The following content is being added for Dispute Mediation as filed here.

I do not know if this whole issue comes under Wiki:Arbitration. While the problem is with some wiki editors given to misquoting continuously, and pushing their own POVs by fictitiously attributing it to published data, the actual need is Mediation to resolve content and sources used in a particular section of the article titled Ethnicity, genetics and origin.

This pertains to a long standing dispute and is in continuation with the points discussed on this Talk:Iyengar page. There has been a deliberate attempt by some users to push their own fabricated conclusions of an ethnic–genetic difference between the peoples of Thengalai and Vadagalai. Examples are edits by Svr014 [[7]] and Hari7478 [[8]]

From 2009 to date this has not been resolved. The origin of this dispute is predominantly casteism. It is believed by some that Thengalais are Tamil-Speakers and absorbed Non-Brahmins into their fold. Thus, some Vadagalais seek separatism from them, in terms of ethnic / racial / caste purity. The source of the seemingly casteist stand is their religious notions of caste purity. However, genetic studies are being misused and misquoted by some such wiki editors to portray an ethnic-genetic difference between the two sects. To that end, general sources are also being misquoted. Hari7478 posits linguistic groups to indicate ethnicity / race and confuses between ethnicity and genetics.

This issue requires one to take into account the term "vada" which in Tamil means "north". This is taken by some to mean "North of the Tamil Country", which is current day Andhra and was known as Vadugavalli in the past; while others take "vada" to mean Northern India. Unless explicitly stated by a source, one cannot take "vada" to mean "Northern India" by default, or claim to be aryans or indo-aryan people "who once migrated from North India".

The current issue started on 07 June 2012 when I objected to the Sources. Hari7478 first reinstated the sources and the content, then removed one source [Man in India: Volume 58, by Sarat Chandra Roy (Rai Bahadur)] on cleft chin studies, possibly because he realized the utter falsity in using the paper to project a vadagalai - thengalai differentiation. But Hari7478 then added a source "Aryans in South India" by PP Narayana Nambudiri as a reference for his statement in the main article that “The Vadakalai Iyengars are believed to be an Indo-Aryan people who once migrated from North India.”

Giving the PP Narayana Namboodiri source, Hari stated under references in the main article, that “The page classifies Vadagalai & Madhwas as aryans of south india, under the "Vaisnava" section”. So I went went thru p.72 which Hari7478 provided as reference. However, it turned out yet another falsification. While the author PP Nambudiri posits all Brahmins to be Aryan in his book, he states nothing on Vadagalais as Aryans or Indo-Aryans “who once migrated from North India”. I reproduce p.72 of the PP Nambudiri source as below:

"A detailed classification of the Tamil brahmins under the major heads smarta and vaishnava with many sub-sections under each major head is given below :-209
1. Vadama 2. Kesigal 3. Brahacharanam 4. Vathima Madhama 5. Ashtasahasram 6. Dikshitar /.

Smarta
7. Sholiar 8. Mukkani 9. Kaniyalar 10. Sanketi 11. Prathamasaki 12. Gurukkal //.
Vaisnava
A. Vadagali (Northerners) 1. Sri Vaisnava 2. Vaikhanasa 3. Pancaratra 4.Hebbar
B. Thengalai (Southerners) 1. Sri Vaisnava 4. Hebbar 2. Vaikhanasa 5. Mandya 3. Pancaratra

The Smartas: They are divided into 12 sub-divisions. The Vadamas claim to be superior to all other classes of Tamil speaking brahmins. The term Vadama signifies northerners.210 They are again divided into five sub-divisions, namely Coladesa, Vadadisa, Savayar, Inji and Thummagunta Dravida. All the above divisions and sub-divisions are endogamous except the Tambala brahmins who correspond to Gurukkal among the Tamil brahmins. The Vaidikis are superior to the Niyogis."

I request Hari7478 to quote exact sentences from the book where it says Vadagalais and Madhwas "once migrated from north india".

Since this is a long-standing dispute with no end to misquoting, tending towards an edit war, and apparent stand by Hari7478 to even misquote Cavalli-Sforza as i found from this talk page, I seek mediation to resolve the following issues:
Issue # 1:
1) Misleading subheading titled Ethnicity, genetics and origin:
This heading has been used to differentiate between Vadagalai and Thengalai, by mentioning specific genetic studies in one section, while omitting the other, in such manner, that it portrays an ethnic-genetic difference between Vadagalais and Thengalais. I suggest removing this section. Alternatively, i suggest removing the term “Ethnicity” in this title. Before Max Weber, Race and Ethnicity were considered one and the same. Though intellectual circles came to differentiate between the two terms, till date however, a layman understands ethnicity and race to mean the same thing. The deliberate attempt to portray Vadagalais of Indo-Aryan ethnicity and Thengalais of Non-Indo-Aryan Tamil ethnicity, by demarcating and misquoting genetic studies and general sources to that effect, carries racial connotations with the intention of supplanting ethnicity with linguistic association.

Issue # 2:
2) The introductory line under Ethnicity, genetics and origin states:

"It is widely believed that the two sects are distinctly different in origin.[8][9]"

The sources [8] and [9] say no such thing nor support ethnic, genetic, and origin differences between Vadagalais and Thengalais. On the contrary source [8](The changing Indian civilization, by Oroon K. Ghosh, 1976) support mergers of deshaja (indigenous) priests into the Indo-Aryan ritual fold, before the ascendency of Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhawa. I am reproducing the entire page 283 of source [8]:

"Formerly, the priests of these regions were suspect. Thus, Hemadri in his Chatur-varga-chintamani quotes from the Saura Purana: "The Brahmans of Anga, Vanga, Kalinga, Saurashtra, Gurjara, Abhira, Konkana, Dravida, Dakshinapatha, Avanti and Magadha should be avoided". Now these deshaja (indigenous) and foreign-origin priests were absorbed in the North- Indian priestly tradition in the Age of Syncretism. This is particularly true in the South, where four stages may be postulated -

(i) Matrilineal Indusian priests over the whole of South, coming from South Iran and Baluchistan with the Iron Age groups, as brought out in Chapter 9. They were Dravidian-speaking and and echoes of their universality and supremacy in the South still survive, in spite of many incrustations, in the temple of the Mother Goddess Meenakshi at Madurai, where she is clearly superior to and more important than her consort, Sundareswarar.
(ii) In the post-Maurya Time of Troubles many Brahmans must have fled from the North West and infiltrated to the South, loaded with gifts and favours by rulers like the greatly "Sanskritising" Pallavas of Kanchi (300-880 AD). These Vadamars or Vadagalai, ie "Northerners" as distinct from the Tongalai or "Southerners"" must have introduced Sanskrit and Patriarchal Aryo-Indian rites.
(iii) In the Age of Syncretism all the deshaja or "native South Indian deities like Murugan, Subrahmanya, Ayappan, Sastha, the great Meenakshi herself, and others were grouped, and merged with Shiva, Shakti and Vishnu, and their priests admitted into the Aryo-Indian fold.

(iv) Finally, the South Indian brahmans became ascendant with Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhava on the intellectual side ; and with the creators of the Bhakti religion, the Shaiva Nayanars and the Vaishnava Alwars on the emotional side.”

Source [9] provided is "Pg.132 Human Heredity, Karger., 1976. Google Books. 22 November 2006. Retrieved 15 November 2011".
It is a paper titled "Inbreeding among Some Brahman Populations of Tamil Nadu, by S.Srinivasan and D.P.Mukherjee.
Contrary to Hari7478's claim, the quoted page 132 does not support that statement that "the two sects are distinctly different in origin". Source [9] mentions nothing about Vadagalai-Thengalai origin differences, migration of Vadagalai from Northern India, or exclusivity of Vadagalais. On the contrary, the stated page 132 mentions a regional influence as follows:

"The Vadama and the Vadagalai who belong to different sects, but have northern origin in common as indicated by the Tamil prefix Vada, and show the closest agreement in the frequencies of different types of earlobe and hand clasping among the Tamil Brahmans [Srinivasan and Mukherjee, 1974], are characterized by lower incidence of first cousin marriages and higher incidence of marriages between more distant relatives. There is a level of agreement in the levels of inbreeding among Tamil Brahmans, Ayyars and Ayyangars from different states (table II). But a regional influence is also indicated by the higher value of F in the Vadagalai sample from Andhra Pradesh and the lower value of F in the Ayyar sample from Kerala. The matrilineal tradition restricting maternal uncle-niece marriages in Kerala might, of course, have influenced the local Tamil Brahmans."

Issue # 3:
A statement under Vadakalai Iyengar:

"The Vadakalai Iyengars are believed to be an Indo-Aryan people who once migrated from North India.[11][12]"

Source [11] is given as "The changing Indian civilization: a perspective on India. Minerva Associates. 1976. pp. 283, 160". This is exactly the same as source [8], which is "The changing Indian civilization: a perspective on India", by Oroon K. Ghosh, 1976. I have reproduced the entire page 283 of this source above. I request Hari7478 to quote exact sentences from pages 283, 160 or any other part of the book where it says Vadakalais are Indo-Aryan people who once migrated from North India.
Source [12] is given as "Pg.72, Aryans in South India – by P. P. Nārāyanan Nambūdiri, Inter-India Publications."
I have reproduced p.72 of this book above. As mentioned earlier, the author PP Nambudiri posits all Brahmins to be Aryan in his book, but states nothing on Vadagalais as Aryans or Indo-Aryans “who once migrated from North India”.

Issue # 4:
A statement under Vadakalai Iyengar:

"In a genetic study in Andhra Pradesh all individuals examined among Vadakalai Iyengars showed a high similarity of rhesus(d) gene frequency with the people of Faislabad in the Punjab province of Pakistan.[13] All the individuals examined among Vadakalai Iyengars showed Rhesus(D) positive with a high frequency of the D allele while the other castes from Andhra showed a low frequency of the D allele.[13]"

The source [13] quoted is "Hameed, Amjad; Hussain, Wajahat; et al. (2002). "Prevalence of Phenotypes and Genes of ABO and Rhesus (Rh) Blood Groups in Faisalabad, Pakistan". Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences (Asian Network for Scientific Information) 5 (6): 722–724. Retrieved 17 February 2012".

Hameed's paper quotes a 1980 study by Reddy et al to draw a commonality between Indian and Pakistani populations as follows:

""In a study in Andhra Pradesh,India, all individuals examined among the Vadagalai Ayangar Brahmins were Rh(D)-positive while other populations showed a low frequency of D allele (Reddy et al.,1980). This similarity in frequency of Rhesus(D) genes in India and Pakistan can be attributed to the common history of these populations."

This paper has been placed under Vadagalai section in continuation of the portrayal of Vadgalai - Thenkalai difference. This paper was formerly used by Hari7478 to mention that "the above mentioned genetic similarity between the vadakalai and the punjabis of pakistan portrays the Indo-aryan origin of the Vadakalai iyengars". However, now the direct mention has been omitted out, but the placement and usage of this paper to cater to the Vadagalai - Thengalai differentiation remains the same. Since this paper does not support that (1) Vadagalais are of Aryan North-Indian origin, or (2) Genetically different from Tengalais; i suggest that this paper should not be used or mentioned under this section which seeks to superimpose genetics on preconceived notions of ethnicity, especially with a heading as Ethnicity, genetics and origin

Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

New Source

I do not know what is the outcome of the Formal Wiki:Dispute Mediation. Would like to know if i can add the following source to the article:
Asiatic Society of Bombay (1917). Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay, Volume 24, p.109,
which traces the life of Sri Varadacharya, developments though which Vadagalai identified with sanskritic lore and Tengalai with prabandhic lore, the distinct cleavage that came to take place between these two in the 14th and 15th centuries; and states the following (both from p.109):

"From these facts it will be understood that the terms Vadagalai and Tengalai are both linguistic and geographical in origin. Linguistically they mean the followers of the Sanskrit and Tamil lores, and geographically the followers of the Conjeeveram and Srirangam Schools. Varadacharya's Acharyaship was thus a most momentous epoch in the history of Vaishnavism....."

and

""As a matter of fact, Vedantacharya never asserted any such thing, - he never pitted the north against the south. The terms Vadagalai and Tengalai refer to the relative importance attached to Sanskrit (northern lore) and Tamil (southern lore) and not to any doctrines of North India as distinct from South India. There is indeed a geographical significance in these terms ; but the North refers to Conjeevaram and South to Srirangam at first, later on Alvar Tirunagari further south,-and not to North and South Indias. (See J.R.A.S., iota, p.714.)"

--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

No, not really. It is pretty old and this issue is contentious enough without relying on an old source that itself appears to be citing even older sources. - Sitush (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: there was a lot of rubbish written by amateurs and people who held very peculiar views regarding society (eg: scientific racism) around this time. We are not in a position to evaluate such things and so unless you can find a more modern source that does, they are rather dodgy. - Sitush (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright Sitush, will look for latest sources. Please clarify regarding sources that can be used:

1) Cud not find english sources stating vadagalais came from north india. If there is a tamil source (and am sure there will be), will that be acceptable?

2) For historical publications, what time period can be considered too old? I mean just as we accept technology change from Windows 98 to Windows XP, so also we accept new technology proven to yield results with genetic tests and such like. So in such fields we depend on better technology and latest results. As a matter of fact, such technology did not exist in the past. But with history, and historical sources, its just tracing stuff based on old-old texts, inscriptions, archaeological evidence, etc. So not sure how old can be considered too old for historical publications? Guidelines to follow in this will be helpful. How latest should a source be? Hope others (Qwyrxian, SpacemanSpiff, etc) also pitch in with their views (dunno perhaps this needs common consensus(?)). Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Sitush, i intend to work on Sattada Srivaishnava also. Looking forward to your involvement there. Deciding on guidelines here is a good idea so that we can follow the same in other articles too. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

As far as Tamil sources are concerned, they will have to comply with WP:RS just like any others. Additionally, you should probably take a look at WP:NOENG for details regarding how we should deal with non-English sources. Regarding the rest of your query, well, there can be no fixed rule: much depends on the circumstances but please, please do not hold the opinion that the study of history does not advance and that it is somehow a mere repetition of prior studies and/or "just" using the same old primary sources time and again. I understand why you might think that but it is quite wide of the mark. Otherwise, for example, we'd still all be using the misguided James Tod or Macaulay. Finally, I've found that searching to prove a point is often not the best way to approach a subject: in trying to verify what you know, you often miss huge chunks of stuff that, for example, say differently. If you have the time then read around it, rather than target a particular point of view. - Sitush (talk) 10:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush. I agree its not a good idea to search for info to prove a point, maybe this whole issue got to my head. My history knowledge is lacking so wud appreciate guidance on that from time to time. I suppose its better i stay away from this article for a while, until others start making edits here, so i can see what the flow is like. Am away for a month from next week so will catch up on return. Best wishes.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

The double residence of Ramanuja is one reason for the vertical division. Both Mysore and Trichinopoly claimed to have personal knowledge of his teaching. Consequenly ideological differences arose centering these cities with southern school (the Tengalai) inclined to regard the Tamil Naalaayiram over Sanskrit scriptures, and Northern school (Vadagalais) insisting on the authority of the Vedas (though not rejecting the Naalayiram). For those of you who may know sanskrit- the two doctrines are called markaṭa-nyaya (monkey theory) and marjara-nyaya (cat theory). Hence north-south refers to Mysore-Trichonopoly based difference in doctrines. The Project Gutenberg released in August 2005 an EBook of Hinduism And Buddhism, Volume II. (of 3) by Charles Eliot. You can find this there as a reliable english source for the above statements. VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't bother: Eliot is not a particularly good source and the work of both him and Dowson is often abused here. You need a much more modern source, which surely there must be. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

We may then have to specifically "define" what is MODERN (recent times). (1) Are there any specific guidelines in wikipedia about interpretation of "modern source" in terms of exact years (2) Can individual users set "the year" that decides what comprises modern ? or has it to be negotiated through consensus ? (3) In case of no subsequent "work" on that topic say after year-X then can the last available work in that topic be considered modern or should we keep waiting for the apple to fall down from the tree ? (4) Definition of modern literature for "caste" may be different from that of say "computer" can we apply the same year parameter for both ? I think we need a consensus on all this before saying 40 years is modern or 70 years is antiquitated.VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not getting involved in more of this semantics crap. I have a lot of experience of Wikipedia and you have very little, but there is a limit to how many articles I can handle when you challenge every little thing. Try some AGF. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am going to overlook that comment as a goodwill towards you. But careful: “I have a lot of experience of Wikipedia and you have very little” is inappropriate. Wikipedia clearly states that comments from editors in a manner implying some kind of inappropriate right or status exists because of any factor is inappropriate (I know more-you know little is one such).

I think you may have identified the problem rightly - you may be handling more than you can.Take a break or narrow your watchlist. Quality not quantity is more important in such matters - We are all human. Think about what i said carefully with a calm mind. VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Telling me that will ignore it is an acknowledgement of not ignoring it. Childish. I am well aware of the guidelines etc but you have to use some common sense here: And do not give me life adviceyou patronising so-and-so.

Since you are so good at researching policies etc, go research WP:RSN and other such pages, or check Q's usual opinion regarding older sources. Can you find a more modern source, please. Others have already appreciated that this is the way to go here. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I realize that the article is a source of contention, but remind all editors to maintain a civil tone and abstain from ad hominem arguments. Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 00:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The tone is a spill-over from some rather tendentious stuff at Talk:Nair. I am sure that we will all calm down, given a few hours and a bit of common sense on all sides. Sorting out this article is no big deal, really. That it has been such a mess for so long is because of COI etc. I have no possible COI wrt it ... and I have a lot of experience of dealing with these things, including the inevitably resultant (always unsuccessful) reportings of me to WP:ANI. Tomorrow is anoher day! - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I donot understand why we should not contain the “spill-over” if we acknowledge that it is the “content” of the dispute that should take eminence over “who” is having the dispute. For me a talk in Page X of an IR-Topic is independent of a talk in Page-Y of IRT. Presently assuming WP:AGF I shall overlook the “spill-over”. You are a good editor and I respect you for that, but “spill-overs” can be counter-productive to the greater benefit of consensus-building aimed at improving the respective article in question.

Let us therefore continue our focus and discuss on Vadagalai- Tengalai differences and what can be considered a "modern" citation for the same.Kindly re-consider the 4 points that i have addressed earlier on what is "modern". Thanks in advance. VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There is not definition of modern, nor do we require modern sources. However, we know that most earlier sources (especially those from the early twentieth century) were terribly biased and do not meet the requirements of WP:RS. And that is what this really comes down to, in Wikipedia terms: a source must be reliable to be used. We have strong evidence that much earlier documentation (though not all) is unreliable except for basic facts (and even then, we have to look at exactly how the facts were gathered; for example, a lot of the colonizers simply took whatever their local informants told them as historical fact, and never bothered to actually do any research). So, no, we don't need to, nor will we even consider, defining a hard and fast rule. But that doesn't prevent us from having discussions and coming to consensus decisions that a certain category of sources are likely to be unreliable. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding a reference if it does not meet WP:RS and avoiding a refernce by throwing around the word "not modern enough" are two different things. Whether "modern" needs to be defined because it is constantly being used to discredit suggestion of citations from other users is something everybody has to decide. I or you are not the important factor in this but what the "collective-opinion" is that what matters. I donot want to think "nor will we even consider" is a spill-over, in any case I am willing to overlook it.Yes, I agree with you that "having discussions and coming to consensus decisions that a certain category of sources are likely to be unreliable" is the important thing. But if discrediting the source was done on grounds of not being "modern" - the onus of defining "modern" becomes imminent. VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It simply is not possible to define "modern" because it depends on the context, as WP:RS explains. Judging which sources are ok for Wikipedia and which are not is something that can be tricky and (sorry to harp back to this) experience can be important. The Wikipedia "way" is in some respects idiosyncratic. However, if Eliot is sound then he will have been cited by more recent sources for the point that you make. It is the nature of historians/anthropologists etc to revisit, recap and often rebuild what their predecessors said, and for an academic to do that requires that they cite the precedessors. The issue in question is clearly complex and clearly a cause of controversy, which makes it all the more likely that Eliot's research etc has been used/accepted/rejected by people writing in, say, the last 30 years or so. Note: I am not setting a rule disbarring sources that are older than 30 years but in this instance it seems reasonable that we can find something suitable. Can you imagine what we would look like if we cited Risley's theories of racial origins as if they were current academic consensus? Or James Tod on pretty much anything to do with Rajasthani history before his own era? Stupid, racist, ignorant and sloppy, that's what. - Sitush (talk)

You pretty much re-affirmed my point yourself . “It simply is not possible to define "modern" because it depends on the context”. Therefore one has to exercise caution when on discredits reference suggested by other Users by throwing around the word "not modern enough" repeatedly. Hence, Say 30, Say 40 etc at the end of the day are arbitrary and has to be a “collective editor-opinion”.

Streamlining on the core-issue. Have we seen any instances where Vadagalai-Tengalai origin (not just the apparent differences) was attributed to another author other than Elliot in the last 30 years ? If so what was the alternate author that took eminence over Elliot on referencing Vadagalai-Tengalai origin ? Without one such - how can we hypothesize/ speculate that Eliot may not be the preferred citation for his academic-successors on Vadagalai-Tengalai origin ? The present Iyengar article only summarizes the differences between Vadagalai and Thengalai in their practices, beliefs, theological outlook etc but does not adequately give the reason why/how these differences came about in the first place (namely its origin). It is within this context that – Geographical genesis-nodes of these schools and their relationship to Ramanuja’s residence gains significance. VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Iyers

This article contain a fair few asides concerning the Iyers. That community has its own article and I can see no reason for us to engage in a "compare and contrast" of the two here. I guess, however, that there may be a reason that is lost in the textual morass. Can anyone spot it? - Sitush (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Vadakalai and Thenkalai

It is a well known fact that Vadakalai=Northerners, and thenkalai are southerners. It is a mere translation and everyone knows this. Above all, the fact is supported by sources. But recently, a user had changed it as "Vad=south, and then'=north", which is too mischievous. It's like saying "arctic is south pole while the antarctic is in the north" - laughable indeed. It makes the whole article unstable. But, it is a silly and laughable piece of contrib' which has to be reverted right away. Above all, the reference provided(the particular inline citation) has it all. Making a small change like that might go unnoticed, but it is too big(figuratively), as it changes the whole interpretation. I can't believe this is happening. Too silly!! Anyhow, i'm posting the refs here with explanation.

• [9] - It goes as - "These vadamars or vadagalai ie northerners" as distinct from tongalai or southerners. - The changing Indian civilization: a perspective on India - Oroon K. Ghosh
  
  
• [10] - "They were divided into Vadakalai(northern) and thenkalai(southern) castes". - Rural society in southeast india by Kathleen Gough, published by Cambridge university press
  
  
• [11] - Vadakalai(Northerners) - Pg.72, Aryans in South India – by P. P. Nārāyanan Nambūdiri, Inter-India Publications.
  
  
• [12] - Vadagalai(Northerners) & Thengalai(Southerners) - Linguistic Culture and Language Policy By Harol Schiffman (published by Routledge-London, Taylor & Francis e library, Routledge-New York)
  
  

Thank You!! Hari7478 (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hari, my brain flipped. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's alright. Actually, the first edit was made by a one "user:Hayagreevadasa". Hari7478 (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

another source

Agree with Mayasutra's reliability of source. Another source attributing the same reason

Patricia Y. Mumme, The Srivaisnava Theological Dispute: Manavalamamuni and Vedanta Desika, 1988 "it developed a theological dispute and sectarian schism over whether that grace is given in cooperation with human effort" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastnfurios (talk • contribs) 02:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Edgar Thurston as a source

The works of Edgar Thurston are of very dubious reliability and I intend to remove them. Do we have any more recent sources for the information currently attributed to him? - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Vadakalai Vs Tenkalai (again)

Sitush, I refer to the Vadakalai vs Tenkalai section, which i intend to fix as per the objections raised earlier on, with the Wiki Dispute Mediation. I suppose you are aware of Robert Lester, who was a professor with the Dept of Religious Studies at the U of Colorado; and did extensive research on the Srivaishnava religion. I refer to his paper, Rāmānuja and Śrī-Vaiṣṇavism: The Concept of Prapatti or Śaraṇāgati, published in the History of Religions, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Winter, 1966), pp. 266-282. Kindly note the following reproduced from the paper:

Less than 150 years after Ramanuja's death his followers split into two well-defined groups: Tengalai ("Southern") and Vadagalai ("Northern"). The split had practical as well as theological bases, but it centered on the question of human effort versus divine grace in effecting the highest goal. Both of these schools of thought affirm bhagavadprapatti ("resorting to the Lord") to be the supreme means to moksa, the Tengalai defining prapatti as mere receptivity or lack of opposition to divine grace, the Vadagalai insisting that prapatti must involve a positive act on the part of one desirous of moksa before divine grace can effect such an end. The latter school, defined by Vedanta Desika, makes prapatti a six-member (shadanga) ritual act involving the recitation of certain mantras. Both schools claim Ramanuja as the central authority for such affirmations, the Tengalai appealing to Gitabhasya 18.66 and the Vadagalai to the Gadyatraya.

During the time of Ramanuja himself, there was nothing called Vadagalai and Thengalai. But after Ramanuja passed on, his followers divided themselves on the basis of philosophy, into Vadagalai and Tengalai; such that the prapatti ritual itself differs somewhat between these two sects. Thereafter the followers created geographical locations as their base, such that vadagalai followers centered in Kanchipuram and Tengalai followers in Srirangam. As noted in J.R.A.S. source above, "...North refers to Conjeevaram and South to Srirangam at first, later on Alvar Tirunagari further south,- and not to North and South Indias".

I believe Robert Lester is an acceptable source (all his publications are recent; not old). Can i proceed to make appropriate changes to the article? Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

@ all - Just because there are theological differences between the two sects doesn't mean "there's no ethnic difference". If Thurston is removed, it makes Mumme & Lester sources even less reliable. But Thurston's source has a peer review(Article, The Hindu, 1992) to back it up. Additionally, an author's description on "theological differences" are indeed assumptions and theories based on "deductive reasoning", acceptable though. However, you can't counter a "genetic/anthropological/museological" study with "theoretical reasoning". Nevertheless, the possibility of a "split/common origin" has also been mentioned in the opening line of the corresponding section. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Re to Hari7478

You are contradicting yourself. If there was a "split/common origin" to begin with; how can Vadakalai and Thenkalai be ethnically different communities? Please provide full reference (date, page number) of 'The Hindu' peer review on Thurston. I suspect you are misquoting sources again. Btw, Thurston did not research into religion. He merely recorded claims made by individuals, no matter how inflated they may be (including descent from Brahma). His job was to aid census and ethnography survey. Robert Lester on the other hand has been a standing professor of religion with extensive research into Srivaishnavism, origins of the Srivaishnava community and their sampradayas. As for the genetic/anthropological/blah blah assumptions you make; each of them (including misquoting sources to support your half-baked assumptions of racism) have been addressed in the section For Dispute Mediation; from which you chickened out, instead of agreeing for mediation. So either you agree for mediation this time around; or keep away from edits based on your assumptions. Make your choice and let me know. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Re from Hari7478

Though i couldn't find the '92 article after an exhaustive online search, i came across a new and a better review by the same Daily(The Hindu) which praises Thurston's 7 volume work as "an extraordinary input to the understanding of the diversity in Indian society." See here: http://www.hindu.com/mag/2010/01/24/stories/2010012450180400.htm . When a primary source is reviewed by a reliable "daily newspaper" you cannot dispute its authenticity(according to wiki' policies/norms), however you may opine. It's not a question of what you're saying, it's a question of what Wikipedia policy is saying. You have no right to give options, for me to make my choice. Since your conduct here isn't even close to being in the same vicinity of wp:talkpage guidelines, you leave me no choice but to request for wikiquette assistance. I suppose you already got a warning from another user for this behavior of yours in the past, and this response of yours is even more flaming.
I'm hereby listing a few reasons why i didn't agree to the mediation -

• More than focussing on article content, you were simply busy pointing out the other editor's(my) contribs by using names in discussions. Your talk page comments(the one above) are again examples of "incivility & stubbornness". The first thing ab't dispute mediation that you need to realize is "what is to be learned from this?". Your opinion ab't Lester being a "a standing professor of religion with extensive research into Srivaishnavism" is not even a valid counter arguement. Wikipedia is not about winning. I repeat - it's not a question of what you're saying, it's a question of what Wikipedia policy is saying.
  

• Regarding your comments on Lester's expertise on religion - you're again relating religion to a caste/ethnicity/community related article. Just because most Indian brahmin castes are closely tied up to religion doesn't mean it requires citations from religious experts. Thurston is a renowned expert in the field of museology & ethnology, and his works have been given a positive review by a renowned Daily. That's all that matters here in wiki. By the way Lester's books are from the 1970s and i hope you remember Sitush & Qwyrxian discussing the validity of these sources, sometime back in the same talk page.
  

Honestly, any other experienced user/admin would have done the same that i did. Hari7478 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Re to Hari7478 (contd)

You do not even seem to know what peer reviewed articles are (Thurston produced a vast output of writings, and is deserving of the glowing tributes paid to him. However, there has been no peer review for his articles on Iyengars, or on any other community for that matter). Just because some people claim fanciful origins for themselves, does not make it correct. Anyways, am not against Thurston as a source. The article can very well mention "In colonial period, Vadakalais claimed to be northerners, etc, etc" and attribute the sentence to Thurston as a source. However, all your other points on genetics / ethnicity, etc, are merely your own assumptions. You have blatantly misquoted sources. Time and again, you have passed off your falsified claims and half-baked theories of racism; by attributing them to sources which convey no such thing. In such a case, there is no choice but to apply for mediation again.

Unfortunately, Sitush made alterations to the disputed section. Nevertheless, since you were the main author, and there is back-up with your meandering empty arguments, and ignorance, on display; the wiki mediation will be on (or against) you. Apparently, you do not want your ignorance, and devious attribution of (your) racist ideas to sources (which you misquote), to be questioned on a formal mediation platform, hence you do not agree to mediation. Nevertheless, you are answerable.

I request Sitush or any other admin to lock this article to protect against any changes. After the lock is put in place, will write out the mediation request. Otherwise, am afraid the sources and reference numbers may be altered; and mediation will become a cumbersome process on that account.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

"Castes and Tribes" is a 7 volume work by Thurston, and no one's going to give a "Chapter/unit specific" review. I never made-up things and i've explained my contribs to a few other experienced users in the past(reg sensitive contribs). I'll post the link to the '92 review soon. Finally, regarding the mediation - you badmouthed me even before your first mediation request, but then you apologized only when you wanted to get things done. This time your comments are not even in the same standard as the "least civil talk page comment". For example "meandering...half-baked...etc" are evident of your abusive behavior here. Being abusive won't get you anywhere - I won't be intimidated by such behaviour and i've been too patient, but not anymore. This will only serve to alienate people from such(abusive) users in a discussion. And, i'm not the one who's making changes to this article now. This article is already under the watchlist of a a few admins and they know what's best. Hari7478 (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

So, apparently you think 'The Hindu' newspaper article is a 'peer review' on Thurston. Ah well...no point talking to your likes. Anyways, this is a case of scientific racism (just as Sitush mentioned earlier). You have constantly fabricated, falsified and misquoted sources to pass off your theories (yes, half-baked and meandering) on genetics as well as general sources to that effect. All your allegations of me being uncivil, abusive, is simply an escape route for you to evade answering issues raised for mediation. So what am going to do is delete all the trash you put into the article. If this goes into an edit war, there is nothing you can do except agree for mediation. Good luck. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

JUst to follow up on this, I've removed Thurston from the article. As Mayasutra says, the fact that a newspaper commented favorably upon his book does not make him a reliable source for historical information, particularly that which is embedded in the scientific racism for which Thurston is known. The question is not whether a newspaper likes him, but whether historians find his accounts to be reliable and accurate--and they very much do not. Let me say that again, but more carefully: if we wanted to provide a source that demonstrated scientific racism, or the colonizers view of Indian caste in the 19th century, then we could cite Thurston. But we cannot cite Thurston for what was actually "true" about the groups, castes, or history of the time. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahobila Mutt 5the Jeeyar Thenkalai

According to Ahobila Mutt, 5the Jeeyar is thenkalai http://www.ahobilamutt.org/us/acharya/bio/as2-7.asp

This is not a sensitive information when both parties agree to this. hari7478 not allowing to add this in Thenkalai or Vadakalai page.

hari7478 agree to mediation with Wiki.

(the above portion was written by Fastnfurious)

Re from Hari7478

As mentioned previously, Ahobila mutt(a srivaishnava source) is not a neutral party source for a challenged data. Even if both parties agree to this, it's not a valid wiki' src. It is possible that the agreement by both parties is intended to avoid conflicts in the future, as it has happened in the past. By the way, this is not be included in this talk page. It doesn't matter what you say. All that matters is what wiki policy says. Challenged data needs neutral party ref. Hari7478 (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Re to FastnFurious

Fastnfurious, am not inclined to get into mutt issues. Am only concerned about Hari7478 repeatedly misquoting sources to pass off his falsified claims on racism / ethnicity. Thanks, --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

I don't see when/where this was added to the article, but if anyone was trying to use [13] as a source, they can't, because it's not a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Both of you (Mayasutra and Hari7478) should be blocked for edit warring--Mayasutra especially because you specifically indicated in an edit summary that you knew you were edit warring. The two of you should hope that a more lenient admin than myself takes a look at this and decides to protect the page rather than block you two. I'm WP:INVOLVED (having commented in discussions above), and as such, cannot use my administrative tools here. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, When i edited the disputed content, user Hari7478 did not do anything. But after rearranging text and making the whole article somewhat proper, Hari7478 decided to revert. So i expected this to end in edit warring. I sincerely expect admin intervention. So long there has been no admin intervention (did not know Sitush was unwell). Anyways, since Hari7478 is not agreeing for mediation, have brought the issue to the ANI page. At least there he needs to explain why he is misquoting sources to pass off his half-baked ethnic/race origin theories of Vadakalai and Thenkalai. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Mayasutra

Ethnicity, genetics and origin

Nothing in this section talked about either ethnicity or genetics. I have changed the title to "subgroups". I know that Mayasutra prefers "subsects", but I think that term is unnecessarily technical, and "subgroups" will be more accessible to most readers. Now, if someone wants to make a section that actually talks about ethnicity or genetics, fine, do so...but this isn't it. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, there were two sentences on genetics. However, I'm removing them. This is because there has been a dispute about exactly what the papers say. I'm of the opinion that any genetic studies need to be used with extreme care, because it is extraordinarily easy to misrepresent them, usually to say more than they actually say. Most results that I have seen (though I will admit I haven't read very many) are quite tentative, and limited to a small group that may or may not be representative of a larger population. I will attempt to read the article, but that kind of reading is..well..not so fun, so give me time. I'll put the disputed sentence here:

In a genetic study in Andhra Pradesh all individuals examined among Vadakalai Iyengars showed a high similarity of rhesus(d) gene frequency with the people of Faislabad in the Punjab province of Pakistan. All the individuals examined among Vadakalai Iyengars showed Rhesus(D) positive with a high frequency of the D allele while the other castes from Andhra showed a low frequency of the D allele.

Until such time as we can come to a consensus about exactly what we should say from this paper we should say nothing. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sentence removed

I have removed the following sentence from the article:

These sects may be of distinctly different in origin, but it is possible that they emerged in the 14th century AD following a split in the community.

After looking at the quotations from the books provided by Mayasutra in the last ANI discussion (now archived, can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Hari7478 and Mayasutra, round 2, Mayasutra kindly provided texts of the first two sources, and neither supports the claim there. I don't know what the third source says, but if it is helpful, we'll need to rephrase it so that it stands on its own. I recommend that before you do so, given the sourcing problems we've had so far, that a full and complete quotation for context is provided here on the talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Info with sources

• Qwyrxian, whatever be the claims made here(along with sources), please be here to moderate and analyze them, before we could add them to the main article. That is all i ask. I want to be on the safer side this time and am not willing to risk a block again. So we'll post our sources with explanations, but please go through them and validate. Some obvious copy-pastes of data evidently found in the source could be done right away, by you. I'm posting links with explanations. It could be understood by anybody. I hope you looked into my recent message in my talk page, about the other user's version. I'm posting links to a few of my sources. See below:
  
• [14] - According to this source, P.P.Narayanan Nambudiri mentions the names of most Southern Indian brahmin castes, including both Vadakalai and Thenkalai, as aryans of south india(discussing these castes alone), while in the introductory note he says - "the Aryans of North India during their exploratory travels down south of the Vindhyas decided to settle in the area known today as South India." Although the Thenkalai are mentioned as aryans too, there are some other contradicting sources according to which "Thenakalais incorporated a sizable proportion of non-brahmins into their fold". Hence, i wanted to discuss more before mentioning thenkalais as aryan. This is exactly why i mentioned Vadakalai as Aryan.
  
• [15] - Last page, 11th line to the left - according to which "all individuals examined among Vadagalai(alternative spelling) ayangar brahmins were rhd positive while other populations showed a low frequency of the D allele. The similarity in the frequency of rhesus-d genes in india and pakistan can be attrubuted to the common history of the people". Here it specifically refers to Vadakalai(with high rhd+) as the people of India who have similar gene frequencies with those of Faislabad, Pakistan. By the way, it's a secondary source and from a neutral party.
  
• [16] - According to this, both Vadakalais(alternatively spelled as as vadahalai) & Thenkalais(mispelled as tengalai) are mentioned as Indo-Hittite(List of allele frequencies). However not all brahmins are mentioned as hittite. Some telugu brahmins are mentioned under elamo-dravidian. According to this page of the same source[17] Indo-hittite is synonymous with Indo-European --which could be mentioned, because "Hittite" is an unfamiliar term with commoners/viewers.
  
• However, there are other sources that say that Thenkalais have "incorporated a sizable proportion of non-brahmins(of south india) into their fold". See Thenkalai section. This is exactly why i was hesitant to mention Thenkalai as aryan. However, there are adequate sources(new ones/secondary sources) that prove beyond doubt the Aryan/Indo-European genes/origins of Vadakalai.
  
• Please analyze them as the data mentioned here are evidently found in the sources, and adding them to the article would just be a direct copy paste. Such obvious ones could be done by you yourself. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It would be far easier for us simply to ignore all this genetics mess. The science is relatively new and rapidly changing, while the sources are often contradictory, of small sample size and highly technical in nature. Practically every scientific paper written on the subject has the appearance of being a primary source.

I did once enquire at WP:DNA for assistance in assessment of this type of thing and I got nowhere - even people who presumably have an interest in how genetics are dealt with on Wikipedia seemingly do not want to get involved when it comes to Indian castes and communities. Perhaps it is different on hi-WP or ml-WP etc, but we are at English WP and all genetics in the Indic context seem to do here is cause horrendous problems and make our articles incredibly difficult to understand.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sitush. I'm not asking anyone to interpret them. All i asked for is a direct copy-paste so that it is coherent with the other brahmin-caste related articles(such as Iyer). Otherwise, such issues need to be taken to the WT:INB noticeboard where a decision could be reached, regarding all caste related articles(on genetics). Until then, I suppose we could add them to the article, and i don't think it would lead to any edit-warring if it is a direct copy-paste from the source, along with the corresponding inline citations. And i really hope to see your comments here, even though you may not be involved in active editing in the main article. Atleast I hope you guys could understand that i didn't misrepresent them in the past. The rh+ source and Cavali-sforza ref are too big to be omitted. Even, according to Cavali-Sforza source, both Vadakalai & Pakistani castes are mentioned under Indo-Hittite/Indo-European. They are too big to be omitted. Atleast for now, especially when it would just be a direct copy-paste, we could include them. Hari7478 (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless we copy/pasted the entire source, we'd never be representing it fairly and would run the risk of cherry-picking. And we cannot copy/paste the entirety because it would contravene our policies relating to copyright. I'm not even making an attempt to understand the terminology: I am not a stupid person, I've tried previously and I came to the conclusion that in this sphere, genetics-based sources can be twisted to suit the purpose of any person's POV. If people involved in the WP genetics project can't sort it out, I certainly cannot.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see source 6; all I see is the word "A. Vadagali (Northerners)"; the rest does not appear. I'll need to see the full page at least. Also, note that that is not one of the sources that was in that sentence. The genetics stuff is for the other sentence; you cannot combine two sources together to draw a conclusion that neither draws. Please discuss the 2 parts separately (and don't put a subheading for your response). Source 8 doesn't seem to have anything to do with this sentence at all. So, in short, you seem to be basically taking 3-5 different sources, throwing them all together in a blender, even though they all use different spellings, different methodologies, and different paradigms, and drawing a singular conclusion from them. That is WP:SYNTH, a type of original research. We need to say explicitly and exactly what the sources say, using our own words. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Indian caste names, even the same ones, often come in a variety of alternative spellings while translating them(Vadakalai/Vadagalai/Vadagali/Vadahalai and Thenkalai/Tenkalai/Tengalai/Tengali). There are pages with most of these alternative spellings that are redirected to Vadakalai & Thenkalai wiki pages, respectively. Secondly, i'm not asking for /or giving a cognitive interpretation. The various data could be mentioned as different sentences along with the corresponding inline ciations in the main article, although i tried to explain the similarity between them in the talk page(merely intended to keep the sources, and not remove them citing the complexity of genetic science related discoveries). I'm not "asking anyone/intending" to club them in the main article. Rearding source 6, reproducing the page won't be enough for your verification as you need to see the whole book(atleast the introductory pages) for a better understanding. The book is about Aryans who settled in South India, and the author discusses the various aryan communities of Southern India with specific sub-headings. Hari7478 (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hari, this debate has gone on for so long and across so many different pages that I'm finding it difficult to follow. Am I at least correct in thinking that you are proposing to include as statements of fact the opinions of people who support the Aryan Brahmin/Aryan Invasion Theory and to do so without noting the equally vast literature that disputes the theory?--2.219.218.79 (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I simply wanted to make it coherent as in the Iyer page, especially when the Iyengar sub-communities are mentioned in the sources. Although the three sources mentioned above are disconnected, and though i intended to include them as seperate/disjoint information under separate lines, i was just explaining a similarity here in the talk page for our understanding so that we need not entirely remove the sources based on their complexity and controversiality. Otherwise the article will be reduced to a minuscule. By the way, under the section "History", there are no reliable sources and the ones cited are from pro-Iyengar websites(srivaishnavam.org), which is also the case with "language and dialect". I don't think nilacharal(cited under "dialect with kannada substrate") is a reliable source while the rest of the section is unsourced. "Brahmin tamil" is used to describe both the "Iyengar & Iyer" dialects, however the section describes brahmin tamil as an exclusive Iyer dialect - unsourced & controversial. Hari7478 (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Iyer article is far from being coherent. In common with most Brahmin-related articles, it needs a lot of work but changes meet with a lot of resistance from people with conflicts of interest etc. In fact, Fowler&fowler - who knows his stuff - has said on a few occasions that the Brahmin content hosted on Wikipedia is arguably more POV-y and worse-written than even those articles that have made spurious claims to kshatriya status. One day, I'll be taking a hatchet to them and the Iyer article is right near the top of my list. As far as this article goes, even without fiddling around with sources there is much that can be done to improve the coherence - it is truly dreadful and I've just made a start at fixing phrasing, linking etc. I await your response to my query: am I right in thinking that you want to introduce the controversial Invasion Theory without noting that it is indeed very controversial? You seem to be side-stepping this query.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I don't intend to introduce it as it is. However if there are some other studies(genetics) like the ones mentioned above, relating them to indo-aryan peoples & europeans, i don't mind adding it as an additional piece of informaiton. However, i'll make the contributions(if allowed) as a set of disjoint information under separate lines and not merge them alltogether, in a blender. The part where i related the various studies was for our own understanding and to keep the sources and not to remove them alltogether. However i won't blend them in the main article, but mention them as separate sentences/a set of disjoint sentences.
By the way, the whole page on Iyengar tamil is about the Karnataka dialects, and there is no source regarding the mainstream Iyengar dialect of TN. There are some minor differences in the dialect between the two Iyengar sub-divisions too. Brahmin tamil is a common terminology used to describe both the "Iyengar & Iyer" brahmin dialects. However, in the brahmin tamil page, under the section usage(the tabulation containing the srivaishnava variant), please note that the headings are "smartha brahmin variant & srivaishnava brahmin variant". Both "Smartha brahmin variant" & "Srivaishnava brahmin variant" are two different variants within brahmin tamil. The Iyer variant alone is not brahmin tamil by default. Both the variants are sub-dialects within brahmin tamil. The tabulation under vocabulary of the brahmin tamil page is common to both communities. Hari7478 (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

To Sitush

Sitush, this guy Hari7478 is utterly ignorant about genetics. High Rh(d) frequency is found in other populations across the world too, including Ibadan, Nigeria (see PMID:10734795). Does it mean Faisalabad Pakistanis and Vadakalai Iyengars are originally Africans from Nigeria? On what basis can Hari478 claim "Aryan" or "Indo-European" origin for Vadakalais using such studies? What does he mean by Vadakalai and Pakistani castes? Please, you have to ask this guy to talk to you either by email or some other means; and find out why he is so bent on using (misquoting) genetic data (plus general sources) for his ethnic / racial theories. The moot point is Thenkalais absorbed non-brahmin castes into their fold (as Hari7478 himself says). Hence, this whole fiasco of Hari7478 seeking an ethnic separation from Thenkalais (as he himself says that is the reason why he quoted Vadakalai as Aryan and not Thenkalai). How much more absurd can this get? Please Sitush and Qwyrxian, i appeal to both of you -- please make a call on this and put into implementation that conjuring up own theories cannot be allowed. Or am afraid Hari7478 will go reinstate all the deleted sentences. Many thanks to both of you for addressing all these issues again. And Qwyrxian, am very sorry i was harsh to you. Got totally fed up of handling all the misquoting in this article.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Stop, please. You are not helping. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Disputed Sentence

Sitush and Qwyrxian, kindly note the sentence: The Vadakalai Iyengars are believed to have migrated from North India[7][8]. Neither of the 2 sources quoted say any such thing. Please refer to Issue #3 here. Until Hari7478 provides a source mentioning migration of Vadakalai Iyengars from North India, I request the sentence to be deleted. I also request you both to take a call on Oroon Ghosh's Postulations as described in Issue #2 (same hyperlink) if it can be used as a valid source. If yes, then all 4 stages on the elevation of native priests into the Indo-Aryan fold may also need to be mentioned. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Sitush, Thankyou for the edit. Had left a message for you earlier. Is it ok to mention Lester's account in the article? The JRAS source says nothing different from what Lester said. So kindly clarify if it can be used as an additional reference? Another source is the Indo-British Review which details the schism and formation of sects after Ramanuja passed on (snippet view available here). Additionally, please consider having a section on the scriptures (Pancharatra Agamas and other texts) adhered to by Iyengars. Thank you.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Utility of the Orissa Historical Research Journal

I've had some doubts about the Orissa Historical Research Journal for a while because it appears to be yet another "official publication" (it is published by the Orissa State Museum) that has poor academic standards because of plagiarism. I've just found another possible example of this, with the statement that "... and this is distinctly seen in the doctrines of the Vadakalai while the Tenkalai or southern learning is more liberal and so shapes the doctrine of the system as to make them applicable to Sudras also." This statement appears on p. 58 of vols 42-43, published 1998 and can be contrasted with the words of Muhammad Hedayetullah in 1977 - "... and this is distinctly seen in the doctrines of the Vadakalai, while the Tenkalai (to these schools we will return soon) is more liberal and so shapes the doctrines of the bhakti as to make them applicable to the Sudras also." MH's writing is on p. 107 of Kabir: the apostle of Hindu-Muslim unity, published in 1977 by Motilal Banarsidass.

Can anyone confirm my impression that OHRJ does not acknowledge it is pretty much quoting Hedayetullah's words? Or are both OHRJ and MH quoting without attribution some even older source, perhaps in the public domain? This is by no means the first time that I have noticed this and if I am correct then it probably would be best not to use OHRJ as a source: plagiarists are not usually considered worthy in academia, regardless of whom they plagiarise.-2.219.218.79 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well...we may need to offer some deference to differing cultural norms. I don't know about Indian scholarship, but in other Asian communities I am familiar with, it's not only acceptable, but recommended to build academic texts this way. Often times it's done under the assumption that the reader will even recognize the original because they're "supposed" to be familiar with the general body of older scholarship. However, I don't know if that is what is happening here, or if this is just crappy (per Western academic standards) work. Perhaps a way to answer this would be to see if the OHRJ is itself regularly cited by its peers. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It is cited quite a bit, but often as self-reference or by sources that I would consider not to be reliable. Having said that, I cannot pass judgement on all of the "peers", eg: some are German language. However, we seem only to be using it for one statement in this article and I'm sure we can find a way round that - I'll have to take the rest of it to RSN or WT:INB at some point.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion brought from my talk page

I'm moving this discussion here because it's specifically about article content and thus should be available for all editors (current and future) to see. Feel free to continue the conversation here if you like. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Begin copied messages

Qwyrxian, not sure if can talk here. Just hoping to put 2 things for folks in the right perspective:

(1) Rhesus factor:
RHD gene has several alleles on it and the region continues to be explored. If there is one or two copies of RHD gene intact, then it results in D positive (D+) phenotype. Deletion of entire RHD causes D negative (D-) phenotype. Since D- is common in Europeans and rarely, if ever, found in Asians, hence it is dubbed European D negative phenotype. There are also partial D alleles and weak D alleles; often again associated with Europeans but also found in China and other places. As more populations get tested in future, we'll know better.

D+ antigen is very common across all populations; as you can see here; and across all clines (or 'ethnic groups' if you may so call them), for example: this one. Linking D+ to only Europeans or to European origin is a very wild speculative job with absolutely no scientific basis. If all Vadakalai samples (in the said paper) and some Faisalabad residents are D+ it cannot mean they are European / Aryan / Indo-Aryan. On the contrary D+ is commonest in Asians and Blacks. Some feel as a population gets closer to Caucasian, RHD gene deletion (i.e., D- phenotype) may get frequent (see for example this). However, since alleles on RHD keep getting explored, we never know what may be found tomorrow. Even the european partial D alleles were found/described as recently as 2002.

2) Indo-Hittite:
This pertains to linguistics but will try. It is generally thought the Indo-Hittite (aka Indo-Anatolian) branch broke off from the Proto-Indo-European (PIE). What constitutes PIE is complex. If you can note from this chart the Hittite branch is not associated with the Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan and Vedic Sanskrit. Instead, the Hittite branch separated out much earlier. There are no clues yet if Indo-Hittite can be associated, if at all, with the Indo-Aryan.

In the said book above, Cavalli-Sforza also mentions the Indo-Anatolian branch got extinct. But not many things in linguistics are resolved yet. The book explores the origin of Indo-Europeans and Anatolia is suggested by many linguists . Anyways, Cavalli-Sforza accepts the hypotheses of Renfrew (p.265); i.e., agricultural expansion resulted in diffusion of 3 linguistic families (from Anatolia region) -- Dravidian towards Pakistan and India, Indo-European towards Europe, and Afro-Asiatic towards North Africa and Arabia.

Now a lot depends on when did Indo-Anatolian branch off. IMO it also remains open to investigation where did proto-dravidian linguistic group originate or come from. Until these things are resolved, am seriously not sure how Indo-hittite can be linked to whatever is considered 'Aryan'; especially since Hittite is not associated with Indo-Aryan and Vedic Sanskrit. Since Hittite broke off earlier, it could mean something else too (IMO there are links to altaic shamanism / shramanism and whatever is considered zoarashtrian, agamic and non-vedic; but that's only a wild personal speculation though). Also, from a linguistic POV, what is considered only Aryan but not Dravidian can get contentious.

However, i leave this to the admin to discuss and decide. I can only say, since these issues are not resolved yet, it is not right to make conclusions as yet.

Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Msg

Found a theory by S.S Mishra linking Indo-Hittite to Middle-Indo-Aryan (MIA). Mishra proposes Sanskrit is older than Hittite. Additionally, Mishra's work (edited by Bryant and Patton) proposes India as the original home of Indo-Aryans, with an outbound theory (of Indo-Aryans going to Anatolia). Not sure if any of Mishra's theories are acceptable to linguists. At least for now the reverse of Mishra's theory, i.e., movement from Anatolia region into India is supported by genetic evidence.

Then again, if Indo-Hittie is linked to Middle-Indo-Aryan (prakrits), it leads to contentious issues. It is questionable why Indo-Hittie is not linked to Old Indo-Aryan (OIA). Could it mean a situation (war like or otherwise), where 'native' speakers of other languages were absorbed into the Indo-Aryan fold by the OIA (?) and/or their 'intermingling' gave rise to MIA? Then again, MIA is associated with Jain religion (and agamic religions are not explored properly yet). So possibilities are galore.

Kindly note, am not a linguist and am wholly ignorant about the subject. Just mentioned what I found (in the book), and my doubts -- I cud be entirely wrong in my understanding though.

Anyways, since linguistic theories (including the dravidian origin conundrum) are not resolved yet, I'd say it is hasty to link any group with a tag (Aryan or otherwise) just bcoz they belong to a particular 'caste' in present time. Maybe a good idea to skip mentioning such tags on wiki articles. However, the admin is in a better position to decide based on other possible evidence. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Don't tell me, tell the talk page of the article. Sitush (he's the one editing as an IP, becuase he's not using his normal computer) is doing much more of the content work right now, plus Hari should have the chance to chime in, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'd say better to have Sitush and someone knowledgeable in linguistics chiming in. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

The description on Indo-Hittite varies across sources, hence linking one study to another and arriving at a conclusion is WP:SYNTH. We have to just stick to what that source says about these nomenclatures. Here are a few examples.

• The people of Turkey are linguistically Altaic. The Turkish culture & the language were established in Anatoila(present day's Turkey) by the Gokturks who emigrated from Central Asia(Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan). However, genetic studies indicate that Turkish people(people of Turkey) are rather "Turkized Anatolians" with hardly any "Central Asian/Turkic/altaic" admixture. The altaic classification is just linguistic, while ethnically "the people of Turkey" are of the European diaspora, sharing a common ancestry with their neighbours, Greeks. So, the Turkish(of Turkey) and the Turkic(central asian - turkmen,Uzbeks,etc) are not ethnically related to another.
  
• Today's African-Americans in the U.S. are English speakers and most of them don't speak another tongue. Ethnically, they're the farthest from Caucasians(U.S. census classification of whites).
  

All i'm trying to say is, the two(genetics & linguistics) are not always related, unless the source explicitly mentions "ethno-linguistics". According to that source, the authors equate Indo-Hittite to Indo-European. Under the "list of allele frequencies" most(but not all) southern-indian brahmins are mentioned under Indo-Hittite. This could possibly mean their ethnic origins(while their ancestors' tongue during the migratory periods could have been different, like the examples mentioned above, as we all are aware of the popularly held belief ab't brahmins.) - Again, some pages are not available for viewing, hence I may not know what exactly has been discussed by the authors. Because the terminology "Indo-European" has been used in different fields(ethnic origins alone, linguistics alone, ethno-linguistics). Whatever it may be, we simply stick to the source contents and not come up with our own conclusions. So we need to involve a few admins with subject knowledge as it's possible we could be totally wrong. However, arriving at a conclusion by merging/blending different sources or using "own research" can't be the way. Whatever it may be, i'm resting myself from these discussions for some time and focussing on the other sections of the article, since most of them are unsourced, and on the other artices.

About the studies on rhesus antigens - you may be right, but when the authors of a secondary source arrive at a conclusion(although that specific study on rhesus antigens need not necessarily indicate a thing regarding their ancestries, like you said) any user may still include it based on "reliable verifiabilty"(a secondary source that combines two studies, and its authors arriving at a conclusion). However, i'm not including it in the article considering the reasons mentioned by Qwyrxian. I guess we can put it to rest, as i won't be bringing it up again. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said to Mayasutra, please discuss this on the article's talk page. While I know that all three of you (Hari7478, Mayasutra, and Sitush) are watching this page, it's better to have the discussion there so that it's stored in the article's talk page archives for future reference. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, Am consulting a linguist and will be able to add more on this. Please advise how to move this discussion to Iyengar talk page? To Hari7478 -- as regards rhesus antigen, i am right -- go ask any geneticist. What Reddy et al said in the paper and what i said is exactly the same. But you do not seem to understand. It is apparent you just do not know the basics and hence do not understand the paper. Anyways, You cannot use the paper to claim Vadakalai Iyengars are Indo-Aryans, Europeans or whatever else you please, or those who migrated from North India or different from Thenkalais or any other blah blah, which the paper neither says, conveys nor implies. Period. You are able to get away on wiki because Reddy et al is not going to sue you for misquoting them on wiki (coz many ppl pass off BS here). --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Hari7478, Indo-European does not automatically mean Indo-Aryan. The term Indo-Aryan refers to a very specific linguistic group. Whether Indo-Hittie can be associated with Indo-Aryan is the key point. AFAIK it is currently under investigation. As regards Cavalli-Sforza, you are completely off the track. If you cannot make sense of his book, i have a suggestion for you. Think of days when humans roamed jungles and lived in caves. The first brahmin was a non-brahmin. Hope that helps. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

End copied message

Just adding a close tag so it's clear what was copied and what was posted here. Add further discussion from this point, please. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hari and Mayasutra, why don't we we just avoid mentioning putative ethnic, linguistic and even ethno-linguistic matters? We cannot be wrong if we say nothing, it doesn't look like you two are going to agree and I find it boring, esoteric and worryingly liable to POV. In fact, some sort of unfathomable POV rationale seems to be the only likely reason why the two of you are going at this like hammer and tong. For all I care, the Iyengars could be of Martian origin and speak Vulcan: it really doesn't seem to make much odds to the article.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, that's what am saying too. Since Indo-Hittite (IH) is not associated (as yet) with Indo-Aryan and Vedic Sanskrit how can we mention such things in the article? Yes, there is a theory of linking IH with Middle-Indo-Aryan (prakrits) which is not yet accepted by mainstream linguists afaik (in the indian context if that is true, in fact, it leads to more contentious issues). I agree 100% with you on avoiding ethnic, linguistic and ethno-linguistic matters. Instead it would be nice to mention something about texts (like vaishnava agamas) which shape the culture of a community. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

I'm not asking anyone to associate that source to any specific study. We'll simply stick to the source and its contents. I'm aware that Indo-Hittite is not necessarily related to Indo-Aryan but the wider/greater Indo-European one. If the article doesn't have any mention on Indo-Aryan/Euro-Aryan/or simply Aryan, i suppose we drop the Aryan oriented discussion as the terminology seems to have several varying definitions across the globe, all of them being equally controversial. We should just stick to the nomenclatures used in that specific source. Secondly, i did not cite the "Pakistan journal" source to differentiate between the two sects. It was to add some details on the similarity in rhesus genes, between Vadakalai and some Pakistanis. And i've decided not to bring it up considering the reasons mentioned by Qwyrxian. When a new discussion is going on, the other user trying to bring in old matters with the same allegations isn't constructive. I did not mention a word on differentiating between the two sects in the above message. Hari7478 (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that I've already expressed an opinion on this issue of randomly throwing disconnected statements into articles. It is a subtle way to push a POV and it is not going to happen.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just saying that i'm not adding that source(on rhesus similarities) anymore, but was just explaining as to why i did so, before. Regarding the other (Cavali-Sforza) src, i'm simply asking users to stick to that source without bringing in other studies for comparison. Please read through my message above, with patience. Hari7478 (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

My proposal, which appears to have the support of Mayasutra, is simply to ignore the issue due to the degree of uncertainty and the lack of significance.You, on the other hand, seem to be insisting on pushing some weird/trivial point about North Indian ethnicity etc. I have no idea why you are doing this nor am I 100% certain, but that is how it seems to be and my gut is starting to hurt with concern about why this might be so.--2.219.218.79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hari7478, Whatever you claimed using the study on rhesus factor was wrong. Period. That chapter is closed. Now, wrt Cavalli-Sforza, what do you want to state from the book? That Iyengars belong to Indo-Hittite linguistic group? If yes, you must also mention difficulties as written in the book in reconstructing linguistic groups. Must provide details on Indo-Hittie group, the background info, the investigative techniques, and the inconclusive analysis on it. When studies from the linguistic POV themselves aren't able to conclude anything yet, what is the need or necessity to mention such a thing in the article? As you can note in the book, the group involving Iyengars also involves Gujjars. Indo-Hittite involves not just brahmins as you seem to think (and say repeatedly), but also Bhils, Koli, Lambada, Gurkha (Nepalese), Jat, Dhangar, Sinhalese, etc. These are not separate groups by themselves. Take a look at this dendrogram; and take a look at the languages under Central Indic and Insular Indic. There are a range of castes belonging to those groups. Cavalli-Sforza's book did not test all castes across those groups. As various studies in the field proceed, it will be possible to say exactly from which tribes/castes were certain classes derived; and/or, to which tribes/castes certain classes belong. By then, the possible links of Indo-Hittite (if at all it exists) with Indo-Aryan and other linguistic groups, and the dravidian origin conundrum will hopefully be much more clear. Is there a need to represent stuff still being investigated in wiki articles? I think Sitush needs to take a firm call on this and decide. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Well, you've already had my opinion and I vaguely recall that you both asked for it at some point recently. This is becoming silly.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Sitush, when i was posting the msg above there was an edit conflict, coz i think you were also posting at the same time. Now that you have said your opinion and i have said mine (and we both agree on it), lets move forward. Can we next work on the "Religious Observences" section? The portion on Samasrayanam has no citations. Its an important ritual and must be mentioned. Hope Hari7478 will also help us with references for it. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

You can work on what ever you wan: you do not need my permission. However, we have to be careful not to stray too far from the subject matter of the article. I am conscious that some of my stuff may do so and will be working on it further.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Mayasutra, i hope the other two possibilities have occurred to you and i wonder why you haven't mentioned them. As you said, it is evident that the authors of the source have introduced "Indo-Hittite" as a linguistic group, somewhere in the beginning. However the cited page mentions Iyengar communitites under Indo-Hittite, while telugu brahmins have been listed under "elamo-dravidian", though both Iyengars and telugu brahmins are, today, speakers of south indian languages. Even amongst the telugu speaking groups, Vaidiki & Niyogi brahmins are mentioned under Indo-Hittite while other "telugu brahmins" are listed under elamo-dravidian. Now, do you still think it is a language based classification in pg.472? Isn't it possible that it could be based on their ethnicity & their language before a possible migration(like the examples mentioned in one of my previous messages)? Or, isn't it possible that it could be based on ethnicity alone? Certain pages of the online book are not available for our viewing. So, are we missing something there? If your standpoint is right, we can drop the idea of citing the work. If there's something else to it, it wouldn't hurt to consult admins working on WP:Genetics, and WP:linguistics or whatever, although i'm not planning on this discussion any sooner. Hari7478 (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I read that book in 2007 (and photocopied the entire book). I have a copy with me. Let me know on what you need info. Yes, its a linguistic classification. The book discussed origin and migration of peoples (across the globe) from a multi-disciplinary approach; and hence included linguistic classification in their attempt. The book was published in 1994 and was based on a set of samples available to them at that point of time. I think you are very confused with the word 'ethnicity'. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

(EC) You've answered your own question Hari7478, particularly in the context fo what was said before. If you, who've read this source very carefully, can't tell whether they're referring to an ethnic or linguistic group, then we shouldn't include the information here. And while I haven't read the source, I might even go so far as to say that if the source is that confused, we might even want to question it's reliability (for Wikipedia purposes, on this particular point; no general claims about the source). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Mayasutra, you still haven't explained why Vaidiki/Niyogi, and other Telugu brahmins are mentioned under two different linguistic groups while all of them are telugu speaking communities. Are you suggesting that it's a poor source, as Qwyrxian says, or is there something else? Your response is pretty vague.

Qwyrxian, i haven't read every page of this source as some of them can't be viewed. I don't intend to discuss this here anymore. I could seek the help of admins who are working on the corresponding wiki projects, and accept the outcome of the discussion. Hari7478 (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

OMG, Cavalli-Sforza is a Pioneer and many would consider him father of population genetics and gene-culture coevolution. No way poor source. His book is one of the pioneer attempts to link genetic differences amongst populations on linguistic basis. In no way is the work complete as of now. If some samples are classified under Indo-Hittie and some under Elamo-dravidian (known by and large as dravidian, with the understanding they possibly migrated from southwest iran called elam); it is because the work found allelic distribution (of samples available to them around 1994) to be so. Feel free to seek help of admin from other wiki projects to understand whatever is being said here. Best wishes. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

There is no additional weight attached to the opinions of any admin from any project in any content dispute.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)