Talk:Thiruvalluvar

Untitled

say Yes, but these things can't be just asserted. He was a very wise many, most probably a self-realized person, though this desciption is not necessary. According t him, one should know the truth irrespecive of who says it. --Aadal 16:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Aadal

Thirukurral

Thirukural is common to all religion, thats why it is called as Ulaga Pothu Marai. Thirukural is not talking about any religion, it just take about life style, displine, etc. Adding Tirukural into Hinduism is not appropriate. So removing this article from Religious Categories. Rajan 12:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

1st century BCE or AD?

I think he was born in 1st century BCE and not AD. Isn't that the rational of Tamil Era calender being dated more than Chritian era? Thanks! Wiki San Roze ^talk 02:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Article title

I would humbly suggest that the title of the article should be Thiruvalluvar, not Valluvar. I understand what is said about the honorific, but in this case I think the correct policy to look at is the one which says the common name of people should be used, and the common name in this case is Thiruvalluvar. In addition, "Valluvar" by itself is simply a caste name, like "Nayar" or "Vokkaligar" or "Parayar" (in fact, old sources say the Valluvar caste was related to the last named of these castes). This also I think is an argument in favor of using Thiruvalluvar as the article title. -- 80.123.15.187 21:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If Valluvar also has other connotations, all we'd need is a disambig page. Simple as that. Sarvagnya 21:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiruvalluvar is much more commonly used than Valluvar. That being the case, I think the title should be Tiruvalluvar and have a redirect from Valluvar. Lotlil 23:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Dont move articles based on your POV and contrary to wiki policies. There are enough venerated souls like Srimad Anandateertha aka Srimad Madhvacharya, Ramanujacharya et al who go without the "Sri" on wikipedia. No reason Valluvar should be an exception. And in any case, the "ar" in Valluvar is a mark of respect. Sarvagnya 08:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take some time to read up WP:NAME. And, while you are at it, also verify which name is more common. It really doesn't matter whether Tiru is honorific or abusive. Lotlil 13:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

He is commonly refered to as Thiruvalluvar and not Tiruvalluvar. This is the spelling used by Govt of Tamil Nadu. Thanks! ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 15:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Tiru and Thiru are just alternate spellings of each other, I have no preference of one over the other. You are welcome to make the change, if you like (and add a redirect to the other spelling). But, my point was that the name with the prefix is way more common than the one without it.Lotlil 15:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the opinion that Thiru used in the sense Sri may not be much of a case with Thiruvalluvar since he is refered to as Ayyan Thiruvalluvar when such honor needs to be shown. ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 17:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Are we going to change 'Srilanka' to 'lanka' since 'sri' is honorific? For the uninformed, Wikipedia uses commonly used name. More appropriate name would be Thiruvalluvar with redirects for 'Valluvar' & 'Tiruvalluvar'. Thanks Praveen 18:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL. That was funny ! Lotlil 18:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Very funny. What? some kind of tamil humour? For the ignorant, SriLanka is a name where Sri is part of the name.. like Srinivasa or Srinath etc.,. The Thiru in Thiruvalluvar is NOT valluvar's name. It is a honorific which tamil nationalists have added to the name of a guy about whom they know nothing. Amazingly, not even his name. Sarvagnya 20:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sri in Srinivasa or Srinath refers to Lakshmi, consort of Sriman Narayana. Srinivasa means where Lakshmi resides (in the heart) and Srinath means consort of Lakshmi

Can't help your inability to pick up sarcasm.

The Thiru in Thiruvalluvar is NOT valluvar's name. How do you know that ? Were you present at his naamakaranam ? For all you know, even Valluvar may not have been his name. Whoever gave him that name probably gave it as Thiruvalluvar and he has been known by that name ever since. Anyway, all that is beyond the point, we need to use the more common name according to policy. Period. Too bad it hurts your pride. Lotlil 20:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Now.. do u want a citation that Thiru in V's name is an honorific? Is that what it is? And ya.. I know that you guys dont even know his name. I wrote that myself in my previous comment. And ya.. I know that according to your own legends he was an illegitimate child of some guy and a minor girl. No wonder we dont know his name. Sarvagnya 21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

'Sri' in Srinivasa & Srinath is honorific. Go figure.

We don't know about any legends that Kannada regionalistic trolls propagate... But, we know which is illegitimate child of Sanskrit & Tamil.... BTW: Valluvar is not the 15th century 'omniscient' poet who stole kural's many concepts. Praveen 21:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Illegitimate child of Sanskrit and Tamil..." - and.. I saw some Tamil guy trolling somewhere that Tamil was virgin! LOL :D Sarvagnya 22:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL. That was funny ! Gnanapiti 22:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the explicit wikipedia rule for ignorant people. Praveen 21:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Gnanapiti..err.. Sarvagnya: Are you starting to see and hear things in your head ? I didn't ask for proof about Thiru being honorific. All I said was this statement of yours cannot be proven: The Thiru in Thiruvalluvar is NOT valluvar's name. If you don't understand the difference between what I said and what you are hearing in your head, ask here one more time and I will explain.Lotlil 22:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

All I said was this statement of yours cannot be proven: - I dont know what you're smoking.. but dont be so sure of yourself. Thanks. And btw.. you know what? For some reason, you(your trolling ie.,) reminds me a lot about wikiraja and aadal. Cant say which one more than the other. huh. Sarvagnya 22:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You are clearly out of control. Why don't you ask for a check user, Sherlock ? Lotlil 23:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I just verified that Thiru is more appropriate (generates 75000 Google hits, as opposed to 58000 for Tiru). Let's wait till we can get the other party to honor the wiki policy and stop the revert war. We can then make the change just once. Lotlil 18:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree Thiruvalluavr is the better known name Taprobanus 20:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thiruvalluavr is how most people (if not all) know him by. Watchdogb 22:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Lot of time and space has been wasted on "thiru" to be added or not. "Thiru" is is a word/prefix to person work.place etc.,Moolar who authored Manthiram [Thirumanthiram} is called Thirumoolar. Please What is in name? whatever the name the rose smells the same. Please spend your time and energy in studying the concepts and ideas.

Lotlil, dont feed the troll - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 02:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is much of personal vendata running in this discussion rather than for the purpose of wikipedia. ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 03:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

His religious affliation

Since there has been edit wars on his religious affliation, which no one can be very sure about, why dont we creat a seperate section on his religion and also another section on the legends on him -including the Vasuki story? This will help keep the speculation and legends out of the lead paragraph. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 09:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not an edit war actually. User:Dravidianresearch (most probably same as 74.97.138.3) has been pushing his religious POV in articles related to Tamil culture, adding word "Jain" in every other sentence and removing any content that mentions non-Jain religions. For example, here he claimed that Arjuna was hero of a Jain epic, which was mutilated and presented as a Hindu epic by the Brahmin invaders. In another edit, he removed the sentence that mentioned Buddha. This is a clear case of a religious fanatic pushing his POV. If somebody wants to add such content to the articles, they need to come up with some reliable sources. Since, the user has not stopped after four warnings, s/he has been blocked temporarily.

The article already mentions: "Tiruvalluvar's faith is disputed. Many Hindus claim that he was a Hindu, while there are also accounts that he was a Jain. In any case, Tamils consider Tiruvalluvar to be a pragmatist and thought provoker and his work is often referred to as poyyamozhi பொய்யா மொழி (words of wisdom)." utcursch | talk 12:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

To day I accidentally read one book related to jainis. They consider their first Thirthankar as "Adidev" or "Adinath". And his time

as "Adiyug". This clearly contradicts the assurance of him being a Hindu. I did not found any justification for jains not using name "Vasuki". I prefer to remove the lines that climes him as Hindu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rag.Iyyar (talk • contribs) 17:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words?

I dont see why this article has been tagged {{weasel}}. I cant find any and if people do have concerns please raise them here than to leave others guessing. If there is no specific concern then why do we have to live with the tag? Cheers! ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 09:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible original research statements

This entry is getting really into shape (thanks to all the editors), but I see (in my point of view) possible OR statements in the lead. However, the question of whether the author of Thirukkural (Valluvan) is named after his community or vice versa remains unanswered.

In any case, Tamils consider Thiruvalluvar to be a pragmatist and thought provoker and his work is often referred to as poyyamozhi பொய்யா மொழி (words of wisdom).

Do these need to stay or can it be removed? Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 09:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

May be it is common knowledge among Tamils... you should take a vote. lol. Sarvagnya 03:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The word Shri

I am really interested to know more about the Sanskrit word Shri.

The polite word Thiru is used before a man's name when we speak or refer to him. According to Wikipedia, the Sanskrit word Padma Shri is an official title conferred on a person (male or female). I am unable to refer Caldwell, Robert 1875 (5) for clarification and the English dictionary (Collins) does not have this word Shri.

Wonder, what the Sanskrit word Shri means in English. Please do not take this as a rude question!! Thanks S.Ratnakumar 06:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Its roughly the equivalent of "Mister"... of course, with slightly different connotations at a philosophic level. Sarvagnya 06:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide with the exact wordings on howShri became Thiru please? Because it doesn't add up much on to two unrelated sounding words and one coming from the other. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 07:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In linguistics, the concept is called "Tatbhava"(borrowing Sanskrit words with modifications to suit the language's(Tamil in this case) linguistic make up, as opposed to "Tatsama"(which is to borrow words from Skt., as is). Its safe to say that almost every Indian language's vocabulary consists of a significant percentage of Tatsamas and tatbhavas apart from indigenous/native words. May be news to Tamils, but in other parts of the world it passes for 'common knowledge'. Feel free to dig. Sarvagnya 07:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It is common knowledge among Tamils that we do have words borrowed from Sanskrit, not just in everyday usage but also in some older Tamil literary works, given the centuries of influence of Sanskrit on all Indian languages. But the question I raised was onto how Thiru came FROM Sanskrit Shri, which sound extremely different to each other. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 07:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Caldwell doesnt give the exact derivation but is categorical about his assertion. He also compares tiru to siri(another corruption of shri) and suggests that tiru is the older of the two. Infact, he says Tamil was the first of the Dravidian languages to be Sanskritised. And of course, all this is common knowledge among tamils. right? Where were you my friend, when a certain Praveen Pillay and Aadal trolled for over a month when I tried to add a line or two in Tamil language about Tamil's indebtedness to Sanskrit? Sarvagnya 08:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If Tiru is older then how come you say it is from Siri? Having loan words doesn't make a language indebted, especially because for all the Sanskrit derived words there is already a Tamil word and something for your notebook: Just because English borrows words from Indian languages including Tamil, doesn't make English indebted to Indian languages on the whole. Coming back to the point of Thiru, I see that your reference states that Tiru is older than Siri and hence I see no point in you using the word from there and reverting the word equivalent. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 08:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I(Caldwell) didnt say Tiru came from Siri. Both Tiru and Siri are corruptions of Sanskrit Shri... further, Caldwell is of the opinion that Tiru is an earlier corruption of Shri as compared to Siri. And oh btw, Tamil didnt just borrow words from Skt., it borrowed a lot more. Tamil literature owes a great deal to Sanskrit literature. Dig through the "Tamil language" talk page archives for more. Thanks. Sarvagnya 09:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So Tiru was derived from Shri? Can you please explain how by quoting the exact sentences from Caldwell? ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 13:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, can you quote Caldwell verbatim here? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Give me some time. I've never fought shy of adding quotes to my refs. If you would only do me a favour and add(or get a certain Venu62 to add) inline refs and pertinent quotes to practically scores of unsourced/OR articles(with tall/dubious claims) he's written. On all these articles, a {{OR}} tag has been circumvented by dumping the customary KANS (1965) into the ==Refs== section. Sarvagnya 08:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Take your time. You're welcome to mention some of those "tall claims" directly to him or to me so that we can fix them. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, will it be ok if we:

a) Change the sentence

The name Thiruvalluvar (ThiruValluvar) consists of Thiru (from Sanskrit:Shri) to

The name Thiruvalluvar (ThiruValluvar) consists of Thiru (a polite word equivallent to "Mister"); and

b) Create a (sub) title The etymolology of the word Thiru.

Please note: While the LIFCO Tamil-Tamil-English dictionary carries about ten meanings for the word Thiru, according to V.R. Nedunchezhiyan there are about nineteen meanings. Regards S.Ratnakumar 00:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see page 2 of Thiru .-Bharatveer 08:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

References

The usefulness of Sanskrit

Thirukkural has 9310 (7 X 1330) cirs (a single Tamil word or a combination of more than one word) out of which about 99.4% are pure Tamil words (a critical reading of the Kural will reveal this) . About (at the most 0.6%) 50 words may have Sanskrit influence. Therefore the usefulness of Sanskrit in the creation of Thirukkural is nil (at the best minimal). One does not need the knowledge of Sanskrit to appreciate (or understand) the Kurals (couplets).

It is inevitable that Tamils who practice Hinduism and perhaps, Saivaism may benifit from knowing Sanskrit. Needless to say, this category of Tamils will feel happy that they know (or understand) Sanskrit. Some may even feel indebted toSanskrit.

But, it will be unfair to hypothesize that Tamils (of all walks of life) are indebted to Sanskrit. Worse still will be, to expect all the Tamils to become indebted to it. This may surprise (if not intrigue) the Tamils who do not practice or have the exposure to Hinduism.

However, Tamil and Sanskrit are two different and respectable entities in their own right. The interation of the two might have happened through Hinduism. Regards S.Ratnakumar 04:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The Tamil word Thiru from the Sanskrit word Shri

Thiru is a Tamil word which (according to LIFCO Tamil-Tamil-English dictionary) has more than eight meanings. In order to justify one's point of view (or opinion) that Thiru originated from the Sanskrit Shiri it vital to cite a source for verification. The cited source (Caldwell) does not conclusively state that Thiru is originated from Shri.

The point of view that Thiru was originated from Shri introduces an argument that whether Tamils had a polite word (similar to Mr) before Sanskrit was popularized amongst them.

Therefore, either remove the sentence from the Sanskrit Shri or repharase it as claimed to be originated from Sanskrit Shri. until the claim becomes verifiable.

Regards. S.Ratnakumar 01:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

On the lighter note usage of Shri and Thiru seem to be pretty different, where Shri can be used more than once together as Shri Shri but its not case with Thiru which when used together as Thiru Thiru makes funny sense. :) ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 09:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering why do we need to mention the etymology of the word "Thiru"? Just mention the meaning (something like "Thiru, a Tamil honorific"). If it is an important word that deserves an encyclopedic article (like Sri), the etymology can go there. utcursch | talk 09:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just realized, there is already an article on Thiru -- the etymology debate can continue there. I am removing it from this article. utcursch | talk 09:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! I would have thought so, but didnt want to feed the trolls to another debate. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 10:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Dravidian civilizations

Wiki Raja 09:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Uncited, Malicious Dravidian Aryan Commentary Deleted

I deleted the Uncited and Malicious content that was in the Traditional Accounts of Thiruvalluvar.

It mentioned totally unverified ideas of Dravidian caste equality, of an Aryan invasion (which is under MAJOR dispute - more and more as time goes by) and Dravidian 'purity' of Thiruvalluvar and much more.

Not only was all of this totally uncited, it is malicious in making racial distinctions.

AND, it has logical arguments against it!

Firstly, the most pernicious instance of the caste system in Tamil society was in Northern and Eastern Sri Lanka where there were nearly 0 Brahmins. Secondly, whether or not the Aryan Invasion theory is true (with more and more evidence suggesting it was just reciprocal acculturation and NOT a biological invasion or even migration), fact remains that numerous Brahmins (Gurukals) were in Tamil Nadu during ancient Sangam times. Not only does Sangam literature mention them with past tense, many Brahmins were indeed Sangam poets as well.

The propoganda in this must be removed if Wiki has any reputation.

Thanks for writing this garbage, E.V. Ramaswami Naicker. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.224.100 (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Who can prove Aryan Brahmin destruction of a harmonious casteless Dravidian society - especially when the racial distinction of Aryan and Dravidian is being biologically disproven over and over again...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.224.100 (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Religion section

I note that there is no citation to the "Religion" section. I am requesting that a citation be clearly identified, or I will remove the material as unreferenced in a few days. John Carter (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Period of ThiruValluvar

There's been a big debate regarding the period of his life. Most of the Rationale researchers beleive that his time was somewhere near 8 AD. But our brothers are so keen in pushing his period back that they have pushed it to 100 BC , even before there was any human inhabitation in South India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.36.135.206 (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Buddhist or Jain

Thiruvalluvar could be from Palluvan community originally a Buddhist and made low caste in later peiods, other names of this caste are Puluvar, Pulavar, Valavar, Vellalar etc. We know often P and V are often interchanged in Tamil and Prakrit similar to Bengal and Vangalam. Thirukkural can be seen as a Buddhist work or influenced by Buddhist teachings. It was of the period before 400AD when Tamil countries were under heavy Buddhist influence. Present days Tamils wants to hide their Buddhist past and local dieties most have Buddhist origins. some interesting relation between Thirukural and Buddhist ideas, The first kural with "Adi Bagwan" the origin of everything including letters, might refer to the " Adi-Buddha " The term refers to a self-emanating, self-originating Buddha present before anything else existed the term used extensviely in many Buddhist literature of the same period. The reference of "Foot of God" while praising God refers to the Foot of Buddha, the common practice of Buddhist to pray the Buddha footprint, The Eight Characteristics can easily be related to the Noble Eight Fold Path of Buddhism. The "Irul sēr iru vinai sērā Iraivan" could refer to the middle path and "Aravali Anthanan" to " Arahant ". The Seven more rebirths mentioned in Thirukural in many verses (62,107,398,835) is clearly seen in Buddhist faith about people reborn only seven more times before attaining Nirvana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malarmisai (talk • contribs) 14:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Thiruvalluvane.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Thiruvalluvane.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Thiruvalluvane.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Jain Valluvar

Please cite more reliable and widely accepted sources and information before claiming valluvar to be jain ( or budhist / hindu etc etc) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthikeyan.pandian (talk • contribs) 15:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I just deleted some references from a portal page. I assume they have something to do with this debate. (I don't mean the dlshq.org one, which was already in the article, but the other two, which were added to that one page.) —PC-XT+ 10:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130609061040/http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2005/04/29/kanyakumari-thiruvalluvars-birth-place to http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2005/04/29/kanyakumari-thiruvalluvars-birth-place

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Robinson, non-WP:HISTRS sources

T/P watchers and @Utcursch: A few sections of the current version of this article rely on or cites very old, non-HISTRS sources and other questionable sources such as newspapers. For example, the section titled traditional account is written out of Robinson's book of 1873, someone working with Christian missionaries (see its preface). The cited pages of the Manavalan source published in 2009 are actually a compiled reprint of 100+ year old sources such as Reverend Pope etc (Manavalan admits it in the Editorial note). Again these colonial era sources are not appropriate here. I am leaning on either removing most of it or at least rewriting it with clear attribution. Far more recent peer-reviewed scholarship is now available, such as by Cutler Blackburn (p. 453 onwards). Any thoughts, objections and suggestions?, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with Robinson being not an acceptable source. There are a few other dubious sources in the article, such as Why Should Thirukkural Be Declared the National Book of India? Also, is the 2017 book by "G. Devaneya Pavanar" cited in the article the reprint of a book by Devaneya Pavanar? If so, that's not a great source either - the guy dated Sangam literature to as early as 10,000 BCE, and believed Kumari Kandam to be real. utcursch | talk 14:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this question Ms Sarah Welch. It's me who included that Robinson source. However, I had this doubt. Hence I've used phrases such as "Traditional account says" wherever I found it dubious. Can we retain them with such phrases until we find more reliable sources? Thanks again. Rasnaboy (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The revised article already includes an overview of the different traditional accounts, from the claims about his birth family to Madurai. Anything more based on non-HISTRS sources is undue and raises balance issues (NPOV) between real authentic scholarly biography versus fiction/propaganda/misinformation. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Religious affiliation

Factorsworld and other recent edit warriors: per our WP:NPOV guidelines, we cannot take sides, we summarize the sides. We must reflect the uncertainty about Valluvar, as well as present a summary of the different theories/claims about he being a Jain/Hindu/Christian/etc. We can't write Valluvar was a Jain no doubt about it; or, Valluvar was a Hindu no doubt it; or, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

kural

http://www.thiruvalluvan.com/2019/01/26/%e0%ae%95%e0%af%81%e0%ae%b1%e0%ae%b3%e0%af%8d-320/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4072:6083:EE96:89D9:5DB6:EC31:C523 (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

display picture (DP)

Thiruvalluvar was Hindu He wear ocher color dress only So please kindly change the display picture Ajith selva 0002 (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

valluvar is a buddhist

He is a Buddhist. The author is biased. ArjunseconR (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

valluvar is a Buddhist .he is not born in mylapore

Valluvar is a Buddhist. He is not born from mylapore. The author wrote brahmin propaganda. ArjunseconR (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

propagonda

Many brahmin propaganda in here . Author was writing brahmin propaganda .He is not born on mylapore... HE is buddhist. ArjunseconR (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Indian government–approved portrait

A user had added an image of Valluvar, which was reverted earlier. On a second glance, I noticed that it was a government-approved portrait of Valluvar used in all government institutions across the country. So I've added it again in the article. Will see if I could get a better resolution of this image as this appears to be the original drawing from the 1960s. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Wonder if this image could replace the one currently in the infobox. @Utcursch: @Ms Sarah Welch: Please help. Rasnaboy (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• THIRUVALLUVAR ORIGINAL PORTRAIT.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Religion section

In the religion section under the first image there is a line which mentions that Thiruvalluvar is "conformed hindu" with citations which obviously does not match with other mentions. So what is it? Satyamsha (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Have just reverted the recent unsourced additions under religion. I don't see any line mentioning "conformed Hindu". As far as I see, sources don't say Valluvar is a "conformed Hindu" either but we only have scholarly sources hinting that he could be a Jain or a Hindu (for which we have citations). Rasnaboy (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)