Talk:List of Iyengars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Use of Caste in biographies and lists- does it require the individual's self-declaration?[edit]

Hi, request those who are watching this page to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Caste_identification on whether mentioning a person's caste (Jati) requires that person to explicitly say that he belongs to XX caste (like in the case of religion and sexuality), or whether caste identity is objective and knowable enough (like ethnic background) to be ascertained without producing proof that the person explicitly identified with a particular caste. For example, Jairam Ramesh in this list has been described as an Iyengar by Hindustan Times, and that has been given as proof that he is an Iyengar. However, can we be sure he is an Iyengar? Has he ever said that he is one? Please give your inputs at the above link, or such entries will have to be removed. Sreejiraj (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Iyengar mathematicians[edit]

I do not know why Ravichandar deleted my additions to the list of Iyengar Mathematicians. I made articles for these guys where they did not exist. I am now restoring them to the list.

Yeah, please do. By the way, I haven't deleted any of those names. I have only commented them using HTML comment tags. Most caste or community based articles in Wikipedia (more particularly, lists) are frequently subjected to vandalism by POV-pushers and caste-propagandists in order to promote themselves or their caste or community. I, first, stumbled upon this solution in List of Parsis and found it to be quite good. Hence, I decided to implement this in other Wikipedia articles -RavichandarMy coffee shop 10:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wat abt PK Iyengar who developed the the Atomic bomb for India —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.18.16 (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I jus wanna ask. Would comedian Nagesh qualify as an Iyengar?-RavichandarMy coffee shop 06:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comedian NAGESH was a KANNADA SMARTHA BRAHMIN & NOT an Iyengar.Similarly ACTRESSES MEENAKSHI SESHADRI & KASTHURI ARE VADAMA IYERS & NOT IYENGARS.I am sure because I am related to them.So the names of MEENAKSHI SESHADRI & KASTHURI should be removed from the List of Iyengars.GOLDENLION2006 (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)GOLDENLION2006[reply]

Thengai Srinivasan[edit]

Was the yesteryears comedian actor Thengai Srinivisan an Iyengar?--Sureshmaran (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Thengai Srinivasan was a MUDALIAR & NOT an Iyengar.Similarly ACTRESSES MEENAKSHI SESHADRI & KASTHURI ARE VADAMA IYERS AND NOT IYENGARS.I am sure because I am related to them.So their names should be deleted from the List of Iyengars.GOLDENLION2006 (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)GOLDENLION2006[reply]

Issues section[edit]

I've removed the issues header or whatever you want to call it because, this article does not have any of them. The article lists only those names that are verifiably Iyengars and some of the subjects even have the word Iyengar in their names. So, the claims this article makes are irrefutable. If anyone feels otherwise, please feel free to discuss. Also, since there was only one entry in the Yoga section, I have now moved it to the Others section. D437 (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder[edit]

Please note User:Sitush/Common#Castelists, which recaps a long-standing consensus and includes some diffs to past discussions. This is not really negotiable. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is just a subpage in your userspace - please link to community wide discussions -- samtar whisper 16:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't read it, have you? - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush and Deadly437: could you please discuss here and not edit war? Sitush, a subpage in your userspace is not representative of a community consensus, could you link to a true community-wide discussion? Failing that, I think a RfC will be in order.. -- samtar whisper 16:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh. Read the thing instead of jumping to conclusions. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see this discussion on Noticeboard for India-related topics, which serves me right for jumping to conclusions. Apologies Sitush :( -- samtar whisper 16:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. That is one of the things the subpage links to. I'm getting mighty fed up of this, which seems to be a particularly severe problem for Brahmin-related lists. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anywhere Wikipedia-space this could be recapped? I'm genuinely unfamiliar with these topics (though that's no excuse for my lack of forethought) - perhaps making it a little more "public" could help? -- samtar whisper 16:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like samtar said, a subpage on your userpage does not reflect the opinion of the community. All people with a wikipedia article and who's names end with Iyengar can go on this list without any doubt. But, for your sake, I have still provided references from reliable sources. If you're fed up, no one is forcing you to revert edits without discussing them on the talkpage first.D437 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) A subpage of the India project, maybe, although to be honest the regulars have seen this time and again. Moving it somewhere else, along with various other recaps etc on that page, isn't going to change anything because this is just IDHT stuff and those who ignore it generally DGAF. As just evidenced on this article, where Deadly437 asked me to discuss and then still reverted me even after the discussion was here and they had been pinged etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either self-revert, Deadly437, or expect a block for edit warring. You're at the limit and in defiance of consensus. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Deadly437: see this discussion, I was incorrect in my statement, please do not continue to edit war. -- samtar whisper 16:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't udnerstand what's going on here. I provided sources for every subject I put into the article. I followed "rules" setup by sitush on his userpage even though I did not have to and now you're reverting my edits? For what joy?D437 (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even where you provided citations, the sources were poor. Blogs, amateurish websites and Hindu Castes and Sects do not pass muster. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually unbelievable. I cited an article from The Hindu as a reference. You just want to revert all my edits without going through them, I don't know for what reasons. Now, there are a million articles on wikipedia that cite blogs, amateurish websites, tabloids and other sources as references, I don't see you reverting their edits. Also, this article has not been rated, not been graded. It isn't a featured list, it isn't even a good list, its not even rated C, its mildly important to people of some regions and I don't know why you're insisting on "highly" reliable sources for references.D437 (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let this not cover the fact that I respect wikipedia laws and will always try to bring in the references from the highest possible sources, but kindly note that this can happen only "where available". Just because I can't find highly regarded sources, doesn't mean I let the article rot without using available sources to make it look better.D437 (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me revert the article to the changes I made. It looks neat, provides more info, actually provides accurate information with adequate resources. People who read these articles do not go looking for resources that are considered worth citing in a dissertation. This encyclopedia is for the common people to read something, learn and educate others about it and in that regard, I'm not writing something false or something that's wrong. I'm just trying to write what already exists. I'm a contributor and editor just like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadly437 (talk • contribs)
Now I'm actually beginning to think this was personal. If you had problems with certain sections of my edit, you could've just removed those, why remove all other descriptions I wrote about subjects in other sections? I don't think you want to anyone to improve this article.D437 (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) WP:V means WP:V, not WP:OR. Similarly, WP:BLP means what it says and your citation from The Hindu did not show self-identification as a member of the Iyengar community, merely that his brother bears Iyengar as a name. All of this is explained in the link I gave above earlier. I really don't want to spend hours re-hashing a debate that has been done time and time again. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why then did you revert my edit that had one line intros for subjects in certain sections of the article? Why not just revert what was wrong? Oh that's right, you're self righteous and to you, everything else is wrong. This website will never improve. EVER. People will always make fun of it for being non reliable, for letting anyone edit anything and researches and academicians will never let anyone cite things from this website. Thanks to editors like you. Huh. Go and get more stars trying to make featured articles no one will ever be able to quote, cite or rely on.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Iyengars&oldid=1222945125"